Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
052416 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk(951)694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MAY 24, 2016— 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION, The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to the matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. Next in Order: Ordinance: 16-05 Resolution: 16-28 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Soren Crisell Invocation: Pastor Dave Cope of Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship Flag Salute: To Be Announced ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to John Hernandez and to the Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 4089 Presentation of Internship and Work Force Development Programs Update (At the Request of Mayor Naggar) 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of May 10, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of May 10, 2016. 3 Approve the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside to Provide Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Rescue and Medical Emergency Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside to provide fire protection, fire prevention, rescue and medical emergency services. 2 4 Appropriate Funds for TVE2 STEM and Youth Enrichment Program from WRCOG BEYOND Grant RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council appropriate $10,000 in Fiscal Year 2015-16 from the WRCOG BEYOND Framework Fund Grant to allow for the purchase of 30 Chromebooks/Charging Cart to be used for Youth Enrichment Summer Programming at TVE2. 5 Approve an Agreement with the County of Riverside for Library Services at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with the County of Riverside, in the amount of $180,000 annually, for Library Services at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. 6 Approve an Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc. for the Purchase of Equipment for Two Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc., in the amount of $31,984.86, for the purchase of two 2016 Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles. 7 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co. for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PW12-13 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co., in the amount of $233,974.03, for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PW12-13; 7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $23,397.40, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 7.3 Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway) is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 8 Approve the First Amendment to the Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with JTB Supply Company, Inc. for the Purchase of Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Equipment RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with JTB Supply Company, Inc., in the amount of $30,000, for the purchase of miscellaneous traffic signal equipment. 3 ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 16-01 Resolution: CSD 16-03 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 9 Approve the Action Minutes of May 10, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of May 10, 2016. CSD BUSINESS 10 Receive and File Responsible Compassion Update (At the Request of the Human Services Adhoc Subcommittee of Mayor Naggar& Mayor Pro Tem Edwards) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council receive and file this Responsible Compassion Update. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS 5 CSD ADJOURNMENT Budget Workshop: Thursday, May 26, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Civic Center — Conference Center, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY— No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY— No Meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY— No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 11 Adopt Development Code Amendment Establishing Performance Standards for Businesses Manufacturing Alcoholic Beverages with Retail Sales and a Tasting Room RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(B)(3) 12 Approve a Maior Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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 7 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 (APN 959-080-026) 12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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) CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Appoint Members to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council appoint two applicants, John Telesio and Gary Watts, to each serve a full three-year term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2019. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 14 Community Development Monthly Report 15 Police Department Monthly Report 16 Public Works Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS a ADJOURNMENT Budget Workshop: Thursday, May 26, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Civic Center — Conference Center, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information)will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda,will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula, 8:00 AM—5:00 PM). In addition, such material 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 questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 9 PRESENTATIONS City of Temecula Certificate of Recognition Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: John Hernandez, Commander of the Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4089 The City of Temecula is proud to present this Certificate of Recognition to John Hernandez on his election to the top position of Commander of the Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 4089. John served as a Master Sergeant in the United States Marine Corp retiring in 2003. He became a member of VFW Post 4089 in 2002 and has held the positions of Trustee and Junior Vice-Commander. John will be recognized in June at the California State Convention in Sacramento as one of the top recruiters in California. John successfully answers the demand of veterans seeking help for physical and emotional ailments attributed to their service on active duty and of young veterans looking for a place to find military camaraderie. The City Council would like to thank John Hernandez for his dedicated service and support of veterans, their families, and our youth. We look forward to his continued involvement with our community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty- fourth day of May,2016. Michael S.Naggar,Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk City of Temecula Certificate of Recognition Presented on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of the City of Temecula to: Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4089 The Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)Post 4089 has been serving the Temecula Valley since 1983. VFW Post 4089 is number one in recruitment in the District and number three in the State, reflecting the growing demand of veterans seeking help for physical and emotional ailments attributed to their service on active duty. VFW Post 4089 has made many contributions to our community including; partnering with the Promenade Mall to paint and dedicate five Purple Heart parking spaces throughout the mall parking areas and structures; joining the City of Temecula to assist in fundraising for the "Fallen Heroes" memorial for Temecula Veterans; recognizing high school JROTC units in the Temecula Valley with awards for the high achievements of individual cadets; partnering with Boy Scout Troop 148 in support of two flag retirement ceremonies; proudly sponsoring the Temecula Renegades l lu travel baseball team and the Rancho Christian Eagles Champion basketball team; and working with the Temecula Public Cemetery District in support of the annual Memorial Day Ceremony. The City Council would like to express our gratitude to Temecula Valley Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4089 for their contributions to the community and for making a difference with their support of veterans, their families, and our youth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this twenty- fourth day of May,2016. Michael S.Naggar,Mayor Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Item No . 1 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No . 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MAY 10, 2016— 7:00 PM 5:30 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to three matters of pending litigation: (1) Hill v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1501349; (2) Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880; and (3) Scharpen Foundation v. Kamala Harris et al; Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1514022. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. At 5:30 PM Mayor Naggar called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mike Naggar Prelude Music: Michael May Invocation: Aaron Adams Flag Salute: Council Member Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of May is Mental Health Month Proclamation Presentation of National Public Works Week Proclamation Action Minutes 051016 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Emily Padilla • Bernard Budney CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of April 26, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of April 26, 2016. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Action Minutes 051016 2 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2016. 5 Approve a Solar Power Purchase Agreement for the Purchase of Electrical Power for Various City Facilities from a Proposed Solar Power Generating Facility to be Constructed on a Portion of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve — Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Council Member Rahn abstained) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Member Edwards, McCracken, Naggar and Comerchero with Council Member Rahn abstaining due to his current employment with San Diego State University, past employment with the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and employment as lead researcher on the proposed solar initiative. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SOLAR POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH SMER RESEARCH 1, LLC, ALONG WITH A RELATED SUBLEASE AGREEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SMER RESEARCH 1, LLC AND AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND FIND THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA 6 Approve the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, for the Preparation of an Initial Study and Required CEQA Studies and Documents for the Proposed Generations Senior Housing Development - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, in the amount of $62,000, for the Preparation of an Initial Study and Required CEQA Studies and Documents for the Proposed Generations Senior Housing Development. Action Minutes 051016 3 7 Approve the Amendments to Annual Agreements for Various Maintenance and Repair Services Related to the HVAC System, Water Quality, Parking Lots, Excavation and General Contracting, Elevators, Roofing, Asphalt Paving and Parks, Plumbing, Electrical, Fencing, Facilities, Street Signs, and Weed Abatement for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve the Amendments to the Annual Agreements in the amounts stated for Fiscal Year 2016-17 for routine maintenance and emergency services for various operational needs by the Department of Public Works, Maintenance Division. 8 Approve the Third Amendment to the Contract with Pacific Striping, Inc., for Citywide Repainting of Traffic Striping, PW13-04 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the Third Amendment to the Contract with Pacific Striping, Inc., in the amount of$278,150, for Citywide Repainting of Traffic Striping, PW13-04; 8.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed the contingency amount of $51,850, which is approximately 18.6% of the annual amount. 9 Approve an Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim for the Purchase of Five Trucks - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve an Agreement with McPeek's Dodge of Anaheim, in the amount of $104,655, for the purchase of Five 2016 Dodge Ram 1500 5.71- HEMI V-8 Trucks. 10 Receive and File Temporary Street Closure for 2016 Summerfest Events - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. Action Minutes 051016 4 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2016 Summerfest Events: TEMECULA ART & STREET PAINTING FESTIVAL ROCK SYMPHONY 4TH OF JULY PARADE 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS SHOW RECESS At 7:36 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting. At 7:38 PM, the Temecula Community Services District Meeting recessed and convened as the Joint City Council/Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:40 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn, Naggar PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CONSENT CALENDAR 15 Approve the Action Minutes of April 26, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Comerchero, Edwards, McCracken, Rahn and Naggar. RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of April 26, 2016. 16 Adopt Ordinance No. TPFA 16-01 Levying Special Taxes within Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 16-01 (Roripaugh Ranch Phase 21 (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2, Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero abstained) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken and Rahn with Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero abstaining. Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero did not participate on Item 16 of the Joint City Council Temecula Public Financing Authority Agenda. Europa Vineyard Estates is located on approximately 290 acres southeasterly of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way in unincorporated Riverside County. It has been owned by Temecula Vineyard Estates, LLC, and is adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road. Neither Council Member Naggar nor Council Member Comerchero has any direct investments or ownership interests in the Temecula Action Minutes 051016 5 Vineyard Estates, LLC. The managing member of Temecula Vineyard Estates, LLC, has been Mr. Daniel Stephenson. Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero do, however, have ownership interests and are members other limited liability companies that are developing property outside of the City of Temecula in which Mr. Stephenson is also the managing member. Europa Vineyard Estates is, therefore, an "otherwise related business entity" for these officials within the meaning of § 18703.1 of the FPPC Regulations. Europa Vineyard Estates is now owned by an entity related to Temecula Vineyard Estates, LLC, Sirah Development Corporation, Inc., of which Council Member Comerchero is an officer. The proposed actions on Item 16 initiating new and restructured CFD bonds for the Roripaugh Ranch Project will have no material financial effect, indeed no effect, on Europa Vineyard Estates, or the owners of that Project, for the simple reason that the these actions do not change the Roripaugh Ranch Developers' obligation to construct the Phase 3 Improvements to Butterfield Stage Road from what has been required since approval of the original Development Agreement and Specific Plan in December 2002. This is consistent with the Fair Political Practices Commission Legal Staff's March 2008 opinion (A- 08-015) [Calixto Property] allowing Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero's participation in a decision to acquire property located 372 feet south of Europa Villages Estates necessary for the construction of the Phase 3 Improvements. Additionally, the funding for the Phase 3 Improvements for Butterfield Stage Road has been in place since the Roripaugh Ranch Community Facilities District 03-02 issued community facilities district special tax bonds in April 2006. The City Attorney determined that Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero may participate in the consideration of Item 16 of the Joint City Council/TPFA Agenda initiating a new and restructured CFD bonds for the Roripaugh Ranch Project. Council Member Naggar and Council Member Comerchero have, however, chose not to participate in these actions involving the new and restructured bonds and abstained from this item. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the Board of Directors adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 16-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-01 (RORIPAUGH RANCH PHASE 2) TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS JOINT MEETING ADJOURNMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY— No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY— No Meeting Action Minutes 051016 6 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 17 City Council Travel/Conference Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there were no reportable actions in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 051016 7 Item No . 3 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside to Provide Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Rescue and Medical Emergency Services for Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with the County of Riverside to provide fire protection, fire prevention, rescue and medical emergency services. BACKGROUND: Since the City of Temecula's incorporation, Fire/EMS services have been provided through a Cooperative Fire Service Agreement to provide fire protection, fire prevention, rescue and medical aid with the County of Riverside. The current Cooperative Agreement expires June 30, 2016. The County has created a revised contract template that has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The Cooperation Agreement is for the term July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018. Also provided is the schedule of contract staffing costs (Exhibit "A") for the two year period, which reflects anticipated pay adjustments for fire employees that are currently still being negotiated. Staffing levels will remain at the 4-person per engine standard. This may be amended by mutual agreement, with 120 days written notification, if an increase or a reduction in services is desired, however service levels may not fall below the County Board of Supervisors approved staffing level for any fire station (3-person per engine). Total Fire Contract costs, as projected by the County, will be $13,322,694 in Fiscal Year 2016- 17, of which $7,645,222 will be offset by the Structural Fire Tax Credit, leaving a net cost to the City of $5,677,472. Contract Costs for FY2017-18 are projected to increase 12.4% over FY2016-17, with a net cost to the City of$6,382,943. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated Fire Contract costs for Fiscal Year 2016-17 are $5,677,472 and have been requested in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Fire Department budget. ATTACHMENTS: Cooperative Agreement to Provide Fire Protection, Fire Prevention, Rescue and Medical Emergency Services for the City of Temecula. A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE PREVENTION, RESCUE AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 20167 by and between the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California, on behalf of the Fire Department, (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") and the City of Temecula a duly created city, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), whereby it is agreed as follows: SECTION I: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to arrange for COUNTY, through its Cooperative Fire Programs Fire Protection Reimbursement Agreement ("CAL FIRE Agreement") with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ("CAL FIRE") to provide CITY with fire protection, disaster preparedness and response, fire prevention, rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, technical rescue response, medical emergency services, and public service assists (hereinafter called "Fire Services"). This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority granted by Government Code Sections §55600 et seq., and will provide a unified, cooperative, integrated, and effective fire services system. COUNTY's ability to perform under this Agreement is subject to the terms and conditions of the CAL FIRE Agreement. SECTION II: DESIGNATION OF FIRE CHIEF A. The County Fire Chief appointed by the Board of Supervisors, or his designee, (hereinafter referred to as "Chief") shall represent COUNTY and CITY during the period of this Agreement and Chief shall, under the supervision and direction of the County Board of Supervisors, have charge of the organization described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for the purpose of providing Fire Services as deemed necessary to satisfy the needs of both the COUNTY and CITY, except upon those lands wherein other agencies of government have responsibility for the same or similar Fire Services. B. The COUNTY will assign an existing Chief Officer as the Fire Department Liaison ("Fire Liaison"). The Chief may delegate certain authority to the Fire Liaison, as the Chief's duly authorized designee and the Fire Liaison shall be responsible for directing the Fire Services provided to CITY as set forth in Exhibit "A". C. COUNTY will be allowed flexibility in the assignment of available personnel and equipment in order to provide the Fire Services as agreed upon herein. Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 1 of 9 SECTION III: PAYMENT FOR SERVICES A. CITY shall annually appropriate a fiscal year budget to support the Fire Services designated at a level of service mutually agreed upon by both parties and as set forth in Exhibit "A" for the term of this Agreement. This Exhibit may be amended in writing by mutual agreement by both parties or when a CITY requested increase or reduction in services is approved by COUNTY. B. COUNTY provides fire personnel, equipment and services through its CAL FIRE Agreement. In the event CITY desires an increase or decrease in CAL FIRE or COUNTY civil service employees or services assigned to CITY as provided for in Exhibit "A," CITY shall provide one hundred twenty (120) days written notice of the proposed, requested increase or decrease. Proper notification shall include the following: (1) The total amount of increase or decrease; (2) The effective date of the increase or decrease; and (3) The number of employees, by classification, affected by the proposed increase or decrease. If such notice is not provided, CITY shall reimburse COUNTY for relocation costs incurred by COUNTY because of the increase or decrease, in addition to any other remedies available resulting from the increase or decrease in services. COUNTY is under no obligation to approve any requested increase or decrease, and it is expressly understood by the parties that in no event will COUNTY authorize or approve CITY's request to reduce services below the COUNTY Board of Supervisors approved staffing level for any fire station, or to reduce services to the extent that the services provided under this Agreement are borne by other jurisdictions. COUNTY shall render a written decision on whether to allow or deny the increase or decrease within thirty (30) _days of the notice provided pursuant to this section. C. CITY shall pay COUNTY actual costs for Fire Services pursuant to this Agreement. COUNTY shall make a claim to CITY for the actual cost of contracted services, pursuant to Exhibit "A," on a quarterly basis. The COUNTY is mandated per Government Code Section §51350 for full cost recovery. CITY shall pay each claim, in full, within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. D. Any changes to the salaries or expenses set forth in Exhibit "A" made necessary by action of the Legislature, CAL FIRE, or any other public agency with authority to direct changes in the level of salaries or expenses, shall be paid from the funds represented as set forth in Exhibit "A." The CITY is obligated to expend or appropriate any sum in excess of Exhibit "A" increased by action of the Legislature, CAL FIRE, or any other public agency with authority to direct changes. If within thirty (30) days after notice, in writing, from COUNTY to CITY that the actual cost of maintaining the services specified in Exhibit "A" as a result of action by the Legislature, CAL-FIRE, or other public agency will exceed the total amount specified therein, and CITY has not agreed to make available the necessary additional funds, COUNTY shall have the right to unilaterally reduce the services furnished under this Agreement by an appropriate amount and shall promptly notify CITY, in writing, specifying the services to be reduced. Any COUNTY or CAL-FIRE personnel reduction resulting solely due to an increase in employee salaries or expenses Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 2of9 occurring after signing this Agreement and set forth in Exhibit "A" that CITY does not agree to fund, as described above, shall not be subject to relocation expense reimbursement by CITY. If CITY desires to add funds to the total included herein to cover the cost of increased salaries or services necessitated by actions described in this paragraph, such increase shall be accomplished by an additional appropriation by the City Council of CITY, and an amendment to Exhibit "A" approved by the parties hereto. E. Chief may be authorized to negotiate and execute any amendments to Exhibit "A" of this Agreement on behalf of COUNTY as authorized by the Board of Supervisors. CITY shall designate a "Contract Administrator" who shall, under the supervision and direction of CITY, be authorized to execute amendments to Exhibit "A" on behalf of CITY. F. [ ] (Check only if applicable, and please initial to acknowledge) Additional terms as set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are incorporated herein and shall additionally apply to this agreement regarding payment of services. G. [x] (Check only if applicable, and please initial to acknowledge) Additional terms as set forth in the attached Exhibit "C" are incorporated herein and shall additionally apply to this agreement regarding payment for the Fire Engine Use Agreement. H. Notwithstanding Paragraph F herein if applicable, additional terms as set forth are incorporated herein and shall additionally apply to this agreement regarding payment of services. In the event that a fire engine, owned and maintained by the CITY has a catastrophic failure, the COUNTY Fire Chief may allow use of a COUNTY fire engine, free of charge up to one hundred twenty (120) days. After the initial one hundred twenty (120) days, a rental fee will be applied to the CITY invoice for use of said COUNTY fire engine. The rental fee shall be Nine Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($944.00) per day; or Six Thousand Six Hundred Eight Dollars ($6,608.00) per week. SECTION IV: INITIAL TERM AND AMENDMENT A. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. B. One (1) year prior to the date of expiration of this Agreement, CITY shall give COUNTY written notice of whether CITY intends to enter into a new Agreement with COUNTY for Fire Services and, if so, whether CITY intends to request a change in the level of Fire Services provided under this Agreement. C. If CITY and COUNTY are actively negotiating the terms to a new agreement, the parties may enter into an amendment of this agreement to extend the term up to an additional one year period. During this extended term, the level of service will remain as set forth in this Agreement. Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 3of9 SECTION V: TERMINATION During the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement may only be terminated by the voters of either the COUNTY or the CITY pursuant to Government Code §55603.5. SECTION VI: COOPERATIVE OPERATIONS All Fire Services contemplated under this Agreement shall be performed by both parties to this Agreement working as one unit; therefore, personnel and/or equipment belonging to either CITY or COUNTY may be temporarily dispatched elsewhere from time to time for mutual aid. SECTION VII: MUTUAL AID Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 13050 et seq., when rendering mutual aid or assistance, COUNTY may, at the request of CITY, demand payment of charges and seek reimbursement of CITY costs for personnel, equipment use, and operating expenses as funded herein, under authority given by Health and Safety Code Sections 13051 and 13054. COUNTY, in seeking said reimbursement pursuant to such request of CITY, shall represent the CITY by following the procedures set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 13052. Any recovery of CITY costs, less actual expenses, shall be paid or credited to the CITY, as directed by CITY. In all such instances, COUNTY shall give timely notice of the possible application of Health and Safety Code Sections 13051 and 3054 to the officer designated by CITY. SECTION VIII: SUPPRESSION COST RECOVERY As provided in Health and Safety Code Section 13009, COUNTY may bring an action for collection of suppression costs of any fire caused by negligence, violation of law, or failure to correct noticed fire safety violations. When using CITY equipment and personnel under the terms of this Agreement, COUNTY may, on request of CITY, bring such an action for collection of costs incurred by CITY. In such a case CITY appoints and designates COUNTY as its agent in said collection proceedings. In the event of recovery, COUNTY shall apportion to CITY its pro-rata proportion of recovery, less the reasonable pro-rata costs including legal fees. In all such instances, COUNTY shall give timely notice of the possible application of Health and Safety Code Section 13009 to the officer designated by CITY. In the event the CITY elects to use COUNTY funded Fire Marshal services, the services will be provided at a cost outlined in COUNTY Ordinance 671(Establishing Consolidated Fees For Land Use and Related Functions). Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 4of9 SECTION IX: PROPERTY ACCOUNTING All personal property provided by CITY and by COUNTY for the purpose of providing Fire Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be marked and accounted for in such a manner as to conform to the standard operating procedure established by the COUNTY for the segregation, care, and use of the respective property of each. SECTION X: FACILITY CITY shall provide Fire Station(s), strategically located to provide standard response time within City of from which fire operations shall be conducted. If the Fire Station(s) are owned by the CITY, the CITY shall maintain the facilities at CITY's cost and expense. In the event CITY requests COUNTY to undertake repairs or maintenance costs or services, the costs and expenses of such repairs or maintenance shall be reimbursed to COUNTY through the Support Services Cost Allocation, or as a direct Invoice to the CITY. SECTION XI: INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, COUNTY shall and does agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CITY, its agencies, districts, special districts and departments, their respective directors, officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, "Indemnitees") for, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits, awards, judgments and expenses, attorney and/or consultant fees and costs, taxable or otherwise, of any nature, kind or description of any person or entity, directly or indirectly arising out of, caused by, or resulting from (1) the Services performed hereunder by COUNTY, or any part thereof, (2) the Agreement, including any approved amendments or modifications, or (3) any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers, employees, subcontractors, agents, or representatives (collectively, "Liabilities"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the only Liabilities with respect to which COUNTY's obligation to indemnify, including the cost to defend, the Indemnitees does not apply is with respect to Liabilities resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee, or to the extent such claims do not arise out of, pertain to or relate to the Scope of Work in the Agreement. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, CITY shall and does agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless COUNTY, its agencies, departments, directors, officers, agents, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials and representatives (collectively, "Indemnitees") for, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits, awards, judgments and expenses, attorney and/or consultant fees and costs, taxable or otherwise, of any nature, kind or description of any person or entity, directly or indirectly arising out of, caused by, or resulting from (1) the services performed hereunder, by CITY, or any part thereof, (2) the Agreement, including any approved amendments or modifications, or (3) any negligent act or omission of CITY its officers, employees, subcontractors, agents, or representatives Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 5of9 (collectively, "Liabilities"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the only Liabilities with respect to which CITY's obligation to indemnify, including the cost to defend, the Indemnitees does not apply is with respect to Liabilities resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee, or to the extent such claims do not arise out of, pertain to or relate to the Scope of Work in the Agreement. SECTION XII: AUDIT A. COUNTY and CITY agree that their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation of the other party hereto, pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. COUNTY and CITY agree to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated or as required by law, and to allow the auditor(s) of the other party access to such records during normal business hours COUNTY and CITY agree to a similar right to audit records in any subcontract related to performance of this Agreement. (Gov. Code §8546.7, Pub. Contract Code §10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896). B. Each party shall bear their own costs in performing a requested audit. SECTION XIII: DISPUTES CITY shall select and appoint a "Contract Administrator" who shall, under the supervision and direction of CITY, be available for contract resolution or policy intervention with COUNTY, when, upon determination by the Chief that a situation exists under this Agreement in which a decision to serve the interest of CITY has the potential to conflict with COUNTY interest or policy. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under the terms of this Agreement which is not disposed of within a reasonable period of time by the CITY and COUNTY employees normally responsible for the administration of this Agreement shall be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer (or designated representative) of each organization for joint resolution. For purposes of this provision, a "reasonable period of time" shall be ten (10) calendar days or less. CITY and COUNTY agree to continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute. Disputes that are not resolved informally by and between CITY and COUNTY representatives may be resolved, by mutual agreement of the parties, through mediation. Such mediator will be jointly selected by the parties. The costs associated with mediator shall be shared equally among the participating parties. If the mediation does not resolve the issue(s), or if the parties cannot agree to mediation, the parties reserve the right to seek remedies as provided by law or in equity. The parties agree, pursuant to Battaglia Enterprises v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4t" 309, that each of the parties are sophisticated and negotiated this agreement and this venue at arm's length. Pursuant to this Agreement, the parties agree that venue for litigation shall be in the Superior Court of Riverside County. Should any party attempt to defeat this section and challenge venue in Superior Court, the party challenging venue stipulates to request the Court change venue to San Bernardino County and shall not ask for venue in any other County. Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 6of9 Any claims or causes of actions, whether they arise out of unresolved disputes as specified in this Section or claims by third parties that are made against the COUNTY, shall be submitted to the Office of the Clerk of the Board for the County of Riverside in a timely manner. For claims made against the COUNTY that involve CalFire employees, to the extent permissible under the COUNTY's contract with CalFire, the claims will be forwarded on to CalFire for processing. SECTION XIV: ATTORNEY'S FEES If CITY fails to remit payments for services rendered pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, COUNTY may seek recovery of fees through litigation, in addition to all other remedies available. In the event of litigation between COUNTY and CITY to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or any right of either party hereto, the unsuccessful party to such litigation agrees to pay the prevailing party's costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which shall be included in and as a part of the judgment rendered in such litigation. SECTION XV: DELIVERY OF NOTICES Any notices to be served pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered delivered when deposited in the United States mail and addressed to: COUNTY CITY OF TEMECULA County Fire Chief City Manager 210 W. San Jacinto Ave. City of Temecula Perris, CA 92570 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Provisions of this section do not preclude any notices being delivered in person to the addresses shown above. Delivery in person shall constitute service hereunder, effective when such service is made. SECTION XVI: ENTIRE CONTRACT This Agreement contains the whole contract between the parties for the provision of Fire Services. It may be amended or modified upon the mutual written consent of the parties hereto where in accordance with applicable state law. This Agreement does NOT supplement other specific agreements entered into by both parties for equipment or facilities, and excepting those equipment or facilities agreements, this Agreement cancels and supersedes any previous agreement for the same or similar services. Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 7of9 [Signature Provisions on following page] Cooperative Fire Agreement City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 8of9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the parties hereto have, in their respective capacities, set their hands as of the date first hereinabove written. Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Title: Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney Title: City Clerk (SEAL) Dated: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: GREGORY P. PRIAMOS, KECIA HARPER-THEM County Counsel Clerk of the Board By: By: Deputy ERIC STOPHER Deputy County Counsel (SEAL) TEMPLATE COOPERATIVE 2YR AGREEMENT 20160316.docx Cooperative Fire Agreement [_LW City of Temecula July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 9 of 9 Exhibit A ESTIMATES TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE PREVENTION, RESCUE AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTIMATE DATED MARCH 8, 2016 FOR FY 2016/2017 THROUGH 2017/2018 BUDGET CITY ESTIMATES FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017 $5,677,472 FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 $6,382,943 TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY EXHIBIT"A" FOR 2016/2017 THROUGH 2017/2018 $12,060,414 FY 2017 ESTIMATE TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION,FIRE PREVENTION,RESCUE AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTIMATE DATED MARCH 8,2016 FOR FY 2016/2017 CAPTAIN'S ENGINEER FF II CAPTAIN'S MEDICS ENGINEER'S MEDICS FF II'S MEDICS TOTALS STA#12 Medic Engine 408,888 2.0 349,618 2.0 0 0.0 316,520 20 339,571 20 1,414,596 80 STA#73 Medic Engine 408,888 2.0 174,809 1.0 196,043 10 316,520 2.0 339,571 20 1,435,831 8.0 (Truck Co.) 613,333 3.o 524,426 30 474,779 3.0 509,356 30 2,121,894 12.0 STA#84 Medic Engine 408,888 2.0 227,317 1.0 349,618 2.0 316,520 2.0 339,571 2.0 1,641,913 9.0 STA#92 Medic Engine 408,888 20 174,809 10 196,043 10 316,520 20 339,571 20 1,435,831 80 Fixed Relief 204,444 10 196,043 10 158,260 10 169,785 10 728,532 40 Vac.Relief-Engine 204,444 10 174,809 1.0 392,086 2.0 316,520 20 169,785 10 1,257,644 7.0 SUBTOTALS 2,657,774 227,317 1,748,088 980,216 2,215,637 2,207,209 10,036,241 SUBTOTAL STAFF 13 10 5 14 13 56 BATTALION CHIEF 244,156 each 244,156 10 FIRE SAFETY SUPERVISOR(PCN 110077) 146,829 each 146,829 10 FIRE SAFETY SPECIALIST(PCN 6966&PCN 123555) 140,759 each 281,517 20 SUBTOTAL $672,502 60.0 ESTIMATED SUPPORT SERVICES Administrative/Operational 20,805 per assigned Staff" 1,185,890 57.00 Volunteer Program 7,658 Per Entity Allocation 7,658 10 Medic Program Medic FTE/Defib Basis 133,933 190 Fleet Support 54,970 per Fire Suppression Equip 274,851 5.0 ECC Support Calls/Station Basis 276,219 Comm/IT Support Calls/Station Basis 469,451 Hazmat Support 81,051 SUPPORT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 2,429,053 ESTIMATED DIRECT CHARGES 58,243 FIRE ENGINE USE AGREEMENT 25,331 each engine 126,655 5 TOTAL STAFF COUNT 60.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY BUDGET $13.322.694 TEMECULA ESTIMATED FIRE TAX CREDIT (7,645,222) NET ESTIMATED CITY BUDGET 5.677.472 STRUCTURAL FIRE TAXES 6,819,980 ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT PASS THRU 825,242 TOTAL TAX FUNDING 7,645,222 FY 2017 ESTIMATE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 2 of 5 SUPPORT SERVICES Administrative&Operational Services 57.00 Assigned Staff Finance Procurement 0.0 Battalion Chief Support Training Emergency Services 57.00 Total Assigned Staff Data Processing Fire Fighting Equip. Accounting Office Supplies/Equip. 3.5 Fire Stations Personnel 7,236 Number of Calls 19 Assigned Medic FTE 6 Monitors/Defibs 35 Hazmat Stations 51 Number of Hazmat Calls Volunteer Program-Support staff,Workers Comp,and Personal Liability Insurance Medic Program-Support staff,Training,Certification,Case Review&Reporting,Monitor/ Defibrillator replacement cycle. Fleet Support-Support staff,automotive costs,vehicle/engine maintenance,fuel costs Emergency Command Center Support-Dispatch services costs Communications/IT Support-Support staff,communications,radio maintenance,computer support functions Hazmat Program-Support staff,operating costs,and vehicle replacement FY 16/17 POSITION SALARIES TOP STEP 304,607 DEPUTY CHIEF 25,331 FIRE ENGINE 300,511 DIV CHIEF 20,805 SRVDEL 244,156 BAT CHIEF 7,658 VOL DEL 204,444 CAPT 6,425 MEDIC FTE 227,317 CAPT MEDIC 1,975 MEDIC MONITORS/DEFIBS REPLACEMENT 174,809 ENG 75,164 BATT DEL 196,043 ENG/MEDIC 16,626 ECC STATION 158,260 FF II 30.13 ECC CALLS 169,785 FF II/MEDIC 54,970 FLEET SUPPORT 146,829 FIRE SAFETY SUPERVISOR 28,255 COMM/IT STATION 140,759 FIRE SAFETY SPECIALIST 51.21 COMMIIT CALLS 122,031 FIRE SYSTEMS INSPECTOR 2,404 FACILITY STATION 71,843 OFFICE ASSISTANT 111 646.77 FACILITY FTE 72,531 SECRETARY I 3,731 HAZMAT STATION 116,074 COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 1,294.48 HAZMAT CALLS 162,547 DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL 1,974 HAZMAT VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FY 2017 ESTIMATE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 3 of 5 FY 2018 ESTIMATE TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION,FIRE PREVENTION,RESCUE AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTIMATE DATED MARCH 8,2016 FOR FY 2017/2018 CAPTAIN'S ENGINEER FF II CAPTAIN'S MEDICS ENGINEER'S MEDICS FF II'S MEDICS TOTALS ------------ ....... STA#12 Medic Engine 429,333 2.0 367,098 20 0 0.0 332,345 2.0 356,549 20 1,485,326 80 STA#73 Medic Engine 429,333 20 183,549 10 205,845 10 332,345 20 356,549 20 1,507,622 80 (Truck Co.) 643,999 30 550,648 3.0 498,518 30 534,824 30 2,227,989 120 STA#84 Medic Engine 429,333 2.0 238,682 10 367,098 2.0 332,345 2.0 356,549 2.0 1,724,008 90 STA#92 Medic Engine 429,333 2.0 183,549 10 205,845 10 332,345 2.0 356,549 20 1,507,622 80 Fixed Relief 214,666 10 205,845 10 166,173 10 178,275 10 764,959 4.0 Vac.Relief-Engine 214,666 10 183,549 10 411,691 2.0 332,345 2.0 178,275 10 1,320,526 7.0 SUBTOTALS 2,790,663 238,682 1,835,492 1,029,227 2,326,418 2,317,569 10,538,053 SUBTOTAL STAFF 13 10 5 14 13 56 BATTALION CHIEF 256,364 each 256,364 1.0 FIRE SAFETY SUPERVISOR(PCN 110077) 154,171 each 154,171 10 FIRE SAFETY SPECIALIST(PCN 6966&PCN 123555) 147,796 each 295,593 2.0 SUBTOTAL $706,127 600 ESTIMATED SUPPORT SERVICES Administrative/Operational 22,261 per assigned Staff" 1,268,902 57.00 Volunteer Program 8,194 Per Entity Allocation 8,194 10 Medic Program Medic FTE/Defib Basis 143,308 190 Fleet Support 58,818 per Fire Suppression Equip 294,090 5.0 ECC Support Calls/Station Basis 295,555 Comm/IT Support Calls/Station Basis 502,313 Hazmat Support 86,725 SUPPORT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 2,599,087 ESTIMATED DIRECT CHARGES 58,243 FIRE ENGINE USE AGREEMENT 25,331 each engine 126,655 5 TOTAL STAFF COUNT 60.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY BUDGET $14,028.165 TEMECULA ESTIMATED FIRE TAX CREDIT (7,645,222) NET ESTIMATED CITY BUDGET 6 382 943 STRUCTURAL FIRE TAXES 6,819,980 ESTIMATED REDEVELOPMENT PASS THRU 825,242 TOTAL TAX FUNDING 7,645,222 FY 2018 ESTIMATE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 4 of 5 SUPPORT SERVICES Administrative&Operational Services 57.00 Assigned Staff Finance Procurement 0.0 Battalion Chief Support Training Emergency Services 57.00 Total Assigned Staff Data Processing Fire Fighting Equip. Accounting Office Supplies/Equip. 3.5 Fire Stations Personnel 7,236 Number of Calls 19 Assigned Medic FTE 6 Monitors/Defibs 35 Hazmat Stations 51 Number of Hazmat Calls Volunteer Program-Support staff,Workers Comp,and Personal Liability Insurance Medic Program-Support staff,Training,Certification,Case Review&Reporting,Monitor/ Defibrillator replacement cycle. Fleet Support-Support staff,automotive costs,vehicle/engine maintenance,fuel costs Emergency Command Center Support-Dispatch services costs Communications/IT Support-Support staff,communications,radio maintenance,computer support functions Hazmat Program-Support staff,operating costs,and vehicle replacement FY 17118 POSITION SALARIES TOP STEP 319,838 DEPUTY CHIEF 25,331 FIRE ENGINE 315,537 DIV CHIEF 22,261 SRVDEL 256,364 BAT CHIEF 8,194 VOL DEL 214,666 CAPT 6,875 MEDIC FTE 238,682 CAPT MEDIC 2,113 MEDIC MONITORS/DEFIBS REPLACEMENT 183,549 ENG 80,426 BATT DEL 205,845 ENG/MEDIC 17,789 ECC STATION 166,173 FF II 32.24 ECC CALLS 178,275 FF II/MEDIC 58,818 FLEET SUPPORT 154,171 FIRE SAFETY SUPERVISOR 30,233 COMM/IT STATION 147,796 FIRE SAFETY SPECIALIST 54.79 COMM/IT CALLS 128,132 FIRE SYSTEMS INSPECTOR 2,573 FACILITY STATION 75,435 OFFICE ASSISTANT III 692.05 FACILITY FTE 76,158 SECRETARY I 3,992 HAZMAT STATION 121,877 COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR 1,385.09 HAZMAT CALLS 170,675 DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL 2,112 HAZMAT VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FY 2018 ESTIMATE CITY OF TEMECULA Page 5 01`5 EXHIBIT "B" TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE PREVENTION, RESCUE AND MEDICAL AID FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED , 2016 PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ADDITIONAL TERMS COUNTY shall make a claim to CITY for the actual cost of contracted services as shown on Exhibit "A" during each of the following periods: (1) July 1 through September 30, claim in October; (2) October 1 through December 31, claim in January; (3) January 1 through March 31, claim in April; and (4) April 1 through June 30, claim in July The claims shall be for 25% of the estimated costs of services after any deduction for fire taxes, with final reconciliation to actual costs resulting in an additional claim or refund to CITY, the subsequent quarter with the final reconciliation in August. CITY shall pay each claim within 30 days after receipt thereof. COUNTY shall allow a credit in the amount of the Structural Fire taxes as determined by COUNTY to be collected in each fiscal year of this Agreement. The allowed credit shall not exceed the cost of contracted services. Exhibit"B" CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT "C" TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION, FIRE PREVENTION, RESCUE AND MEDICAL AID FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DATED MARCH 8, 2016 PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ADDITIONAL SERVICES FIRE ENGINE USE AGREEMENT Station 12 Engine 12, RCO No. 12-820 $ 25,331.00 Station 73 Engine 73, RCO No. 07-813 $ 25,331.00 Station 84 Engine 84, RCO No. 08-870 $ 25,331.00 Station 92 Engine 92, RCO No. 08-869 $ 25,331.00 Station 95 Engine 95, RCO No. 08-818 $ 25,331.00 $126,655.00 The Fire Engine Use Agreement is utilized in the event that a fire engine(s) which was initially purchased by the CITY, and then the CITY elects to have the COUNTY take responsibility of said fire engine(s). The Fire Engine Use Agreement guarantees the CITY the use of this fire engine(s), the COUNTY network of equipment, and resources of the COUNTY. Exhibit"C CITY OF TEMECULA Pagel of 2 This fire engine(s) shall be used as an integrated unit for Fire Services as set forth in this Cooperative Agreement between the COUNTY and CITY, and shall be stationed primarily in the CITY. The change in ownership of the fire engine does not waive or supersede any responsibilities of the CITY pursuant to this agreement. This exhibit is strictly to further detail for the CITY, the responsibilities and costs associated within the Cooperative Agreement between the COUNTY and CITY; therefore, the Fire Engine Use Agreement is inseparable. The CITY will have the option of transferring title of said fire engine(s) to the COUNTY. If the CITY transfers title of said fire engine(s) to the County, the County will take ownership of the said fire engine(s), and the County will maintain insurance on said fire engine(s). If the CITY opts to maintain ownership and title of said fire engine(s), the CITY will maintain insurance on said fire engine(s). Proof of Insurance is to be provided to the COUNTY. The COUNTY will ensure a working fire engine(s) is available for the CITY at all times under this agreement. All capital improvements and/or betterments to the fire engine(s) listed above, will be the responsibility and paid for by the COUNTY under this Agreement. When the Riverside County Fire Department Fleet personnel determine the fire engine(s) listed above is due for replacement, the COUNTY will purchase a new fire engine(s); and, survey the old fire engine(s). The annual cost for this service is calculated at 1/20 of the replacement cost. The current replacement cost is $506,625.00. If this Agreement is entered into mid-year, the annual cost will be prorated accordingly. Exhibit"C CITY OF TEMECULA Page 2 of 2 Item No . 4 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Appropriate Funds for TVE2 STEM and Youth Enrichment Program from WRCOG BEYOND Grant PREPARED BY: Cheryl Kitzerow, Economic Development Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate $10,000 in Fiscal Year 2015-16 from the WRCOG BEYOND Framework Fund Grant to allow for the purchase of 30 Chromebooks/Charging Cart to be used for Youth Enrichment Summer Programming at TVE2. BACKGROUND: The BEYOND Program is WRCOG's Economic Development and Sustainability Framework, which was approved by WRCOG's Executive Committee in 2012. Beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16, WRCOG is allocating $1.8 million for use by WRCOG's member agencies to develop and implement plans and programs that can improve the quality of life in Western Riverside County by addressing critical growth components such as economic development, water, environment, energy, health and transportation. Member agencies were required to submit one or multiple project applications. The City was awarded $140,357 to be used on six different projects for which applications were submitted. The TVE2 Stem and Youth Enrichment Program receive an allocation of$15,000. The Funding Agreement for this, and the other applications, was approved by the City Council on March 22, 2016, and subsequently executed by the Mayor and WRCOG. As part of this grant, approximately $10,000 was identified for the purchase of 30 Chromebook computers and a charging cart, for students to use in our programs. The Chromebooks are needed prior to July 1, 2016 (new Fiscal Year) and there is currently no appropriation in this fiscal year's budget. Youth Summer Programs are scheduled to begin at the end of June. This request is for the appropriation of $10,000 now to be used to purchase the equipment. The remaining $5,000 would be appropriated in Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. All expenditures will be offset by revenues from the WRCOG BEYOND Framework Fund Program. ATTACHMENTS: Quote from Helixstorm for Chromebooks/Charging Cart HELIISTORM QUOTE �nakE IT EasiEP for you Number HLXQ2688 41619 Margarita Rd, Suite 200, Temecula, Ca 92591 Date Apr 21, 2016 Direct: 951-225-3493 Mobile: 619-757-3704 Email: dave.jenks@helixstorm.com City of Temecula City of Temecula Cheryl Kitzerow Cheryl Kitzerow 41000 Main Street 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula, CA 92590 Phone: (951) 694-6409 Phone: (951) 694-6409 Email: cheryl.kitzerow@cityoftemecula.org Email: cheryl.kitzerow@cityoftemecula.org Dave Jenks Ground Net 30 Charging Cart and Chromebooks 1 30 Device Smart Charging Cart-4 Casters-5" Caster Size-Steel -27"Width x 25.1" $1,700.00 $1,700.00 Depth x 40.8" Height- For 30 Devices 30 HP Chromebook 11 G4 11.6" Chromebook-Intel Celeron N2840 Dual-core(2 Core)2.16 $219.00 $6,570.00 GHz- Black-4 GB DDR3L SDRAM RAM-Intel HD Graphics DDR3L SDRAM-Chrome OSEnglish)- 1366 x 768 16:9 Display- Bluetooth -English Keyboard- IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac Wireless LAN-Webcam - HDMI -2 x Total USB Ports- 1 x USB 3.0 Ports - Headphone/Microphone Combo Port-3-cell - Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) Quote valid for 30 days SubTotal $8,270.00 Tax and shipping will be assessed upon invoicing when applicable Tax $661.60 Shipping $100.00 All services are an estimate and a formal Statement of Work is required when applicable Approved By: PARTNER Hewlett Packard Date: Enterprise Page 1 of 1 1 of 2 HELIISTORM W E m a k E I T E a s i E r f o r y o u Helixstorm TERMS AND CONDITIONS Payment Terms: Payment is due 30 days from the date of the invoice for all hardware, software and services listed on this proposal. This payment can be made by check or ACH credit. Taxes and Shipping: All applicable state and local taxes and shipping charges are the responsibility of the purchases unless specified otherwise. Tax-exempt entities must submit appropriate forms to Helixstorm prior to delivery and invoice showing their exempt status. This information can be sent to: accounting@helixstorm.com. Pricing: All prices stated on the attached proposal represent the current prices. All proposals and pricing are valid for 30 days from the date of this proposal. Changes to this proposal may result in additional charges based on configuration requirements. Travel: Unless otherwise specified, travel and out of town living expenses related to technical services will be billed at actual rates. Warranty: All warranties are per the manufacturer as applicable, unless noted otherwise as part of the attached proposal. The manufacturer or their designated subcontractor will provide all warranty maintenance of equipment in this proposal. The manufacturer is solely responsible for the performance and maintenance of their equipment within normal working conditions. Professional Services: All Helixstorm Professional Services pricing is estimated unless the final quote is accompanied by a Helixstorm Statement of Work (SOW). Signature Date X 2 of 2 Item No . 5 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with the County of Riverside for Library Services at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library PREPARED BY: Erica Russo, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an Agreement with the County of Riverside, in the amount of $180,000 annually, for Library Services at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. BACKGROUND: The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library opened in December of 2006, and was rededicated in honor of former Mayor/Council Member Ronald H. Roberts in 2016. The Library serves over 1,200 patrons daily, and has the highest circulation in Riverside County. Since the opening of the Library, the City has been in contract with Riverside County to provide library staffing, collections support, and a variety of other services through their contract with Library Systems and Services, Inc. (LS&S). The approval of this item will renew our agreement for Library services with the County of Riverside for continued operation of the Temecula Public Library. The terms of this new agreement will remain functionally the same as the previous agreement, except that the County has requested the term be changed from a single five-year term to one two-year term with the option of a three-year extension. This slight change in terms will align the City's contract with the other Library contracts managed by the County. The agreement will continue to provide the existing level of library services at 63 hours per week. The City of Temecula will reimburse the County for library operating costs in excess of 40 hours per week. Through our negotiations with the County of Riverside, the City has agreed to pay $140 per hour for the additional 23 hours per week of library operations. This amount is equivalent to $167,440, however shall not exceed $180,000 in a given fiscal year. The County of Riverside provides great library services for our community through their contract with LS&S. We estimate the Temecula Public Library has a monthly circulation of approximately 50,000 items. This agreement will provide quality library operations, programs and services through June 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will provide library services for an annual amount not to exceed $180,000 per year. In addition, the County Library Contract Services is offset by approximately $2 million in Library Tax Credits on an annual basis. Sufficient funds will be budgeted for FY 2016 -17 and each year thereafter in the Library Annual Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Library Services Agreement AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LIBRARY OPERATIONS SERVICES AT THE RONALD H. ROBERTS TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of May 24, 2016, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and County of Riverside, (hereinafter referred to as "County"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2018, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City may, upon mutual agreement, extend the contract for an additional three (3) year term. In no event shall the contract be extended beyond June 30, 2021. 2. SERVICES County shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. County shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE County shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. County shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of County hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay County quarterly, at the rate of one hundred and forty dollars ($140) per hour for every hour exceeding forty (40) hours per week of Library operations as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. This amount shall not exceed one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) annually unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. County shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . County shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and County at the time City's written authorization is given to County for the performance of said services. C. County shall submit invoices quarterly for actual Library services performed. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of County's fees, it shall give written notice to County within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Payment shall represent City's total payment contributions to County for the operations of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. 5. COLLECTIONS PROCUREMENT The City reserves the right to contract with any third party procurement company when expending City funds. In addition, there shall be no financial detriment to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's County collection development budget for City funded items and any other non-county materials requiring any level of in-house processing. All supplies required for the physical processing of non-county items will be purchased with City funds. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the County at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the County shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to County the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value every hour exceeding forty (40) hours per week to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement, the County will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section 4 entitled "PAYMENT" herein. C. In the event of non-payment by the City as required in Section 4, the County may terminate the contract thirty (30) days after the payment is due. 7. DEFAULT OF COUNTY a. The County's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that County is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating County for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the County. If such failure by the County to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the County's control, and without fault or negligence of the County, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the County is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the County with written notice of the default. The County shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the County fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. County shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. County shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. County shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the County. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, County shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 9. INDEMNIFICATION a. `To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, County shall and does agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its agencies, districts, special districts and departments, their respective directors, officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and representatives (collectively, "Indemnitees") for, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits, awards, judgments and expenses, attorney and/or consultant fees and costs, taxable or otherwise, of any nature, kind or description of any person or entity, directly or indirectly arising out of, caused by, or resulting from (1) the Services performed hereunder by County, or any part thereof, (2) the Agreement, including any approved amendments or modifications, or (3) any negligent act or omission of County, its officers, employees, subcontractors, agents, or representatives (collectively, "Liabilities"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the only Liabilities with respect to which County's obligation to indemnify, including the cost to defend, the Indemnitees does not apply is with respect to Liabilities resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee, or to the extent such claims do not arise out of, pertain to or relate to the Scope of Work in the Agreement. `b. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, City shall and does agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its agencies, departments, directors, officers, agents, Board of Supervisors, elected and appointed officials and representatives (collectively, "Indemnitees") for, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of action, suits, awards, judgments and expenses, attorney and/or consultant fees and costs, taxable or otherwise, of any nature, kind or description of any person or entity, directly or indirectly arising out of, caused by, or resulting from (1) the services performed hereunder, by City, or any part thereof, (2) the Agreement, including any approved amendments or modifications, or (3) any negligent act or omission of City its officers, employees, subcontractors, agents, or representatives (collectively, "Liabilities"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the only Liabilities with respect to which City's obligation to indemnify, including the cost to defend, the Indemnitees does not apply is with respect to Liabilities resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee, or to the extent such claims do not arise out of, pertain to or relate to the Scope of Work in the Agreement. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. County is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of County shall at all times be under County's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of County or any of County's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. County shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. County shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to County in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to County as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to County for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to County for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The County shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The County shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the County to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by County, or County subcontractors, in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by County without City's prior written authorization. County, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided County gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. County shall promptly notify City should County, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent County and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. County agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by County. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To County: County of Riverside Suzanne Holland, Assistant Director Economic Development Agency County of Riverside 3403 Tenth St., Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 14. ASSIGNMENT The County shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, County's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the County. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, County shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and County understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the County, or County's sub-contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The County hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the County or County's sub-contractors on this project. County further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of County warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the County and has the authority to bind County to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 20. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. No person or entity shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary hereof, and nothing in this Agreement (either express or implied) is intended to confer upon any person or entity, other than County, City, and their respective successors and assigns, any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Rob Field, Assistant County Executive Office/EDA ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Suzanne Holland, Assistant Director /EDA APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney COUNTY County of Riverside Suzanne Holland, Assistant Director Economic Development Agency County of Riverside 3403 Tenth St., Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 951-955-1219 sholland@rivcoeda.org Da Initials: �,/;]. Date: / ' EXHIBIT A Services and Tasks to be Performed The specific elements (scope of work) and tasks of this service include: All the following services, duties and tasks described in this Exhibit A shall be performed with regard to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library, located at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA 92592. 1. STAFFING. A. Library Staff. County shall provide an adequate number of professional Library staff persons for the efficient and effective operations of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. County shall have sole authority to recruit, select, and hire the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library staff except for the positions of Manager, Department Heads and Reference Librarians. Manager, Department Heads, and Reference Librarians will be selected via a panel interview process with the panel comprising one (1) representative each from LS&S administration and City of Temecula, as well as the incumbent Library Manager. Final authority for the selection of candidates for these positions rests with the City. In addition, Department Heads will be included on the interview panel for openings in their departments. B. City and County may review and alter the number and classification of staff persons from time to time for the effective operation of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. In the event that City is dissatisfied with the performance of a Library staff employee, City and County shall work together to resolve the matter in a manner that is mutually acceptable. C. County currently provides Library staff and Library services through a separate agreement with Library Systems and Services ("LS&S"). City acknowledges and agrees that staff and other services shall be provided to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library through the County's agreement with LS&S. D. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library Manager and the Temecula Community Services Director or his or her designee shall meet regularly to exchange information, pertaining to the day to day operation of the Library, including but not limited to maintenance and custodial issues, information systems, Library supply needs, Friends of the Temecula Libraries and to provide status updates regarding the Library and facility operations of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. Issues pertaining to Library policy and Library contracts and agreements shall be referred to the Zone Manager for the Mid-South Zone. E. Technology Homework Center. County shall provide a three-tenths (0.3) full-time equivalent employee to provide assistance in the Technology Homework Center. The Technology Homework Center's employee(s) shall be classified as referenced in the Joint Use Cooperative Agreement between the County of Riverside, the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("TVUSD") and the City of Temecula for the Joint Use of Facilities Located at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library, dated March 18, 2003. County shall work with the TVUSD and City to provide, as necessary, additional employees, volunteers and resources for students in the Technology Homework Center. F. Technology Systems. City shall provide adequate staff persons to maintain and operate the technology systems, including, but not limited to, computers, Radio Frequency Identification ("RFID") equipment and systems, copiers, telephones, wireless networks, and teleconference equipment, or contract with a third party to provide same. In the event that the City elects to subcontract technology systems support, the City retains the right to determine which, if any, hardware will remain the property of the City of Temecula. G. Maintenance. City shall provide adequate staff persons to provide janitorial services, landscape maintenance and building maintenance for the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. 2. OPERATING HOURS. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library shall operate at least sixty three (63) hours per week. The days and hours of operations shall be as follows: Monday—Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library shall observe the City of Temecula's holiday schedule with the addition of Columbus Day. The Library will be closed one additional day per calendar year for staff training. 3. SECURITY SYSTEMS. A. Key Cards. City shall administer proximity key cards that provide door access and support various levels of security to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. These key cards shall be issued by City's Information Technology ("IT") Department. B. Radio Frequency Identification. City shall maintain and support a Radio Frequency Identification ("RFID") system, which is the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's book security and inventory system. 4. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES. A. Patron LAN and Wireless LAN. City's IT Department shall equip, maintain and support the Patron Local Area Network ("LAN") and the Wireless LAN, or contract with a third party to provide same. At its discretion, the City may request the County to provide such services, subject to a mutually agreed upon amendment to this Agreement, or the City may subcontract with a third party to provide these services. B. Administrative LAN. The Administrative LAN shall be maintained and supported by Library Systems and Services, Incorporated (LS&S). C. Firewall Separation. City shall maintain firewall separation of the Patron LAN, Wireless LAN and Administrative LAN. D. LS&S shall notify the City Information Technology (IT) staff not less than ten (10) days in advance of any planned changes to Library automation / technology support service availability. LS&S shall make every effort to notify the City IT staff as soon as possible of any immediate situations that require a system reset or that will impact the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library user community. 5. AUTHENTICATION SERVICES. A. Wireless Authentication. City shall provide wireless authentication consistent with other automated systems within the Library. B. Library Patron Authentication. Library patrons shall be authenticated by the Comprise Smart Access Management ("Comprise SAM") System or comparable system. The Temecula Library system shall enable patrons to easily manage their accounts, including adding funds with a credit card through the Internet, at a Library kiosk, or through a Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library librarian or cashier. 6. COMMERCIAL CARRIER SERVICES. A. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library shall access the Internet with broadband internet circuit which will support the Wireless LAN and the Patron LAN. B. The Administrative LAN shall be supported by an LS&S provisioned broadband internet circuit. 7. VOICEMAIL SERVICES. City shall provide and support voicemail accounts and respond to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library Branch Manager's request for any telephone additions or changes to users in the Voice over Internet Phone ("VOIP") system. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library telephones shall be answered by a live Library staff member or system approved by City during the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's operational hours. 8. LICENSING SERVICES. A. Patron LAN and Wireless LAN. Software license products shall be purchased, updated, and maintained by City when used on either the Patron LAN or the Wireless LAN. B. Administrative LAN. Software license products shall be purchased and maintained by LS&S on the Administrative LAN. 9. INTERNET SERVICES. City shall maintain and support the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's Internet domain temeculalibrary.org. Internet usage at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library shall be in compliance with the County Library's Internet Usage Policy. Content filtering shall be supported by a Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA") compliant content filtering system. 10. ON-GOING COLLECTIONS DEVELOPMENT. A. Annual Collections Development. County shall provide collections development support for the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library on an annual basis. B. Invoicing Required. County shall work with vendors to provide copies of invoices to City evidencing the total value of the volumes purchased for the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library collection. Invoicing shall include the cost of the volume and all processing by County's third party procurement company. Invoices shall be submitted as collection materials are received and inventoried to the collection. C. Collections Maintenance. County shall provide maintenance support to the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's staff. Staff will ensure that collection remains consistent with professional library practices. This includes but is not limited to procurement, processing, mending, and de-accessioning of collections. The Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library's collections shall be developed in accordance with the materials selection policy adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. All collections will remain property of the City. 11. FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT. A. Ownership by City. City shall own all furniture, fixtures, and equipment in the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library, except for the LS&S equipment that support the following: i. Administrative LAN; ii. SIP2 protocol equipment; iii. Microsoft Windows servers that support Domain Naming System (DNS); iv. The domain controller for caching administrative staff authentication credentials; V. Microsoft Client Access License (CAL) for Office Suite and Exchange Email. B. Maintenance by City. City shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the furniture, fixtures and equipment, except for the LS&S equipment, as necessary and determined by City. C. Maintenance by County. County shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the LS&S equipment used for supporting LS&S staff functions. 12. UTILITIES. All utilities shall be recorded in City's name. City shall be responsible for the payment of all utilities costs, including electricity, gas, water, and telephone services, associated with the operations of the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. 13. FEES AND FINES. A. City Property. All fees and fines received at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library or on its website will be property of City. Fees and fines for unclaimed holds; overdue, lost, or damaged materials; printing, faxing, and copying services; and facilities and equipment rentals shall be consistent with City fee schedules. B. Collection of Fees and Fines. Fees and fines shall be collected by LS&S staff at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. C. Software for Fees and Fines. City shall provide and maintain software consistent with other City systems for the receipting and reconciling of fees and fines. D. Fees for Printing. City shall determine the fees for printing and copying. 14. FACILITY RENTALS. A. Development of Rental Policy. City shall develop a Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library facilities rental policy ("Rental Policy") that includes, but is not limited to, information regarding the areas within the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library available for rental purposes, the equipment available for rental, the rental fees, and the reservation procedures. The Rental Policy shall also set forth which Library patrons receive priority for rental areas. B. Administration of Rental Policy. City shall administer City's Rental Policy, assist in the preparation of the rental areas, including but not limited to setting up and taking down tables and chairs, collecting required deposits, rental forms, proof of insurance, and other required documentation, and remit any rental-related documentation to City. County shall remit all rental fees to City on a daily basis with reconciling documentation. C. Rental Fee Software. City shall provide and maintain software consistent with other City systems for the receipting and reconciling of rental fees. 15. TECHNOLOGY HOMEWORK CENTER. City shall determine and schedule any computer classes provided in the Technology Homework Center other than those provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. City shall work with County to ensure that such scheduling of computer classes does not conflict with other programs or staffing needs. Classes may be provided by contracted instructors, Library staff or City staff. 16. LIBRARY MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL DISTRICT. A. TVUSD Distribution Site. County shall add the Temecula Valley Unified School District's District Office ("TDO") as a daily distribution site for Library materials requested by students or TVUSD staff through the online public catalog. B. Distribution System. County shall develop a distribution system with the TVUSD to check-out, check-in, and account for all Library materials distributed through this distribution system. County shall work with the TVUSD Library Media Specialist to develop a check-out and check-in process at the TVUSD that is integrated with the County system to track the distribution of and protect the Public Libraries' collections. 17. WIRELESS TELEPHONE USAGE. County staff persons shall enforce the following policy regarding wireless telephone usage at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. Wireless telephone usage shall be limited to the following specific areas within and around the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library: • Inspiration Garden • Frontfoyer • Parking lot • Staff offices and staff lounge • Study rooms 18. FOOD AND BEVERAGES. A. Concessions. City may operate a concessions operation within the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library. All revenues and expenditures associated with the concessions shall be City's responsibility. B. Designated Areas for Food Consumption. City may permit food and beverages to be consumed in all Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library common areas, staff offices, staff lounge, and the garden. 19. LIBRARY TAX CREDIT. City's Library Tax Credit shall be used to offset County Library services for the basic forty (40) hours per week at the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library and the basic forty (40) hours per week, including maintenance at the Grace Mellman Library located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula, California. EXHIBIT B Payment Schedule The City agrees to pay County quarterly, at the rate of one hundred and forty dollars ($140) per hour for every hour exceeding forty (40) hours per week of Library operations. This amount shall not exceed one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) annually unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. Item No . 6 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Curtis Brown, Temecula Division Chief DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc. for the Purchase of Equipment for Two Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles PREPARED BY: Becky Obmann, Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an Agreement with Temecula Motorsports, Inc., in the amount of $31,984.86, for the purchase of two 2016 Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles. BACKGROUND: American Medical Response (AMR) is the ambulance company on contract with Riverside County Fire to provide advanced life support patient transport to local hospitals when necessary. This agreement with the County includes the contract cities that AMR serves as well. Details in the agreement states that penalties will be paid to the County or Partner City when performance standards are not met. The fine monies vary depending upon the delay in the response time to calls. The agreement also states that the monies collected by the City under the terms will be used only for Emergency Medical Service system enhancements, meaning the fines are to be utilized to better the overall EMS program and cannot be used for purchasing items that are normal or customary supplies. The Temecula Fire Department has determined a need for the use of utility vehicles at special events that draw large crowds in the City to provide quick care and transport of patients. Currently the department rents these units which are costly and do not provide the specifics needed to make them a proper EMS utility vehicle. After receiving three bids, Temecula Motorsports, Inc. has been selected as the low bid vendor for the purchase of two 2016 Kawasaki Mules. Temecula Motorsports is a reputable company that has been doing business in the Temecula valley for over 15 years and is able to provide the department with the specifics requested in an EMS utility vehicle. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Fire Department/Paramedic operating budget account number 001.171.711.5331. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement for Purchase of Equipment AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS, INC. KAWASAKI MULE UTILITY VEHICLES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of May 24, 2016, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Motorsports, Inc. a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on May 24, 2016, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than November 30, 2016, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. PURCHASE AND SALE OF EQUIPMENT On and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and the Agreement Documents, Vendor agrees to sell and deliver to City two (2), 2016 Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, Description of Equipment (hereafter "Equipment"), attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 3. PURCHASE PRICE The Purchase Price which City agrees to pay to Vendor for the equipment is Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Four Dollars and Eighty Six Cents, (31,984.86). The Purchase Price is final and shall be paid by City to Vendor in accordance with the following schedule: 2016 Kawasaki Mule Utility Vehicles are priced at $15,992.43 each which includes tax, fees and freight. 4. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES OF VENDOR Vendor makes the following representations and warranties to City: a. Authority and Consents. Vendor has the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. No approvals or consents of any persons are necessary in connection with Vendor's execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, except for such as have been obtained on or prior to the date hereof. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Vendor have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Vendor and constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of Vendor, enforceable against Vendor in accordance with their respective terms. b. Title, License and Operating Condition. Vendor has good and marketable title to all of the Equipment. All of the Equipment is free and clear of any restrictions on or conditions to transfer or assignment, and City will acquire absolute title to all of the Equipment free and clear of mortgages, liens, pledges, charges, encumbrances, equities, claims, covenants, conditions and restrictions except for such as may be created or granted by City. All of the Equipment is in good operating condition, is free of any defects, and is in conformity with the specifications, descriptions, representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement 1 Documents. Vendor is aware that City is purchasing the Equipment for use as Emergency Medical Utility Vehicles to be utilized at special events by fire department employees to provide medical assistance to citizens as needed, and that the City is relying on the warranties of the Vendor that the Equipment is fit for this purpose and the ordinary purposes for which the Equipment is normally used. C. Full Disclosure. None of the representations and warranties made by Vendor in this Agreement contains or will contain any untrue statements of a material fact, or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 5. TIME OF DELIVERY The date and time of delivery of the Equipment shall be on or before June 30, 2016. 6. PLACE OF DELIVERY The Equipment shall be delivered to the following location: Fire Station 84, 30650 Pauba Road, Temecula CA 92592. 7. TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS Title to and the risk of loss, damage and destruction of the Equipment shall remain with the Vendor until after inspection and acceptance of the Equipment by City. 8. INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE City shall inspect the Equipment at the time and place of delivery. Such inspection may include reasonable tests and use of the Equipment by City. If, in the determination of City, the Equipment fails to conform to the Agreement IN ANY MANNER OR RESPECT, City shall so notify Vendor within ten (10) days of delivery of the Equipment to City. Failing such notice, the Equipment shall be deemed accepted by City as of the date of receipt. 9. REJECTION In the event of such notice of non-conformity by City pursuant to the section entitled "Acceptance" above, City may, at its option, (1) reject the whole of the Equipment, (2) accept the whole of the Equipment, or (3) accept any commercial unit or units of the Equipment and reject the remainder. The exercise of any of the above options shall be "without prejudice" and with full reservation of any rights and remedies of City attendant upon a breach. In the event of such notice and election by City, City agrees to comply with all reasonable instructions of Vendor and, in the event that expenses are incurred by City in following such instructions, Vendor shall indemnify City in full for such expenses. 10. NO REPLACEMENTS OF CURE This Agreement calls for strict compliance. Vendor expressly agrees that both the Software tendered and the tender itself will conform fully to the terms and conditions of the Agreement on the original tender. In the event of rejection by City of the whole of the Software or any part thereof pursuant to the section entitled "Rejection" above, City may, but is not required to, accept any substitute performance from Vendor or engage in subsequent efforts to affect a cure of the original tender by Vendor. 2 11. MAINTENANCE Vendor will provide the standard 3 year limited Kawasaki manufacturer's warranty on the equipment. INDEMNIFICATION Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers, from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of any kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Vendor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the Work or the Vendor's performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability out of the sole negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 12. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS a. This Agreement includes the following documents, which are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof: • Description of Equipment/Sales Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A b. In the event any term or condition of the Agreement Documents conflicts with or is contradictory to any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are controlling. 13. REMEDIES The remedies and rights conferred on the City by this Agreement are in addition to and cumulative with all other remedies and rights accorded the City under law or equity. 14. SURVIVAL OF RERESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES All representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the parties contained in this Agreement shall survive the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. 15. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Vendor shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Vendor shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Vendor to comply with this section. 3 16. ASSIGNMENT The Vendor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties to it and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Upon termination of the Agreement, Vendor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual equipment received. 17. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by any court of final jurisdiction, it is the intent of the parties that all other provisions of this Agreement be construed to remain fully valid, enforceable, and binding on the parties. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Vendor, or Vendor's sub-Contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Vendor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non- contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof or in the business of the Vendor or Vendor's sub-Contractors on this project. Vendor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION; WAIVER This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties, whether oral or written. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement or the Agreement Documents shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the parties. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or the Agreement Documents shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 20. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. 4 Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Vendor: Temecula Motorsports, Inc. Herman Gutierrez 26860 Jefferson Avenue Murrieta, CA 92562 21. EFFECTS OF HEADINGS The subject headings of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not affect or be considered in the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions. 22. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are executed and performed entirely in California. The City and Vendor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 23. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor and has the authority to bind the Vendor to the performance of its obligation hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non-substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non-monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Temecula Motorsports, Inc. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Jerome Gilding, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Trina Gilding, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney VENDOR Temecula Motorsports, Inc. Herman Gutierrez 26860 Jefferson Ave., Murrieta, CA 92562 951-698-4123 951-698-3844 PM Initials:Le Date: 6 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT/SALES AGREEMENT Attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 7 _-A lVJ'OTORSPO/�TS_COM 26860 Jefferson Ave - Murrieta, CA 92562 951-698-4123 - 951-698-4125 fax Sales Agreement / Purchase Order Home/Coll CITY OF TEMECULA FIRE 7601rkritane: 443-5661 -�ne: wo8133699 'eet Arld1 rss: L'nyl5tutr1Y.i1+: 30650 PAUBA RD _ TEMECULA, CA 92592 Cash ❑Check ❑C/C ❑Finance ❑Other sulesn,nn: f r•&I Mngr. Heman 0, 1 "Description of Purchase: Purchase Price Itemization: N w ' r2016 ":—- - - - Base Price 14 673.18 i` KAWASAKI HaglneFreight/PdW 0.00 / _ 50.00 6r}• �- MULE PRO-FXT '�' OdomelOdometer:0 Documentation 80.00 U; Year: VIN: __ _ *Theft;Recovery System 0.00 :r _ engine No�� _ _ Accessories 0.00 del: -Stock No: Odometer. - - — Sub-Total 14 803,18 U. �a<: VIN: _ Total Tax 1,182.25 ke n Engine Na; - - _ _ _ Tire Recycling 7.00 del Stock Na: Odometer. _- Total DMV/Registration 0.00 U. Year. VIN: _ Electronic Filing 0.00 ko Engine No: ❑GAP/E]T&W/El *Theft 0,00 del Stock No: Odometer: *Priority Maintenance 0.00 Description of Trade: Extended Service Contract 0,00 , Color: VIN: Misc/Other 0.00 r@'. Hngino No: _ Installation 0 00 Li dol Payoff` Odometer Total Cash Price 15,992.43 r Color: VIN: Total Trade Value 0.00 ko Engine No; - _ Total Trade Payoff 0.00 del Pnyoff Odometer: -Net Trade Allowance 0.00 Notes/Comments/Special Instructions: Rebate 0.00 Previous Deposit 0.00 Deferred Down Payment Ox. Down Payment 0.00 t-It 11sed alnit�e scald 11As-Is" Total Amount Due 15,992.43 There is a "No Cooling-off Period" alifornia law does not provide for a"cooling-off"or other cancellation period for vehicle lease or r sc contraers."'hcrohre,you cannot later cancel such a contract simply because yc Inged your mind,decide the vehicle costs too much,or wish you had acquired a different vchic iter you sign a tnoto vehicle purchase or lease contract,it may only be canceled with 0 eement of the seller or lessor or for legal cause,such a fi•aud." VC 11709.2 rhe units listed above are for personal use only and not intended for export, ,trnrade Sec.7,GI.128,Slats,2005,Effective Joutrary 1,2006.Operative Juit,1,200 de,or wholesale.All used and Red Sticker units are sold"As-W'. Amended Sec.24,Ch.567,Slats.2006.Effective January 1,200 •Non-Cancelable Produ ter Signature' CITY OF TEMECULA FIRE Date` ,t % The Raynolde and Reynold@ Company FL624406 (1W) 'L7TORSOORTS_ 26860 Jefferson Ave - Murrieta, CA 92562 951-698-4123 - 951-698-4125 fax Sales Agreement / Purchase Or, °er iyer(s)M1Tmi%7 Phone; Work Phone; it xl N: CITY OF TEMECULA FIRE �Horne/Cell 760-443-5661 _ `y 33699 ,eet Address: i:ity6,111ter/,ip: 30650 PAUBA RD TEMEG'CULA, CA 92.592 _ Cash ❑Check ❑C/C ❑Finance ❑Other -Salrsnu(p; P�cl AMgr. Herman G. "Description of Purchase: Purchase Price Itemization; LF.New lWar2o,6 VIN: Base Price _ 14 673.18 ke KAWASAKI Engine No: Freight/ARX 0.00 / 50.00 Ffct- r: MULE MULE PRO-FXT EMILK 0 Documentation 80.00 (f.- - Yenr: VIN:. *Theft Recovery System 0.00 ee � a Engine Na: Accessories 0.00 deP Stock Na OdomNcr: Sub-Total 14,803.18 1J Yeu: VIN: _ Total Tax 1 182.25 .c Engine No: Tire Recycling 7.00 d.t Stock No: Odameler: -- — Total DMV/Registration 0.00 U Year: VIN; Electronic Filing 0.00 ko 6oglna No: ❑GAP/❑T&W/❑ *Theft 0.00 del Stock No: — {Odometer. - 1 *Priority Maintenance 0.00 Description of Trade: Extended Service Contract 0.00 r, color: VIN: Misc/Other 0.00 <o• Engine No: Installation x,00 Payoff; Odometer: Total Cash Price 15,992,43 p; Calor. VIN: -— — — Total Trade Value 0.00 ke Engine No, Total Trade Payoff 0 Oa List- Payoff: Odometer. - •—' Net Trade Allowance 0.00 Notes/Comments/Special Instructions: Rebate 0.00 Previous Deposit 0.00 Deferred Down Payment - w Q.00 Down Payment 0.00 (11 used units are sol II rl Total Amount Due 15 992,43 There is a "No Cooling-off Period" alifornia law docs int provide for a"cooling-off"or oIhe cc au'A,period for vehicle lease or purchase. LLr•,s;::r"ii t,,,:,you.. not later cancel such a contract simply because y( urged ytltR>'.uil�sdr ne ellrll teo mild �wish y 1 had acquired a different vehicle.After you si ar`:motor vehicle puackl +or lease contract,it may only be canceled with tl eellrent of the cr�r lessor or for Icgttse;snch a fr d:` 11709.2 h(unite listed ab nru for porsonal use maty td.lot intended Car ex Amended Sec.7,Ch. l .Slats.2005,Effective January 1,2006.Operative July 1,200 do,or wholesale.All used and Red Sticker unils are sold"As-Is". / 4nwidv,fSec 24,Ch.567,Slats 2006.Effective Jmmmy 1,200 Non-Cancelable Produ f Aa L 1 �4 t � 04/26 forSlgnatura: CITY O A FIRE Dale: Dealer It The Reynolds end Reynolds Company FL624406 Q(li7l Item No . 7 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co. for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PW 12-13 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a Construction Contract to Pavement Coatings Co., in the amount of $233,974.03, for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PW12-13; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $23,397.40, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 3. Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway) is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)fees. BACKGROUND: On September 25, 2012, the City Council awarded an Agreement for consultant services for the preparation of plans and specifications to rehabilitate various sections of roadway throughout the City, including Temecula Parkway between Bedford Court and Pechanga Parkway. On January 26, 2016, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the subject project and authorized staff to solicit construction bids. On April 28, 2016, four bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on the City's online bidding service PlanetBids. The electronic bid results were as follows: No. Bidder Amount 1 Pavement Coatings Co. $233,974.03 2 All American Asphalt $278,890.50 3 R.J. Noble Company $292,984.00 4 American Asphalt South, Inc. $344,387.80 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals, and found Pavement Coatings Co. to be the lowest responsible bidder. Pavement Coatings Co. has public contracting experience, and has completed similar projects for other public agencies in Southern California. The specifications call for a construction duration of sixty working days, which is an approximate duration of three months. The engineer's estimated cost of the project was $395,000. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008, the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within ninety days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway) project involves reconstruction of an existing roadway, and, therefore, the project is exempt from MSHCP fees. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Temecula Parkway (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway) is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2016-20, and is funded with Measure A and General Fund Contributions. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — TEMECULA PARKWAY (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway) PROJECT NO. PW12-13 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 24th day of May, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Pavement Coatings Co., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." WITNESSETH: That City and Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — TEMECULA PARKWAY (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PROJECT NO. PW12-13, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — TEMECULA PARKWAY (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PROJECT NO. PW12-13. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 990 Park Center Drive, Suite E Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-1113 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — TEMECULA PARKWAY (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PROJECT NO. PW12-13. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. 1 The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — TEMECULA PARKWAY (Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway), PROJECT NO. PW12-13. All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by City. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of City or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR DOLLARS AND THREE CENTS ($233,974.03), the total amount of the base bid. Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed sixty (60) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by City. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by City. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS a. Lump Sum Bid Schedule. Before submittal of the first payment request, the Contractor shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the Contractor's payment requests. b. Unit Price Bid Schedule. Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the City, the Contractor shall be paid a sum equal to 95% of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the Contractor filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the City on forms provided by the City. C. Payment for Work Performed. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount 2 stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. d. Payment of Interest. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES/ EXTENSION OF TIME. a. Liquidated Damages. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of $1,000 per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to Contractor. b. Extension of Time. Contractor will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including delays caused by City. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, Contractor shall give written notice to City. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, Contractor shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to City. Contractor's failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute Contractor's waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against City. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the Contractor has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by Contractor of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the City related to the payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or sub-contractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 3 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included), and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred by the City as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The City shall deduct such costs from progress payments or final payments due to the Contractor. The Contractor shall defend and indemnify (including the appointment of competent defense counsel) the City from any claims, demands, legal proceedings, writs of mandate, and the like, initiated by any third parties challenging the award of this Contract to the Contractor. 12. GRATUITIES. Contractor warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to City's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Contractor warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. Contractor further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the City within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, Contractor shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to City. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 4 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or will administer this project shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the Contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the Contractor as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the City addressed as follows: Mailing and Delivery Address: Thomas W. Garcia, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR: Pavement Coatings Co. 10240 San Sevaine Way Jurupa Valley, CA 91752 (714) 826-3011 By: Doug Ford President By: Thomas Mucenski Secretary (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney PM Initials: Date: 6 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-20 W.—C-.t y PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit/Core Value: This project improves pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: A priority list of rehabilitation projects has been developed. Installations are completed on an ongoing basis. Department: Public Works-Account No. 210.165.655 Level: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Project Cost: Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 1,473,958 $ 200,000 $ 270,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 2,583,958 Construction $ 10,947,919 $5,822,639 $ 507,639 $ 652,257 $ 989,600 $ 1,103,525 $ 1,224,384 $ 21,247,963 Construction Engineering $ 125,632 $ 229,127 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,004,759 Design $ 624,563 $ 97,625 $ 150,000 $ 230,000 $ 1,102,188 Totals $ 13,172,072 $6,349,391 $ 977,639 $ 1,192,257 $ 1,299,600 $ 1,413,525 $ 1,534,384 $ 25,938,868 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost General Fund Contributions $ 2,664,345 $4,319,178 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 7,983,523 Measure A $ 10,507,727 $2,030,213 $ 977,639 $ 942,257 $ 1,049,600 $ 1,163,525 $ 1,284,384 $ 17,955,345 Total Funding: $ 13,172,072 $6,349,391 $ 977,639 $ 1,192,257 $ 1,299,600 $ 1,413,525 $ 1,534,384 $ 25,938,868 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 (jeneral Fundon ri u ions include I.b million Tor Pavement ManagementProgram Approved at Midyear on . 59 / J C R.J IT Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-20 CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS Infrastructure/Other Project Project Description: This project includes the design and construction of storm drain improvements on several streets that flood during storm events, as well as replacing the existing cross gutter at Old Town Front Street, north of Temecula Parkway. The storm drain improvements on Old Town Front Street will be constructed in conjunction with the Pavement Rehabilitation project. Benefit I Core Value: This project improves safety and circulation while maintaining the integrity of the streets during inclement weather. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of A Safe and Prepared Community and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The storm drain improvements on Old Town Front Street will be constructed during FY 2015-16. Department: Public Works-Account No. 210.165.715 Level: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Project Cost: Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 168,622 $ 26,238 $ 25,000 $ 219,860 Acquisition $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 Construction $ 456,269 $ 156,927 $ 613,196 Construction Engineering $ 9,030 $ 21,704 $ 30,734 Design $ 42,261 $ 581 $ 42,842 MSHCP $ 4,368 $ 19,132 $ 23,500 Totals $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ - $ $ - $ $ 990,132 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2015 2015-16 Actual Carryover Adopted 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost General un Contributions $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ 990,132 Total Funding: $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 990,132 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 85 THE CITY OF TEMEcuLA Temecula Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation - PW12-13 111` "oldT.&.-N—Opi.=�i." Q� �o / rNFZRD Legend QPt, 13 clty /,/ Streets t E:] Parcels un v_aLL 1pgV p�GNANGp;. CLA�NO �P�� <;y N 0 600 1200 1800 ft. Scale: 1:6,333 Map center: 6292162,2118384 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Item No . 8 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with JTB Supply Company, Inc. for the Purchase of Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Equipment PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer- Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Non- Exclusive Commodity Agreement with JTB Supply Company, Inc., in the amount of $30,000, for the purchase of miscellaneous traffic signal equipment. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of March 22, 2016, the City Council approved a Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement with JTB Supply Company, Inc., in the amount of $60,000, for the Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program — Citywide. The agreement enables the City to purchase Dialight ITE Specification, Light Emitting Diode (LED) traffic signal, and pedestrian indication equipment. JTB Supply Company, Inc. is the only authorized distributor in California of the Dialight ITE Specification LED equipment, which maintains the integrity of similar equipment used by the City. The purpose of this First Amendment is to increase the agreement amount by $30,000 to purchase additional needed equipment. The amendment will bring the total agreement amount to $90,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program — Citywide is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2016-20, and is funded with Development Impact fees (DIF) Traffic Signals. Adequate funds are available in the project account, Account No. 210.165.680.5601, to fund the increase. ATTACHMENT: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMODITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND JTB SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM - CITYWIDE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of May 24, 2016, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and JTB Supply Company, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On March 22, 2016, the City and Vendor entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Non-Exclusive Commodity Agreement for Traffic Signal Equipment Enhancement Program - Citywide," in the amount of$60,000. b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of$30,000, and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 3 of the Agreement entitled "PURCHASE PRICE" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay the Vendor for merchandise ordered and received. The First Amendment amount shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) for a total not to exceed Agreement amount of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) for the total term of the Agreement. Vendor will submit invoices monthly for actual merchandise ordered and received. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth day of each month for merchandise delivered and accepted. Payment will be made within thirty (30) business days following the receipt of invoice to all non- disputed fees. The not to exceed purchase amount listed herein is an estimated expenditure and this Agreement does not guarantee Vendor this amount in purchases. 3. Except for the changes set forth herein all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA JTB SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Michael S. Naggar, Mayor Jeff York, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk Teri York, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR JTB Supply Company, Inc. Attn: Mindy Myers, Sales Administrator 1030 N. Batavia Street, Suite A Orange, CA. 92667 714-639-9498 mindy@jtbsupplyco.com PM Initial Dater 2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No . 9 ACTION MINUTES May 10, 2016 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:36 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 11 Approve the Action Minutes of April 26, 2016 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of April 26, 2016. 12 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Greg and Lauren Stiles dba The Shortstop for Food and Beverage Sales at the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the Board of Directors approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Greg and Lauren Stiles dba The Shortstop for Concession Services at Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park for Fiscal Year 2016-17. 13 Authorize the Purchase of Recycling Receptacles from Quick Crete Products Corporation for City Parks - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the Board of Directors authorize the purchase of 73 concrete cast recycling receptacles from Quick Crete Products Corporation, in the amount of $58,420.45, including applicable tax and shipping charges, for City parks. CSD Action Minutes 051016 1 14 Set Public Hearing to Approve TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2016-17 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:38 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 24, 2016, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 051016 2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BUSINESS Item No . 10 Approvals City Attorney 11 W1, IZVA Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Community Services Director DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Receive and File Responsible Compassion Update (At the Request of the Human Services Adhoc Subcommittee of Mayor Naggar & Mayor Pro Tem Edwards) PREPARED BY: Robin Gilliland, Recreation Supervisor RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file this Responsible Compassion Update. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula Community Services Department in partnership with local non-profits is committed to providing support, services and education to our most vulnerable citizens. In that effort, the Community Services Department along with Community Mission of Hope and the Temecula Pantry offer assistance to homeless and low- income families by providing food, hygiene products, informational resources, and counseling services. The City's support has been invaluable which has led to transformational successes. Temecula Community Pantry The Temecula Community Pantry is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Temecula which has been providing assistance to the Temecula area since 1986. The Pantry provides assistance to low-income families and individuals experiencing homelessness; residents of Temecula/Murrieta are welcome to come to the Pantry regardless of their race, sex, marital status, disability, religion or political affiliation. Food distribution is offered Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 10 am — 12 pm. Community Mission of Hope Community Mission of Hope (CMOH) has provided food boxes, bread, hygiene products, and fresh produce items to hundreds of families and individuals in our community, supplying over two million meals. CMOH seeks to provide responsible compassion to those in need. In addition to providing basic services such as food and hygiene, CMOH will work with each individual and family to help determine the root of their current situation and then will walk with them on a path to self-sufficiency. In partnership with CMOH, thousands of "Responsible Compassion" door hangers were distributed throughout Temecula. These door hangers explained the "do's and don'ts" of helping those in need. CMOH also provides both outreach to those in need and information for the community on Facebook. Temecula Police Department/ Problem Oriented Police (POP) Team The POP Team created an informational Pamphlet as a resource for the homeless community. The pamphlet contains locations, addresses, telephone numbers and hours of operation for numerous locations within the county of Riverside. These locations provide shelter, food, emergency services and cool/warm center information for the less fortunate. Our focus is to provide the less fortunate with an easy information guide to help get them back on their feet. Two officers are assigned to the Homeless Outreach Team who actively seek out and provide counseling and guidance to homeless individuals within the City. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No . 11 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Adopt Development Code Amendment Establishing Performance Standards for Businesses Manufacturing Alcoholic Beverages with Retail Sales and a Tasting Room PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(13)(3) SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: The proposed Development Code amendments would establish use definitions and performance standards for uses involving the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales and tasting rooms, such as breweries, distilleries, and wineries. The proposed zone changes would: 1) allow alcohol beverage manufacturing as a permitted use in the BP and LI Zoning Districts, and as a conditionally permitted use in the SC Zoning District, 2) allow alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment as a conditionally permitted use in the SC, BP and LI Zoning Districts, and 3) allow restaurants with lounge or live entertainment as a conditionally permitted use in the LI Zoning District. BACKGROUND: In September of 2015, staff received preliminary requests from five microbreweries within the City to allow for extended hours of operation of the tasting room, live entertainment, an increase above the 15% maximum floor area for ancillary retail sales/tasting room, and for outdoor patio seating. However, based on the current Municipal Code standards, staff was unable to process these requests because there are no development or performance standards for these types of uses. In response, staff sought input from the Planning Commission on March 16, 2016 and requested the Planning Commission direct staff to continue their research and return with options for a potential Development Code amendment relating to microbreweries. During this same time staff was processing a modification to an approved Conditional Use Permit for one of the existing breweries to expand the manufacturing and tasting room of the establishment. Additionally, staff received preliminary interest for the opening of a micro-distillery with a tasting room within the City. This led staff to pursue a moratorium on the establishment of any new or modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales or a tasting room, until standards could be established. At the April 12, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 16-04, establishing a Citywide moratorium on the approval of new or modification to existing Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in conjunction with a manufacturing use for businesses to sell alcoholic beverages for on-sale consumption, when such CUP is required. Interim Ordinance No. 16-04 took effect immediately upon its adoption and will expire on May 27, 2016. Following the April 12, 2016 City Council meeting, staff continued their research related to alcohol beverage manufacturing uses including how best to define these types of uses, identifying possible security concerns created by these uses, determining whether to recommend limiting the quantity of alcohol that may be served in tasting room, identifying the availability of public transportation that support these uses, studying the parking requirements for these uses, considering the compatibility of these uses with other land uses, and determining appropriate zones where the manufacturing of alcohol with a tasting room may be established. Staff reviewed regulations of the cities of Anaheim, Corona, Murrieta, Riverside, San Marcos, and communities throughout the country, reviewed rules and regulation of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), reviewed professional literature from the American Planning Association on the regulation of small scale alcohol manufacturers, and researched the Brewers Association to identify potential best practices, and worked with the Temecula Police Department, which revealed almost no police activity at any of the microbreweries in town. Ultimately, the complete body of research revealed that the City's code sections pertaining to the regulation microbreweries, wineries, and distilleries, designed to regulate traditional manufacturing uses, do not provide the flexibility required to meet the unique needs of this industry. On May 11, 2016, staff presented their research findings and proposed Municipal Code amendments to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commissioners spoke in favor of the Code amendments; however, stated that the Police and Code Enforcement will need to be vigilant if and when the proposed rules take effect. There was one public speaker who spoke in favor of the code amendments and had a few suggestions for staff. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the application with one Commissioner absent. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Definitions Two new definitions for alcoholic beverage manufacturing uses and tasting rooms are proposed to be added to Chapter 17.34 of the Development Code as follows: "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing" means an establishment that produces or manufactures alcoholic beverages and is licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California. These types of establishments may (1) sell alcohol that is produced or manufactured on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises for On-Sale or Off- Sale consumption, (2) include accessory uses such as tours, specialty dinners, food pairings, retail sales, and/or on-site consumption, and (3) include tasting rooms. Typical uses include breweries, distilleries and wineries. "Tasting Room" means a separate area on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises maintained and operated by and for an alcoholic beverage manufacturer, wherein alcoholic beverages may be sold and served by an employee or designated representative of the alcoholic beverage manufacturer to consumers of legal drinking age for consumption on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. Alcoholic beverages manufactured elsewhere may not be sold in the tasting room or on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. A tasting room is, and at all times shall remain, an ancillary use to the alcoholic beverage manufacturing use." Land Use Categories: Two new land use categories are proposed to be added to Table 17.080.030 of the Development Code; "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing" and "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing with Live Entertainment." Both use categories would include manufacturing facilities for the production of beer, wine, and distilled spirits, in accordance with a valid alcohol production license issued by the State of California. These uses would also allow a "tasting room" which is defined as an accessory use in a brewery, winery, or distillery that only serves beverages produced at that location. Tasting room visitors would be allowed to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises and purchase containers of alcohol for off-site consumption. Land Use Permissions: "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing" would be allowed in the BP and LI zoning districts by right. In the SC zone, a CUP would be required for this land use category. Requiring a CUP in the SC zone will ensure the size and scale of operations will be compatible with surrounding land uses and character of the neighborhood. "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing with Live Entertainment" would be allowed in the LI, BP and SC zoning districts as a conditionally permitted use. Requiring a CUP for this use category would ensure that appropriate conditions are placed on the use for the live entertainment portion of the business. "Restaurant with lounge or live entertainment would be allowed in the LI zoning district with a CUP. Currently restaurants without live entertainment are permitted by right in the LI zoning district, but restaurants with live entertainment are not allowed in the LI zoning district. Allowing restaurants with live entertainment with a CUP establishes consistency within the Municipal Code for these land use categories, and any potential impacts to adjacent land uses would be addressed during the review of the CUP planning application. Performance Standards The proposed Code required operational standards include, but are not limited to, the following: 0 Dispensing of alcohol may occur between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. • On-site alcohol sales shall be limited to product manufactured on-site. • Employees selling or serving alcohol shall go through Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (L.E.A.D) training from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or similar training if available from the Temecula Police Department. • Signs listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted on site. • The retail area (tasting room) shall not exceed 15% of the total floor area of the business. • In addition to the retail area (tasting room), an outdoor patio area may be allowed, but may not exceed 50% of the total allowable retail area. • Businesses will need to meet the parking requirements for the manufacturing, warehousing, office and retail (including any outdoor patio) uses, as set forth in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. • Live entertainment, DJ's, or amplified sound may be allowed indoors only with a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. • A security plan shall be approved by the Temecula Police Department. The security plan shall be formulated to deter loitering, unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, and disturbances to surrounding uses. Based on staff's research, new definitions, use permissions, and performance standards are being proposed that would add certainty, save time, and reduce processing costs for new or expansion of existing manufactures of alcoholic beverages. Explicit definitions and use-specific standards allow the City to proactively address operational concerns, thereby minimizing future conflicts with neighbors while creating certainty for these land use types. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2. May 11, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report 3. Notice of Public Hearing ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(13)(3) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. Staff has been approached by microbreweries that operate in the City about extending their uses and hours of operation of the retail sales and tasting room. Additionally, staff has been approached about the establishment of a microdistillery within the City, which would also include retail sales and a tasting room as part of the facility. A review of the Temecula Municipal Code indicates that existing regulations pertaining to the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages are not geared toward regulating the retail sales and the tasting room portion of these land use types. Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. City staff identified the need to make revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on May 11, 2016 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to provide public comment either in support of or opposition to this matter. C. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of all written and oral comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-14, recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance. D. On May 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, providing an opportunity for the public to comment on this Ordinance. The City Council considered all written and oral comments prior to its adoption of this Ordinance.. E. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the General Plan because the Industrial Park land use designation supports the primary use of alcohol beverage manufacturing. The ancillary tasting room and live entertainment uses complement the primary manufacturing functionality of an alcohol beverage manufacturer. Additionally, retail use in the Industrial Park land use and Light Industrial designations is currently permitted. In the Service Commercial land use/zoning designations, manufacturing uses are permitted in the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan because the Economic Development and Land Use Elements of the General Plan contain goals, policies, programs and guidelines that support the proposed amendments. The Land Use element of the General Plan includes goals and policies that support diverse land uses. The Land Use element also encourages flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations. The proposed amendments support the General Plan's desire to mix uses, and encourage flexible zoning. Land Use Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. Land Use Implementation Program Number Three (LU-3) encourages the review and update of the Development Code to implement mixed uses. The proposed amendments fulfill the LU-3's desire to continuously review and update the code to help implement mixed-use land uses. LU-3 Development Code Update Review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to help implement mixed-use and rural preservation recommendations of the Land Use Element. The Economic Development element also identifies the desire to develop the Temecula Valley as a tourist destination. The proposed amendments support the goals of the Economic Development element's goals and policies by allowing alcohol beverage manufacturers to grow with more certainty and consistency. Consequently, more tourist venues could be available to enhance to overall desirability of Temecula. Economic Development Goal 6 A comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, offering a range of attractions throughout and beyond the Planning Area. Policy 6.2 Support tourism venues, including commercial, recreational, convention, resort, and wine making activities that spotlight the desirability of and bring visitors to the Temecula Valley. C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein because the proposed amendments are allowed in the land-use designations in the General Plan and in conformance with the identified goals, policies, programs and guidelines as identified in the General Plan. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. These proposed amendments add performance standards to an existing allowable use, currently regulated through the issuance of a conditional use permit. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5. Section 17.34.010 of Chapter 17.34 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definitions to read as follows.. "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing" means an establishment that produces or manufactures alcoholic beverages and is licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California. These type of establishments may (1) sell alcohol that is produced or manufactured on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises for On-Sale or Off-Sale consumption, (2) include accessory uses such as tours, specialty dinners, food pairings, retail sales, and/or on-site consumption, and (3) include tasting rooms. Typical uses include breweries, distilleries and wineries. "Tasting Room" means a separate area on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises maintained and operated by and for an alcoholic beverage manufacturer, wherein alcoholic beverages may be sold and served by an employee or designated representative of the alcoholic beverage manufacturer to consumers of legal drinking age for consumption on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. Alcoholic beverages manufactured elsewhere may not be sold in the tasting room or on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. A tasting room is, and at all times shall remain, an ancillary use to the alcoholic beverage manufacturing use." Section 6. Table 17.08.030 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: Add rows titled "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing" and "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment" and revise row titled "Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment" in Table 17.08.030 to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use INCI CC I HTISCIP01 BPI LI A Alcoholic beverage manufacturing - - - C - P P Alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment ' - - - C - C C R Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment ' - C C C - C C Notes: 1. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10 of this code. Section 7. Section 17.10.020.8 of Chapter 17.10 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Subsection 11. Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing" to read as follows: 11. Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing. a. Businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages, which have a tasting room, but do not have a bona fide eating establishment (as defined by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) in conjunction with the manufacturing business, shall shall have the appropriate license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and shall be operated according to all applicable state and local health and safety requirements and regulations. b. All businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which they are located. C. All businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages shall obtain a business license with the City as set forth in Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code. d. Prior to an employee selling or serving alcohol, the alcohol licensee or employer shall ensure that the employee has received Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (L.E.A.D) training from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or similar training if available from the Temecula Police Department. e. An 8.5" x 11" (or larger) sign listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted at a conspicuous location within the building. f. The dispensing of alcohol may occur between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., unless otherwise specified as part of a temporary use permit. g. On-site alcohol sales shall be limited to product manufactured on-site. h. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. i. The retail area, including the tasting room, shall not exceed 15% of the total floor area of the business. The retail area shall not include the area where typical alcoholic beverage manufacturing functions occur. j. In addition to the retail area (tasting room), an outdoor patio area may be allowed, but may not exceed 50% of the total allowable retail area. k. The outdoor patio area must be secured, consistent with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements. I. Signs shall be posted inside the building near the exit door of the tasting room and exit door of the outdoor seating area stating: "No alcohol allowed past this point." M. All alcoholic beverage manufacturing equipment and storage activities shall be located within a completely enclosed building within the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District. n. An alcoholic beverage manufacturing facility shall meet the off-street parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. For the purposes of calculating parking, the brewing areas shall be considered manufacturing, the cold and warm storage areas shall be considered warehousing, office space shall be considered office, and the tasting room and outdoor patio shall be considered retail. o. The display of alcoholic beverages shall not be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. P. There shall be no live entertainment, DJ's, or amplified sound on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises at any time without issuance of a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. q. The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. r. The real property upon which an alcoholic beverage manufacturing use is operated shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within forty eight (48) hours from the time of occurrence. S. Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings that contain an alcoholic beverage manufacturing use shall be illuminated and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises during the hours of darkness as set forth in Section 17.08.070 and 17.24.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code. t. A security plan in a form satisfactory to the Temecula Police Department shall be submitted to and approved by the Temecula Police Department. The security plan shall be formulated to deter loitering, unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to surrounding uses and the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises." Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9. Publication and Posting. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof, to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2016. Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 16- was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 24th day of May, 2016, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 20167 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: May 11, 2016 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Case Planner PROJECT Development Code Performance Standards for businesses SUMMARY: manufacturing alcoholic beverages with retail sales and a tasting room RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 16- recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code establishing definitions and performance standards for uses involving the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales and tasting rooms, such as breweries, distilleries, and wineries and finding that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(B)(3). BACKGROUND SUMMARY Within the last decade, the craft beer industry has seen a dramatic increase in growth nationwide. Since 2010, nine businesses that manufacture craft alcoholic beverages have opened within the City of Temecula. This should not be too surprising to some, given that the Temecula valley is widely known for its wineries and burgeoning "foodie" industry. Nonetheless, current zoning standards are not set up to address this industry type. Alcoholic beverage manufacturing businesses have been classified as a manufacturing use, and only allowed within the zoning districts that allow for manufacturing. However, the retail sales and tasting rooms that accompany these businesses are regulated through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in an ad-hoc fashion. On the other hand, if the alcoholic beverage manufacturing business includes a restaurant, it may be located within any of the commercial zoning districts within the City without requiring a CUP. The proposed Municipal Code Amendment would establish consistent rules for all alcohol manufacturing business within the City of Temecula. In recent months, staff has received preliminary requests from five of the local microbreweries to allow for extended hours of operation of the tasting room, live entertainment, an increase above the 15% maximum floor area for ancillary retail sales, and for outdoor patio seating; however, based on the current Municipal Code standards, staff is unable to process these requests because there are no development or performance standards for these types of uses. In response, staff sought input from the Planning Commission on March 16, 2016. This led staff to pursue a moratorium on the establishment of any new or modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit for the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales or a tasting room, until CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\6D6DAB73-D363-4087-8C64-4394C570DD8B\12691.docx1 standards could be established. Interim Ordinance No. 16-04, establishing the moratorium adopted by the City Council, took effect immediately upon adoption on April 12, 2016 and is set to expire on May 27, 2016. ANALYSIS Since 2010, nine businesses that manufacture alcoholic beverages have opened within the City of Temecula. Of the nine businesses, two manufacture beer and include a bona fide eating establishment (restaurant) in conjunction with the business. Per the City's Municipal Code, a restaurant may serve beer and wine by right and is not required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to serve alcoholic beverages. The on-site alcoholic beverage manufacturing is considered an ancillary use to the restaurant. Additionally, restaurants serving beer and wine may be located within any commercial zoning district within the City and are therefore not affected by this proposed Code amendment. The remaining seven businesses manufacture beer or distilled spirits, offer tastings, and offer retail sales/tasting room, but do not have a restaurant in conjunction with the business. As such, these businesses are required to obtain a CUP for the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages. This is consistent with the current standards within the Temecula Municipal Code, which require that businesses serving alcoholic beverages, other than grocery stores, drug stores, specialty markets, discount/department stores, and restaurants serving beer and wine, obtain a CUP. Businesses that manufacture alcoholic beverages and do not have a restaurant in conjunction with the business are considered a manufacturing use and may be located in the Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) Zoning Districts. And, per the Municipal Code, manufacturing uses may have up to 15% of the total floor area set aside for retail sales of products manufactured on site. The retail area is also referred to as the "tasting room" where alcoholic beverages are served to patrons. Following the March 16, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and April 12, 2016 City Council meeting, staff continued their research related to alcohol beverage manufacturing uses including how best to define these types of uses, identifying possible security concerns created by these uses, determining whether to recommend limiting the quantity of alcohol that may be served in tasting room, identifying the availability of public transportation that support these uses, studying the parking requirements for these uses, considering the compatibility of these uses with other land uses, and determining appropriate zones where the manufacturing of alcohol with a tasting room may be established. Staff worked with the Temecula Police Department, reviewed regulations of the cities of Anaheim, Corona, Murrieta, Riverside, and San Marcos, reviewed rules and regulation of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), reviewed the American Planning Association Planning Advisory - Zoning for Micro-Alcohol Production, and researched the Brewers Association to identify potential best practices. The cities researched include the City of Anaheim, City of Corona, City of Murrieta, City of Riverside, and City of San Marcos. The American Planning Association Planning Advisory included reviews of cities from across the United States. The following summarizes staff's findings: Definitions: Cities that have added specific definitions for small-scale alcoholic beverage manufacturing generally take one of two approaches. They either define brewpubs, microbreweries, microdistilleries, and microwineries as distinct uses, or they define an umbrella term that encompasses multiple types of alcoholic beverage manufacturing facilities. Cities that define distinct uses often rely on a production volume threshold to distinguish between the CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\6D6DAB73-D363-4087-8C64-4394C570DD8B\12691.docx2 "micro" and "conventional" version of a particular use. For microbreweries, 15,000 barrels per year is a common threshold, which corresponds to the American Brewers Association's defined limit for a microbrewery. Newly adopted ABC rules for microdistilleries limit the production to 100,000 gallons per year. There are no ABC rules for microwineries and no production limits for wineries. Cities that define an umbrella term for multiple "micro" facilities tend to focus on operational features over production volume limits. In some instances, this means a square footage limit on facility size or the proportion of a facility that can be used for alcohol production. In other instances, there are no defined size limits, and the use definition simply describes a set of operational characteristics (e.g., alcohol production and sales for on- and off-site consumption). Use Permissions: Typically, cities permit microbreweries, microdistilleries, and microwineries in manufacturing zones by right. In other limited commercial and mixed-use zoning districts, a discretionary permit is typically required. Hours of Operation: Hours of the tasting room vary substantially, but typically range from noon until 9:00 P.M. or 10:00 P.M., with one city allowing alcoholic beverages to be served until 1:00 A.M. The tasting rooms in the existing breweries within the City of Temecula are allowed to serve alcohol until 8:00 P.M. or 9:00 P.M. Transportation Services: Some of the cities researched require, through their municipal code, that these types of businesses post or make available transportation opportunities for patrons. For other cities researched, this requirement may be made as a condition of approval, through a discretionary permit; however, staff was unable to verify this information. For the City of Temecula, if an alcoholic beverage establishment requires a CUP, then it is conditioned to post local transportation service providers and their corresponding telephone numbers. Police Activity: Staff researched police activity at eight establishments within the City of Temecula for the period of January 1, 2014 - March 29, 2016. There was one incident involving tampering of a vehicle at one of the breweries, and five incidents involving petty theft, vandalism and battery at two of the breweries that include restaurants. Parking: Parking requirements vary greatly among cities. Some cities require parking solely based on a manufacturing use, while other cities require parking based on a combination of retail, restaurant, office and manufacturing. Live Entertainment: In all but one of the cities researched, live entertainment is allowed with a conditional use permit. Only one city required a conditional use permit if the live entertainment was conducted on a "regular' basis. Tastings: Only one of the cities researched regulates the size or amount of tastings within their Municipal Code. Their regulations are consistent with the ABC regulations for tasting limits. The ABC allows alcoholic beverage manufacturers to offer free samples of their products; microbreweries are allowed to provide up to eight ounces of beer per person per day, wineries may serve up to three ounces per person per day, and microdistilleries may serve up to 1.5 ounces per person per day. Retail sales are allowed by all alcoholic beverage manufactures per ABC regulations and may have certain restrictions based on the ABC license type issued. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\6D6DAB73-D363-4087-8C64-4394C570DD8B\12691.docx3 Land Use Categories: Two new land use categories and definitions are proposed; "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing" and "Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing with Live Entertainment." Both use categories would include manufacturing facilities for the production of beer, wine, and distilled spirits, in accordance with a valid alcohol production license issued by the State of California. These uses would also allow a "tasting room" which is defined as an accessory use in a brewery, winery, or distillery that only serves beverages produced at that location. Tasting room visitors would be allowed to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises and purchase containers of alcohol for off-site consumption. Additionally, the land use category for "Restaurant with lounge or live entertainment" is proposed to be allowed in the LI zoning district with a CUP. Currently restaurants without live entertainment are permitted by right in the LI zoning district, but restaurants with live entertainment are not permitted in the LI zoning district. Allowing restaurants with live entertainment with a CUP establishes consistency within the Municipal Code for these land use categories. Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing: This land use category would be allowed in the BP and LI zoning districts by right. However, the conditions of approval that are typically added through the CUP process would become standard Code requirements. In the SC zone, a CUP would still be required. Requiring a CUP in the SC zone will ensure the size and scale of operations will be compatible with surrounding land uses and character of the neighborhood. Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing with Live Entertainment: This land use category would be allowed in the LI, BP and SC zoning districts as a conditionally permitted use. Requiring a CUP for this use category would ensure that appropriate conditions are placed on the use for the live entertainment portion of the business. The proposed Code required operational standards include, but are not limited to, the following: • Dispensing of alcohol may occur between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. • On-site alcohol sales shall be limited to product manufactured on-site. • Employees selling or serving alcohol shall go through Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (L.E.A.D) training from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or similar training if available from the Temecula Police Department. • Signs listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted on site. • The retail area (tasting room) shall not exceed 15% of the total floor area of the business. • In addition to the retail area (tasting room), an outdoor patio area may be allowed, but may not exceed 50% of the total allowable retail area. • Businesses will need to meet the parking requirements for the manufacturing, warehousing, office and retail (including any outdoor patio) uses, as set forth in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. • Live entertainment, DJ's, or amplified sound may be allowed indoors only with a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. • A security plan shall be approved by the Temecula Police Department. The security plan shall be formulated to deter loitering, unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, and disturbances to surrounding uses. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\6D6DAB73-D363-4087-8C64-4394C570DD8B\12691.docx4 Parking: Alcoholic beverage manufacturing would be subject to the same parking standards required for a manufacturing use. These standards take into consideration the low number of employees per square foot for the manufacturing and warehousing spaces, and the higher parking ratio requirements for office and retail spaces. Parking for the tasting room or outdoor patio area would be based on the standard for retail uses. Alcoholic beverage manufacturing uses have the option of meeting this requirement on site or through a shared parking arrangement with an adjacent property owner. The proposed Municipal Code amendments will add certainty, save time and reduce processing costs for new or expansion to existing manufactures of alcoholic beverages. Explicit definitions and use-specific standards allow the City to proactively address operational concerns, thereby minimizing future conflicts with neighbors while creating certainty for these land use types. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on May 1, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined the project is exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. These proposed amendments add performance standards to an existing allowable use, currently regulated through the issuance of a conditional use permit. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Resolution No. 16- Draft City Council Ordinance No. 16- CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\6D6DAB73-D363-4087-8C64-4394C570DD8B\12691.docx5 PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(13)(3)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On January 17, 1990, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the City's first Municipal Code. B. Staff identified a need to amend portions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code to establish definitions and performance standards for uses involving the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales and tasting rooms, such as breweries, distilleries, and wineries (Planning Application No. LR16-0097). C. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code on May 11, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to provide public comment either in support or opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of all written and oral comments received, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A." F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. The Planning Commission, in adopting this Resolution, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the General Plan because the Industrial Park land use designation supports the primary use of alcohol beverage manufacturing. The ancillary tasting room and live entertainment uses complement the primary manufacturing functionality of an alcohol beverage manufacturer. Additionally, retail use in the Industrial Park land use and Light Industrial designations is currently permitted. In the Service Commercial land use/zoning designations, manufacturing uses are permitted in the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan because the Economic Development and Land Use Elements of the General Plan contain goals, policies, programs and guidelines that support the proposed amendments. The Land Use element of the General Plan includes goals and policies that support diverse land uses. The Land Use element also encourages flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations. The proposed amendments support the General Plan's desire to mix uses, and encourage flexible zoning. Land Use Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. Land Use Implementation Program Number Three (LU-3) encourages the review and update of the Development Code to implement mixed uses. The proposed amendments fulfill the LU-3's desire to continuously review and update the code to help implement mixed-use land uses. LU-3 Development Code Update Review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to help implement mixed-use and rural preservation recommendations of the Land Use Element. The Economic Development element also identifies the desire to develop the Temecula Valley as a tourist destination. The proposed amendments support the goals of the Economic Development element's goals and policies by allowing alcohol beverage manufacturers to grow with more certainty and consistency. Consequently, more tourist venues could be available to enhance to overall desirability of Temecula. Economic Development Goal 6 A comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, offering a range of attractions throughout and beyond the Planning Area. Policy 6.2 Support tourism venues, including commercial, recreational, convention, resort, and wine making activities that spotlight the desirability of and bring visitors to the Temecula Valley. C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein because the proposed amendments are allowed in the land-use designations in the General Plan and in conformance with the identified goals, policies, programs and guidelines as identified in the General Plan. Section 3. Recommendation of Approval. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled, "An ordinance amending portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code establishing definitions and performance standards for uses involving the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales and tasting rooms, such as breweries, distilleries, and wineries and finding that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3)." Section 4. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed zoning code amendments do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed under the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed code amendments add performance standards to an existing allowable use, currently regulated through the issuance of a conditional use permit. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 11th 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 11 t" day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Secretary DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR USES INVOLVING THE MANUFACTURING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH RETAIL SALES AND TASTING ROOMS, SUCH AS BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND WINERIES AND FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 15061(13)(3) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. Staff has been approached by microbreweries that operate in the City about extending their uses and hours of operation of the retail sales and tasting room. Additionally, staff has been approached about the establishment of a microdistillery within the City, which would also include retail sales and a tasting room as part of the facility. A review of the Temecula Municipal Code indicates that existing regulations pertaining to the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages are not geared toward regulating the retail sales and the tasting room portion of these land use types. Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. City staff identified the need to make revisions and clarifications to portions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on May 11, 2016 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to provide public comment either in support of or opposition to this matter. C. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of all written and oral comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16- , recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance. D. On May 24, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, providing an opportunity for the public to comment on this Ordinance. The City Council considered all written and oral comments prior to its adoption of this Ordinance.. E. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. Further Findings. The City Council, in approving the proposed Ordinance, hereby makes the following additional findings as required by Section 17.01.040 ("Relationship to General Plan") of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are allowed in the land use designations in which the uses are located, as shown on the land use map, or is described in the text of the General Plan because the Industrial Park land use designation supports the primary use of alcohol beverage manufacturing. The ancillary tasting room and live entertainment uses complement the primary manufacturing functionality of an alcohol beverage manufacturer. Additionally, retail use in the Industrial Park land use and Light Industrial designations is currently permitted. In the Service Commercial land use/zoning designations, manufacturing uses are permitted in the General Plan. B. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan because the Economic Development and Land Use Elements of the General Plan contain goals, policies, programs and guidelines that support the proposed amendments. The Land Use element of the General Plan includes goals and policies that support diverse land uses. The Land Use element also encourages flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations. The proposed amendments support the General Plan's desire to mix uses, and encourage flexible zoning. Land Use Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. Land Use Implementation Program Number Three (LU-3) encourages the review and update of the Development Code to implement mixed uses. The proposed amendments fulfill the LU-3's desire to continuously review and update the code to help implement mixed-use land uses. LU-3 Development Code Update Review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the General Plan and to help implement mixed-use and rural preservation recommendations of the Land Use Element. The Economic Development element also identifies the desire to develop the Temecula Valley as a tourist destination. The proposed amendments support the goals of the Economic Development element's goals and policies by allowing alcohol beverage manufacturers to grow with more certainty and consistency. Consequently, more tourist venues could be available to enhance to overall desirability of Temecula. Economic Development Goal 6 A comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, offering a range of attractions throughout and beyond the Planning Area. Policy 6.2 Support tourism venues, including commercial, recreational, convention, resort, and wine making activities that spotlight the desirability of and bring visitors to the Temecula Valley. C. The proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable provisions contained therein because the proposed amendments are allowed in the land-use designations in the General Plan and in conformance with the identified goals, policies, programs and guidelines as identified in the General Plan. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed in accordance with the Temecula Municipal Code. These proposed amendments add performance standards to an existing allowable use, currently regulated through the issuance of a conditional use permit. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5. Section 17.34.010 of Chapter 17.34 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definitions to read as follows: ""Alcoholic beverage manufacturing" means an establishment that produces or manufactures alcoholic beverages and is licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the State of California. These type of establishments may (1) sell alcohol that is produced or manufactured on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises for On-Sale or Off-Sale consumption, (2) include accessory uses such as tours, specialty dinners, food pairings, retail sales, and/or on-site consumption, and (3) include tasting rooms. Typical uses include breweries, distilleries and wineries. "Tasting Room" means a separate area on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises maintained and operated by and for an alcoholic beverage manufacturer, wherein alcoholic beverages may be sold and served by an employee or designated representative of the alcoholic beverage manufacturer to consumers of legal drinking age for consumption on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. Alcoholic beverages manufactured elsewhere may not be sold in the tasting room or on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises. A tasting room is, and at all times shall remain, an ancillary use to the alcoholic beverage manufacturing use." Section 6. Table 17.08.030 of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: Add rows titled "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing" and "Alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment" and revise row titled "Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment" in Table 17.08.030 to read as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use INCICCI HTISCIP01 BPI LI A Alcoholic beverage manufacturing - - - C - P P Alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment - - - C - C C R Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment - C C C - C C Notes: 1. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10 of this code. Section 7. Section 17.10.020.B of Chapter 17.10 of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Subsection 11 . Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing" to read as follows: 11. Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing. a. Businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages, which have a tasting room, but do not have a bona fide eating establishment (as defined by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control) in conjunction with the manufacturing business, shall shall have the appropriate license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and shall be operated according to all applicable state and local health and safety requirements and regulations. b. All businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which they are located. C. All businesses manufacturing alcoholic beverages shall obtain a business license with the City as set forth in Title 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code. d. Prior to an employee selling or serving alcohol, the alcohol licensee or employer shall ensure that the employee has received Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (L.E.A.D) training from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or similar training if available from the Temecula Police Department. e. An 8.5" x 11" (or larger) sign listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted at a conspicuous location within the building. f. The dispensing of alcohol may occur between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., unless otherwise specified as part of a temporary use permit. g. On-site alcohol sales shall be limited to product manufactured on-site. h. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. i. The retail area, including the tasting room, shall not exceed 15% of the total floor area of the business. The retail area shall not include the area where typical alcoholic beverage manufacturing functions occur. j. In addition to the retail area (tasting room), an outdoor patio area may be allowed, but may not exceed 50% of the total allowable retail area. k. The outdoor patio area must be secured, consistent with California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements. I. Signs shall be posted inside the building near the exit door of the tasting room and exit door of the outdoor seating area stating: "No alcohol allowed past this point." M. All alcoholic beverage manufacturing equipment and storage activities shall be located within a completely enclosed building within the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District. n. An alcoholic beverage manufacturing facility shall meet the off-street parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. For the purposes of calculating parking, the brewing areas shall be considered manufacturing, the cold and warm storage areas shall be considered warehousing, office space shall be considered office, and the tasting room and outdoor patio shall be considered retail. o. The display of alcoholic beverages shall not be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. P. There shall be no live entertainment, DJ's, or amplified sound on the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises at any time without issuance of a conditional use permit or temporary use permit. q. The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. r. The real property upon which an alcoholic beverage manufacturing use is operated shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within forty eight (48) hours from the time of occurrence. S. Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings that contain an alcoholic beverage manufacturing use shall be illuminated and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises during the hours of darkness as set forth in Section 17.08.070 and 17.24.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code. t. A security plan in a form satisfactory to the Temecula Police Department shall be submitted to and approved by the Temecula Police Department. The security plan shall be formulated to deter loitering, unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to surrounding uses and the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the alcoholic beverage manufacturer's licensed premises." Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9. Publication and Posting. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof, to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. 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, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 16- was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 24th day of May, 2016, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: LR16-0097 Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Citywide Proposal: City Council review of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-14, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending portions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code establishing definitions and performance standards for uses involving the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages with retail sales and tasting rooms,such as breweries, distilleries,and wineries. The project includes the following proposed zone changes: 1. Alcohol beverage manufacturing as a permitted use in the BP and LI Zoning Districts and as a conditionally permitted use in the SC Zoning District. 2. Alcoholic beverage manufacturing with live entertainment as a conditionally permitted use in the SC, BP and LI Zoning Districts. 3. Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment as a conditionally permitted use in the LI Zoning District. Environmental Action: 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 15061(b)(3)). The proposed zoning code amendments do not result in a significant increase in the intensity or density of any land use above what is currently allowed under the Temecula Municipal Code. The proposed code amendments add performance standards to an existing allowable use, currently regulated through the issuance of a conditional use permit. As such, there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Development Department,41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Dale West, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 693-3918. PLACE OF HEARING City Council Chambers 41000 Main Street Temecula, California DATE OF HEARING May 24, 2016 TIME OF HEARING 7:00 PM Item No . 12 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Approve a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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 PARWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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) BACKGROUND: On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. The Major Modification would also allow for construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot, single-story storage building to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The illustration below indicates the previously approved flight path and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested modification/addition to the approved flight path, along with the proposed interim helistop location and flight path and permanent helistop location and flight path: T —Caltrans Requires Obstruction Lighh on Summerhouse Aparimenl Buildings 1 p,� for[his Flight Path. h*—Hel�stoF /i\ A "enol t pF "h'�pP FAA Required Tree Removal and/or Topping Requires Fish k Came r.. j Permanent Hslls}op Coordination Locallan Map Second Tower Addition L. The purpose of the proposed revisions to the previously approved helistop location is to address comments from the FAA's review of the helistop as described in their "Conditional No Objection" determination letter (attached). The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issuing helistop permits and considers FAA determination letters when considering helistop permit approvals. Therefore, for the hospital to obtain a Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit for the helistop, both FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics conditions and concerns regarding the originally approved site must be addressed or a revised helistop site must be considered. The hospital operator predicts, on average, eight helicopter operations (four arrival and four departure operations) per month, although actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and transport needs for critical care patients. Temecula Valley Hospital has provided flight log data indicating that since the hospital began operations in October, 2013 through March 21, 2016, a total of 186 flight operations (93 arrival and 93 departure operations) related to the hospital have occurred. The maximum number of flight operations in any month occurred in October, 2015, with 16 flight operations (8 arrival and 8 departure operations) during that month. The average number of flight operations since the opening of the hospital is 6.2 flight operations (3.1 arrival and 3.1 departure operations) per month. The data also indicates that 91% of these flights have been for outbound patients. Two percent 2% of the flights were for inbound stroke and heart attack patients and 7% were for training purposes, a canceled flight, and flights for which the destination was either not known or logged. The data also shows that nearly half of these flights (46%) have been for critically ill children needing transport out of Temecula Valley Hospital to either Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego or Children's Hospital LA. In addition, 36% of these flights have been to UCSD Medical Center for various patient needs including intracranial bleeding, stroke, and neurosurgery. Other flights have included two flights to Loma Linda University Medical Center for a rattlesnake bite and for cardiothoracic surgery, and single flights to Riverside Community Hospital, UCLA, Kaiser, Arrowhead, and Balboa Naval Hospital for major pediatric trauma, pediatric cardiology, burn, pediatric respiratory failure. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the previously adopted Final EIR, Supplemental EIR, and EIR Addendum for the Project was prepared for the project. The public review period for the Supplemental EIR was from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. On April 15, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. PA13-0141 for the proposed Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) and recommended by a 4-0-1 vote (Guerriero absent) that the City Council approve the application. The Project was scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 2015; however on July 27, 2015 staff received a letter from attorney Raymond Johnson (representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association) concerning the noise analysis, alternatives analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental EIR prepared for the Project. The City Council continued the item at the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing to allow time for a Recirculated Supplemental EIR to be prepared to address Mr. Johnson's comment letter, and that effort has been completed. The public comment period for the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact report commenced via the State Clearing House on February 8, 2016 and concluded on March 23, 2016. Information regarding helicopter operational noise has been expanded in the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to include five additional sensitive receptor locations, and single-event noise metrics that provide compatibility criteria for the sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity. Additionally, the alternatives analysis was expanded to include an evaluation of a second No Project Alternative (the No Project/Existing Conditions 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 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. Five comment letters were received on the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR and responses to those comments were mailed to the commenters on April 14, 2016. All comment letters and detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached Final Supplemental EIR. Concerns raised in the comment letters focus on the following concerns: • Belief that the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR "leads the reader to believe that noise impact at the interim location are of a "short term"" and statement that "this is inaccurate when there is no assurance that the permanent location will become a reality in the near future". • Belief that "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". The Recirculated Supplemental EIR concluded that "the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. In addition, this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital, including extension of 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 activates that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project, and would hinder achievement of the project objectives. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with the project objective of providing superior, easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner, and the delay caused by the full review and permitting process 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-are facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors." In the area of noise, the Recirculated Supplemental EIR (p. S-10) determined that environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation as a result of substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels as a result of helicopter operations. Therefore, as was the case with the certified 2006 EIR, the Supplemental EIR for the proposed Project includes a statement of overriding considerations for noise impacts for the benefits it provides to the public in the way of emergency medical services as discussed above. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report 2. Resolution — Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit A — Findings in Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring Program 3. Resolution — Major Modification Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 4. Public Correspondence received for May 4, 2016 PC Hearing and responses to comments STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: May 4, 2016 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a SUMMARY: Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary Project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single- story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula Parkway. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council Approve with Conditions CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Section 15163 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. General Plan Professional Office (PO) Designation: Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay-9 (PDO-19) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Hospital North: Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Temecula Parkway, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) East: Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDQ-8 West: PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) 1 Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 35.3 acres 5.0 acres Total Floor Area/Ratio: 0.37 proposed 0.30 minimum/1.0 maximum Landscape Area/Coverage: 33.3% proposed 25.0% minimum BACKGROUND SUMMARY On June 34, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2004 filed PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the Project at the noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 06-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA05-0302), adopted Resolution No. 06-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-06 recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571). On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). Following due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 06-06, amending the General Plan to remove the Project site from the "Z - Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction (PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 to consolidate the Project's eight lots into one lot(PA04-0571). On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. 2 On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether; a gasoline additive) plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact. Report properly addressed. (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.. On July 3, 2007, Universal Health Services, Inc., submitted Planning Application PA07-0198, a General Plan Amendment, PA07-0199, a Zone Change, PA07-0200, a Development Plan, PA07-0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07-0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320-bed hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical office building, 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness center for the 35.3 acre project generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07- 0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution No. 08-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07-0199), adopted Resolution No. 08-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution No. 08-05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDQ-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the Project. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08-10, certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-11 approving the Zone Change (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution 08-12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 3 0202), adopted Resolution 08-13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-0200), and adopted Resolution 48-14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-0201). On December 30, 2009, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., applied for a first Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved Resolution No. 10-08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10-08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval' as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10-08 that in approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need to file for a Major Modification of the entitlements. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the Project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the Project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA10- 0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Fallowing consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-28 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification (PA10-0194) and certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary Project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single-story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. 4 On April 15, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0240) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202) and recommended by a 4-0-1 vote (Guerriero absent) that the City Council approve the application. The Project was scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 2015; however on July 27, 2015 staff received a letter from attorney Raymond Johnson (representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association) concerning the noise analysis, alternatives analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. The City Council continued the item at the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing to allow time for a Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to be prepared to address Mr. Johnson's comment letter, and that effort has been completed. The public comment period for the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact report commenced via the State Clearing House on February 8, 2016 and concluded on March 23, 2015. Information regarding helicopter operational noise has been expanded in the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEiR) to include five additional sensitive receptor locations, and single-event noise metrics that provide compatibility criteria for the sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity. Additionally, the alternatives analysis was expanded to include an evaluation of a second No Project Alternative (the No Project/Existing Conditions 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 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. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases. Phase I of the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned helistop facility in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. As discussed below, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower. The illustration below identifies the approved flight path (black lines) and the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested modification/addition to the approved flight path (blue lines), along with the proposed interim helistop location and flight path (green lines) and permanent helistop location and flight path (red lines): 5 *7V�V ,! —talfrons PngpAF"abstrudion llghh on Summerhouse Aporlmerki OkAdlnps Inw— , p fa this F119M Path. '6I � FAA Required Tree Removal a hVor Topping Require:Fish A Lame k - � Coordrnolion - - --Puma nmf N.Yxfcp i lncwion Akp tt Setup%Tower F Jdds,I+ 1; The FAA reviewed the previously approved helistop and issued a "Conditional No Objection" determination letter (attached). Although the FAA does not specifically approve helistops, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issuing helistop permits and considers FAA determination letters, and resolution of their own concerns when considering helistop permit approvals. Therefore, for the hospital to obtain a Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit for the helistop both FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics conditions and concerns regarding the originally approved site must be addressed or a revised helistop site must be considered. The previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital included environmental analysis for the hospital project and presented the helicopter landing site at a location with a shared approach and departure and a single flight path into and out of the hospital site on the northern side of the Project. However, the approved desigr does not meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations for a second flight path, which would reduce flight hazards primarily resulting from wind patterns due to the fact that helicopter flights into headwinds are safer than flights into side or tail winds. The second flight path suggested by the FAA at the previously approved helistop location; however, would result in helicopter flights being routed directly over homes to the north/northwest of the hospital site (see attached plan reductions). Further, the previous analysis did not address the development of the adjacent Madera Vista apartments; which did not exist at the time of the first release of the Notice of Preparation for the original EIR in 2005. The Madera Vista apartments are located at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road, under the currently approved helistop flight path. As such, to operate the previously approved helistop, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would now require red obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings. Due to the approved helicopter flight path's proximity to the Madera Vista apartment buildings and the FAA's suggested second flight path over the homes located to the north/northwest of the hospital site, as mentioned above, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through 6 the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower. Modifying the previously approved helistop site to meet Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and FAA requirements would result in greater impacts than the proposed Project with regard to aesthetics (rooftop lighting on the Madera Vista apartments) and noise. Furthermore, the Supplemental EIR analyzed an Alternative Interim Helistop Site (p. 4-35) located south of the proposed interim site, closer to Temecula Parkway. The Supplemental EIR concluded that the alternative interim helistop site would result in greater aesthetic and hazard impacts than would occur with the proposed interim helistop location. Safety is also improved with the proposed Project because the approved helistop location's flight path conflicts with prevailing winds for the area, and the request by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in an e-mail dated December 29, 2411 (attached), to rotate the flight path to the south would make this situation worse, while the proposed Project allows for helicopter takeoff and arrival toward the direction of both prevailing winds and typical Santa Ana wind conditions, which is safer than a crosswind condition. Under the proposed Project, the previously approved helistop would be relocated from an area near the northeast corner of the Phase I hospital building to two new locations including an interim location near the northwest corner of future Medical Office Building 2 for use during preliminary Project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. As conditioned by the City Council in the PA10-0194 Major Modification, the applicant is to commence construction of the future hospital tower (hospital bed tower 2) foundation within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1; Certificate of Occupancy obtained from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development [OSHPD] on July 19, 2013), or no later than February 8, 2019. The Modification application also includes an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) that would be constructed at the site of the previously approved helistop identified in the previously approved Project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. The total square footage of all the buildings at build-out of the Project would increase from 566,160 square feet approved in 2011 to 571,160 square feet with the addition of the proposed 5,000 square foot storage. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed project on February 13, 2014, and found the Project to be consistent with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: "1. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-2B, Heliport Design. 3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013. 4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible. 5. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period." It should be noted that medical helicopter flights are currently occurring to and from the Temecula Valley Hospital under approval from the Riverside County Fire Chief. Consistent with the California Public Utilities Code (Section 2662.1), the Riverside County Fire Chief approved Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations as described in the attached letters dated April 23, 2014, March 16, 2015, and March 21, 2016 from the Riverside County Fire Department. As identified in the Supplemental EIR, the hospital operator predicts, on average, eight helicopter operations (four arrival and four departure operations) per month, although actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care patients. Temecula Va.ley Hospital has provided flight log data indicating that since the hospital began operations in October, 2013 through March 21, 2016, a total of 186 flight operations (93 arrival and 93 departure operations) related to the hospital have occurred. The maximum number of flight operations in any month occurred in October, 2015, with 16 flight operations (8 arrival and 8 departure operations) during that month. The average number of flight operations since the opening of the hospital is 6.2 flight operations (3.1 arrival and 3.1 departure operations) per month. The data also indicates that 92% of these flights have been for outbound patients (2 flights, or 4% of the total, were for training purposes and 2 flights, or 4% of the total, were for inbound stroke and heart attack patients), and that nearly half of these flights (4611%) have been for critically ill children needing transport out of Temecula Valley Hospital to either Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego or Children's Hospital LA. In addition, 33 flights (36%) have been to UCSD Medical Center for various patient needs including intracranial bleeding, stroke, and neurosurgery. Other flights have included two flights (2%) to Loma Linda University Medical Center for a rattlesnake bite and for cardiothoracic su'gery, and single flights (1% each) to Riverside Community Hospital, UCLA, Kaiser, Arrowhead, and Balboa claval Hospital for major pediatric trauma, pediatric cardiology, burn, pediatric respiratory failLire. While the Emergency Medical Services landing site meets the short term needs of the hospital and the community, it is important that the hospital include a helistop facility so that aesthetic, hazard, and noise impacts can be minimized and medical helicopter flight safety can be maximized. Further, it is important for the hospital to be able to utilize medical helicopter flights for the following public benefits as provided by Temecula Valley Hospital (as included in attached Temecula Valley Hospital setter): "Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical need for rapid transportation into or out of a hospital are predominantly for the following reasons: • Rapid access to specialty services requiring time-limited treatments such as stroke care. • Access to specialty services only available at a few centers; such as critical pediatric care: trauma and burn services. The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula Va ley Hospital have been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San Diego or another Childre.,-I's Hospital, the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER, speak with the ER physician caring for the patient to appropriately transition care, and then accompanies the critically ill child back to the Children's Hospital. A child's hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get them to the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from TVH [Temecula Valley Hospital] with the best team of providers possible he ps ensure the best possible outcome. Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients who require very spprinlized lifesaving procprJures .;urh as certnin types of hrain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When trying to save a brain that is bleeding or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts. These types of patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to be held up in traffic. They do not have time to spare. In addition to transferring out critical patients; as a STEMI [heart attack] Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital, Temecula Valley Hospital a so receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance, remote access location, or a traffic situation, it is important to be able to transfer patients to Temecula Valley Hospital via helicopter to maximize the opportunity to provide timely lifesaving care. Without a helistop, hospitals address the need for critical care transports through these options: • The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in ground ambulance staffed with paramedics. Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared with a critical care team, thus must cease medications and interventions during transport. Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911 ambulance out of service in the community for an extended time. • An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize critical care ground transport ambulances. There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be delays in availability of this specialty ambulance Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. • Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a remote off-site location such as an airport, park or field. The critical care response team takes a ground ambulance to the hospital to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter for flight out. 9 o This option provides significant enough time delay that it is typically impractical. o This option ties up the local fire department engines because they have to "secure" the off-site landing area and provide ground to air radio communications for safety. This takes the 911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of time. In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not have a helistop care for patients can suffer. Patients in the community do not have rapid access to the specialty services they need, and upon case review their outcomes are affected in an undesirable way. Having a helistop at a hospital provides the community with all potential options to receive rapid access to any care required at a specialty center with no change in the level of care during transport." Site Plan As discussed above, the Project would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, including an interim location near the west side of the hospital site for use during preliminary Project phases and a permanent location on the east end of the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase of the Project (Phase IV). The Project would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot, single-story storage building Oto be constructed in Phase Lb) for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. Access to the site will not change as a result of the Project. Parking for build-out of the Project will increase by three spaces (from 1,278 spaces approved in 2011 to 1,281 spaces as proposed) as a result of three new parking spaces being included adjacent to the proposed storage building. Total parking spaced required by the Temecula Municipal Code for the Project, including the proposed modifications, is 902 spaces, and a total of 1,281 spaces will be provided, thereby exceeding the requirements of the Municipal Code. The approved plans show 512,734 square feet (33.3%) of landscaped area on the hospital site and the proposed plans show 507,734 square feet (33.0%) of landscaped are, which is consistent with the 25% required landscape area per the Municipal Code. Architecture The earth-toned stucco proposed storage building will match the exterior materials and colors of the existing hospital, including a cornice along the roofline on all sides of the building. The proposed building will also include windows (with bronze tinted exterior glazing on the exterior and drywall infill on the interior) on the north, south, and east elevations of the building. The west elevation of the building will face the service yard area of the hospital complex and will include a 10' x 12' roll up service door and a man door. To match the base material on the existing hospital building, the proposed storage building will include an Indian Red stucco wainscot at the base of the building. No changes are proposed to the elevations and architecture for the previously approved buildings on the Project site. 10 Landscaping The landscape plans for the Project have been updated to remove sod from the previously approved helistop site/proposed storage building site and to include landscaping around the proposed storage building consistent with the onsite landscaping, including ground cover, shrubs and trees. Proposed ground cover around the storage building will consist of Prostrate Rosemary, with Deer Grass and Fountain Grass to complement the landscaping on the surrounding hospital site. Crape Myrtle trees will also be provided at this location. The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The Project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33.0% proposed). Access/Circulation No changes are proposed to the previously approved access to the site or to the internal drive lanes for build out of the Project site. Minor revisions to internal drive lanes and the parking area associated with the Phase II Medical Office Building will be necessary to accommodate the interim helistop location at the western side of the hospital site. However, adequate parking to meet Municipal Code requirements will be achieved through all phases of development of the hospital site. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on April 21, 2016 and mailed to the property owners within the required 540-foot radius, thereby addressing legal noticing requirements. In addition, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all residents and property owners of record within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The helistop was included in the hospital Project that was evaluated in the original EIR in 2006, which was certified by the City Council. The 2008 Supplemental EIR, which was also certified by the City Council, further evaluated issues that the Riverside County Superior Court found to be inadequately address in the original 2006 EIR. Environmental impacts related to the helistop were considered to be adequately analyzed in the 2006 EIR by the court and, therefore, were not revisited in the 2008 Supplemental EIR. The 2005 EIR determined that with operation of the helistop, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying (2006 Draft EIR, page 4-59) and concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the previously adopted Final EIR, Supplemental EIR, and EIR Addendum for the Project was prepared for this Modification application. The public review period for the Supplemental EIR was from November 12, 2014 thru December 26, 2014. The Project was scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on July 28, 2015; however on July 27, 2015 staff received a letter from attorney Raymond Johnson (representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowners' Association) concerning the noise analysis, alternatives analysis, Project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project. A decision was made to revise the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to address Mr. Johnson's comment letter, and that 11 effort was completed in February, 2016. The public review period for the revised Supplemental EIR was from February 8, 2016 thru March 28, 2016. Five comment letters (attached) were received on the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR and responses to those comments, which are included in the attached Final Supplemental EIR, were mailed to the commenters on April 14, 2016. Concerns raised in the comment letters focus on the following concerns-- • oncerns:• Belief that the Revised draft Supplemental EIR "leads the reader to believe that noise impact at the interim location are of a "short term"" and statement that "this is inaccurate when there is no assurance that the permanent location will become a reality i-r the near future". • Belief that "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 All comment letters and detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached Final Supplemental EIR. The Recirculated Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed Project concluded that the No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards and similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed Project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and additional or more intense impacts could result that would lot occur from the proposed Project. As a result; the Supplemental EIR (pages 4-15 and 4-16) concluded that the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed Project. The Recirculated Supplemental EIR concluded that "the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. In addition, this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital, including extension of 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 activates that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the proposed project, and would hinder achievement of the project objectives. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with the project objective of providing superior, easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner, and the delay caused by the full review and permitting process 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-are facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors." In the area of noise, the Recirculated Supplemental EIR (p. S-10) determined that environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation as a result of substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and I? exposure of persons to excessive noise levels as a result of helicopter operations. Therefore, as was the case with the certified 2006 EI R, the Supplemental EI R for the proposed Project includes a statement of overriding considerations for noise impacts for the benefits it provides to the public in the way of emergency medical services as discussed above. Noise Exemptions Two important noise exemptions should be noted: 1) Section 9.20.430 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile"; and 2) Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned, the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010.E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07- 0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary 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 13 previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage R diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 9); A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and R City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay(PDC-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed Modification to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels", it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed Project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The Project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. 14 The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Modification to the conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the Modification to the Conditional Use Permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Project for a Conditional Use Permit will be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions PC Resolution —Major Modification to a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Exhibit A — Draft CC Resolution Exhibit B— Draft Conditions of Approval PC Resolution — Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit A— Draft CC Resolution Exhibit B -- Findings in Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit C—Mitigation Monitoring Program Final Recirculated Supplemental EIR Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR Adopted 2006 Final EIR (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request) Adopted 2008 Final Supplemental EIR (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request) Adopted 2011 EIR Addendum (available from City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission letter dated March 4, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013 15 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, 2415 Temecula Valley Hospital letter dated March 9, 2015 Project Overview Information (Provided by Temecula Valley Hospital, March 22, 2016) Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing 16 VICINITY MAP I IN � ►►, ►� i �, Nil lot omit %as go a dam r r 4 e ��/11/11/►1n�►11►�It► . tuts �► 11� �• ° • n r r• ' � *+�� �ltt a +'� 't�1� 1t►itslt� �+► I • 1 . r r a � r � �j y�■ ij: �., PLAN REDUCTIONS +ws 'wye•e . _ �:� Unlvereal HeaHh Services,Int v'ri•'m ran Al� .w w rae Q YrY aawA� ura 0.rr Nun al r YurO F•• �J t'L�� + bllri ura n' IRNER GONSTRUc1NlN C4 Li .rartb Ca �r ruu Nc:ac uu Dus wcweuaa �•a }� 1 l r , sr.DSNW �v. an w 4• _ ar¢ry:Doss �rmm.®r. a • mmr®wo• ovmr. ice "..$ ice,. `e • � � m me-� \ .ate'.. .- ti1Y®e� a v�a rac �� • .rpc nwnaeMuaa us. '. C P ModHl a wtbn ' � RmLrx•ar,: City .�SubmHtal xRre4 s•nwa� "• Xa r_-_ .._._ .._ `r°`wa"ra�`a.mam w•uc � a� i �'. � uo� v.mov.ar UHS T—la Mdkal Cellar �.�.®�»� r mwmm. '~ '•- '� �.� ° � w ieuEcuu c.uzsNz Va r Ll ..�voareIX �.�o��� �v F=.-� " `ss � � '` '�SAtlRt & I �1 ,�, ` ua� •.a r� Dam r l ; �aa.N�rrri.•euA a I Sn wce.l wr.r Des rra Lw acwurcr { � .sire w.r.are a,r y' �• r rr.r ''"a'. � MITI-ITU s a r•.*i ':,... w'"aye u-oaoo r�� ° - �r.r n•wn • �r Fr +m ••vr N66nowa`i.mIXIXa mm.w.a •,N� '..1 L° f; j o cu;m o>m•.aa %�Y t� a wary -,i G*owERcr �" I■ I rFw"`04RT*L0 fQ wr®uwcimn. __ ,y y. 1 I L E G E N D I xmw ra•¢w snmy ww e-.. r w aim � 1 i � iYx — � �` — ,� { r { n v>tx�mL Na ❑ amie•o•� ro it 'CsleL _ w m.m. •ri•, sn>nrc No and z: or _ e rrl inrew>m L 1201 240' SITE PLAN lEreECULA ------ mr————— sr N.r...r"'°..—rM ..�^...r•^.raraY«a.r, a r+....�.�r....� st �.•� VICINITY MAP SITE PLAN A A.01 + `• I G.U.P.MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 5 R l+.Y.MAlpent+H•. !1lrMa+nwfc lYr W16M. Us Un1vuaa1fM¢1M SYIYICp. ,p lb.l 50 4i x 5 t S + f Al IJ L3L .rs - N + •'>� "MCI. ��rry�!swF. � � CLG S I�L1l � � ]� � � � � � 9 LLE:I 4 '!� '�^•� ♦�.v... WEST MVAMON ..sne,.ev.crww, •!! wn+.w.x.glvnt- ,�, /� J -�-4 11 . C,u,P,NodlXcatlen ® OHM °� , . !�.•. ..5 Chy Subm Mal - 70 i I1H5'fMNGEIA LIa9�al Genter EAST ELEVATION .., ••w+..w.wc..r lrcw�.ar rra.rlw.•.•: ,. 1 ,f,».'riuprr a'•w.P '". �rca.,w.cn sr�x ` tid ��w.rw,•w�awwr m,r.,ww..u,..y+.... r..N.xd.,. N•AKi•w:�,};lfl� 'y r(y.lµ.nliM n•iW fl rna 4 •`6; {Y' c ', 11-4 IE C rw41 iAy T T _I T fir-— t�Y.rc �� Ycc�Sy^Lflµtfr l, 5IX Yglwi +'� H S+nr .1"0"'S ..- t -Z IlliIiiii1t 1w SOUTH ELEVATION(PHASE 7) .?'�ru+.s,a.:•...:,a�wx:a a. NORTH ELEVATION ^"'!;,'"'•" ,'"'•.r.-° .,:.,;r,,,li>t SAk:.+r .r Ixl„uf r,. yf�aaw�'mpf wn,a..,•n.,w •f++:�94'+KIi iPW'1 r.w:•Ilww,r.uo-r .,. :I _ a c D. LI LI 1 now _ '5.,w..i.— C.U.P.MAXR MOO SUBMITTu 5 I MCArchrt,,U KEYNOTES r NOTES Co❑A LEVEL 61 9 cunni,m wm. ce+�ro r.>•.t renc :nu�! im Enb1FC,.rrsPlru w...�m- ssewEr� i��wior,ww. ro..�a.A, �aauzwPgws rTP - uoMCRnu�oK ow,wRu M4Gn. prcMnu HFA:ox.l,Mlrnl A�.lF�n E°wnaWAi �. pnx+I[mTESxwnaWs} /Ar1Pf}\FGIiKW WW t , S>�PPxfn.�TM1rrcx lery� t 1— r' T71 (RD 1 I I d EE DA3EE OA EAST r CSlfTli F fpPPAWq[T rfAP11N'PET� Px�.v^.s�'niK Y .06� EMN wu'�0.4Ar+\•*.aY — - ,.ppP� �rr \,— COL�aroPusttq 576 V Rn RP! � SRV'AW 0.�8rtN RpTl�1 .fu V I - � I I EEM WEFT 5 EE OA.WRTH er.i .PAO'R57FLOOR-PIAN •••,W— PrtIe4mNnram CSD W,w.owxwaa n. �•,..e..••-.= rREissuARv DESIGN E HMCA,hitects )LAN FIR —— — —— KEYNOTES HIGH-� — - l� T i~ - eft - — 71 'x71' -22 t MNOTES PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN 2 r 71'x71 ' - PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ' PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION PLAN -PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN t A2 Q °"lmeq •,�n,.ea.�... ... �� PrrEuaxNARY©s=sscN c 23C Feet and ��f X8(/1 !� •� � / - m a Faarear SITE a Caltrans Requires Obstruction Lights Q f- on Summerhouse Apartment Buildings i Interim HePistap 1-���+.y for this Flight Path. '. �~` ' / �nvl h} 4�roygd EflUES7FIA *[` 1, v 5 t qp, _ 73a11 ! l ', } 40, r I �0 - � 9 IY FAA Required Tree Removal and/or 5 =; Topping Requires Fish & Game Coordination Permanent Helistop v� Location Atop Second Tower Addifian 7—ecula Valley Hospital FieYstvp SEAR-1J0&52 SOLfACF•F:eiplanners F911fC 2-4 Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Hetistop LocaUons r I ! K Y h 0 ! 9 K 1 it r r \ r IT � � r' •�� 4i `gyp, • \ t � } a�,vnZLY , e�wa tram f/ `� ..�+;.• "v wa�.�e..w.� .i � ,^'j j ,�iC r!�I I ✓�� �I �` :�.R.w:..,cma .���' .ems. w rnt v-..!.arta c 4FDWMETER .yam nes / v • �_ sato• �� I J�F J,, �re.. �� mwwau fI p�r,�•,,,ws� -..rt`�\ ( •- - J •c'' �.�".x ///I' X/J+1i a-vrx \ 'P L \ / w. art osw o ar. . rS J. •' ..ccv,• •rs• rd" cu+n�aari \ ,,. / :, Bev cr to 1. f cw mm KADO warn[ r X"a:` "" °{�°°"�" j.r�i _ / :�l Vis. ,F �a� r spsEn nr�a• .a� - K..sa SITZ LAYOUT L HELIPORT DETAIL - — HEiiPOR7 DATA PANEL -- wa. INTERIM HELIPORT TO HE io •+.v c�e�•trr Y v� - REMOVED UPON CCHYIPLETIDN ro' r• k.n. ... a.r OF PERMANENT HELIPORT nw.+ •wr+ t,`,w;- --- - —�. — - ,,:•,:--- - - ON FUTURE BED TOWER ems" j r.vo ,r< X141:1/ atv..t u.c w�r� 'we-ocoA Sar v rx Ai. cee .r c t. M2, C%Z r..=7 W. Ila �• t1 LEC-END SOUTHWEST ELEVATION --- +l "" a-haw[vat^�:.r+'+u] •gym-wrx - _ r5 THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE.AND AGENCY APPROVALS ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. T'JrF cewMw.urnr Gs n..w,r w...•wa.i w,.-xvt . - wwc. Heli «.,_..w..... . CaWcfon�a t+.�w wu - rrb W9�1Ci_ - °"'a�:�2 5737.Crz�al9t'P_Ci - 702.StlYN SN'f��GlL_— _ W+ !p. ;.rc .taeY a.rr. �� nwre .�- �•• bi..�L-L a..•f?u±-u AwCUP"Hgnran L,'pft,5u'lPrrPs a.,t^� —�-.�^;.��-S,.FZEir � r•..of s,.,..s m rpn g VICINITY MAP a.r..e.�•e Do- '�""�- �aw sa:.uai a rw�er rwwa+xnrr waimi r °'cm ra�9 9a"v,..�r,e•rr ® ,twos w.w tu°x,�e rs cw.,�.u..+,x. aw ossa-�.e_. ra�,+u� r�rv. r sty.weo t � eravmdt _ a•a.s.ere wa�..a +-'t#s1��.7ut3 w,�-s�v..w»' rv.ax nh nm HYbw�wcwt ries ya. (9;!69]-SG2 a e � .. w .. � Y r ,. e u •. v � 1 J TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR universal Health Services,Inc REVISED HELIPAD LOCATION ""° " `° °'°-0"° Kl'gtf'"G"'°"p°" Klnof Pr-ala,PA 10806 T 810 188 3300 _ "Lt�gruv U9)tot�e�;� mw�p Saf0 faun to]m aon - 1CR10�T Irl Zt ansa vc a[rr INDEX MAP MAP aarawonw �"f s 4 �PDRT A COAD 4 , °F/cai'cw'P LtLNERAesawv�.wrovO - — iU s v�arrvr o .-aAsss,abx _ . Temecula Medical �'L>E7 iL AT Rl�it .. � s +oA exrmraw n<a.• Center o Temecula,CA. PUEBLO-RD •, 1 1 <a-urxn+nous ov ee aurzn c — — — 6-� ATIIYAAPl TEWCIA A PARKiNAY I ffi S n y �� SC1LE t-.20 0 200 4m 6Gb m U I -lPi-Si.rr-.y8p Iyg�i S k _ -YAM M9M!I Y+t I* wz. aas>.c w•rws oar rsuos see la]we. e « o.,y r ay o-:«ar wM,.er CITY OF TEMECULA °rP,a rsl o;Pwa l w°ry a a•• TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL s o kccloa oa Puai c woaKs�c rr cNc rvccP PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR SCE rv° a°[ ♦Yt°° f - O REVISED HELIPAD LOCATION Yn t tl 1 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 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07- 0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEVA 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. hat:A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS'): filed Planning Application No. PA04-0402, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 fled PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Rcad, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). g. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA°). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-084-007 THROUGH 959-084-014 (PA04-4462, PA45-4342, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2447, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 1.2, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-044 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 (PA07-02070). 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 PA44-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-0180-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public gearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRfDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201 , PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA_ The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011 , the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Fallowing 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 pubic 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 reguaar 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 plan and by Section 17.04.010.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City, The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare, The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately b,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1),- "A );"A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development' (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels", it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile"and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDC}-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The Modification to the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the Modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the "Project"). A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B_ Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the °Project'), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2613, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2613, 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 gearing 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 CEOA; (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 Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 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 740 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-480-925, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-4141, 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, 2916. 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, 2015, 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 NOW HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-025) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DUES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that. A. Can June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (°UHS'), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Plarined Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ('Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (`CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. 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 Feld a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH; APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-0011 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project,. the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA`). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for Cumulative traffic.: impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Courts 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 704 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, 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 PA04-4571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public gearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRfDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 041 THROUGH 959-480-004 AND 959-084-007 THROUGH 959-080-014 (PA07-0198, PA07-0193, 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. ll. 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 regu°ar 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. QO. 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 (PDC]-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1),- "A );"A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3)' and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EiR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels", it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile"and the Supplemental EiR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 29662.4.(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 29662.4.(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 (PDD-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 Conditicnal Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the ("Project"): A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR') for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR') for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the "Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis: alternatives 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, 2015. 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 SFE&R, 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 Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department cf 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. 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 Planning Application No.: PA 13-0141 Project Description: UHS Helistop Major Modification: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PAD7-0200) and Conditional Use Permit(PA07-0202)for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700 Temecula Parkway. Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-026 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial/Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Quimby Category: NA(Non-Residential Project) Approval Date: May 25, 2016 Expiration Date: May 24, 2018 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Plann-ng Division a cashiers 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 agreeto indemnify, protect, hold harmless,and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims; actions; awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action;or proceeding to which this cordtion 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. 5. 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 P anning 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. tenter 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 ownerto 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 be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 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 aoproved by the Director of Community Development. 20. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 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 mod fy 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. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 23. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 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 Section of the Grading Plan: ::If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonab y necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource. the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 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 Pec hanga 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 Plan: `No grubbing/clearing of the site shall cccur prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. 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 be made by a qualified biologist." 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. 35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan,or as amerded 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 stating, `Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 154 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 38. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 39. "later 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 maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond.' The apolicantlowner shall contact the Planning D-vision 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. 45. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened frorr public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot dear 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 Flans. 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 ofthe permanent helistop prorto 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 Develooment. 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. 58. 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 permits) 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 plans) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction-phase pollution-prevention controls to adequately address non-permitted runoff_ Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www-cityofte mec u la.org/Temecula/Government/P u bl i cWorks/e ng i n eerin gco n strna n u a l.ht m 50. 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. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number, and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboarcis.ca.gov/water_issues/programs./stormwater/construction.shtrnl 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.cityofte mecu la.org/Temecula/Government/P u bl i cWorks/W Q M Pa nd N P D E S/WQM P. 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. Asoils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 65. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer-of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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 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 ligating 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 ENTITLED "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)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (`UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Rcad, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (`CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2405, 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 15, 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. L Fallowing consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0453 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0402, PA05-0802, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2005, 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, 2406, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, untilthe City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (`CEQA'). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also geld that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources. (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Courts decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007- & On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan); PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan= and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled `A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc_, filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental I m pact 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 (PA07-4202) 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 adapted 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 regu:ar 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 Valley Hospital (the `Project"). A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (:'FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the `Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website_ G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission 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 Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Section 3. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the 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. Section 4 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. 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, 2044, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (`UHS'), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment, on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel. Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Rcad: known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.. including the California Environmental Quality Act (`CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2405, 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. 1. Fallowing consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0402, PA05-0802, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (`CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that. (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts_ P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources, (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Courts 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 Generali Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan= and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc_, filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental I m pact 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 (PA07-4202) 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 fetter 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 . inding: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, 2015, 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,ct 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. 8. 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 Hclistop 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. 1 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 Determine(] 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 o f 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; (1~) 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(NDP) of Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the praject. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On December 11,2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(()(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. 2 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)(I),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(TLQF)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 proiect 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 3 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 Sopport 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 1555,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 arca 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 4 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 Sienificant Level in the SUR 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 5 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(x)(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.(kl0) 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-evcnt 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 6 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(FVC) 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 7 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 CFQA 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 8 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 arc: 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. 9 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) I 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 I 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 l location for the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Upon completion of Phase 11,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 11. 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 arc 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€hc 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 10 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; 11 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(c)). 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 docs 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 ProjectiExisting 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 12 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 Projectll?xisting 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 comer 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 ProiectlCity-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 Hclistop 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 13 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 ProjectlCity-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 AIternative 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 Altemative 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 14 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 S, which are located furthest away from the alternative interim helistop cast/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 cast/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 15 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 Hclistop 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 16 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 pcdcstrian 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 94.9 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 100.9 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 nonresidential 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 futly satisfy 17 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 northeastlsouthwcst 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 18 surgery patient rooms throughout the tower,the emergency department,pharmacy, and kitchen areas. ■ A fuellwater separator would need to be installed on the rooftop,the ere 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. herefore,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. 19 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. 20 TABLE i COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Future Tower No Project/ No Project/City- Location as Impact Proposed Existing Approved Alternative Interim Helistop Existing Hospital Category Project Condition Project Interim Site Site Roof Helistop Site: Aesthetics Less than Fewer Greater Greater Greater Fewer Significant Hazards Less than Greater Greater Greater, Potentially Greater Similar Significant Significant Noise Significant and Similar or greater, Similar or fewer, Fewer, but Similar. Significant Greater Unavoidable Significant and but Significant Significant and and Unavoidable construction and Unavoidable and Unavoidable Unavoidable fewer operations, but Significant and Unavoidable Meets the Yes Yes, but not to the Yes,but not to the Would not fully Would not fully Yes, but not to the project same extent as the same extent as the meet project meet project same extent as the objectives proposed project proposed project objectives related objectives related to proposed project. in regards to in regards to to hospital hospital operations as it would be hazards and access routes and operations and and compatibility of disruptive to compatibility with hazards compatibility of development existing hospital adjacent development related to aesthetics operations development related to aesthetics and hazards and hazards 21 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 or 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 22 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 23 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 unavoidablc environmental impacts. 24 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Impact Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Noise Mitigation Measure N0I-1.Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing Ongoing Temecula Valley City of Temecula Field verification helicopter operations at the interim helistop,the Temecula Valley Hospital Hospital Building Official and sign-off by shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: or other City of Temecula • Prior to helicopter operations,Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop designee 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 wanking group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1 ESA 130652 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2016 FINAL RECIRCULATE❑ SUPPLEMENTAL EIR TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for April 2016 City of Temecula r r, i TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for April 2016 City of Temecula LSA 550 Alest C street Suite 750 San Raga,CA 02101 619.719,4200 www.esassooMm Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Spdngs Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Santa Monica Ssattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130652 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Recirculated Final sEIR Pace 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Use of the Recirculated Final EIR and the CEQA Process....................................1-2 1.3 Method of Organization...........................................................................................1-3 1.4 Focus of Comments................................................................................................1-3 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................1-4 2. Response to Comments ................................................................................................2-1 Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse.....................................................................................2-3 Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse.........................................................2-5 Letter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Comm ssion.......................................2-6 Response to Letter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission........ 2-10 Letter A: Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians..................................................................... 2-12 Response to Letter A: Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians......................................... 2-13 Letter B: Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.................................................................... 2-14 Response to Letter B: Soboba Band of Luiseno 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 3.1 Changes to the Recirculated ©raft SEIR................................................................3-1 Tables Table '-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................1-5 Table 2-1: List of Comments Received.................................................................................2-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project I ESA?130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 SEIR to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Major Modification. 1 .1 Background On November 12, 2014,the City of Temecula(the lead agency)released the Draft SE1R for a 45- day review period and comment period,which closed 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 the project vicinity. Additionally, the alternatives analysis was expanded to include an evaluation of second No Project Alternative (the No Proj ect!Exi sting 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 Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ESA t 130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 response to the Recirculated Draft SEIR, five comment 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 document that must be considered by decision makers before approving or denying the proposed Major Modification. The Recirculated Draft SEIR and Response to Comments constitute the Recirculated Final SEIR for the proposed project. As specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Recirculated Final SEIR consists of: a) The Recirculated Draft SEIR 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 the lead agency. CEQA Guidelines Section 15004 states that before the approval of any project subject to CEQA,1 the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this case,prior to approval of the proposed Major Modification the City must consider the Recirculated Final SEIR. 1 .2 Use of the Recirculated Final EIR and the CEQA Process The Recirculated Final SEIR allows the public an opportunity to review any revisions to the Recirculated Draft SMR, 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 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Recirculated Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; t The word"approval"is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean"the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person..."In addition,the CEQA Guidelines state that"[wlith private projects,approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract,grant,subsidy.,loan, or other form of financial assistance,lease,pennit,license,certificate,or other entitlement for use of the project." Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Prated 1-2 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 Cnrtdelines,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 significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings(Findings of Fact)for each of those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are_ (1) Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final 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 provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. 1 .3 Method of Organization This Recirculated Final SEIR for the proposed Major Modification contains 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 individuals that submitted written comments on the Recirculated Draft SEIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 2 also includes a copy of each written comment letter,and a written response to each comment. 1 .4 Focus of Comments Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft environmental document,which include: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-3 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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(x)and 15204(c) of the CE,QA Guidelines further state: (a) In reviewing draft EIRs,persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time,reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue,the severity of its likely environmental impacts,and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers,as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts,reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064,an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(f)of the CE Q.4 Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency may submit proposed mitigation measures,limited to the resources subject to the statutory authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference materials. 1 .5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions,environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3,Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the Recirculated Draft SEIR. Project impacts,recommended mitigation measures,and level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-1. Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-4 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 1.Introduction TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact after Mitigation Aesthetics Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts, Hazards Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards impacts. Noise Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Mitigation Measure NOH:Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing helicopter Significant and unavoidable Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and operations at the interim helistop,the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels 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. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-5 ESA 1130652 Recirculated Final supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 2016 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.Five comment 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 these comments. A summary of the comments is provided below in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Letter Alpha Agency/Commenter Date of Letter Environmental Issues SCH State Clearinghouse February 6,2016 s None ALUC Riverside County March 4,2016 s Airport Land Use Plan Compatibility Airport Land Use Commission A Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians February 9,2016 . Cultural Resources B Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians March 22,2016 . Cultural Resources C Johnson&Sedlack March 23,2016 s Noise and Alternatives Attorneys at Law The responses to comments to the letters received 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 Guidelines Section 15089.5(b). Regarding recirculation of the Recirculated Draft SEIR, C-EQA Guidelines Section 15098.5, 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(CFQ,4 Guidelines,Section 15098.5). In summary,significant new information consists of. (l)disclosure of a new significant impact;(2)disclosure of substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact;(3)disclosure of feasible project alternative or Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-1 ESA!130652 Final Supplemental Erwironmental Impact Report April 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 so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded(C'EQA 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 SEIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate SEIR((`EQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-2 ESA!130652 Recimulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 STATE OF CALIFORNIA T. Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Edmund G.Brown Jr. Ken'Alex Governor Director March 22,2{115 Letter: 5CH StuartFisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Subject: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification(PA13-01.41) SCH#: 2013121007 Dear Stuart Fisk: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental ETR to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on March 21,2016,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date, This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOR 3044 SACRAWL,NTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(9160 445-6813 FAX(916)323.3018 www.opnea.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCFE# 2013121007 Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification(PA13-0141) Lead Agency Temecuia,City of Type SIR Supplemental EIR Description The proposed project would relocate the previously approved hospital helistop to two new locations, an interim ground level location that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower,during a later phase of hospital development. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a one-story 5,000 sf storage building that would provide storage space for non-hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies,stock for the hospital,and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 sf storage building,the total sf of hospital facility would increase to 571,160 sf(from the 566,160 sf facility that was approved in 2010). Lead Agency Contact Name Stuart Fisk Agency City of Temecula Phone 951 506 5159 Fax email Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Lal/Long 33'28'57.35"N 1117°6'20.76"W Cross Streets Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road Parcel No. 920-100-004 -13 Township Range Section Base SB Proximity to: Highways 115,SR 79 Airports Railways Waterways Temecula Creek Schools Sparkman ES Land Use Hospital facility;Zoned: Planned Development Overlay-9(PDO-9); GPD: Professional Office(PO) Project Issues Other Issues;Aesthetic/Visual; Noise Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Wildlife,Region 6;Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;Caltrans,Disfrict 8;Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 02/05/2016 Startof Review 02/0512016 End of Review 03121/2016 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency, 2.Response to Comments Response to Latter SGH: State Clearinghouse This is a form that comes from the State Clearinghouse in response to environmental documents that have been submitted to the agency for distribution. SCH-1 This form provides the dates of public review and comment and lists the state agencies that reviewed the environmental document. In addition, the form acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA.No further response is necessary. Temecula Valley Hospital Melistop ProJBct 2-5 ESA 113©652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 ETR Thank you for providing the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)with a copy of the Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR and a CD of the document relating to relocation of a previously approved hospital heliport. The proposed "major modification" evaluated includes both "an interim ground level location"and a "permanent location [that would be] constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower." The interim heliport analyzed in the document appears to be at the site evaluated by ALUC in early 2014. On February 13,2014,ALUC found City of Temecula Case No. PA13-0141, a proposal to establish an interim heliport consisting of a 48-foot diameter Touchdown and Liftoff Area on a ground mounted concrete landing 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, consistent with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to five conditions (see attached computer copy of letter). However, the finding of consistency only applied to the interim helistop, as evaluated in the project noise study. Subsequent ALUC review will be required for the permanent helistop. It was felt that known activity levels at the interim helistop will allow for a more precise projection of activity revels i (and hence noise) at the permanent helistop. No single-event noise analysis was provided to the ALUC for the interim helistop, but such analysis should be conducted in conjunction with review of the permanent helistop. From: Stuart Fisk [mailto:Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2015 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.flskCcbc tyofternecula.orq 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 The 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. These conclusions follow logically from the evidence presented. As noted below,the consistency determination issued by ALUC in 2014 was for the interim helistop. The permanent helistop should be reviewed by ALUC prior to the City's discretionary approval of that facility. Both single-event and CNEL noise levels are provided in the noise analysis of this revised SEIR, but the single-event noise information was not available at the time ALUC made its decision regarding the interim helistop. From: Guerin, John [mailto:]GUERINCMrctlma.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:41 AM To: Stuart Fisk; Jeff Wright (ieffwrightCa)hellplanners.com) Cc: Cooper, Ed; Santos, Barbara Subject: RE: Notice of Completion of a Recirculated Draft Supplemental EIR - Interim vis-a-vis Permanent Helistop Since CALTRANS Aeronautics would also need to issue a permit for the permanent helistop,we do not object to the City moving forward with the environmental document, provided that the Major Modification approval is subject to the conditions ALUC already applied to the interim helistop, plus an additional condition requiring ALUC review of the permanent helistop prior to its approval by CALTRANS Aeronautics and its installation, and providing for ALUC's conditions on that permanent helistop to be incorporated into any subsequent permits that the City may issue to implement the actions of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Letter: ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHAIR March 4, 2014 Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planrer VICE CHAIRMAN City of Temecula Planning Department Rod Ballance 41000 Main Street Riverside Temecula, CA 92590 COMMISSIONERS RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Arthur Butler File No.: ZAP1054FV13 Riverside Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) John Lyon APN: 959-080-026 Riverside Dear Mr. Fisk: Gien 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 helisto p), consisting of a 48-foot diameter Richard Stewart (1,808 square foot)Touchdown and Liftoff(TLOF)Area on a ground mounted concrete landing Moreno valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings,within an 87-foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16-foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of STAFF Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola Director Road, CONSISTENT with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Ed Cooper Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: .John Guerin Russell Brady Barbara Santos 'CONDITIONS: Couniy Admmi table Center 4060 Lemon St,1411 Floor. 1 No operations takeoffs or landin s shall be conducted until such time as the State of Rverside,GA 92501 p ( g ) (951)955-5132 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through MW.rcduc 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-213, 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 commerts regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given qua�terly 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(9 51)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 (a pplicant)(site address) Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) .teff Wright (representative) DPRITurner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff 11Sfo-file011projects\LAX113xxxx1D130652.00-Temecula Heliport Supplemental EIR103 Working Documents\Final Recirculated SEIRIComments Received\Bracketed\ALUC Attachment.doc 2 Z.Response to Comments Response to Latter ALUC: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission This email communication between the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the City discusses compatibility with the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and includes the ALUC's 2014 Finding of Consistency for the proposed interim helistop as an attachment. ALUC-1 Comment: This comment states 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 several conditions. As provided on the attachment to the email communication the 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 helistop in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-2B, Heliport Design • Operation of the helistop pursuant to FAA recommendations and requirements • Minimization of helicopter idling time The comment also states 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,the comment states that the 2014 finding of consistency only applied to the interim helistop,and that the permanent helistop will require subsequent review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Response: The project as proposed is consistent with the conditions listed 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,and Caltrans 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 are be 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 in Section 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-10 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 the Riverside County ALUC in regards to review of the permanent helistop and has conditioned the permanent helistop to return to the ALUC to seek a compatibility determination with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,such as was found for the interim helistop on February 13,2014.The City's condition requires the compatibility determination prior to the permanent helistop's approval by Caltrans Aeronautics and prior to commencement of its installation. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop PFOOCt 2-11 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 Letter: A RINCON BAND OF LUISESO INDIANS ogt�,�,►�r Cultural Resources De arttnent �a y I W. Tribal Road - Valley Center, Califol-ilia 92082 ,s (760) 297-2635 Fax:(760) 741-2619 ac iti x February 9,2016 Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Re: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistap Major Modification Dear Mr. Fisk: This letter is written on behall'of Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians. We Have received your notification regarding the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Magor Modification Prajeet and we thank you for the continued consultation notification. The location you have identified is within the "Territory of the Luiseno people. 1 Embedded in the Luiseno Territory are Rincon's history,culture and identity. The project is within the 1xisetio Aboriginal Territory of the Luise)"o people but,is not within Rinc:on's Historic Boundaries. We do not have any additional information regarding this project but, we defer to the Pechanga Rand of Luiseno Indians or Soboba Baud of Luiseno Indians who are closer to your project area. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely, - } 1 Vincent Whipple Manager Rincon Cultural Resources Department Bo Mazzetti Stephanie Spencer Steve Stallings Laurie E.GoruaMz Alfons)Kolb Tribal Chairman Vice ClIM woman cmmcii Member ComcilMembLr Council Member 2.Response to Comments Response to Latter ►A: Rinoon Band of Luiseno Indians This letter comes from the Rineon Band of Luiseno Indians and discusses the potential of the tribe to have cultural resources within the project site. A-1 Comment: This comment states that the project location is within the territory of the Luiseno people but is not within Rincon's historic boundaries,and thus the commenter defers to the Pcchanga or Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians who are closer to the project area. Response: The comment does not discuss the environmental issues or analysis within the Recirculated Draft SEIR; thus, no further response is necessary. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-13 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 Letter: B OF Wlst�C7 March 22,2016 m r 0 Attn: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner t City of Temecula Community Development, Planning Division 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 ESL JUNE 19,1883 RE: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification—31700 Temecula Parkway The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians appreciates your observance of Tribal Cultural Resources and their preservation in your project. The information provided to us on said projects)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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Phone (951) 654-5544 ext.4137 Cell(951) 663-5279 j ontiverosLci)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 Luiscno Indians. 2.Response to Comments Response to Latter B: Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians This letter comes from the Soboba Band of Luisefio Indians and discusses the potential of the tribe to have cultural resources within the project site.. B-1 Comment: 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 they defer to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, who are in closer proximity to the project site. Response: The project site has been under construction for numerous years; since approval of the hospital project by the City in 2009. The City has ongoing communication with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians regarding projects within the City,and will continue the appropriate consultation with the Pechanga tribe, as they are closest to the project site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-15 ESA!130652 Recimulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 Letter: C Johnson Sedlack A T T 0 R N F Y S ,- 1. Ate' Raymond W.Johnson,Esq.,AICP 26785 Camino Scco,Tcmccula,CA 92590 E nza;F. 1;ay@SoCa10EQA.com Carl T.Sedlack,Esq.,Retired Abigail A.Smith,Esq. Ahhy@SoCaICEQA.cam Kimberly FQy,Esq. Kim(gDSQCaICEQA.corn Kendall Holbrook,Esq. KendaU@SoCaICrQA.com Telephone- (951)506-9925 Facsimile: (951)505-9725 March 23, 2016 Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityofternecula.org VIA U.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: On behalf of Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association ("Los Ranchitos"), 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 to come, Los Ranchitos is deeply concerned that residents will be subjected to loud helicopter noise on a Lang-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 associated with the "interim" location will, in fact, be"temporary." RDSEIR, p. 2-2 Letter: C March 23,2016 Page 2 states: "Operation of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur in 2022, consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval (PA 10-0194 Condition No. 27, requiring applicant to commence construction of the future hospital tower(bed tower 2) foundation contemplated in Phase 1V 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." Consequently, assuming the interim location begins operation in year 2016, noise impacts will be significant at that location for at least six years until the permanent 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 a"short term" nature; 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's 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) 147 Cal.App.01 5 87, 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 23,20I6 Page 3 substantially less than under the Interim Location. Noise impacts at Site 2--a home within the Los Ranchitos community—would also be substantially less. 5ee RDSEIR pp. 4-34 –35_ This alternative is feasible. For instance, any of the true project alternatives 2 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 improvement 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 significant improvements. Id. The discussion on p. 4-43 even 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? 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, f R o nsonDEsqCAICP, LEED Green Associate J NSON SELAK 2.Response to Comments Response to Letter C: Johnson & Sedlack Attorneys at Lave This letter expresses concern about the long-term noise impacts on the Los Ranchitos community and suggests an alternative site farther away from the Los Ranchitos community and closer to Highway 79. C-1 Comment: This comment states that the Recirculated Draft SEIR provides little assurance that impacts associated with the "interim" location will, 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 2-2 of 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-1 to 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,the building is proposed to be a one-story building(as described in the Recirculated Draft SEIR on page 2-1) and would not result in any airspace obstruction-clearance constraints for the permanent heliport 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 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,which will be done prior to the permanent heli stop's approval by Caltrans Aeronautics and prior to Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-19 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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), the Recirculated Draft SEIR does not limit its analysis to temporary short-term effects but instead fully evaluates the interim hclistop'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 SEIR describes both the anticipated short-term and unanticipated potential long-term impacts of the interim helistop. C-2 Comment: This comment summarizes the alternatives analysis of the Recirculated Draft SEIR and states that 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 related the interim helistop location to the Los Ranchitos community and equestrian trail.The comment asserts that 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 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 than by 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 Santa Ana wind conditions. Further,the helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 2 fewer receptor locations in Santa Ana wind conditions. 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 unavoidable noise impacts 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 cast/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 cast/west Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-20 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights along Temecula Parkway and would be surrounded by a 5-foot-tall security fence that would be visible to travelers along Temecula Parkway. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project's less- than-significant impacts. 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 is the 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 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 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 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. 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(winds generated from the helicopter)could also impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety on sidewalks along Temecula Parkway. Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-21 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 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 pedestrian paths (such as would be done by the alternative interim helistop site),and would not result in the potential for hazards that could occur from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path. Overall, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result 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. Although noise impacts to the Los Ranchitos community and the equestrian trail under the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than by the proposed project,the alternative does not substantially lessen or avoid significant noise impacts. Thus,pursuant to CEQA Section 15126.6 and Public Resources Code Section 21002, the Alternative 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 hazard impacts than would not occur by the proposed project. C-3 Comment: This comment states that Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative reduces operational noise impacts at many receptor locations.The comment states that the conclusion 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 improvements in noise conditions under the Future Tower Location Alternative and that Sites 3 and 7 would not.The comment 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 majority of receiver locations,and further asserts Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-22 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 2016 2.Response to Comments that it is environmentally superior to the proposed project and has 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 Hclistop 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.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 Hclistop Site Alternative) and Table 3.3-9 (single-event noise levels from the interim helistop)shows that Receptor Sites 1,2,6A, 613, 6C(the three sites along the equestrian trail),and 9,would experience lower maximum noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Hclistop 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 Iocated 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. Overall,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. Furthermore,as described in Section 4.0,Alternatives,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Iocation at the future tower site could 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-23 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 2016 2.Response to Comments permanent helistop(on the roof of the new tower)would be utilized.Therefore, under this alternative the Los Ranchitos community and 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 within the Recirculated Draft SEIR,it does 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 locations of 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 page 4-43, 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 the Recirculated 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 would result 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 the Recirculated 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 the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight 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 cast 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 of obstruction clearance conflicts would 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 crossing Temecula Parkway, the parking lot,and the main hospital access road to land or take off from this interim helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. This helicopter activity would be a low-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians, bicycles and vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway,parking lot,and Temecula Parkway, 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 path could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-24 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Apri12016 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 Hclistop 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 hazard impacts 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 Alternative and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative discussed in Response to Comment C-2,above,would not substantially reduce or avoid significant and unavoidable noise impacts and would result in additional aesthetics and hazards impacts that would not occur from the proposed project. Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-25 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 2016 CHAPTER 3 E rrata This errata includes edits to the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Draft SEIR) for the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project. Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information,nor do they alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. This errata has been prepared in response to public comments received on the Recirculated Draft SEIR. Additional editorial changes that have been initiated by City staff are hereby incorporated. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than identified and addressed in the Recirculated Draft SEIR. Revisions to the Recirculated Draft.SEIR are shown below as excerpts from the Recirculated Draft SEIR text.Added or modified text is underlined(example ,while deleted text will have a strike out(exan Ae)through the text. In conformance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines,this errata,combined with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,Response to Comments,and the Recirculated Draft SEIR comprise the Recirculated Final SEIR, and are intended to serve as documents that will inform the decision-makers and the public of environmental effects of the project. 3.1 Changes to Recirculated Draft SEIR Text Section 4.8, Future Tower Location as interim Helistop Alternative;page 4-43, first sentence in the third paragraph. "+he this-4alternative Iinterim#helistop flight path," Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3-1 ESA/130652 Recirculated Final supplemental Environmental Impact Report April 2016 DRAFT RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL EIR TEM ECU LA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for February 2016 City of Temecula in wM:- 1 - M 11 40 ii TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Recirculated Graft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for February 2016 City of Temecula LSA 65o west c Street Sults?50 San D ego,CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoo.com Irvine Los Angeles Oaldand CXanao Palm Springs Patalu-na Portland Sacramento Sart Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hllls 130852 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Daae ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................S-1 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary....................... ------......------------.........1-2 1.2 Project Background.................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Environmental Review............................................................................................1-4 1.4 Purpose of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report....................................1-8 1.5 Organization of the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.....1-9 1.6 Public Involvement and Review of the Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ....................... 1-10 2. Project Description.........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Objectives...................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics...............................................................2-5 2.4 Proposed Major Modification ..................................................................................2-7 2.5 Discretionary Approvals............................... ....................................................... 2-17 2.6 Cumulative Projects............................................................................................. 2-18 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................... - 3.2 Hazards ............ ................. 3.2-1 3.3 Noise ................................................................................................................-- 3.3-1 4. Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts......................................................................4-2 4.3 Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated ....................................................................4-3 4.4 Project Objectives............. ................................................................-..4-7 4.5 No Project/Existing Condition Alternative..............................................................4-8 4.6 No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative................................................... 4-16 4.7 Alternative Interim Helistop Site...........................................................................4-24 4.8 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative ................................ 4-36 4.9 Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative ............................................. 4-45 4.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................................4-53 5. References ......................................................................................................................5-1 6. List of Preparers.............................................................................................................6-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project I ESA±130652' Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Fehr nary 2016 Table or Contents P�{ae Appendix A: FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and Riverside County ALUC Correspondence List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map ................................................................. --------2-6 2-2 Project Vicinity Map....................................................................................................2-8 2-3 Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location..........................2-9 2-4 Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations....................... 2-10 2-5 Helistop Design Characteristics..............................................................................2-15 2-6 Hospital Storage Building Elevations......................................................................2-16 2-7 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................ 2-21 3.3-1 Effects of Noise on People.................................................................................... 3.3-3 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................... 3.3-8 3.3-3 Interim Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions .... 3.3-20 3.3-4 Interim Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions..... 3.3-21 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions............................................................................. .......... ............... 3.3-22 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions........................................................................................................ 3.3-24 3.3-7 CNEL Contours for Interim Helistop Location...................................................... 3.3-27 3.3-8 CNEL Contours for Permanent Helistop Location............................................... 3.3-28 4-1 City Approved Helistop- CNEL Contours.............................................................. 4-12 4-2 City Approved Site East-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions ....................................................................... 4-17 4-3 City Approved Site West-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions..... 4-18 4-4 Alternative Interim Helistop Site..............................................................................4-25 4-5 Alternative Interim Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions ..........................................................................................................4-27 4-6 Alternative Interim Helistop - South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions........................................................................................... 4-28 4-7 Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours........................................................... 4-32 4-8 Alternative Interim Helistop CNEL Contours........................................................... 4-41 4-9 CNEL Contours for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative ............... 4-49 List of Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............................5-10 2-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area .............................................. 2-19 3.3-1 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements ............................................ 3.3-7 3.3-2 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL)........................................................ 3.3-10 3.3-3 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix....................................... 3.3-11 3.3-4 City of Temecula Land Use Maximum Noise Level Standards........................... 3.3-14 3.3-5 City of Temecula Municipal Code NoiselLand Use Compatibility Matrix............. 3.3-15 3.3-6 Helicopter Operation Times of Day (CNEL)......................................................... 3.3-19 3.3-7 EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages- Interim Location............. 3.3-23 3.3-8 EC-135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages- Permanent Location ...... 3.3-23 3.3-9 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Interim Helistop.............................................. 3.3-29 3.3-10 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Permanent Helistop....................................... 3.3-30 3.3-11 Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the Interim Site................ 3.3-32 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project !I ESA?130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Table of Contents Page List of Tables (cont.) 3.3-12 Existing Ambient Noise and Location Point Noise for the Permanent Site ......... 3.3-32 3,3-13 Helicopter CNEL Noise for Sites 6 through 9 ...................................................... 3.3-33 4-1 Existing Ambient CNEL Measurements and helicopter CNEL Noise from the City Approved Site................................................................... _..4-13 4-2 Single-Event noise Levels from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative...... 4-14 4-3 Single-Event Noise Levels— No ProjectlCity-Approved Helistop Alternative......... 4-22 4-4 Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Alternative InterimSite........................................................................................................ . 4-33 4-5 Single-Event Noise for the Alternative Interim Site Alternative .............................. 4-34 4-6 Existing Ambient CNEL Noise and Helicopter Noise from the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative ..........................................................4-42 4-7 Single-Event Noise Levels— Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative...........................................................................................................4-43 4-8 Single-Event Noise Levels for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative.......................................... ....................................4-50 4-9 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives and the Proposed Project......................... 4-54 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project III ESA?130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Acronyms Used in this Report AC Advisory Circular ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amsl above mean sea level CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel DHS California Department of Health Services EIR Environmental Impact Report EMS Emergency Medical Services FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation PATO final approach and takeoff area FHWA Federal Highway Administration HZ Hertz HVAC heating,ventilation, and air conditioning INM Integrated Noise Model Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MSL mean sea level NOP Notice of Preparation OSHPD California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development PDO Planned Development Overlay SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TLOF touchdown and liftoff area UCSD University of California San Diego UHS Universal Health Services,Inc. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project IV ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases; Phase I of the hospital began operations on October 14,2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations,safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously City-approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase.The previously City-approved helistop location would be developed with a new single-story 5,000-square-foot storage building that would be used to store non-hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed storage building,the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet(from the 566,160-square-foot facility that was approved in 2010).The change in location of the helistop site,the proposed storage building,and the potential impacts related to those changes to the project description, are reviewed in this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(RDSEIR-2016) to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the revised project. This section provides a summary of the RDSIIR-2016. The reader should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed Major Modification and its potential environmental consequences. 5.2 California Environmental Quality Act Documentation History of the Hospital Project The City of Temecula previously approved development and operation of the hospital through certification of an EIR in 2006. A Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2008 and an Addendum to the Supplemental.EIR was prepared in 2010. Currently,the hospital is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the City-approved helistop and construct a 5,000-squarc- fovt storage building. These components of change to the approved hospital project require additional.California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) documentation. Because the proposed Major Modification is limited to specific facilities and operations of the hospital that include: the helistop,helicopter flight paths,and construction and operation of a small storage facility; and no other components or operations of the hospital project would change,a new SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjW S-1 ESA t DI 30652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary An SEIR is a document that provides additional information to make the previous E1R 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 Cl QA 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_Iisk@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. SA 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 ofa 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-2 ESh 1❑130652 Recirculatec Craft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary With buildout of the hospital project,the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower, which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east of the main hospital entrance. [ince the permanent helistop is operational,the interim helistop would be removed. The two helistop locations,the interim and the permanent, would each have two flight paths and are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. Operation of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur during Phase IV in 2022, consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval(PA 10-0194), 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.a Project Objectives City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and project area,as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR, are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula_ • Provide for a regional hospital campus,including a hospital facility,medical offices, cancer center,and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility. • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services. • Support development of biomedical,research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base, • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping,the location of access routes,noise impacts,traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions, • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light,visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-3 ESA t DI 30652 Reciroulatec gait Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) for the proposed projcct,as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR, are to: ■ Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services,with. outpatient care,rehabilitation, and medical offices. • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the City-approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically,the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior, easily accessible,operationally efficient,state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the protect objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise,hazards, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital. It would also be architecturally consistent with the main hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible development between the project site and surrounding uses. S.6 Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this Draft Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Through preparation of an Initial Study (included as Appendix A),the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment,and that preparation of a CEQA analysis document is necessary to evaluate potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics,hazards, and noise,and that all other CEQA-related environmental topic areas would not be impacted,such that new or substantially more severe impacts could occur beyond what was identified in previous CEQA documents. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-4 ESA t DI 30652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary The analysis contained in this CEQA document uses the words"significant"and"less than significant"in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section. As required by CEQA,mitigation measures have been included to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts,even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified as "significant unavoidable impacts."A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures,and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S-1 of this Executive Summary. Less-than-Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures, all impacts related to aesthetics and hazards were found to be less than significant. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b)requires a discussion of any significant impacts that "cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented." Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3,the following issue areas would have significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of project mitigation measures(see Section 3.3 for details): • Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards • Substantial Periodic Increases in Noise • Cumulative Noise Feasible mitigation has been required. However,flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity to reduce noise impacts because the California's Public Utilities Code(PUC) 'Section 21662.4 states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level. Accordingly, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes,and impacts related to generation of noise in excess of applicable standards, substantial temporary and periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulative noise impacts from short-term noise events from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. As this is the case,a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. It should be noted that the previous CEQA documentation for development and operation of the overall hospital project,also identified significant and unavoidable noise impacts. Therefore,the noise findings of this RDSEIR-2016 are consistent with previous CEQA findings. S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternatives for the hospital helistop. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project,the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be"governed by a Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-5 ESA 1 DI 30652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice"(Section 15126.6[a]).The following alternatives are examined in this RDSEIR- 2016. No ProjectlExisting Condition Alternative The hospital currently uses the ground surface at the City-approved helistop site (located near the northeast corner of the site)as an Emergency Medical Services(EMS)landing site when necessary. To ensure safety during EMS medical helicopter operations,the hospital and City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments have outlined parameters for helicopter use of this location. The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that this existing condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition,none of the required implementation measures,such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path,adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital,which would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also not be developed. No ProjectlCity-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 Altemativc 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 polcs along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjW S-6 ESA!6139652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC], Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the interim helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. The flight paths for this helistop site would be the same the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop and would be consistent with the applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies (Riverside County ALUC,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA).Development of the future hospital tower will occur in Phase IV of the hospital project. To allow for construction of the future hospital tower, the helistop would need to be temporarily relocated to the proposed interim helistop site,which would require all construction activities proposed for the interim site. After completion of the future hospital tower,the permanent helistop(on the roof of the new tower)would be operational and the interim location that would be used during construction of the new tower would be removed. This alternative would include development of the storage building,as proposed. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative The Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building.A similar northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used by the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies(Riverside County ALUC,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). Because the additional mass from the helistop and helicopter would be substantial relative to the existing roof mass, seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC}. In particular,the existing hospital building was designed and constructed in compliance with 2007 CBC requirements.Building modifications under this alternative would be required to comply with either the 2013 CBC or the CBC in place when building permits are issued. Currently, the 2013 CBC regulations are mandated,which are more stringent in terms of seismic requirements than the 2007 CBC. The 2013 CBC requires the following improvements to support a helistop on the roof of the existing hospital: • Gravity Support Modifications: (1)Existing roof beams of the hospital structure would be required to be strengthened by adding cover plates or tees welded to the underside of the beams; (2)Connections of the affected beams would need to be strengthened by supplemental fillet welding;and(3) Approximately eight existing building columns would need to be strengthened with cover plates from the ground up to the roof. This structural work,involving walls, floors and ceilings from the ground floor up to the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProjW S-7 ESA!6139652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary ceiling,would impact the following areas/systems within the hospital building for the duration of construction: a. First FIoor: 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. c. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof. • File Foundation Modifications; The existing pile foundations of the hospital structure would need to be strengthened with additional piles. As with the gravity support work, this structural work would impact the first-floor kitchen,main housekeeping,pharmacy, and the only service corridor during construction. • Framing Modifications: The existing moment frames and braced frames would need to be strengthened as a result of the increase in seismic loading. Likewise,the pile foundation supporting the existing seismic bracing system would need to be strengthened with additional piles. This structural work would impact medical surgery patient rooms throughout the tower and the first-floor emergency department,pharmacy,and kitchen areas. In addition to the CBC-required improvements,a fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop,the fire-suppression system of the hospital would be required to undergo substantial upgrades,and the existing rooftop heating,ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAC} system may need to be replaced. insufficient separation between the HVAC intakes and helicopter engine exhaust could create harmful air quality conditions within the hospital. Should insufficient separation exist,the hospital would need to modify or replace the HVAC units with advanced carbon filtration and ionization systems. This would require an increase in air handler fan size to increase static air pressure. Construction of the above-listed improvements could take approximately 16 months,depending on the strategy chosen for facility operations,during which time the affected areas would be significantly disrupted and/or unusable. Areas outside of the hospital, which are nearby or underneath construction equipment(such as cranes),would also be unusable,which would affect hospital operations. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) ofthe CEQA Guidelines requires that an SEER identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis within this section,the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.The Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer aesthetics impacts, similar hazards impacts,greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise (particularly,at the interim helistop)impacts. However,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-8 ESA t DI 30652 Reciroulatec gait Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executnre Summary Alternative would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to exceedance of noise standards,substantial periodic increases in noise,and cumulative noise from operation of the helistop. The other alternatives that are evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016 would result in greater impacts than would occur by the proposed interim helistop location, and/or would not substantially reduce the significant unavoidable noise impacts related to the project. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However,this alternative would require substantiat improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital that would result in substantial operational impacts to the hospital during the 16 months that the improvements would be implemented,which would not occur by the proposed project. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with project objectives, including providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient,state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors,providing for superior,easily accessible emergency medical services,and ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 5-9 ESA t DI 30652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Executive Summary TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Impact after Mitigation Aesthetics Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts, Hazards Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards impacts. Noise Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing helicopter Significant and unavoidable Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and operations at the interim helistop, the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels. 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 Huspilal. Pilots would be instructed in lire 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. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Projea S-10 ESA 1 D130652 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter provides an introduction and describes the background of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Hclistop 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(ETR) (2006), previously certified Supplemental EIR(SEIR) (2008),previously certified Addendum to the SEIR(2010),and the Draft SEIR from 2014. The California Environmental Quatity Act(CEQA)requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects or programs. Where there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,the agency shall prepare an EIR(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[a]). An EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project,identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects,and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. In this case, an SEIR(2014)was prepared to evaluate the change in the location of the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop that was previously approved by the City under separate CEQA documentation. CEQA requires that a Draft EIR(or Draft SEIR)be prepared and circulated for public review. Following the close of the public review period, the lead agency prepares a Final EIR(or in this case a Final RSEIR),which includes the comments received during the review period(either verbatim or in summary), and responses to the significant environmental issues identified in those comments. Prior to taking action on a proposed project,the lead agency must certify the SEIR and make certain findings. A lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR(Draft SEIR),prior to certification,when "significant new information"is added after the public review period begins(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).New information is deemed significant if it reveals any of the following: ■ A new significant environmental impact resulting from either the project itself or a new proposed mitigation measure. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project -t ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project,but the project proponent declines to adopt it. • The Draft EIR was so fundamentally flawed that it precluded meaningful public review and comment. In addition,a lead agency may choose to recirculate a Draft EIR(or Draft SEIR)if additional studies or analysis is conducted for a project before a specific action is taken by the Lead Agency to approve a project. Public notice and circulation of the Recirculated SEIR(RSEIR) is required, per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15086 and 15087. Pursuant to comments received during the public review and comment period, additional analysis of the proposed project has been conducted and additional information is available. As a result, the City of Temecula has chosen to include the additional information,analysis,and editorial changes into the SEIR, and recirculate the document. 1 .1 Summary The Temecula Valley Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project applicant proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations,safety factors,and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously City-approved helistop to two new locations: an interim helistop location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent helistop location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during Phase IV. The previously City-approved interim helistop location would be developed with a one-story, 5,000-square-foot storage building that would provide storage space for nonhazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock" for the hospital,and linens.With the addition of the proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet(from the 566,160-square-Foot facility that was approved in 2008).The change in location of the helistop site, the construction and operation of the storage facility, and the potential impacts related to those project changes are reviewed in this RDSEIR- 2016 to determine if any additional environmental impacts would result from the revised project. 1 .2 Project Background An EIR was prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital project that was certified by the City of Temecula (City)in January 2006. In February 2006,a legal challenge to the hospital project was filed on the grounds that the EIR was inadequate, which resulted in a ruling that found that the EIR did not adequately address several areas, and that the City failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In response, the City prepared an SEIR,pursuant to the court's direction,that was certified in 2008. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-2 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction In 2011,the project applicant,Universal Health Services,Inc. (UHS) filed a planning application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1, modify the building facades,relocate the truck-loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment. An Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR was prepared and adopted by the City in February 2011.Additionally, in July 2012,a conservation casement was approved to satisfy the off-site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by development of the hospital. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on Monday,October 14,2013.Use of helicopters to transport emergency patients to and from the hospital is part of the planned hospital services; the hospital currently uses the City-approved helistop site as an Emergency Medical Services(EMS) landing site,when necessary, which is allowable under state regulations related to medical transport(California Code of Regulations [CCR),Title 21, Section 3527(g)). The existing City- approved landing site is located on the northern side of the existing hospital structure and has a shared approach and departure that consists of a single flight path into and out of the hospital site. The City-approved helistop has not completed the full approval process with the Riverside Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, or the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA),and has not been developed. Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review,but required the single flight path to be rotated clockwise (approximately 36 degrees)to clear the Madera Vista apartments that are located next to the hospital to the east (on the northwest corner of Dartolo Road and Margarita Road),or that red obstruction lights be installed on the multi-family buildings. The rotated flight path would result in potentially hazardous near crosswind conditions for pilots on approach or dcparture. In addition, the FAA reviewed the City-approved helistop site and requires several conditions,including the addition of a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and removing or trimming the height of trees that are located within a drainage adjacent to the hospital.Any work in the drainage area, including tree trimming or removal, would require approvals and/or permits from county,state, and federal resource agencies. The City and hospital determined that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and FAA's conditions were unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter flights on approach or departure. As a result,the interim helistop facility has been redesigned and the applicant undertook a site selection process to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. This process resulted in the "proposed interim helistop site."Because construction of the hospital project is phased,two helistop locations would be developed: one interim and one permanent location.When the permanent helistop is operational,the interim helistop would be removed. The proposed interim helistop site was submitted to the FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Riverside County ALUC for review. In response, the FAA provided an airspace determination letter,which stated that the FAA analysis determined that the proposed helistop is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and use of the helistop would not adversely Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-3 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction affect the safe and efficient use of airspace. The FAA letter concluded that it does not object to the proposed helistop(FAA, 2013). Also, on February 13,2014,the Riverside County ALUC found that the proposed helistop is consistent with the countywide policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In addition,on June 12,2013, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics signed and stamped a Heliport Layout Plan granting "Conditional Plan Approval"for the proposed helistop(a formal application package cannot be submitted to Caltrans Aeronautics until the City of Temecula approves the project). All three of these letters are provided in Appendix A. 1 .3 Environmental Review The following provides a history and timeline of the environmental documentation that has been prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital. January 2006 Environmental impact Report UHS filed planning applications in 2004 and 2005 for a General Plan Amendment(PA04-0462); Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and Development Plan (PA04-0463); a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-41571);and a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9) (PA05-0302)to develop and operate the regional hospital facility. This included the following: • A General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 overlay from the General Plan Land.Use Map,which limited the height of buildings along Temecula Parkway to two stories,and the Professional Office General Plan land use designation from the site. • A Zone Change from Professional Office and De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay(PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay(PDO-9). PDO-9 allows a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. ■ A CUP to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helistop(City zoning regulations require CUPS for such uses). • A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital,a helistop,two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000- square-foot cancer center,and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area would involve approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. • A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. The City circulated an.Initial Study from March 8,2005 to April 6,2005 (State Clearinghouse# 2005031017) with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. At the Planning Commission hearing held on April 20, 2005,the City received public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR should be prepared for the project to analyze potential aesthetics, air quality,hydrology and groundwater,land use and planning,noise,and transportation impacts. Hence, the City prepared an EIR that was circulated from September 28,2005, to October 28, 2005.The Final EIR was prepared and City Planning Commission hearings were held on Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-4 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction November 16,2005, and January 5,2006, and the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the EIR on January 24, 2006. On February 24,2006,a legal challenge to the project on the grounds that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two separate groups(California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic)and resulted in a court ruling that rejected many of the challenges,but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: • Construction noise impacts ■ Siren noise impacts • Mitigation measures for traffic impacts ■ Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether(MTBE)plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site,contaminate the soil on the site, and generate unhealthful gas vapors January 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report On May 3, 2007,the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate and directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated,reviewed,and considered a SEIR that addressed noise impacts,traffic mitigation and the potential impact of MTBE plumes, as previously described. Other environmental impacts addressed in the prior EIR were considered to be adequate with CEQA and were not revisited in the SEIR. New planning applications for the project were submitted [PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199(Zone Change), PA07-0200(Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-01202 (Conditional Use Permit),and on July 12, 2007,a scoping session was held in accordance with the Riverside County Superior Court direction. The SEIR was circulated for public review from November 5, 2007,to December 5,2007, and on January 9,2008,the Planning Commission considered the new planning applications and recommended that the City Council certify the SEIR. On January 22,2008,the City Council rescinded and invalidated its previous approvals of PA04-0462(General Plan Amendment), PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan), PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA05-0302 (Zone Change to PDO-9); approved planning applications for PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment),PA07-0199(Zone Change), PA07-0200(Development Plan),PA07- 0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit); and adopted Resolution No. 08-10 certifying the SEIR for the project.No additional legal challenge was brought forward. February 2011 Major Modification and Addendum On June. 18,2010, UHS filed planning application PA 10-0194 for a Major Modification to a Development Plan to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck- loading bays and service yards,and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. An Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-5 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction Addendum was prepared to the Final SEIR to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification application. On December 15,2010,the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the Addendum and Findings that the Major Modification does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance that shows that the Major Modification would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the Final SEIR. On February 8,2011,the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Addendum for the project. No legal challenge was brought forward and UHS began construction on the project. Construction of Phase 1 began in June 2011,and Phase I began operating on October 14, 2013. July 2012 Mitigation Easement In July 2012,a conservation easement of 1.9 acres was approved as the Wilson Creek mitigation site through an agreement with UHS and Wilson Creek Farms,LLC. The easement is provided to satisfy the off-site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by the development of the hospital as set forth by the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Amendment to Clean Water Act Section 401 and water quality condition 11 c-031 from the Section 401 Permit,dated September 26, 2011. November 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A Notice of Preparation(NOP) for the proposed Major Modification was circulated for public comment through the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period,from December 2, 2013,through December 31, 2013. A copy of the NOP is included as Appendix A. Thereafter,the Draft SEIR for the proposed Major Modification was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and released for public review and comment for 45 days, from November 12,2014,through December 2+6,2014. 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:llwww.cityoflemecula.orglTemecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/cega.htm. 2016 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to comments received during the public review and comment period,additional analysis of the proposed project has been conducted and additional information is available. As a result, the City of Temecula has chosen to include the additional information,analysis, and editorial changes into the SEIR, and recirculate the document. The additional information and analysis involves noise impacts from helicopter flight activity. Specifically,this RDSEIR-2016 evaluation of helicopter operational noise was expanded to include five additional sensitive receptor locations, and single-event noise metrics that provide compatibility criteria for the sensitive noise receptors in the project vicinity. This analysis resulted in modifications to the noise mitigation measure (NOI-1). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-6 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction In addition,the alternatives analysis has been expanded within this RDSEIR-2016.The Draft SEIR(2014) included analysis of the No Project Alternative and the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative. This RDSEIR-2016 has been expanded to include an evaluation of a second No Project Alternative (the No ProjectfExisting Condition Alternative)and two new alternatives that include the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative and the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. This RDSEIR-2016 also includes a discussion of three different alternatives that involve six different locations for the helistop that were considered but were eliminated from further consideration because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives, do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. Proposed Helistop Project The environmental analysis of the currently proposed helistop was initiated by the City with the preparation of an Initial Study. Through the preparation of the Initial Study,the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and that an SEIR was necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics,hazards,and noise. A NOP was prepared and distributed with the Initial Study for a 30-day public review period. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on December 11,2013,to introduce the proposed project to the community, and to provide an opportunity for the public to submit verbal and written comments and recommendations regarding the issues to be addressed in the Draft SEIR (2014). Copies of the Initial Study,notice of the public scoping meeting, and comments received in response are included as Appendix A. Section 15123 (b)(2)of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an SEIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Key issues raised during the NDP comment period included noise from helicopter flights and impacts related to use of the adjacent equestrian trail as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop. From the Initial Study/NOP process,it was determined that potential impacts related to aesthetics, hazards,and noise be evaluated in the Draft SEIR(2014)and that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas would not be impacted such that new or substantially more severe impacts,and evaluation in the Draft SEIR(2014)would be necessary,as described in Section 1.4 below. Subsequent to the Initial Study/NOP process,the project applicant requested the addition of the proposed storage building into the proposed project being evaluated in this CEQA document. The City reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Major Modification and determined that potential impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed storage building would be limited to the topics identified for the proposed helistop locations(i.e., aesthetics,hazards, and noise)and that all other CEQA-related environmental topic areas would not be affected such that new or substantially more severe impacts would require evaluation in the Draft SEIR(2014). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-7 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction 1 .4 Purpose of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states when an EIR has been prepared for a project,a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required only if"substantial changes" in the project or its circumstances will result in new or substantially more severe impacts that require additional analysis. A subsequent or supplemental document is required if one or more of the following events occurs: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous El due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, showing any signs of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a"supplement" to an EIR rather than a"subsequent" EIR if: • Any of the conditions described previously in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR. • Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. As affirmed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163,a SEIR is necessary if there is a change in the project or circumstances,or new information of substantial importance that was not known Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-8 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction previously that indicates the project will have an effect on the environment that was not covered in the previous EIR. Since the additional analysis required for the changed project components and changed circumstances would not require major revisions to the previous EIR, a SEIR is the appropriate document. A SEIR, as its name implies,supplements the EIR already prepared for a project to address project changes,changed circumstances,or new information that was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior document was certified. The purpose of a SEIR is to provide the additional information necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project as revised. Consequently,the SEIR need contain only the information necessary to respond to the project changes,changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review,as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. As such,the change in location of the helistop site, and the potential impacts related to the two new locations, would require preparation of a SEIR. As previously stated,the focus of a SEIR is whether the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information give rise to a significant new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was identified and analyzed in the prior EIR. Preparation of a SEIR does not "re-open"the prior certified EIR, the analysis is limited to whether those new changes result in new or more severe impacts. The SEIR need only consider the new project components and/or changed circumstances in light of the certified Final EIR(s) already prepared for the project. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated for public review by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. A subsequent EIR, in contrast,is a complete EIR,largely rewritten, which focuses on the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Proposed Project The City has identified the proposed change in helistop locations and construction and operation of the additional 5,000-square-foot storage building on the hospital site to be new information of substantial importance that needs to be evaluated. Because the proposed change is limited to the helistop location, flight paths,and a storage building; and no other components or operations of the hospital facility would change,a SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. The SEIR is prepared to provide additional information to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the hospital with the relocated helistop locations and proposed storage building. As described previously,CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that the SEIR need contain only the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances,or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. As also described above, the City prepared an Initial Study and NOP,and identified that the only potential significant environmental impacts that could be generated from the proposed project are related to aesthetics, hazards,and noise,which are evaluated in Chapter 3,Environmental Impact Analysis. 1 .5 Organization of this Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report This RDSEIR-2016 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. It includes CEQA-required sections and incorporates the balance of the CEQA sections contained in the original EIR by reference. This RDSEIR-2016 is organized as follows. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-9 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft SuppierrnentaI Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1.Introduction Executive Summary: The executive summary,which precedes this introduction,includes a brief understanding of the proposed revisions to the City-approved project and summarizes the revised project impacts,mitigation measures,and alternatives to the proposed project. Chapter 1—Introduction: The introduction includes the purpose of a SEIR, CEQA and City procedural information,and a summary of the CEQA documents that have been certified for the Temecula Valley Hospital,including the original EIR(2006),2008 SEIR,2011 Addendum to the 2008 SEIR, and the 2014 Draft SEIR. In addition,the introduction includes public involvement information. Chapter 2—Project Description: The project description is based on existing information and includes the project location and setting,site characteristics,project objectives and the characteristics of the proposed helistop locations and the proposed storage building.This section will also include the requested permits and approvals for the proposed project. In addition,this section will include a discussion of the past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in the surrounding areas that will serve as the basis for the cumulative impact analysis. Chapter 3—Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: For each potentially significant issue identified in the NOP,this section includes a discussion of the environmental setting,project impacts,cumulative impacts,project design features,level of significance before mitigation,mitigation measures,and the level of significance after mitigation. The assessment of impacts are consistent with CEQA requirements and use defined thresholds of significance to determine the impacts of the proposed helistop locations. Chapter 4—Project Alternatives: Several alternatives have been developed for the project and were evaluated in the previous EIR(2006) and SEIR(2008) and are incorporated by reference. The alternatives evaluation within this RDSEIR-2016 includes four alternatives in addition to the mandatory no project alternative. For each alternative, a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative in rclat.ion in the hasic nhjeclivcs of the project.(cstablishcd by the applicant and the City),and a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts attributable to the alternative versus those associated with the proposed project for each of the environmental categories are provided. Chapter 5—References: All references of data that contributed to the environmental analysis. Chapter 6—List of Preparers: Persons who prepared this environmental document. 1 .6 Public Involvement and Review of the Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report The City, as required under CEQA, encourages public participation in the environmental review process. Opportunities for comments by public agencies and the public include responding to the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-10 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 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/TemecuWGovemment/Comm❑ev/Planninglc ega.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(2414)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.]Flsk@cityoftemecula.org Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ESA 1 130652 Recirculatec Oraft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (proposed project), along with a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site,required discretionary actions,and objectives of the project. 2.1 Introduction The proposed project consists of changes to the planned helistop location and construction of a 5,000-square-foot storage building on the Temecula Valley Hospital parcel located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula.The project applicant, Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS),is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the planned hospital helistop that would provide new interim and permanent helistop locations on the hospital site. The hospital, as approved by the City, is being constructed and operated in phases and at build out would consist of: • A two-tower hospital complex containing approximately 320 beds and offering full in-patient and out-patient services. Both towers would be five stories high. ■ Two medical office buildings, one four stories high and the second three stories high. ■ A cancer center housed in a one-story building. ■ A fitness rehabilitation center for patients and on-site staff in a one-story building. • A helistop to support helicopter flights to transport seriously ill patients to the hospital or to another location for further care. • A truck-loading area and facilities plant to provide infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock,cooling tower, generators,transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. • A jogging path and horse trail to be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail would also connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the site. As described in the 2011 Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the hospital,construction of the project would occur in six phases, as follows: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-1 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Phase I Phase H Site Grading (Medical Office Building) MOB 1 Main Entry Drive MOB 1 Parking(326 spaces) Off-Site Improvements Final Underground WQMP BMF Chambers at Hospital(140 Beds)Five-Story Tower Southeast Corner of Site Hospital Parking(434 Spaces) Horsc `frail Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III Phase III Phase IV MOB 2 Hospital (180 Beds) Five-Story`power MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) Hospital Parking(128 Spaces) Phase V Phase VI Cancer Center Fitness Center Cancer Center Parking(50 Spaces) Fitness Center Parking(40 Spaces) Jogging Trail Construction of Phase 1,which inctudes the new 140-bed, five-story hospital,is complete and the hospital began operations on October 14,2013. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the City-approved 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 Phase IV of the project. Operation of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur in 2022, consistent with the 2011 Major Modification approval (PA 10-0194),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 t According to the FAA,in its Heliport Design advisory circular,a helistop is a terra sometimes used to describe a minimally developed heliport for boarding and discharging passengers or cargo.In this case,"passengers"would be patients and/or medical crew members and"cargo"would be live organs. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-2 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Cesedption nonhazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock" for the hospital, and linens.With the addition of the proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building,the total square footage of hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet(from the 566,160-square-foot facility that was approved in 2008).The change in location of the helistops, the construction and operation of the storage building,and the potential impacts related to those project changes are evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016. Helistop Approval Process City-Approved Helistop The City-approved helistop site has not been through the full approval process of other agencies that are required to review helistops, which include. • Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)as required by California's Public Utilities Code. The City-approved helistop was submitted to ALUC for review. ■ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics as required by California Code of Regulations Title 21. Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review but did not grant an approval. Caltrans specified via email that to gain its approval,the applicant would have to either: o Rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise(approximately 36 degrees)to clear the Madera Vista(at that time Summerhouse)multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure; or o Arrange for red obstruction lights to be installed on those buildings(Miller, 2011, included in Appendix A). • Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)as required by Part 157 of 14 CFR, Federal Aviation Regulations(FAR). The FAA is required to conduct an airspace study under FAR Part 157 that results in an "airspace determination letter" expressing no objection "to the establishment of the proposed landing;area."As part of this process,an inspector from the FAA's Riverside Flight Standards District Office visited the site and issued an airspace determination letter on March 15,2012,that listed several conditions,including the addition of a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood(Condition d), and removing or trimming the height of trees that are not under the jurisdiction of the hospital or the City(Condition e) (FAA,2012,included in Appendix A). These FAA conditions were received after the City's approval of the helistop site. Thus,they were unknown and not included in the City's consideration of the helistop. 2 Please refer to Chapter 3.2,Hazards,Section 3.2.2,Regulatory Setting,for additional infonnation on the regulatory setting for the project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-3 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Proposed Helistop Modifications (Proposed Project) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and FAA's conditions were determined to be unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter operations on approach or departure. Therefore,the applicant undertook a site selection process to find a site that would be acceptable to the aeronautics agencies.This process resulted in the proposed project. The proposed interim helistop site was submitted to the FAA,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and Riverside County ALUC. In response,the FAA provided an airspace determination letter, which stated that the FAA analysis determined that the proposed helistop is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and use of the helistop would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace.The FAA letter concluded that it does not object to the proposed helistop (FAA,2013).Also,on February 13,2014,the Riverside County ALUC found that the proposed helistop is consistent with the countywide policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In addition,on June 12, 2013,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics signed and stamped a Heliport Layout Plan granting"Conditional Plan Approval" for the proposed helistop(a formal application package cannot be submitted to Caltrans Aeronautics until the City of Temecula approves the project). All three of these letters are provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the hospital project as listed in the 2006 EIR and 2008 SEIR arc as follows. City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area as listed in the 2006 EIR and 20{18 SEIR are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula, • Provide for a regional hospital campus,including a hospital facility,medical offices, cancer center,and fitness rehabilitation center,designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility. • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services. • Support development of biomedical,research,and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base. • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping,the location of access routes,noise impacts,traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise,light,visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-4 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS for the proposed project as listed in the 2046 EIR and 2008 SEIR are to: ■ Provide high-duality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services,with outpatient care,rehabilitation, and medical offices. • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center, and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the City-approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically,the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior, easily accessible,operationally efficient,state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of-the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition,the proposed helistop locations would further the project objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise,light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. The proposed 5,040-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 bete cen the project site and surrounding uses. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site (Temecula Valley Hospital)is located at 31704 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The site is Iocated on the north side of Temecula Parkway,south of De Portola Road and approximately 704 feet west of Margarita Road,as shown un Figure 2-1. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate-15 (1-15)and Temecula Parkway. The site is 2 miles east of 1-15. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-5 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 erre°1 lirl� Ike I Irinnr Itrr'rla�ar 79 Alm.)ieln at.Sp �n� �sr ��yiTi�L�fdL�il _ ""S Rainbow r r _ FrrlJ mok Yom'+ 9 ``i °� hWrcfefi�H wi Rd �- RU&Rd IA W k. >t� 71, r De PIOPI 9d � �V_3y .-gyp ��� ^'� r • �. Ir $ _ • `y G 2 Miles Temecula City Boundary SOURCE County Df Riverside,2010 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2.Project 0escrjption Project Site Characteristics The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase I of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five-story hospital tower,on-site driveways,parking lots,and infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on October 14,2013. The existing land uses that surround the hospital include commercial and single-family residences to the south(across Temecula Parkway); single-family residences to the north(along De Portola Road);professional office and commercial uses to the west; and multi-family residential,office, and commercial uses to the east.Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. A project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2-2. 2.4 Proposed Major Modification The project proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors,and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site.The Major Modification would relocate the previously City-approved helistop to two new locations--an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during Phase IV. As provided previously in Section 2.1,development of the future hospital tower would occur in Phase IV,after completion of the MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings and the associated parking facilities. A helistop differs from a heliport in that it is not a permanent base for air ambulance vehicles.There would be no fucling,service, long-term parking, or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. In addition, a single-story,5,000-square-foot storage building would be developed in Phase II, which is to occur next,in the northeastern portion of the project site at the previously City- approved helistop location. Figure 2-3 shows the location of the proposed helistop and storage building. The storage building would be an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital by providing storage space for non-hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock" for the hospital,and linens.With the addition of the proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet(from the 566,160-square-foot facility that was approved by the City in 2008). The storage building is designed to be architecturally consistent with the existing and planned hospital facilities. All other components of the hospital project have been previously approved by the City and were evaluated in the 2006 EIR,2008 SEIR, or 2011 Addendum(described in Chapter 1,Introduction). Helistop Relocation As shown in Figure 2-4,the City-approved project includes a 60-foot by 60-foot helistop located near the northeast corner of the hospital (approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line), which would have a single flight path into and out of the hospital site. However,this design does not meet current FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics criteria. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-7 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 Addlffw- il:444 , ► ,� j ;. tip ►1 , lb 40 ice•� W Y 1 . f fiS f1 f'._.-S 431+• y � 4�� �� t� ` ` � f. • • a NEM t STORY 81 ORRGE SJUNW. I' r11 I 900pSF. INTERIMMELIS'TOP 22-0'HIGH Oa%D EXTERM 10 MUCH EXISTING 1 1 k.r Ft � 1 � a a soa Fees GGu tcE HMG d rcnaecu Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-3 Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location 0 260 Fee• —� o sre Patlals Sid f Existing Helistop f eco ended n or jean rte'y T. PROJECT J I A!V Caltrans Requires Obstruction Lights on Summerhouse Apartment Buildings (Jr- for this Flight Path. _ Interim Hellstop � a/ P 0 t4 AiJ TRAIL /'!� \`�� Q1 I.• +ll gPRT 41'O�� � EOUESTR i t Permanent Helisto Pk w, Location Atop 7r Second Tower Addition SOURCE-Nopaffs Tamecda Valley Hospital Helislop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-4 Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations 2.Project 0escrjption Caltrans Aeronautics conducted a preliminary review of the City-approved helistop, and determined that the single flight path is required to be rotated clockwise(approximately 35 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista apartments, or that red obstruction lights are required to be installed on the Madera Vista apartment buildings. In addition,the FAA reviewed the City- approved helistop and determined that it requires a second flight path in a northwestern direction that would cross directly over the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and removing or trimming the height of trees that are located within the drainage adjacent to the hospital. Any work in the drainage area, including tree trimming or removal,would require approvals and/or permits from county,state, and federal resource agencies. The City and hospital determined that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and FAA's conditions were unacceptable due to potential impacts on off-site land uses as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter flights on approach or departure. As a result,the helistop facility has been proposed to be relocated to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. Because the hospital project is phased,two helistops would be developed,including an interim hclistop and a permanent helistop. As shown on Figure 2-4,the interim helistop location would be in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west of the site.The interim location would be within a landscaped arca to the west of the parking lot on the west side of the hospital tower.This location is approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. Pursuant to the FAA obstruction clearance criteria enforced by Caltrans Aeronautics,the helistop in this location would be developed on top of a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off. In Phase IV of the project,after completion of the MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings and the associated parking facilities,the hclistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower(Bed Tower 92),which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, cast of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational,the interim helistop would be removed, The two helistop locations,both the interim and the permanent, are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics flight path and obstruction clearance requirements,to minimize impacts on neighboring residences(specifically the Madera Vista apartments to the cast, 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 cast,except during Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. Helicopters typically approach and land heading into the wind for safety and performance reasons; hence,helicopters approaching the hospital helistop would generally approach from the east, flying westbound into the wind to land at the helistop,and take off also in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions,which occur Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-11 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description occasionally in the project region,helicopters would approach From the west flying eastbound to land at the site,and take off also in an eastbound direction. Helistop Designs Pursuant to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics obstruction-clearance requirements for helistops, the interim helistop would be developed on top of a 5.5-Foot7high berm and would provide a concrete circular 48-foot-diameter touchdown and liftoff(TLOF) arca from which helicopters would land and take off. As shown on Figure 2-5,Helistop Design Characteristics, the helistop would have an 87-foot-diameter final approach and takeoff area(FATO)and a surrounding 16-foot-wide safety area,which would both be centered on the TLOF arca to ensure that objects remain out of the TLOF and FATD area boundaries (except for maximum 2-inch perimeter lighting). The standard hospital helistop identifier,a red-colored 10-foot by 6-foot, 8-inch underlined"H" would be painted on a white cross within a red-colored circle denoting the location of the helistop from the viewpoint of helicopter pilots. White legends would be painted within the red circle, including "TVH,"the abbreviation for the Temecula Valley Hospital, and"PVT,"which denotes private use,as the helistop would be privately owned and operated by UHS. Additional required markings would include a 12-inch-wide solid-white perimeter stripe and a maximum helicopter overall length marking to inform approaching pilots of the size limitation of the helistop. Portland Cement Concrete materials would be used for construction of ground-levcI surfaces for the interim location. The interim helistop would be connected to a 4-foot-wide Americans with Disabilities Act--compliant pedestrian walkway located adjacent to a 15-foot-wide vehicular driveway that would access an internal road on the west side of the project site. In addition. the helistop would be surrounded by a 5-Foot-tall security fence. The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower during Phase IV of the project.The design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 48-foot by 48-foot square TLOF where helicopters would land and take off. Markings would be identical to the interim helistop except that it would also include a 12,000-pound weight limitation marking to inform approaching pilots of the limitations. Lighting The interim helistop would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. In addition to the existing hospital building and parking lot lighting for hospital operations,the hospital has red obstruction lights installed on light standards in the hospital parking lot, a three- colored (green,white,and yellow)heliport beacon light,and a lighted windcone installed on the hospital building to provide pilots with wind information during landings and takeoffs. Implementation of the proposed project would add lighting that would include 12 green flush- mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF, five green lead-in lights aligned with the primary approach path from the northeast,and a 16-foot-tall lighted windcone located northwest of the helistop. Lighting at the helistop(perimeter lights, lead-in lights,and local lighted windcone) would be activated only for nighttime landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-12 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Gescription The permanent helistop would include similar lighting except that lead-in lights would not be needed on the rooflop facility.The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent helistop commences. Hospital Storage Building As shown in Figure 2-6,Hospital Storage Building Elevations, the new storage building would be square in shape and would total 5,000 square feet in area. The structure would consist of a single story reaching a total of 22 feet high with the inclusion of a cornice that would create architectural consistency with the other hospital buildings. The exterior facades of the storage building would include the same stucco siding material and beige color palette of the main hospital building in order to maintain design compatibility throughout the hospital campus. In addition, exterior entrance and security lighting around the storage building would be consistent with that of the rest of the hospital Facility,and would be limited,shielded, or directed downward. The storage building would be used to store non-hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock"for the hospital,and linens. The storage building would not use any machinery or equipment,except for heating,ventilation,and air conditioning equipment that is similar to those used on other hospital buildings. In addition,the storage building would not operate in such a manner that would require or result in additional traffic trips beyond those generated by the overall hospital facility. Operation The hospital is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Helicopter operations associated with the hospital would be intermittent and take place only to transport seriously ill or injured patients to the hospital or from the Temecula Valley Hospital to another hospital with more intensive care facilities. Under normal (prevailing)wind conditions,helicopters would approach the helistops from the northeast, land,pick-up(or,rarely,drop-off)a patient,and depart toward the southwest. During Santa Ana or other easterly winds,helicopters would operate in the reverse direction. The noise related to the helicopter would last approximately 5 minutes for landing and 5 minutes for takeoff. Typically,the helicopter would occupy the helistop for 30 to 60 minutes,between arrival and departure, during which the helicopter engine is not running. A helicopter operation is defined as a single landing or takeoff;hence,one transport includes two operations(an arrival operation and a departure operation). Since opening of the hospital,the Emergency Medical Services(EMS) landing site has experienced, on average, approximately seven helicopter operations per month. This average consists of as few as aero operations(once in March 2014)and as many as 14 operations(once in May 2014) in a month. The number of helicopter operations at the interim and permanent locations is anticipated to be similar to the existing EMS landing site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-13 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Based on current operations at the EMS landing site and future anticipated demand,it is conservatively projected that, on average,approximately eight helicopter operations(four arrival and four departure operations)would occur per month over a 12-month period. This would total approximately 96 operations per year.Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations and FAR Part 150 require that the CNEI,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 EC 135 would use the helistop to transport patients. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 2-14 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 n apo � 4 � / ``-muuEw.w 1 r r...�.. �•v,y i FeePSW�c,4jif�s f f ti 'iloF `�`I c 6 :r'j � J�x•�I r� ..r 1 r��', i � f n'"+r.wi E�x"`�'m"rw � •\\ ��`',. I '_ J �' •�`� !!!;r / r w%'� n an E a•crcaww nG s r 1 11 I w�"° "aMr' i uss'ecwsb�,' 3 ��s'r.c •mn' E mor«u,rea3 V iIr�rro,t.s wr! swec wm ai xsaE / wa WIN.r ��td r f // n.�` /' � ��� J rro wsa aFwr•I ! frrmxec P�rwnwa ��`E�rr�� �. ae VIANIVEH �- cmREr_ p '1 ,,�' 1c C.€ +ry`,+_ ,� !' r .h 11- �' wn A' fla*�u'S ! r f 1 az rinu Il'i a f J� _, ,�_`•"-nr _.,f,:.. \ ".� Ia�� Jl 1 rATo° 2' y _ :yr• `'r -�,r- \ f Ste'yU71 j5 1 �4TERtW.nS J � � � a6�P[m4r{�TrP � Mm [eprttrAst�wrue[��{ / *"�r BrAD's1 tc c. / vtiE / 1`� i+iPCPI�FYD� q yr ✓ J -,r f r OP MQF d yJ � i:ii,W.AM. 'p1 MP OF 121 � / i f1A GIR.Kxb51 f w� 5 MGu M.+,C SAFE o j. p@ 1 t E �,•..v,>� ,{ix ` r � ���y. � ,F* •[ rc ;/� o. r sr.rErvnRFR• � �qTo�2 x. Site Layout Heliport Detail p 40 r Feet rr sserry roar(R*. 71ree-Gclrx lGrean-WriilB•Ygllowy Ponalsl®Firs extinguisher °i•T"'c"'0 Heliport$oacon �-Elevations and Airspace Contours xp� Internally Lighted Windecne with Rad r"` I a tie He u -1 Lgwered,w Pat—.La i cei w- Obstruction Light for Ob uw.Lion Clearance,as • Pote•Mmmlocj Dual Rap LED Artprc;,nala 14_ Obstruction Light with Relay =€rr,r€° If x'1 ° Green LEU Hwh-Mount Perimeter Ught torr.Toee' ■ 3M'Raised Pavement Marker'with Two Yellow lenses or Similar Plational) Southwest Elevation SOlJRCE:Nl+rpannu.s Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-5 Interim Helistop Design Characteristics and Permanent Helistop Locations GO RNICE TO AMTGH CORNICE T15 MATCH EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING HOSP RAL TOp PApApEI'�I-) TUP PARAPET 1ag'?1 bHAODW BOX WINDOWS,TVP. _ _HOOP Il SHApr]1N B0XVMINpOWS,TVP. _ RGGF GLA7AM3GN EXTERIOR, 2D'-0" GLAZING ON EXTERIOR AO'-0" i ORYWAIt INF&L ON INTERIOR DRYWALL INFILL ON INTERIOR EXTERX7R COLORS To MATCH WEPOR ooLORs To HATCH McWNaa HOSPITAL,IYP. 035TIO HOSPITAL TeP. T sr II�II�pyI�I—iICIIILII111I ��I�IlIIL1LGLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IMI IIIT11��1���11F�I���1 blllIllilfllllll I��i IIf-11 I II1111TIITIITklllllll`Illllf—l�1--STI-119111 1TI PPI_E I1 11=1III= =1!CII�—�ISEIIIl1II=[I ICI1ISIVCII=1�ECI1—I�ICII I�1 i I I�l 9�I I f=1 11=1 I f=1 11=f I k=91�d I k=ET1=iTl—f 1 =1 South Elevation East Elevation TOP PARAPET E1 —� .——— -PRRAPEI �Fpes�+, Y2' `fi�r —' - IDY12 ROU UP SERVICE DOOR —J ! III°rW Lfj —fel-1 spa-�-S j-1 —JJj=—E LLI I W=1 I=1 —1� I L 19—I I i—9I—I I—IIA III=1I l Ill=l f LI l9—19=111=41 iL—I I—41 Li 1 9 f—19—I l I_f L I I 9_ —I l k—I I TICI I t=119111—III-111=f 1 i—I l it 411—i 1 i-911—i 11-1 I1�111�1111�I P 1--III--'I! III=111WI I1�1 West Elevation Nath Elevation o Ia tX]1111GE:rIMG AroniCecta Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-$ Hospital Storage Building Elevations 2.Project 0escription 2.5 Discretionary Approvals The Major Modification for the helistop relocation involves discretionary approvals from the City of Tcmccula,Caltrans Division of Acronautics, FAA,and Riverside County ALUC. The anticipated actions and approvals related to the proposed project are listed below. Agency Action City of Temecula . Development Plan Major Modification including design and site review. City of Temecula . CUP Major Modification for proposed interim aril permanent helistops and storage building. City of Temecula a City Council approval of project and certification of SEIR. State of Kalifornia 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 location have occurred. FuU QSHPD review and approval for the future hospital tower and permanent helistop location would occur in the future. Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) Review of airspace study and issuance of an airspace determination letter,consistent with Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was issued for the interim helistop on July 3,2013 and extended on September 4, 2015;and the permanent helistop would undergo design review during the future hospital tower design phase. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Review and approval of proposed helistop and issuance of Helistop Site Approval Permit,which represents agreement with the design concept and authorizes helistop construction.The Helistop Permit follows a post- construction inspection and authorizes start-up of flight operations_Interim helistop received Conditional Pian Approval on June 12,2013,and the permanent helistop would undergo design review during the future hospital tower design phase.Additionally,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics makes annual on-site inspections of hospital helistops throughout the state to ensure continued compliance with its design requirements. The California's Public Utilities'Code Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting,military, or other persons who provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances adopted by a city}, county,or city and county, whether general law or chartered,that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2.-17 ESA 1130652 Recirrulatec Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description 2.6 Cumulative Projects Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an E I R address cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect would be cumulatively considcrablc. "Cumulatively considerable"means that"the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects"(CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Section 1.5355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that"cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time."A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through mitigation,including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee-payment programs. The EIR must examine "reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project"(CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3)and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines,the discussion of cumulative effects"...need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone.The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness."The evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either: (A) a list ofpast,present, card 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 adapted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. Cumulative projects include recently completed projects,projects currently under construction, and future projects currently in development. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location and project schedule. The proposed project area is located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula. The potential for specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated(aesthetics,hazards, noise,etc.)and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by noise generated by the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-18 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Table 2-1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area. Locations of cumulative projects are shown in Figure 2-7, Cumulative Projects. TABLE 2-1 PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA Figure No. Planning Development Reference Jurisdiction Type Description Status 1 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single- Proposed family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet south of Santiago Road and east of Ynez Road- 2 City of Temecula Institutional A Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula P-iase I Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project, Complete reducing the bed countfrom 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 Temecula Office A 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 Portoia Road and Margarita Road- 4 City of Temecula Commercial! Redevelopment of the existing 305-acre site into a Resort Proposed Residential Community by expanding the hotel with 99 new rooms, expanding the conference center,adding a spa,and adding a private residential component.The golf course would be re-designed by eliminating 9 holes and creating an 18-hole championship golf course.Private residential land uses would be introduced that would include 409 dwelling units,with a mix of single family detached homes,townhomes and stacked flat units.The proposed Project would re-align and improve portions of Rainbow Canyon Road along the property frontage to comply with the City of Temecula's engineering standards for radii and site distance. 5 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 74 single family homes Under on a condominium at the southeast corner of Peach Tree Construction Street and Deer Hallow Way. 6 City of Temecula Residential Specific 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 Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 4,700 square foot Approved Navy Federal Credit Union building with three drive-thru lanes located approximately 150 feet south of Temecula Parkway,on the west side of Jedediah Smith Road, Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 2-19 ESA 1130652 Recirrulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 2.Project Description Figure No. Planning Development Reference Jurisdiction Type Description Status 8 City of Temecula Commercial A Development 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 Temecula Commercial A 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 Temecula Commercial A 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 Temecula Residential A Multi-family residential Development Plan to construct Complete the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of Campanuia Way and Meadows Parkway. 12 City of Temecula Residential A 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 Temecula Residential A 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 paint of Pujol Street,on the west side of the street. 14 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached Approved condominium units located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. 15 City of Temecula Commercial A Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a Developed one-story, 12,554 square foo:outpatient surgery center and building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast Operating corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Puebla Road. SOURCE:City of Temecula Planning Department,2016. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-20 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 1 a �141 1 i1 o iPAIO 4 o � F, Vk 121 s 60 (13 � l � U 79 9 d r _ Project Location q i4. Cumulative Projects City of Temecula 3,200 Feel r,• ;� i—__—_ SOURCE:ESRI;City of Temecula. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 2-7 Cumulative Projects CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Through preparation of an Initial Study,the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact related to aesthetics,hazards,and noise,and should be evaluated in an Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR). In addition, the Initial Study determined that all other California Environmental Quality Act(C.EQA)-related environmental topic areas would not be impacted to such a degree as to require analysis in this RDSEIR-2016. Therefore, environmental impact areas evaluated within this RDSEIR-2016 are limited to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, as further described throughout Chapter 3. 3.1 Aesthetics The purpose of this section is to identify the existing aesthetics(visual quality) environment in the project vicinity; analyze compliance with the City of Temecula General Plan,zoning;code, and ordinances; identify potential significant impacts created by the proposed project; and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts. 3.1 .1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently developed with Phase 1 of the hospital. This includes a five-story hospital tower,on-site driveways,parking lots, and infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site.The project site fronts Temecula Parkway within a developed area of the City of Temecula.The site terrain is relatively flat,with a gentle slope toward De Portola Road.The elevation at the center of the site is approximately 1,147 feet above mean sea level (amsl),and the elevation at De Portola Road is approximately 1,065 feet amsl.North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to rolling hillsides,with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to approximately 1,223 feet amsl, which provides views of the site,south Temecula,and the Palomar Mountains in the background. Low-density single-family residential development exists within the rolling hills to the north. Multi-family residential is located to the east of the project site_ Medical office buildings exist to the southeast,near the corner of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road,and office buildings are also located to the west of the project site. In addition,retail commercial and single-family residential uses exist across Temecula Parkway to the south of the project site. The distance from Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-1 ESA!139652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet,and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit(the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305 feet. The existing hospital uses on the project site provide nighttime lighting from exterior building and parking lot lighting,lighting emanating from hospital windows and doors,and lighting associated with hospital signage.The existing hospital uses low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures,which is consistent with Ordinance 655 and City of Temecula Design Guidelines and Development Code. The areas adjacent to the project site currently generate nighttime lighting and glare from exterior lighting on residences,office buildings, and retail commercial areas. In addition,parking lot security lighting, and lighting from cars traveling along Temecula Parkway, De Portola Road, Margarita Road, Dartolo Road,and Dona Lynora currently generate a moderate level of lighting and glare, which is typical for a developed area within the city. 3.1 .2 Regulatory Setting City of Temecula Outdoor Lighting Regulations - Ordinance 655 The City of Temecula has adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations(Ordinance 655),which restrict nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of the Palomar Observatory. The project site is located within the 45-mile radius(Zone B) of the Observatory. Within Zone B,the use of most types of outdoor lighting is prohibited after 11:00 p.m.,and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to be illuminated. Decorative lighting is allowed;however, decorative lighting is required to be shut off by 11:00 p.m.. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11:00 p.m., the amount of light and/or glare is reduced during late evening hours,thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research at the Mount Palomar Observatory. The ordinance also establishes the type of lighting that may be used in Zone B, such as low-pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses. City of Temecula design Guidelines The City of Temecula has adopted Citywide Design Guidelines,which include the following that are related to the proj ect: 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 shalt be illuminated with a minimum of 1 footcandle to ensure safe nighttime conditions. Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 3.1-2 ESA!139652 Rec i rcu later Draft Su ppiementaI Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,.and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics f. Light fixtures shall be sited, directed,and/or shielded to prevent spot lighting,glare,or light spillage beyond property lines. g. /righting fixtures shall be shown on the landscaping plans. h. The lighting of building elements and trees is an effective and attractive lighting technique that is encouraged; however,light sources for wall washing and tree lighting should be hidden. 3.1 .3 Impact Assessment Methodology This aesthetics analysis is based on consideration of the following: (1)the extent of change related to the proposed project from public vantage points;(Z) the degree of contrast and compatibility between proposed project elements and the existing surroundings; and (3)proposed project conformance with policies and regulations. In addition,nighttime lighting impacts would be significant if light substantially interferes with, or intrudes into, sensitive land uses(including residences), or substantially impacts views in the area. Glare would be considered a significant impact if it results in daytime interferences with activities at sensitive land uses or public roadways where drivers can be temporarily blinded by glare, thus causing a safety concern.. Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to aesthetics if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. • Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. ■ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. ■ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As determined in the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study(Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas,scenic resources within a state scenic highway,or with the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore,no further analysis of these topics is included. Light and Glare Implementation of the proposed project would install a 48-foot-diameter interim helistop in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west of the site. Pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-3 ESA!1W652 Rec i rcu latae Draft Su ppiementaI Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics requirements,the interim helistop would consist of a concrete platform that would be constructed on a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off and would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. In addition to the existing red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards,red obstruction lights,a three-colored(green,white,and yellow)heliport beacon light,and alighted windcone are currently installed on the hospital building. The interim helistop would also have 12 green flush-mounted perimeter lights surrounding the touchdown and liftoff(TLOF) area and five green lead-in lights aligned with the primary approach path. In addition, a 16-foot-tall lighted windeone would be located northwest of the hclistop. The interim helistop perimeter lights would be on for approximately 24 minutes immediately prior to and during landing and takeoff events.The obstruction lights that are currently in place at the hospital are on from dusk to dawn,and will remain on a dusk-dawn schedule when the permanent helistop is in place. The helistop lighting would be on intermittently;only prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs. The total number of helistop operations(landings and take-offs)is anticipated to be eight times per month,which could occur anytime of the day or night. The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the planned five-story hospital tower during Phase N 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 TLDF where helicopters would land and take off.The permanent helistop would include lighting that is similar to the interim helistop, except that lead-in lights would not be needed on the rooftop facility and the have perimeter lights would be on a dusk to dawn schedule. The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent helistop commences. All of the directional and obstruction lights would be implemented in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics design regulations. Helicopters using both the interim and permanent helistops would use typical running lights, which include red and green position lights on the sides of the aircraft and anti-collision lights to indicate the helicopter's position.Helicopters would also use a landing light to light the helistop during landing. This light is located in the front of the helicopter and is turned on by the pilot at nighttime upon approach, and would be directed to the helistop to support a safe landing. Under prevailing wind conditions, helicopters would approach from the cast, flying west into the wind. As shown on Figure 2-4 in the Project Description, for the interim condition,this approach would cross a large portion of the site prior to the helistop,and it is likely that pilots would turn on the landing light while over the hospital site. Under Santa Ana wind conditions,helicopters would fly,and descend, over Temecula Parkway,office and parking lot uses,and a portion of the hospital site prior to reaching the helistop. Under both conditions,the landing lights during the approach would be directed forward toward the helistop TLDF lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. Similarly,during use of the permanent helistop, the landing light would be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce lighting on non-hospital ground-level uses. Under all conditions,a helicopter's landing light would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop,not downward upon non- hospital uses, and would not spillover onto adjacent uses. As described,the distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-4 ESA 1139652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit(the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 345 feet. Because of this distance, and the focused lighting within the urban environment,the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result in significant lighting impacts. In addition to the lighting described previously,lighting that is similar to the existing parking lot, walkway,and security lighting would be used at night to facilitate safe transport of patients between the interim helistop location and the hospital. The permanent helistop would use footlights along the walkway between the hospital elevator and helistop deck surface. The lighting used to safely transport patients to and from the helistop locations would also be intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off before its departure. This lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass-through is needed and would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties,consistent with the City's lighting standards. The proposed helistop lighting which is not regulated by the FAA or Caltrans Aeronautics would be regulated by the City of Temecula and comply with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code,and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant would utilize low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures,which is consistent with Ordinance 655. While some lights related to the interim helistop may be visible from nearby residences and other land uses, the landscaping around the hospital site,such as the tall trees adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project and on residential parcels to the north and northwest,reduces the potential for spillover of light onto adjacent properties. In addition, the shielding of light from appropriate installation of light fixtures limits the potential of light spillover.Because the helistop lighting would only be used for approximately 20 minutes immediately prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs,the lights could be visible approximately eight times per month, should all flights occur at nighttime. These lights would be similar to, and blend into,the existing on-site hospital lighting and the commercial,office,residential,and street-related lighting in the project vicinity. Because the lighting would be on intermittently and would be similar to existing lighting in the developed area,lighting related to the interim helistop would not substantially affect viewers' nighttime vision. The lights related to the permanent helistop would be located on the top of the five-story hospital tower building, and would be low-level lighting that is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent properties. Lead-in lights would not be required or installed at the permanent rooftop helistop facility;however, the rooftop helistop perimeter lights would be on a dusk-to-dawn schedule. Some of the rooftop lighting from the permanent helistop could be visible from nearby residences and other land uses,but would be consistent with the Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.1-5 ESA!139652 Rec i rcu latae Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics existing hospital lighting and lighting from the surrounding land uses,and would not affect viewers' nighttime vision. In addition, lighting associated with the proposed storage building would be minimal, consisting of entranceway lighting and security lighting mounted on the building as well as possible footlights on the pathway leading to the building from the main hospital building.As with the helistop locations,lighting for the proposed storage building would be installed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines,Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655,which requires illumination levels onto adjacent property lines be minimal. Hence, lighting from the sccurity building would consist of low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures that are directed down and/or shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the nighttime sky and onto adjacent parcels, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In conclusion,with the limited operation of lighting for helicopter landings and departures during nighttime hours, consistency with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics,and City of Temecula lighting regulations, Iighting associated with the proposed helistop would not substantially interfere with, or intrude into, adjacent land uses,or substantially impact nighttime vision. Furthermore, with the limited lighting required for the proposed storage building that would also comply with the City's lighting regulations, impacts related to light would be less than significant. The proposed project would not introduce a substantial source of glare to the project area that would affect views in the area because the project would construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage building using typical building materials (concrete,stucco,steel,paint, etc.),which would not create substantial daytime glare. Sources of daytime glare could include the helicopter while on the interim helistop, which would be developed a 5.5-foot-high berm. However, the helistop would only accommodate one helicopter that would be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading or unloading approximately eight times per month. Because of the limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementation of the proposed project,impacts related to glare would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant 3.1 .4 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative aesthetics study area for the proposed project is the viewshed that the project lies within.This includes the areas adjacent to the project site that can view the project. The project site is developed with hospital uses that generate light, and the vicinity of the project is fully developed with residential,commercial,and other medical or hospital related uses, and as described above,the proposed project would have a limited contribution to the existing nighttime lighting,and with compliance to City lighting requirements, would not result in significant impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare. In general,cumulative development,including the existing,proposed,approved, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Table 2-1,would also result in increased nighttime lighting and daytime glare. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code and Design Guidelines would limit Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-6 ESA!139652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics glare and spillover lighting that would be generated by new development throughout the City. Therefore,while development of the project and the cumulative projects would generate an increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare, future individual development projects would be required to conform to City requirements that would have a mitigating effect on light and glare. The closest cumulative projects include development of a new medical office building located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora (identified as 9 on Figure 2-7),and development of three office buildings at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road(identified as 3 on Figure 2-7). These projects have been approved by the City and would include nighttime lighting features typical of office buildings,including security lighting on the exterior of the building, entranceway and signage lighting,and parking lot lighting.As with the proposed project,the cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines,Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655,which includes requirements to minimize illumination levels onto adjacent property lines,direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low- pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures.As a result,implementation of the lighting and glare generated from the City-compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new interim and permanent helistop and storage building when combined with the past,present,and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-7 ESA!139652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Su ppiementaI Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards This section describes the potential adverse impacts on public safety and the environment from hazards that could result from the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Hclistop Project (proposed project). The analysis is focused on potential risks related to operation of the helistop and surrounding uses. An overview of the regulatory framework related to helistop facilities is followed by an analysis of potential impacts. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase 1 of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five-story hospital tower, on-site driveways,parking lots,infrastructure for all master planned buildings on the site.The helistop that was approved by the City with the hospital project is not yet developed. However, the hospital currently uses the City-approved helistop site as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS)landing site when necessary. To ensure safety during these procedures,the City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments coordinated with the hospital to secure the helicopter landing area. As described later in the regulatory Setting section,the California Code of Regulations(CCR) Title 21 Section 3527(8) states that a site (such as the project site)can be used for the landing and taking off of EMS helicopters upon approval of the fire or police departments because it is located at a medical facility,as long as it averages no more than six landings per month with patients onboard over a 12-month period. Prevailing winds in the project area are traveling east.The closest public use airport facility is the French Valley Airport,which is located approximately 6.6 miles northwest from the project site. The project site lies far outside of the French Valley Airport compatibility zones and airport influcncc arca,and is not within the airport's traffic pattcm. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include. • Single-family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest ■ Single-family and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway • Professional medical offices to the west ■ Multi-family residential, commercial, medical office, and a flood control channel are to the east Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 3.2-1 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Aviation Administration The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)is the federal agency that establishes standards for the design of the helistop,and the rules for pilot and helicopter operations. The FAA's primary responsibility is to determine what, if any, effect the landing and taking off of helicopters would have on the air traffic and related safety hazards in the vicinity of the project site. FAA Advisory Circular—(AC) 150/5390/2C,"Heliport Design"provides the standards used to design heliports in the United States. This includes defining acceptable approach, landing, takeoff, and safety areas that must be maintained clear of obstructions.The FAA also provides standards for the placement of lighting,windcones,beacons,and other heliport markings. Chapter 4 of the Advisory Circular(AC)provides recommendations for hospital heliports,and describes essential features of ground-level and rooftop hospital helistops,safety areas,and minimum dimensions(Figures 4-1,4-2,and 4-5;pages 11(--111,and 117 of the AC). In addition,the AC describes the appropriate approach and departure transitional surfaces,and flight path dimensions. Section 417 of the AC includes the following security and safety considerations for the design of a helistop: ■ Provide a means to keep the operational areas of a hospital heliport clear of people, animals,and vehicles. Use a method to control access depending upon the helicopter location and types of potential intruders. • At ground-level hospital heliports, erect a safety barrier around the helicopter operational areas in the form of a fence or a wall. Construct the barrier no closer to the operation areas than the outer perimeter of the safety area. Make sure the barrier does not penetrate any approach/departure(primary or transitional)surface. if necessary in the vicinity of the approach/departure paths, install the barrier well outside the outer perimeter of the safety area. • Barrier should be high enough to present a deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an operational area and yet low enough to be nonhazardous to helicopter operations. • Display a cautionary sign on gates and doors. As an option at hospital heliport, secure operational areas via the use of security guards and a mixture of fixed and movable barriers. Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Fart 157,Notice of Construction,Activation,and Deactivation of Airports establishes standards and notification requirements for projects that propose to construct, alter, or deactivate an air facility. The notification allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance,to prevent and minimize any adverse impacts and provide safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. FAR Part 157 serves as the basis for evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground. These effects include but are not limited to evaluating: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-2 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Irnpact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards • The effects the proposed action would have on existing or proposed traffic patterns of neighboring airports. • The effect the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA. • The effects that existing or proposed objects(on file with the FAA)within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. After conducting airspace studies per FAR 157,the FAA issued its airspace determination letter for the existing site on March 15,2012,and a separate airspace determination Tetter for the interim helistop on July 3,2013. Federal Regulation 49 Cade of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for: • Evaluating the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on operating procedures • Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation ■ Identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation • Charting of new objects. FAA FAR Part 77 includes the establishment of imaginary surfaces that allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance,thus preventing or minimizing the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The regulations identify three- dimensional imaginary surfaces through which no object should penetrate. Section 77.29(Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports) establishes this`'imaginary surface"as(a) a primary surface defined as the designated takeoff and landing area of a heliport;(b) an approach surface that begins at each end of the primary surface and extends outward and upward for 4,000 feet, extending at a 8:1, and(c) a transitional surface that extends outward and upward from the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2:1 for a distance of 250 feet.An object that would be constructed or altered within the imaginary surface area of the heliport would be subject to the FAA requirements.Technically, FAR Part 77 applies only to "public use" airports and heliports. However,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics applies the same criteria to the proposed project's"private use"helistop. Caltrans division of Aeronautics The Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans is the state permitting agency for helistops,and reviews all the documentation and approvals submitted from the local government agencies and the FAA to make the final determination as to the safety and appropriateness of the location for a helistop and the adequacy of the helistop design. Caltrans has adopted many of the design standards set forth in the FAA AC 1547/5390-2C, and has developed some additional criteria of its own (Title 21, Sec. 3525 through 3560,California Code of Regulations). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-3 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environ mental Impact Report February 2016 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 within CCR, Title 21, Sections 3525 through 3560 related to the adequacy of helistop design, including marking,lighting,and visual aids,must be met to receive a helistop operating permit from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. State of California Aeronautics Law,State Aeronautics Act,and Public Utility Code provides regulations to protect the public interest in aeronautics by fostering and promoting safety in aeronautics;ensuring uniformity of the laws and regulations relating to aeronautics consistent with federal aeronautics laws and regulations,assuring that persons residing in the vicinity of airports(heliports)are protected to the greatest possible extent against intrusions by unreasonable levels of aircraft noise; and developing informational programs to increase the understanding of current air transportation issues including,aviation safety,planning,noise,and the role of aviation as an integral part of the state's transportation system. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics granted Conditional Plan Approval for the interim helistop on June 12, 2013. Emergency Medical Services Helicopter Landing Site is defined in CCR, Title 21, Section 3527(8) 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 ENIS landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety agency,as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters; • Is used,over any twelve month period,for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter,except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits; • is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations; and • Is used only for emergency medical purposes. Examples of public safety agencies could be a fire department,police department,sheriff's department, or county agency, etc.Therefore,an EMS helicopter landing site is not a state permitted helistop based on the FAA's Heliport Design Guide,which provides criteria contained to ensure an acceptable level of safety for a hospital helistop.The level of safety of each EMS helicopter landing that is not on a permitted helistop is unknown, as each individual public safety agency may have their own criteria, which may or may not be equivalent to established helistop safety standards(Caltrans, 1997). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-4 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for reviewing projects near airports or related to air facility to make sure they arc consistent with approved compatibility plans. To provide guidance for land use recommendations,an airport land use compatibility plan was developed to promote compatibility between air facilities and the land uses that surround them.The plan includes policies by which the ALUC operates and conducts compatibility reviews of proposed development actions; describes the overall context of airport land use:compatibility planning in general and for airports in Riverside County in particular; and the procedures that the ALUC would follow in making compatibility determinations.The proposed helistop project was reviewed by the ALUC on February 13, 2014,received a determination of consistency with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). City of Temecula Municipal Code 17.40.130 General requirements—Airports and helipads: All wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas located at or near any airport or helipad shall comply with the following measures: A. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed within the safety zone of any airport or any helipad unless the airport land use commission indicates that it will not adversely affect the operation of the airport or helipad. B. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed at a location where special painting or lighting will be required by the FAA regulations unless technical evidence acceptable to the planning director or planning commission,as appropriate,is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility. C. Where tower lighting is required,it shall be shielded or directed to the greatest extent possible in such a manner as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby properties,particularly residences. 3.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The analysis in this section focuses on potential hazards associated with use of the proposed helistop facilities on the project site.The proposed project was evaluated for compliance with existing federal and state regulations related to hospital helistop facilities and consistency with the policies of the Riverside County ALUCP that are related to implementation of the proposed project. Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to hazards if it would: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-5 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards ■ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. ■ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ■ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fares, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. As determined in the NGF./Initial Study(Appendix A),implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials,hazardous emissions; location of a hazardous materials site,public airports,emergency response plans,or wildland fire hazards. Therefore,no further analysis of these topics is included. Safety Hazards The proposed project would modify the City-approved,but not yet developed,helistop facilities in response to FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations,safety factors, and recent residential development near the project site and would include construction and operation of new single-story 5,000 square foot storage building. The proposed project would relocate the previously City-approved helistop to two new locations.--an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on top of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during Phase IV.The helistop would be a location designed for the transport of patients,and would not include fueling,service, long-term parking, or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. An average of eight helicopter operations are anticipated to occur per month (four departures and four arrivals),although actual frequency would depend on medical needs. The proposed storage building would be located at the previously City-approved helistop location in the eastern portion of the project site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-6 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 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 Figures 2-3 and 2-4(Chapter 2,Project Description).The proposed flight paths would route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helistop heading west, and have been designed to avoid the existing five-story hospital building, trees,light poles, and utility lines. In addition,the proposed flight paths consider the predominant wind direction and avoid low altitude flying over residential areas. In addition,the proposed 5,000-square-Foot storage building would be 22 feet high (which is lower than the main hospital building)and located outside of the two proposed flight paths for the interim helistop,and would not interfere with incoming or departing flights. The proposed flight paths were designed to be consistent with the FAA Helistop design standards that are specified in Chapter 4 of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C that ensure sufficient airspace obstruction clearance. In addition, the flight paths are consistent with the Federal Aviation Regulations(FAR) that include prescriptive standards for flight paths and other safety requirements designed to provide adequate maneuvering room for pilots using the helistop, Specifically,the proposed flight paths are designed to meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards that specify a series of imaginary surfaces in the airspace surrounding landing areas. These surfaces include a primary surface(a horizontal plane at helistop elevation),approach surfaces(shallow,inclined planes along each designated flight path),and transition surfaces (steepen inclined planes to the sides of flight paths). Per these FAA and Caltrans design requirements,the proposed flight paths arc approximately aligned with the prevailing wind and extend out from the edge of the helistop for a distance of 4,000 feet,at a ratio of 1 foot vertical for every 8 feet horizontal distance traveled. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics review and permitting procedures that are being conducted as part of the proposed project evaluate the effects the proposed helistop would have on the safety of persons or property on the ground and existing and proposed objects that extend into the airspace. Prior to providing an airspace determination letter from the FAA and a helistop permit from Caltrans Aeronautics,both agencies would determine that the proposed helistop locations would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft,and would not result in safety effects to persons or property on the ground.An airspace determination letter from the FAA and a permit from Caltrans Aeronautics would be required prior to construction or operation of the proposed helistop locations. In addition, the proposed project was reviewed by the Riverside County ALUC on February 13,2014, and received a determination of consistency with the Riverside County ALUCP. Implementation of these flight paths that are consistent with FAA and Caltrans design requirements,the airport land use plan, and operating under approvals from these agencies would reduce safety hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area. As a result,impacts related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-7 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latae Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projects; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. Several projects shown in Figure 2-7 are in the vicinity of the project area;however,none would involve helicopter landing or other aviation-related uses. Furthermore, except for development of the hospital,none would involve building heights that would extend into the planned flight path,such that a hazardous event on the project site or related to the helicopter travel would result in cumulative impacts. A limited increase in air traffic in the project vicinity would be generated from the project,which would adhere to all safety rcgulations. The existing regulations related to the heliport design and flight path, and the required FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and ALUC review and approvals reduce the potential for hazardous conditions and provide safety measures such that a cumulatively adverse condition would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore and as noted above, the proposed project site is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and would not result in any other changes in existing air patterns. Flight paths to and from the project site would be regulated by the FAA and must meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards. These design considerations and the limited number of helicopter flights that would occur by the proposed project would ensure that the project's contribution to hazards impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.Therefore,the effect of the heliport project in combination with the cumulative development in the project vicinity would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area.Hence, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-8 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise This section evaluates the potential for noise impacts to result from implementation of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project(proposed project).This includes the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts associated with construction noise; a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the project site to excessive noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Characteristics of Sound Sound can be technically described in terms of its sound pressure(amplitude)and frequency (similar to pitch). Amplitude is a direct measure of the magnitude, or loudness, of a sound without consideration for other factors that may influence its perception.The ranges of sound pressures that occur in the environment are so large that they are expressed on a logarithmic scale. The standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level in dB describes the pressure of a sound relative to a reference pressure. By using a logarithmic scale, the wide range in sound pressures is compressed to a more usable range of numbers. For example,a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB; while a sound level of 80 dB has 100 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. In terms of human response to noise, the perception of changes in noise level is very different. A sound 10 dB higher than another sound is usually judged to be twice as loud.A sound 20 dB higher is judged four times as loud and so forth. Therefore, due to the logarithmic nature of sound,linear addition cannot be applied when combining two noise levels. For instance,50 dB plus 50 dB would not equal 100 dB. Rather, it would equal 53 dB due to the logarithmic scale of decibels. The combination of two noise levels is achieved by converting the noise levels into acoustic energy, adding the energy together, and then applying a logarithmic function to convert the resulting value back into a decibel value. The following table illustrates the principal of decibel addition. Difference between two decibel values Amount added to higher value 0or1 3 2or3 2 4to9 1 10 or more 0 SOURCE'United States Department of Labor OSHA,2614. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-1 ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draf$upplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Noise Principles and Descriptors in general,the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum_ As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts,sound is measured using an electronic falter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz(Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels. Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3,3-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise IeveI is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.3-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time;however,they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Community noise is variable throughout a day, from slowly changing background noise as activity levels in an area change and short-duration,single- event noise sources(e.g., aircraft flyovers,motor vehicles,sirens), which are readily heard. Because the community noise environment changes from instant to instant, measurements of noise exposure over a period of time are used to characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors.The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq. The L,y,or equivalent sound level,is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value;the L.1,of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level. Lmax: The maximum,instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lm;n: The minimum,instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. L,: The noise level exceeded X% of a specified time period. For instance,Lyn and L90 represent the noise levels that are exceeded 50 percent and 90 percent of the time, respectively. Ld,,: Also termed the DNL,the L,3n is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after an addition of 10 dB to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account nighttime noise sensitivity. CNEL: CNEL,or Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day with additional weightings for noise events occurring in the evening (i.e., 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)periods. During the evening period, each event is multiplied by 3,which adds 4.77 dB to each event. At night, each event is multiplied by 10, which adds 10 dB to each event.. The evening and Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-2 ESA.i 130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 NOISE COMMON INDOOR COMMON OUTDOOR PUBLIC REACTION LEVEL NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVELS (dBA,Leg) 110- Rock Band - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft 100- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Inside Subway Train(New York) LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. 41TimesAsloud > 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LETTERS OF PROTEST Food Blender at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. COMPLAINTS LIKELY Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Twice As Loud 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shouting at 3 Ft. COMPLAINTS POSSIBLEVacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. REFERLNCL Ir- �❑ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Commercial Area COMPLAINTS RARE Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. 1 R As Loud 60 -- -- - _ _ _ _ �. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Large Business Office IAlAsLoud 50 - Dishwasher Next Room - - - - - - - - - - - -Quiet Urban Daytime - - - - - ACCEPTANCE 40 - Small Theater,Large - - - - - - - - - - - - Quiet Urban Nighttime. - - - - Conferenee Room(Background) Library Ouiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Concert Hall(Background) Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - 8roadcast and Record€ng Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 SOURCE:ESA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 3.34 Effects of Noise on People 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise nighttime weightings account for additional sensitivity to noise events in each of those periods. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Devclopmcnt regulations require use of the CNEL metric,which as described above, provides additional weightings for the evening and nighttime noise events. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into four categories: • Subjective effects(e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance) ■ Interference effects(e.g., communication,sleep,and learning interference) • Physiological effects(e.g., startle response) • Physical effects(e.g.,hearing loss, sleep interference) Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. The principal human responses to noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference with daily activities includes interference with human communication activities,such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone conversations,and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors,including the type of noise,the perceived importance of the noise,the appropriateness of the noise to the setting, the duration of the noise,the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, individual noise sensitivity, and habituation to noise. In 2008,the American National Standards Institute published a standard method of estimating sleep disturbance that divided the population into two groups,based on their habituation to the noise source.The study determined. that a population that has not been habituated to a nighttime noise wake up more often than a habituated population. A population habituated to common noise sources in their environment woke substantially less than a population newly exposed to noise. Similarly,in 2008 the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise(FICAN)published a report that summarized sleep disturbance research relative to aircraft noise,and noted that a limited number of the exposed population is awakened. Per the 2008 FICAN report,the exposed population has less than a 5 percent probability of awakening from a single-event, which produces a single indoor noise level of 85 dB or less. However, should the noise of 85 dB occur more than four hours after falling to sleep, the probability of awakening could increase beyond 5 percent. In addition, indoor noise of 78 dB is anticipated to result in the probability of awakening remaining at or below 5 percent as long as the event occurs within 6 hours of the time since falling to sleep. Furthermore,two indoor noise events of 78 dB in one night(such as noise from a helicopter transport) would result in the probability of awakening of approximately 6 percent of the population(FICAN,2008). Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Proud 3.3-4 ESA!130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In regard to annoyance and dissatisfaction,a wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists,and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus,an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called"ambient noise"level. In general,the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level,the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in noise level,the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments,a change of 1 d13 cannot be perceived. ■ Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference. ■ A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected. ■ A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness,and can cause adverse response (Caltrans, 1998). These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a nonlinear fashion; hence, the decibel scale was developed. Effects of Noise on Horses Horses have binaural hearing, which means that they can hear sounds from both ears concurrently. The size and shape of a horse ear allows the horse to detect a sound more readily and from different areas in the surrounding environment than humans(Heffner,2000). Horse ears rotate 180 degrees and generally face the direction the animal is looking. With binaural hearing, they can focus one eye and ear on the rider(for example) and one eye and ear on something else (FHWA, 2007). When they hear something, horses want to see the cause(FHWA, 2007). However,binaural hearing is not precise; many times horses are not able to accurately detect the location of sounds in the environment(Heffner, 2000).This inability to accurately pinpoint a sound in the environment may cause a horse to become frightened or startled when certain or unidentifiable sounds are produced (Heffner, 2000). In addition,horses can hear frequencies from a wide range of 55 to 33,500 Hz,while humans hear lower and smaller frequency ranges, from approximately 30 to 19,000 Hz(Blazer,2012). Because of the high-frequency range,horses may be more sensitive to higher-pitched sounds than. humans. The horse's natural response and survival instinct to sudden or unidentifiable sounds in the environment, or when a particular sound is perceived to be a threat,is to flee in the opposite direction of the sound(Heffner, 2000). Horses have been observed for reactions to aircraft(USAF,2000),which indicate a varied response to low-altitude aircraft overflights. Some horses startle at a sudden onset of aircraft noise and gallop or kick when surprised by a low-altitude aircraft overflight,but sometimes no reaction occurs. Although all horses have the same basic instincts, the reaction to environmental noise for each individual horse depends on its training,life experience,and personality (Heffner, Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop ProiW 3.3-5 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 2000).The response varies with the horse,the rider,the terrain. and other conditions(USAF, 2000). Horses can become gradually conditioned to various noises over time(Heffner,2000).The U.S. Air Force has evidence that horses typically adapt to flyovers over a month's time (USAF, 2000). Also,horses ridden in more developed environments become accustomed to unsettling noises after repeated exposure to them (FHWA,2007). Vehicles backfiring, gunfire, firecrackers, sirens,helicopters,public address systems,hot air balloons,trains,marching bands,mechanical equipment,echoes,and bridge or tunnel sounds are tolerated by horses that are accustomed to them. Likewise,horses that spend time in rural areas get used to noises such as the sounds of farm animals and farming activities(FHWA,2007). Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen)at a rate between f dB for hard sites and 7.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water.No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop- off rate)are simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface,such as soft dirt,grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading,an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources(such as traffic noise from vehicles)attenuate at a rate between 3 dB for hard sites and 4.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement(Caltrans,Technical Noise Supplement, 1998). Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure(in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences,hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The proposed project is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway,south of De Portola Road,and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential property line is approximately 225 feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest residential unit(the Madera Vista apartments) is approximately 305 feet. In addition, a church is located over 1,000 feet away. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include: ■ Single-family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest • Single-family residences and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway • Professional medical offices to the west • Multi-family residential, commercial, medical office, and a flood control channel to the cast and northeast Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3fi E^.-A!130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Existing Ambient Noise Levels The ambient noise environment on and nearby the hospital site are shown on Table 3.3-1,which provides the measured noise at five representative locations(shown in Figure 3.3-2). TABLE 3.3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Measurement Measured Average AMBIENT Number Location Description Period Noise Level, dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.1-61.2 59.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.8-63.2 53.9 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 50.1-61.7 63.5 4 On project site,at offset of 20 minutes 57.9 NIA proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Caile Los Padres(adjacent 24 hours 642-76.5 7c3.7 to Highway 79) NOTES:Ambient samples were collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26,2414. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute 51.4-1971. 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)regulations(Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 772),noise abatement must be considered for hospital sites;these criteria indicate that the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq)during the noisiest 1-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB at exterior areas or 52 dB within the interior of a hospital or medical building. In addition, Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)Guidelines, 14 CFR fart 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 fights for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting,military, or other persons who provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt,from local ordinances adapted by a Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-7 ESA 1130652 Recirrulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 r " a $. r �,•� - .wird^ �� ,r, � ,4 s •._ e. Yj t{ •S.e• "` ��r -" `} "F 1 L _ �y f °may ��� •'�� C� ai i� g .°?� ti i � '� - ��� ..�3' TV- }e j,„'"�'':I � � -..rr iiia � {y s+ �� *' •�' y• eb' f�:;�,r f a .' �� rte. .�' �5 { .-. - �• C�` T _. r 'g Site 2k. F Site �L • .r r PROJECT S t 0., SITE a� - } Site 1S a� Sit � R �,;Y.., c;�,��,&,,.�3� � Vii: ��. :S1E�• ! f -' y ♦,- aTTF Tt ���-� -�y4r _ 'yr ,.�y., faaV� '' . � '���s M1�. ahs \,:�4; ( f1`3 a= £ '` �•/�,. ..y.. •!✓ :fr '�. '� Y.��r` ..w la]. TT •r .TrFT. 1 1 s.'f- �' ,, r r.. ..�tl - �' ..'" ��!_e.: - ,rr'frf •�,/r,.y, z# ® Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations a 1060 •-� � _� � ,�* f -�'s�,F '._ t s!"� Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.0d:USDA Figure 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 3.Errvironmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise city,county,or city and county,whether general law or chartered,that restrict flight departures arra 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 aireraft(emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 California Airport Noise Standards,Subchapter 6—Noise Standards,Article 1 —General, Sections 5001 through 5006 provides noise standards governing the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines. Section 5006 defines the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport as a CNEL value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep,and community reaction. As in the federal criteria, no compatibility criteria have been established for A-weighted single-event noise metrics such as CNEL or Lmax. California Department of Health Services Noise Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS)has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure.These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.3-2. In addition, Section 65302(f)of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development,with Section 65302(g)requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan.The noise element must., (1)identify and appraise noise problems in the community, (2)recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines;and(3)analyze and quantify currant and projected noise levels. The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks,the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars(less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating)is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline.These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards(Title 24, California Code of Regulations).The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dB Ldn in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB Ldn.Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-9 ESA 1130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-2 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (Ldn OR CNEL) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50-60 55-70 70-75 above 75 Multi-family Homes 50-65 60-70 70-75 above 75 Schools,Libraries,Churches, 50-70 60-70 70-80 above 80 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Transient Lodging—Motels,Hotels 50-65 60-70 70-80 above 75 Auditoriums,Concert Halls, --- 50-70 --- above 70 Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoo•Spectator Sports 50-75 above 75 Playgrounds,Neighborhood Parks 50-70 --- 67-75 above 75 Golf Courses,Riding Stables, 50-75 — 70-80 above 80 Water Recreation,Cemeteries Office Buildings,Business and 50-70 67-77 above 75 Professional Commercial Industrial,Manufacturing,Utilities, 50-75 70-80 above 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 construction or development should generally not be undertaken. SOURCE:OPR,2GD3. City of Temecula General Plan — Noise Element The City's noise standards are correlated with land use zoning classifications in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit,mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone.The City's primary goal with regard to community noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible.To this end,the Noise Element establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise.These guidelines are based,in part,on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the DHS for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. The City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.3-3. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 33-10 ESA)130652 Recirculatec Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-3 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN NOISEfLAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Community Noise Exposure(Ldn or CNEL,dB) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Lane!Use Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Residentiale 50-60 60-70 70-75 above 75 Transient Lodging—Motel,Hotel 50-60 60-70 70-80 above 80 Schools,Libraries,Churches, 50-60 60-70 70-80 above 80 Hospitals., Nursing Homes Auditoriums,Concert Halls, --- 50-70 - above 70 Amphitheatersf Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sportsf - 50-75 -- above 75 Playgrounds, Parks 50-70 --- 70-75 above 75 Golf Course,Riding Stables, 50-70 --- 70-80 above 80 Water Recreation,Cemeteries Office Buildings,Business 50-65 65-75 above 75 Commercial,and Professional Industrial,Manufacturing,Utilities, 50-70 70-80 above 80 Agriculture Agriculture above 50 a Normally Acceptable:Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction,without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable:New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.Conventional construction,but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable:New construction or development should generally be discouraged.If it does proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable:New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. e. Regarding aircraft-related noise,the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 d8 CNEL Noise Element Table N-2. f No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses.Noise studies are required prior to approval. SOURCE:City of Temecula General Plan,Noise Element Table N-2,2G05. In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 60 dB Ldn or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of noise-sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes,schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,hotels,motels,etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition,all new residential development in the city would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development,requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dB Ldn or CNEL or less. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop ProtEct 3.3-11 ESA 1130652 Recimulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound—appropriate interior working environment. Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening,weekends and holidays. Policy 1.3 Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major stationary noise sources. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects,and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. .Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network,and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of city, state and federal noise impacts from vehicles,particularly in residential areas. Temecula Val I"HospiWI Hal istop Project 3.3-12 ESA)130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles,particularly in residential areas. City of Temecula Municipal Cade Section 9.20 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes city-wide standards to regulate noise. The following excerpts from Section 9.20 are relevant to the proposed project. 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt: E. Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties,including,but not limited to,sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation,sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile. J. Safety,warning and alarm devices, including,but not limited to,house and car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health,safety, and welfare. 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound,or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 9.20.064 Special Sound Sources Standards No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence,between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. Further,no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may,by formal action,exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.070 Exceptions Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound standards) or 9,20.060(special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as construction-related or single-event exceptions. An application for a construction-related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The form shall be submitted in writing at least 3 working days(72 hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the City Manager or designated representative. No public hearing is required. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-13 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2018 3.Environmental Setting.Impacts.and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-4 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level(dB Lmax) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Resident al Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65177' High 45 70 Commercial and Office Neighborhood Community — 70 Highway Tourist Service Pro°essional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/institutional Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture — 70 Open Space — 701652 Maximum exterior noise levels of 70 dB are allowed for multiple-family housing- 2 Where quiet is a basis required For the land use. SOURCE:City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.44x. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-14 ESA)130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-5 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE NOISEILAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Land Use Noise Exposure(dB Lmax) 55 64 65 74 75 so Residential Transient Lodging—Motel, Hotel Schools,Libraries,Churches, 141 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums,Concert Halls, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amphitheaters Sports Arena,Outdoor Spectatc-Sports dw Playgrounds,Parks Golf Cou•se,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 Cade 9.20.040. Temecula Valley Hospital Halisfop Protect 3.3-15 ESA�130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2018 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 3.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Integrated Noise Model The Integrated Noise Model (INM),Version 7.0d,has been used to quantify helicopter noise exposure in the vicinity of the interim and future helistop locations. The INM is the FAA- approved noise model for quantifying fixed-wing and rotorcraft noise.The model input requires information specific to each helistop, including the total number of helicopter operations, the flight paths used to access the helistop, the specific helicopter types,and the time of day at which the operations would occur. The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level. It then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure generated by each helicopter(or aircraft)operation,along each flight track. Corrections are applied for atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the engines by the helicopter, and speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each operation are then summed at each grid location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop CNEL contours (e.g., 60 and 65 dB CNEL). The INM includes the ability to model the effects of changes in ground elevations(terrain),but docs 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 aircrafft noise exposure. CNEL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels with an additional weighting placed on evening(7:00:00 p.m.—9:59:59 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00:00 p.m .--6:59:59 a.m.)operations to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. CNEL metric and the evening and nighttime weightings are described in detail in the `Time of Day"section below. The Riverside County ALUCP utilizes CNEL to assess noise impacts from flight operations and identifies the following three criteria: 1) for locations having an existing ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less,a CNEL increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant;2)for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 3 dB or more is deemed significant;and 3)for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL,a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop project 3.3-16 ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Single-Event Noise Metrics As previously discussed,no federal,state, or regional compatibility criteria has been established for single-event noise metrics such as Lmax. Lmax represents the maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. However,the City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.20.040 provides maximum sound level standards. As described above and listed in Tables 3.3-4 and 3.3-5,the maximum exterior Lmax noise level of 65 dB is allowed for single- family residential,and 70 dB is allowed for multiple-family residential. The regulations of the City's Municipal Code are applied to the single-event noise analysis provided in the following pages. The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which permanent and temporary increases in ambient noise are considered "substantial." However,for the purpose of the project's single-event noise analysis,it is assumed that project operations would constitute a significant impact if the project would result in an exceedance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels.. The City Municipal Code Section 9.20.040,General Sound Level Standards,provide maximum noise standards that are general in nature, and are intended to apply to typical community and land use noise sources. In addition, the City's Municipal Code Section 9,20.070 provides specific exemptions from sound emanating from all stationary and mobile equipment used by emergency personnel. The use of 65 dB Lmax for single-family residential,and 70 dB Lmax for multiple- family residential(which are the maximum noise levels allowed per City Code Section 9.20.040) for threshold criteria related to substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels, is extremely conservative because the criteria does not provide for an allowable increase in noise beyond the code requirements that may not be perceivable. As described above,a noise increase of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected. Sleep Disturbance There is no federal,state, or regional regulatory standards related to noise related sleep disturbance. However, as described above, in 2008 FICAN published a report that summarized sleep disturbance research relative to aircraft noise, and determined that the population exposed to two indoor noise events of 78 dB in a single night(such as from a helicopter transport)would result in the probability of awakening of approximately 6 percent of the population. Based on the data from the 2008 FICAN study,it is assumed that an indoor noise level of 78 dB would be significant, as this is the sound level at which helicopter noise would begin to substantially affect the sleep of residents in the surrounding. Because the use of the helicopter(shown in Table 3.3-6),would occur during the daytime 80 percent of the time, in the evening 10 percent of the time,and during the night time(10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) 10 percent of the time, and it is estimated that on average eight helicopter operations (four arrival and four departure operations)would occur per month,the average nighttime usage of the proposed helistop is projected to be one transport.(one arrival and one departure operation)per month. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop ProjW 3.3-17 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations Evaluated The hospital site is surrounded by single-family residential,multi-family residential, and an equestrian trail.The specific sensitive receptor sites that are identified for evaluation(shown later in Table 3.3-9)were selected based on their relationship to the proposed interim and proposed helistop sites. Because helicopter noise at sensitive receptors that are closer to the helistop would be greater due to the proximity of helicopters descending to land at and ascending to depart from the helistop,this noise evaluation has identified 10 of the closest sensitive receptors that would also be located under the proposed flight paths. This methodology is intended to identify the greatest anticipated noise impact that is representative of effects to the project vicinity.Of course, the noise level experienced at a particular dwelling will depend on its location relative to the flight paths and direction of aircraft operations (arrivals or departures). The 10 sensitive receptor locations are listed in Table 3.3-9,and the proposed flight paths are shown in Figures 3.3-3 through 3.3-6. Helicopter Operations and Fleet it is anticipated that two local ;Emergency Medical Services(EMS)helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services,would use the helistop to transport patients approximately eight times(four arrival operations and four departure operations)per month over a 12-month period. This would total approximately 96 operations per year(one transport equals two operations: an arrival and a departure). Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual- average day operations over a 365-day period. The proposed changes to the helistop (i.e.,the decommissioning of the interim helistop and operation of the permanent helistop)would not result in an increase in the number of helicopters using the helistop. Thus,the same number of operations was used to calculate the noise exposure for both the interim helistop location and permanent helistop location. The type of helicopter used by Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services that would use the interim and permanent helistops is Airbus I ielicopter's EC135, which is commonly used for medical air transport and currently does not have a noise profile in the 1NM. However,the EC 130 (which does have a noise profile in the 1NM) is a similar helicopter and generates similar noise. Both helicopter models have a 1~enestron tail rotor,which has an array of ten blades that are arranged asymmetrically and are spaced at different intervals,which reduces a main generator of helicopter noise. Therefore,the EC 130 makes an appropriate substitute to use in calculations for the EC 135; thus, it was used to model noise from project operations. Time of Day The INM includes an additional weighting during the evening and nighttime hours to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Evening operations are weighted as three daytime operations and nighttime operations are weighted as 10 daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 dB penalty and a 10 dB penalty for each event during these periods,respectively.The time of day that each operation is anticipated to occur is summarized in Table 3.3-6. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Proud 3.3-18 ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-6 HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL) Daytime Evening Nighttime INM helicopter [7:00:00 a.m.- (7:00:00 p.m.- (10:00:00 P.M.- Type 6:59:59 p.m.) 9:59:59 p.m.) 6:59:59 a.m.) Total EC-130 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% SOURCE Helipianners,2013 Flight Corridors The flight corridors used to access the helistops are an important factor in determining the geographic distribution of noise on the ground. Flight corridors for helicopter operations were modeled for the proposed north-flow and south-flow flight path configurations for both the proposed interim and permanent conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by Heliplanners,the heliport consultant. Based on this data,use percentages were developed for north-flow and south-flow operations. When operating in a north-flow configuration (in Santa Ana wind conditions, which are winds that originate inland and do not occur as regularly as prevailing winds), arrivals would fly a true heading of 213 degrees to the interim helistop,while departures would fly a true heading of 33 degrees. Figure 3.3-3 depicts the interim helistop north-flow flight corridors that would primarily be used in Santa Ana wind conditions. When operating in a south-flow configuration(in prevailing wind conditions), arrivals would fly a true heading of 48 degrees to the interim helistop,while departures would fly a true heading of 228 degrees. Figure 3.3-4 depicts the interim helistop south-flow flight corridors that would primarily be used in prevailing wind conditions. Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop location. When operating in a north-flow configuration(in Santa Ana wind conditions),arrivals would fly a true heading of 218 degrees to the permanent helistop,while departures would fly a true heading of 38 degrees.Figure 3.3-5 depicts the permanent helistop north-flow flight corridors that would primarily be used in Santa Ana wind conditions. When operating in a south-flow configuration Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-19 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 n v - �� � '� ��• _ �'� � - Site 8 r{� +! � • 'i1 ���a itva s ' r ; 1,_ Site 6B , t y Site 3 Site 2 14 + _,- •' Site 6A - Site 7 4 PROJECT l`k SITE e r . Site 6C 1 Ot ' - Interim Helistop -' ,� �y;-.;• Site 5p . ��-- i jS,�- •ave"� `��7`y rJOI rF• + _ •" '•I sw 0 Site Locations r �,t•,� . •.�.+� Flight Corridors • !f T s` f Yr. M Arrivals rs c k;, �,r. ,► W. .4 M Departures 6.- " ,y"�„y�. a,� .'r,s�«ti-- �F �,]►- �3* Feet 1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7-6d;USDA Figure 3.3-3 Interim Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions ,_ /� `� •!� a...� r� • ,r. fir;� y K li �. �' ' ala ��s.� � -f KIe ey +• , 0- i e ite 8 Site 6B r �+ Site 3 Site 2, Site '. ;W%'j, Site 6A Site 7 t t PROJECT ,r , SITE t r , y Site 6C �r A. 'y ; �� ':% Interim Helistop Site 5 z Site 9 • i d..Site Locations �`+'� 'S` l�.• 3 4 , "'� ' i{'•. :+�... Flight Corridors .�,ur'`I� '" �„� � ;',� e• ;. ■ -i•�,{�,� � Arrivals - Departures _ Kx � a r �,I �, r,'•tom; � y �� •s . 0 16[}0 Feet ..4' Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7_[}d;USDA Figure 3.3-4 Interim Helistop- South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions IN �/ 1 i��o'w.. _'.'„ .,� e^ 'rte •j'r ew •l ' ir `' ,'ti i' hI� t T del. "� �+l �E�r � ..�d"S�. � "✓ { doo . a 11• ! %Ikk Site 8I. F Site 6B • , ,:.i' # _ ,fir;,. ,. ., . S:e 3 IT I Site 2 _k. jam 4 4 Site 1 , , ;� Site BA PROJECT Site 7 SITE '.y��rl�S�sc '` $-._ 1 �ecula P '4 • wry [e" - 1 ,° Site 6C Permanent Helistop Site 5 ol Site 9 y _ j a,. s Yy' s�. �� � � � IL' r,, a °:' ;s ► tip.. ,�• asp. '' • r Ju� r { +°• .*" t '+ y Site Locations ';, 1 .6.J ,, - .rE« • ' is r i i.c� T r FT. �i is Flight Corridors Arrivals �!{ . �'ir r r L t •.�: *. ' Departures 14 -- - dry ,,'?. •. :; -.�' ...(i � ti"i r - � q•,; J �k t .;�* r .t Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.134652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.6d;USDA Figure 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wing Conditions 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise (in prevailing wind conditions),arrivals would fly a true heading of 49 degrees to the permanent helistop,while departures would fly a true heading of 229 degrees. Figure 3.3-6 depicts the permanent helistop south-flow flight corridors that would primarily be used in prevailing wind conditions. Flight corridor use percentages are anticipated to occur as shown in Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-& TABLE 3.3-7 ECA 30 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES-INTERIM LOCATION Departu res Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% ANEP 900% 90.0%n 90.0% DSWP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 100% 10.0% Total 100.0%, 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%n 100.0% SOURCE:Heliplanners,2013 TABLE 3.3-8 ECA 30 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES-PERMANENT LOCATION Departures Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10,0% 10.0% 10,0% ANEP 90,0% 90.0% 90.0% DSWP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SOURCE:Heliplanners,2013 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop PfoJect 3.3-23 ESA 113©652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Erwironrnental Impact Report February 2018 sem" VR /� (R'iv!!"� .� e,:. -:fry<ew„ •e �' � � .-.t: s, � -: •w f ' v -mel 1r s < ` Ti ' , "` _` �• r Site$ ;. P' i b site 3 ' Site 68 site 2� 17 fir. ! _-- to Site � Site PROD ECT 1 �� ,�,� A s``� r- SITE r Site 7 x'= W e ecu s << Site 6C ;�.. 1.. � •' ' Permanent Helistop ., Site 5 Site 9 s .Yr•}1 _5th `�• , .,, r a' g + _: �'°'+ •r" l . a�r',f . r) Site Locations • 1 ' i ,•x s s ► • t ii"� 'r + .� Flight Carridors GE}` Arrivals Departures 0 1600 a `ti 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 3.3 Noise Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to noise if it would_ • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ■ Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. ■ For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. As determined in the Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study(see Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, or noise impacts related to a public airport. Therefore,no further analysis of these topics is included. Temporary Construction Noise Construction of the approved hospital facility is ongoing as the hospital is being developed in phases and noise related impacts associated with construction activities from development of the helistop and the various hospital structures have been previously analyzed in the previous environmental documents prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital (which are described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this RDSEIR-2016 and incorporated by reference). Construction of the proposed helistop locations and storage building would use the same types of equipment that have been(and would continue to be)used to construct the hospital facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of the other hospital facilities,which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 Final SEIR.Other hospital facilities,such as the roadways,parking lots,and future building sites are located closer to sensitive receptors than the proposed storage building. Hence,the maximum noise from construction on the project was previously evaluated,and there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the analysis, findings,and mitigation measures from the previously approved 2005 Final SEIR and 2011 Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR are incorporated by reference into this RDSEIR- 2016. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop ProjW 3.3-25 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Helicopter Noise CNEL Norse Standards and Impacts The proposed interim helistop would be located on a moundlberm that would be approximately 5.5 feet above ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an elevation of 1,060 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The permanent helistop is planned to be located on the roof of a future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,145 feet amsl. Using the 1NM,the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8. The CNEL contours shown on Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8 depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources.The interim helistop 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 2.6 acres and the permanent helistop 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.1 acres. The CNEL contours for the permanent helistop location are larger than the interim helistop location because the increased elevation reduces the effect of ground attenuation that occurs with helicopter operations close to the ground. The reduced ground attenuation allows the sound to propagate further than the interim helistop at ground level. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing,and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. The General Plan uses a CNEL standard that averages noise over 24 hours. The proposed storage building would be used to store nonhazardous materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock" for the hospital,and linens. The storage building would not use any machinery or equipment,except for heating,ventilation,and air conditioning [HVACI)equipment that is similar to those used in other hospital buildings. As a result, operation of the proposed storage building would not generate noise in excess of the City's General Plan criteria. As shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8,the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter flights at both the interim and permanent locations are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore,the average noise increase(CNEL)resulting from the proposed helistop project would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan. Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act also uses CNEL to identify noise impacts and established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses.As previously noted, the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed project(shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8)are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore,no residential areas would experience a significant noise impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP) criteria(Policy 4.1,4) states that the maximum CNEL considered normally acceptable for development of new single- family residential land uses in the vicinity of an air facility is 60 dB. Thus,new single-family residential uses that are planned within the vicinity of an air facility should have an existing ambient environment lower than 60 dB CNEL. For other sensitive land uses, including hotels, places of worship,meeting halls,office buildings, etc., the Riverside County ALUCP defines 65 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable noise exposure level. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 � - ` . -' • • - � �� � -# ` Od . � 01 s , • +fit :/Fw r ia .'. ►#` . Fl L 4! _ -t 061 PROJECT SITE IL �e eco Interim Helistop T� . f 79 I 4k y�' � _ � - � * '_ a � � �.. ' tom � .�y r• � \.� a - CNEL Contours _ "� '" ..-.,J► 66 dB 65 dB Noise Sersitive ` Land Use 6 5[30 wti' •'� r�1.Sl i�` � q.l-�- � Feet 1F - f Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA-,INM 7.0d-,City of Temecula;USDA Figure 3.3-7 Interim Helistop- CNEL Contours Y f V r�*g 41. y, '4' � •'fes. f qW, PROJECT i SITE • .4 Permanent Helistop a # R CNEL Contours 60 dB 1 ' 1.• �°' �. 65 dB Noise Sersitive Land Use old- I 6 5Q© '' + Feet r ti y ■ 1 4 y sem .•• Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEER.130652 SOURCE:ESA-,INM 7.Od-,City of Temecula;USDA Figure 3.3-8 Permanent Helistop - CNEL Contours 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from use of the proposed helistops are completely contained within the hospital campus(Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8). There are no single-family residential land uses within the 60 dB CNEL contour because it is contained within the hospital campus. In addition,there are no other sensitive land uses within the 65 dB CNEL contour because it is also contained within the hospital campus.As a result,no residential areas or other sensitive uses would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the ALUCP. Short-Term !Norse Standards and Impacts The City of Temecula Municipal Code identifies noise standards as 65 dB Lmax for single-family residential units and 65-70 dB Lm ax for multi-family residential units. Short-term noise impacts associated with the interim and permanent helistop locations have been modeled at various locations surrounding the project site,and are depicted in Figure 3.3-3. Table 3.3-9 shows the single-event(Lmax,the maximum,instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time)noise levels that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the interim helistop at those locations. TABLE 3.3-9 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE INTERIM HELISTOP WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Number Addres Site Site s�riptianl Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB s 1 30390 De Portola Road 60,9 52.6 52.G 65.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 73.3 85.0 85.5 74.5 adjacent to portion of Equestrian Trail 3 31775 De Portola Road 59.5 82.7 77.8 59.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 73.2 73.2 72.8 75.6 (adjacent to Highway 79) 6A Direct Overflight of 76.3 93,4 100.8 77.6 Equestrian Trail 613 Equestrian Trail 67.9 83.5 90.8 68.5 Location B 6C Equestrian Trail 81.0 81.0 81.0 85.2 Location C 7 Madera Vista 62.9 76.9 71.9 62.8 8 43941 Via Montalban 49.7 80.6 70.2 49.6 9 David Ln!Kevin PI 75.7 57.2 57.2 83.7 VOTE:Receptor receiving the greatest ioise in eaeh wind condition is indicates in Bold, SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-29 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 would be limited,occurring; approximately eight times per month (four departure operations and four arrival operations') as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would exceed the City's exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites listed in Table 3.3-9, and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dI3 Lmax at Site CA,the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions,helicopter overflight noise would exceed the City's exterior noise standard at all of the receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. Table 3.3-10 shows the single-event noise levels(Lmax)that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the permanent helistop that would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower,which would be developed in Phase IV of the hospital development.As shown, in prevailing wind conditions,noise from helicopter operations to and from the permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 d13 Lmax at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions,the exterior short-term noise standard would also be exceeded at 9 of the 10 receptor sites and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments. TABLE 3.3-10 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE PERMANENT HELISTOP WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Number Site Descriptiond Address Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 58.8 48.6 48.6 63.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 71-7 71-7 71-7 73-8 3 31775 Dee Portola Road 69.9 82.2 82.4 70-9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 82.1 67.4 67.5 84.3 (adjacent to Highway 79) 6A Equestrian Trail Location A 75-1 75-1 75-1 77-5 613 Equestrian Trail Location B 69.8 69.7 69.8 71.0 6C Equestrian Trail Location C 71.9 67.1 67-1 76-3 7 Madera Vista 79.6 89.8 87.8 80.5 8 43941 Via Montalban 53.3 73.8 71.8 53-7 9 David Ln!Kevin PI 70.3 54.1 54.1 78.4 NOTE:Receptor receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Prood 3.3-30 ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental ErivironmentaI Impact Report February 2016 3.Errvironmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Tables 3.3-9 and 3:3-10,the greatest helicopter noise would be generated from use of the interim site at approximately 5.5 feet off of the ground than from the future rooftop location,where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Similarly,helicopter noise at sensitive receptors closer to the helistop would be greater due to the proximity of helicopters descending to land and ascending to depart the helistop. The City's Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040)states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level on single-family residential land uses to exceed 65 dB Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family residential. As previously described,use of the interim helistop would result in exceedance of this noise standard at all of the receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions, and use of the permanent helistop would result in exceedance of the noise standard at 9 out of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Therefore,the noise from helicopter operations from use of both the proposed interim and permanent helistops would exceed the exterior noise limits identified in the City's Noise Ordinance. Although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City's Municipal Code standards(per Code Section 9.20.030),and flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise(per PUC Section 21662.4. (a)),noise from medical helicopters would substantially exceed the City's maximum exterior sound levels for single-and multi-family residential uses(as identified Tables 3.3-9 and 3.3-10). As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of noise standards. Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise is measured in CNEL, which averages noise over 24 hours. As described previously, the proposed storage building would be used for storage of nonhazardous materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock" for the hospital,and linens and would not use any machinery or equipment except for HVAC equipment,which is similar to the equipment used for the other hospital buildings. In addition,the storage building would not require or result in additional traffic trips;thus,traffic-related ambient increases in noise from additional vehicles trips would not occur.Therefore,operation of the proposed storage building would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. The Riverside County ALUCP identifies significant impacts resulting from the proposed action using three criteria: for locations having an existing ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less,a CNEL increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant; for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 3 dB or more is deemed significant;and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-31 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Table 3.3-1,ambient noise in the project vicinity ranges from 57.9 to 78.7 dB CNEL. The INM was used to calculate the helicopter-generated CNEL,which was compared to the ambient CNEL values to determine if the receptor sites would experience an increase in CNEL of 3 dB or more at Sites 1 and 2, and 1.5 dB CNEL or more at Sites 3 and 5. As shown in Tables 3.3-11 and 3.3-12,Sites 1 and 2 did not experience an increase of 3 dB CNEL,nor did Sites 3 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL from operation of the interim or permanent helistops. TABLE 3.3-11 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE AND CNEL NOISE WITH THE INTERIM SITE Difference Between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Site Description/ AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Number Address CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 26.9 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 46.6 59.1 +0.2 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 38,7 63,5 0.0 4 On project site,at offset of NIA NIA NIA NIA proposed five-story bed towe r 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 78.7 47.2 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2415. TABLE 3.3-12 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE AND CNEL NOISE WITH THE PERMANENT SITE Difference Combined Between Ambient and Ambient and Site Site Description/ AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Number Address CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 24.0 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 44.2 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 43.9 63.5 0.0 4 On project site,at offset of NIA NIA NIA NIA proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 78.7 41.3 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2415. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-32 ESA)130652 Recirculatec Draft.Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In addition, the helicopter-generated CNEL at Sites 6A through. 9(as listed in Table 3.3-13) would be below the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity(57.9 to 78.7 dB CNEL as listed in Table 3.3-1). Thus,the helicopter noise at these locations would not result in a 1.5 dB or more increase CNEL ambient noise. TABLE 3.3-13 HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FOR SITES 6 THOUGH 9 Helicopter CNEL, Helicopter CNEL, Site dB for dB for Number Site Descriptionl Address Interim Site Permanent Site 6A' Equestrian Trail Location A 50.8 47.4 66" Equestrian Trail Location B 42.6 42.2 6C" Equestrian Trail Location C 53.5 40.3 7 Madera Vista 37.7 53.3 8 43941 Via Montalban 37.0 32.8 9 David Ln!Kevin PI 35.1 31.6 SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Therefore,no residential areas would experience a significant increase in noise as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the Riverside County ALUCF,and the project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Significance Determination: Less than significant Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels As described previously and listed in Table 3.3-1,ambient noise in the project vicinity ranges from 57.9 dB to 78.7 dB CNEL. Operation of both the interim and permanent helistops would result in substantial short-term increases in ambient noise from helicopter overflight.The duration of the maximum helicopter noise would be limited and occur as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops,which would occur approximately eight times a month(four departure operations and four arrival operations). As described previously in the methodology discussion, for the purpose of the project's single- event noise analysis,it is assumed that project operations would result in a significant impact if the project would result in an excecdance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-33 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital),the periodic noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a substantia] short-terra increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites,and would result in a maximum noise level of 93.4 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. In Santa Ana wind conditions,helicopter overflight noise to and from the interim helistop would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at all of the receptor sites, and would expose areas to maximum noise levels of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. In both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions,the short-term increase in noise from helicopter operations to and from the interim helistop would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month. Use of the proposed permanent helistop in prevailing wind conditions would also result in a substantia] short-term increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites,and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. In Santa Ana wind conditions,the proposed permanent helistop would also result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise at 9 of the 10 receptor sites,and would and result in a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. Helicopter noise would be greater from the interim site at approximately 5.5 feet off of the ground(resulting in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A,the equestrian trail)than from the future rooftop location,where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing winds at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments. In regards to sleep disturbance,as described above, in 2008 F1CAN 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 leve] of 78 dB would be significant,as this is the sound level at which helicopter noise would begin to substantially affect the sleep of residents. In addition,based on the anticipated helicopter use (shown in Table 3.3-6),an average of one transport(one arrival and one departure operation) per month would occur. Typical wood framed residential structures provide exterior to interior noise attenuation of 12 to 17 dBA with open windows and around 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. Assuming limited exterior to interior residential structural attention (i.e. 12 dB with open windows and 20 dB with closed windows)exterior noise levels of 90 and 98 dB would produce respective interior noise levels of 78 dB with open and closed windows. Because there are no recognized federal,state,or regional thresholds of significance regarding number of persons awakened by helicopter operations, the: use of the 90 dB exterior noise level, which assumes windows are open,is used to determine areas exposed to a heightened degree of potential for sleep disturbance during nighttime helicopter operations. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-34 ESA!130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Errvironmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise As shown in Table 3.3-9, use of the interim helistop would result in two equestrian trail locations experiencing helicopter noise in excess of 90 dBA,which do not contain residential structures or sleeping facilities. All of the other sensitive receptor locations would experience helicopter noise that is less than 90 dBA. Therefore,use of the interim helistop would not result in helicopter noise that would substantially affect the sleep of residents. Additionally as shown in Table 3.3-10,the permanent helistop would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and a maximum noise level of 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus,the use of the permanent helistop would not result in noise levels of 90 dBA, and would also not result in helicopter noise that would substantially affect the sleep of residents. In addition to residential sensitive receptors,the equestrian trail is located adjacent to the perimeter of the hospital site to the north and northwest. As previously discussed,some horses startle and become frightened at a sudden unidentified noise, such as the onset of aircraft noise because this noise is abrupt and substantially louder than ambient noise levels. Hence,horses being ridden along the equestrian trail that bounds the hospital site to the north could startle and thus a safety hazard at the equestrian trail may occur. Conversely, horses that are accustomed to various urban noises may not react, and horses that reside locally are generally anticipated to adjust to the noise after repeated exposure. To reduce the helicopter-noise-related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 has been included to provide signage at each end of the horse trail to notice riders of the helistop location and operation and minimize potential conflicts during helicopter operations. In addition,the measure would require pilots to use and be trained on the approved flight paths, maintain a log of helicopter activity to ensure compliance with the flight paths,make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available, and establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. However,it would not reduce the limited but substantial noise levels generated from helicopter overflight from both the interim and permanent helistops to less than significant levels. Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a),which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night,or restrict flights because of noise. As a result,the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore,impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure N0l-1: Prior to issuance of a City permit that allows helicopter operations at the interim helistop; the Temecula Valley Hospital shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures; Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-35 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Environmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise - • Prior to helicopter operations, Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users, The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design,preparation,and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. • All helicopter operations at the interim and permanent helistop locations shall use the approved flight paths, unless safety requires a deviation from any of the flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital service contracts with air medical companies shall require that a]l pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves Temecula Valley Hospital. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the approved approach and departure flight paths. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall maintain a log of helicopter activity that shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip,and the dates and times of arrival and departure. If a deviation from prescribed flight paths occurs,the reason for deviation shall be recorded in the log. ■ Temecula Valley Hospital shall make contact information for registering noise complaints publicly available. • Temecula Valley Hospital shall establish a community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for Temecula Valley Hospital and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues. Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable. 3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects and activities within the vicinity of the proposed project. As noise is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases,only projects and ambient growth in the nearby arca could combine with the proposed project to result in cumulative noise impacts. Similarly, the geographic area associated with cumulative construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by helistop noise associated with the proposed project and the locations of the identified cumulative projects. None of the projects listed in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2,Project Description, that are near the project site would involve helistop locations or any other aviation-related uses. Nearby cumulative projects involve commercial, office,and residential development that would not result in substantial noise generation. Furthermore,there are no proposed uses that would generate noise,such that it would combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact. The closest cumulative projects are adjacent to the project site and consist of a medical office building, a surgery center,and a professional office building.These uses are complementary and consistent with the hospital uses,and would not generate noise that would combine with the helicopter noise from the project. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 3.3-36 ESA!130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 3.Errvironmental Setting,Impacts,and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Helicopter overflight noise would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels and would exceed the City's Noise Ordinance regulations,as it would be limited to occurring approximately eight times a month. As described in the 2008 Final SEIR and 2010 Addendum to the 2008 Final SE1R,ambulance sirens generate maximum noise levels of 94 to 117.5 dB. However, it is not anticipated that helicopter activity and ambulance sirens would occur at the same time within the same geographic area because ambulances would only use their sirens as necessary on streets and would not use sirens on the project site; conversely, helicopter approaches do not follow roadways and the noise from the helicopter would be greatest at the project site,where ambulance siren noise would not occur. Because operation of both the interim and permanent helistops would result in substantial short- term increases in ambient noise from helicopter overflight,single-event noise impacts from operation of the proposed project at both locations would be significant and unavoidable. As described above, feasible mitigation has been required to mitigate noise impacts to the extent practicable. However, flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity by the City of Temecula to reduce noise impacts because the California Public Utilities Code(PUC) Section 21662.4 states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level. Accordingly, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. Thus, given the significance of the single-event noise impacts here, and in an effort to provide a conservative approach as mandated by CEQA,noise impacts from helicopter operations are deemed to be cumulatively considerable. Because no mitigation is available that would reduce the impact to less than significant levels (for the same reason that it is not available on a project level,namely, the PUC statute), this document conservatively concludes that cumulative, single-event noise impacts from helicopter operations are significant and unavoidable. Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop PFQiW 3.3-37 ESA 1130852 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project(proposed project)that were evaluated in the original Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (2006)and 2008 Supplemental EIR(SEIR)and it evaluates a No Project./Existing Condition Alternative,a No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative,an Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative, and the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. 4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and describes the rationale for their evaluation in this Recirculated Draft SEIR(RDSEIR-2016),the environmental impacts associated with each alternative, and compares the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the proposed project. In addition, the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives is described. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). CEQA Guidelines(Section 15126.6)states that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. In addition,CEQA has no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the "rule of reason."The"rule of reason,"which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation,which means that the alternatives should be limited to those that would avoid or reduce the significant effects of the project and that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, "feasible"means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic,environmental,legal,social,and technological factors. In addition, Section 15126.6(f)(1)states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations;jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire,control or otherwise have access Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Projeet 4-1 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Alternatives to an alternative site. Furthermore,an E1R need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified,whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives.The alternatives addressed in this RDSEIR-2016 were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: • The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project • The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project • The feasibility of the alternative • The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a"no project"alternative,and to identify an "environmentally superior"alternative in addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)) Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation was published,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved based on current plans(Section 15126.6(e)(3)(c)). 4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts As described in the analysis in Chapter 3, although medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City's Municipal Code,the helicopter flights that would result from the proposed project would result in a substantial exceedance of the City's allowable noise levels. As a result,implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to the exceedance of the City's noise standards. In addition, the project would result in substantial periodic increases in noise that would result in significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of mitigation measures.The periodic noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim and permanent helistop locations would result in a substantial increase in short- term noise events during overflight. In particular,single-event helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would exceed the City's noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites(listed in Table 3.3-9), and would result in a maximum noise level of 93. 1 decibels (dB) Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail,in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). In Santa Ana wind conditions,single-event helicopter overflight noise would exceed the exterior noise limit at all the receptor sites(listed in Table 3.3-9) and result in a maximum noise level of 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions(as shown in Table 3.3-10),and would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions, and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions,at Site 7,Madera Vista apartments. Because of this, operation of the proposed interim helistop and permanent helistop would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to generation of noise in excess of applicable standards,substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels, and cumulative noise. Feasible mitigation has been Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 4-2 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItemafives imposed;however, flight restrictive mitigation measures cannot be placed on medical helicopter activity to reduce noise impacts because the California's Public Utilities Code Section 216+62.4 states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level.Thus,impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As this is a RDSEIR, it should be noted that the previous CEQA documentation for the overall hospital project, including helicopter operations from the City-approved helistop, also identified short-term,periodic significant and unavoidable noise impacts due to helicopter operations. Therefore,the noise findings of this RDSEIR-2016 are consistent with the previous CEQA findings. 4.3 Alternatives Analyzed and Eliminated Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR dated January 2006: Alternative 1:No Project—No Build Alternative 2: No Project—Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site—Corona Family Properties Altemative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. The SEIR that was prepared in January 2008 examined New Alternative 7: Former Temecula Education Center AIternative. However, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only,remained as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternatives Analyzed in This Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report The following project alternatives related to the proposed helistop relocation are evaluated in this RDSEIR-2016: • No Project/Existing Condition Alternative ■ No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative • Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative • Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative • Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-�3 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARematives 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(0(3)). Per CEQA, the lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible and warrant further consideration and which are infeasible (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125.6(f)(3)).The following alternatives were initially considered but were eliminated from further consideration in this RDSEIR-2016 because they do not meet the majority of the project objectives,do not avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts, and/or were otherwise determined to be infeasible. Medical Office Building Sites or Future Building Sites as Interim Helistop Site Alternative Alternatives to use either the planned Medical Office Building(MOB)sites or future building sites(as shown in Figure 2-4)as the helistop site were considered but eliminated from further consideration because these on-site locations are not reasonably available,would not avoid or substantially lessen significant noise impacts,could result in additional impacts that would not occur by the proposed project,and/or use of the locations is infeasible based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permitting criteria. Medical Office Building Sites As described in Section 2.0,Project Description,construction ofthe hospital campus is occurring in six phases. Construction of Phase 1,which includes the new 140-bed, five-story hospital, is complete and the hospital began operations on October 14,2013. in addition,the sewer,water, gas,electric,and master drainage infrastructure has been installed for all of the master plan buildings. The existing infrastructure was designed and sized to serve the MOB sites in their planned locations and cannot be relocated without reconstructing the existing master infrastructure,which serves the operating hospital. MOB 1 Location: Phase II, which is to occur next, includes development of MOB 1 and a 325- space parking facility; therefore,the location for MOB 1 and its parking facility is not available for helistop use. Additionally,the location of the MOB 1 site is visible from the existing hospital parking lot and from Temecula Parkway. The helistop would have security fencing and lighting that would be more visible in the MOB I location than from the proposed interim helistop location. Furthermore,a helistop at the MOB l 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 complction of Phase II, MOB 2 and a 300 space parking facility would be developed adjacent to the MOB I site.Thus, the MOB 2 location would not be available for Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 4-4 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItem atIves use after Phase 11. In addition, there are constraints to utilizing the MOB 2 site for the helistop. Because of the east-west wind conditions in the project area, the flight path required to land and depart from the MOB 2 site would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and would result in obstruction clearance constraints with the MOB I building penetrating the transitional surface of the flight path.,which is not consistent with Caltrans or FAA safety regulations and may require either a variance or the path may not be approved by the agencies, and would result in hazard impacts. In addition, the existing power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would pose airspace obstruction-clearance impacts and the power lines would be required to include red obstruction lights(requiring Southern California Edison's [SCE's] cooperation)or additional red obstruction light poles would need to be installed on the hospital property,adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Thus, impacts related to hazards and aesthetics would result from the airspace obstruction and additional red obstruction light poles. Furthermore,a helistop at the MOB 2 location would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. Due to the volume of helicopter noise, there is no onsite location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels. Thus, the use of the MOB 2 location for use as the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Sites The future building and infrastructure locations that are part of the approved hospital campus facilities are not available for the interim helistop location. In addition,none of these locations would avoid or substantially lessen the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations,and were eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Southeast Corner. Phase 11,which is to occur next, entails installation of water-quality infrastructure at the southeast corner of the hospital site that includes an infiltration storm chamber system to receive drainage from a majority of the site. The backbone of the drainage system is installed and has a controlled stormwater outlet system and an infiltration trench in the center of the existing detention basin,which will capture and convey the majority of on-site stormwater to the infiltration storm chamber system. The detention basin and storm chamber area cannot be located under a structure; therefore,this area cannot be used for either buildings or the interim helistop facility. In addition,because of the east-west wind conditions,the flight path required for a helistop in the southeast corner of the hospital site would result in low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway, and would have obstruction clearance constraints related to the trees in the adjacent drainage that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies to trim, and thus impacts related to hazards would occur. In addition,the existing power lines along the northern side of Temecula Parkway would require additional red obstruction lighting to be installed,which would result in aesthetic impacts. A helistop in this site is also likely to result in low-altitude flights over residential areas both to the south of Temecula Parkway(the Country Glen residential area) and to the east of the drainage (the Madera Vista apartments),which would result in noise impacts to residential areas. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-5 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARematives Additionally, the southeast corner of the hospital site is visible from Temecula Parkway and adjacent land uses and would have security fencing and lighting that would be more visible than proposed interim helistop. Furthermore,a helistop at the future building site at the southeast corner of the hospital site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project.As described above,because of the volume of helicopter noise,there is no on-site location that would reduce the significant noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations to less than significant levels.Thus,the use of this location for the interim helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Western Portion of the Site. Use of the future building site that is located on the western portion of the project site (shown in Figure 2-4) for the helistop would result in a flight path that would have low-altitude helicopters flying over Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora Road,which are both adjacent to the western portion of the project site and could result in hazards due to drivers distracted by helicopter operations. Also,helicopter activity from this location would pose airspace obstruction-clearance conflicts with the power lines; and therefore would be required to include red obstruction lights(requiring SCE's cooperation)or additional red obstruction lighted poles would need to be installed on the hospital property, adjacent to Temecula Parkway. As stated,this would result in hazards and aesthetics impacts. In addition, low-altitude helicopters would travel over residential area to the south of Temecula Parkway,the adjacent office uses to the west of Dona Lynora,and likely the equestrian trail and residential areas adiacent to the north of the hospital site resulting in significant and unavoidable noise impacts. A helistop at the future building site in the western portion of the project site would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur by the proposed project, as all on-site helistop locations would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise. This location would also be required to have a security fence and would be visible from Temecula Parkway and adjacent uses,and would be more visible than proposed interim helistop,which would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Thus,the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site at the Eastern Portion of the Site.There is also a future building site that is located in the eastern portion of the hospital site (shown in Figure 2-4)to the south of the City- approved helistop and to the east of the existing hospital building. This site is closer to sensitive receptors(Site 7, Madera Vista apartments)than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. As a result,use of this site for the helistop could result in greater impacts to sensitive receptors than the proposed project and would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition,this future building site would have obstruction clearance conflicts related to the trees in the adjacent drainage (that would require approval and permits from state and federal resource Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 4-6 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives agencies to trim), which would penetrate the transitional surface of a flight path from this location and would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project. Thus, the use of the future building site in the eastern portion of the project site for the interim helistop would result in greater noise and hazards related impacts,and significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur from the proposed project would not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore,developing a helistop in this portion of the project site was eliminated from further consideration. Future Building Site in the Northern Portion of the Site.The future building site to the north of the City-approved helistop site and south of Dc Portola Road is surrounded by sensitive receptors that include the equestrian trail, the Los Ranchitos residential area, and other single- family residential uses along De Portola Road. This site is closer to sensitive receptors(single-family residential uses) than both the proposed interim and City-approved helistop sites. Noise from helicopter operations from a helistop in this location would directly impact these sensitive uses to a greater degree than the proposed project; thus,would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable noise impacts that would occur by the proposed project. In addition,the interim helistop would be visible to travelers along De Portola Road,and impacts related to aesthetics would also occur. Thus, impacts to sensitive receptors from the helistop and helicopter operations to and from this location would be greater than the proposed project.Thus, the use of this location for the helistop was eliminated from further consideration. 4.4 Hospital Project Objectives The primary objectives of the hospital project are as follows. City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed hospital project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. • Provide for a regional hospital campus,including a hospital facility,medical offices, cancer center,and fitness rehabilitation center,designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility. • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services. • Support development of biomedical,research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base. ■ Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings,use of materials and landscaping,the location of access routes,noise impacts,traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-7 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARernatives Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light,visibility of activity,and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives Tzc objectives of Universal Health Services, Inc., for the proposed hospital project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services,with outpatient care,rehabilitation, and medical offices. • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient,state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. • Provide medical offices, a cancer center,and a fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who require ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Helistop Project The proposed relocation of the City-approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically,the proposed helistop site would provide for superior,easily accessible, operationally efficient, state-of-the-art emergency medical facilities and services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed helistop facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state-of- the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop site would further the project objectives of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter-related noise,hazards, light,and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and ensuring the compatibility of development on the hospital site with surrounding uses in terms of minimizing potential hazards/safety impacts. The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital. It is designed to be architecturally consistent with the main hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible development between the project site and surrounding uses. 4.5 No Project/Existing Condition Alternative Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines,the EIR shall; "...discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or i na notice of preparation is published, a/the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur-in the foreseeable future if the prqject were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 4-8 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives 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 (FMS)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(8) states that a site(such as the hospital)can be used for the landing and taking off of DMS helicopters upon approval of the fire or police departments because it is located at a medical facility, as long as it averages no more than six landings per month with patients onboard over a 12-month period. Currently, the only flight path is the original flight path (shown in Figure 2-4) that travels both to and from the helistop(a true heading of 109 degrees/096 degrees magnetic flight corridor)and crosses over the Madera Vista apartment buildings. However,constraints related to the ground level landing site and the adjacent apartment building and tree obstructions cause pilots to adjust their approach and departure routes. In addition,helicopters need to approach and land heading into prevailing winds for maximum control over the aircraft.Therefore, due to changing wind conditions and existing obstructions,pilots may divert from the original flight path to provide for a safe flight. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would maintain the existing condition and character of the level unpaved,grass-covered helistop location that is located near the northeast corner of the hospital site and surrounded by driveways and a parking area. Existing views of and from the helistop area of the project site would remain the same;however, the remainder of the hospital would continue to be constructed, as approved. Light and glare from helicopter operations would not increase;however,ambient lighting from the remainder of the hospital buildings and parking areas to be constructed with the approved hospital project would increase nighttime lighting. {Overall, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project because it would not install the 5.5-foot-high berm,obstruction lights on the existing hospital tower, or any landing site perimeter or lead-in lights,as would occur by the Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Proieet 4-9 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARema tives proposed project. However,both the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative and the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics. Hazards The No ProjectJExisting 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 Proj ccVExisting Condition Alternative these procedures would continue. The criteria for an EMS landing site do not meet the standards of the FAA's Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for a helistop,which are provided to ensure a safe operating environment for pilot,medical personnel, and patients onboard the helicopter as well as for persons and property on the ground. As described,the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics require that a helistop in this location be elevated 14 feet off of the ground to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria related to vehicles on the driveways that are adjacent to the site,and that trees located within the drainage adjacent to the hospital be trimmed to meet obstruction clearance requirements. The FAA also requires that helistops have a second flight path to meet safety recommendations related to wind conditions. In addition, Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires that red obstruction lights be added to the Madera Vista apartment buildings or that the flight path be reoriented toward the south to not over fly those buildings,which would result in crosswind approaches and departures. Because the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative uses the City-approved helistop location as an EMS landing site,which does not implement any of these features that are designed to reduce conflicts with adjacent development and ensure an acceptable level of safety, impacts are greater than the proposed project. In addition to not meeting FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria, the one existing flight path does not allow helicopters to approach and land heading into prevailing winds at all times, which is necessary for maximum control over the aircraft.Therefore,pilots need to divert from the existing flight path to provide for the safest flight in various wind conditions. Additionally,pilots have to maneuver over tail 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 ProjectlExisting Condition Alternative,which uses the existing helistop location as an EMS site does not have on-site helistop lighting, that under the proposed project would include perimeter lights surrounding the touchdown and liftoff(TLO1F)area and lead-in lights. As a result,pilots do not have the benefit of perimeter lights to outline the helistop at night or directional lights to follow during incoming helicopter flights.Therefore,the No Proiect/Exis€ing Condition Alternative results in increased impacts related to the safety of persons or property on the ground and objects that extend into the airspace than would occur by the proposed project. Overall,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in greater hazards impacts than the proposed project, which would be reviewed and implemented pursuant to the helistop safety Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-10 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives conditions provided by the FAA,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Noise Construction Noise The No ProjectlExisting 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 devc lopment of the remaining approved hospital buildings would occur and continue under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative. CNEL Standards The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use the ground surface at the City-approved helistop location,which is approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. As shown in Figure 4-1,the 65 and 60 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL)noise contours that would be generated under this alternative would be contained within the project site. The CNEL contours depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing,and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. Similarly,Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP have established that aircraft noise levels up to 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative are completely contained within the hospital campus,a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan,Title 21,and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. Similarly, the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours generated by the proposed project(both interim and permanent helistops) would be contained within the project site.As a result, CNEL-related noise impacts under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels As described in the Section 3.3,Noise, significant impacts related to permanent increases in ambient noise(CNEL) would occur if locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL result in an increase of 3 dB CNEL,and if locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL have an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL. As shown in Table 4-1, all of the noise measurement locations have existing ambient noise levels greater than 55 dB CNEL, and two of the locations(Sites 3 and 5)have ambient noise above 60 dB CNEL. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-11 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 • .. q k5 ' i E y r 7 • all 1 �i � r• r ♦ Approved Helistop " `t .,��a t�"� • .. �r Tie- AIN r ' '" V PROJECT .� � SITE 5 �y •y"' 79 f, '. • 9f t( • 00 CNEL Contours 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive dii'• r Land Use s .� yam. a i !'� 1 1 f ;L. IL 1 0 500 M- Feet s,,,�S •y' ,y '� �, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEER.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 AItematives TABLE 4-1 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FROM THE CITY-APPROVED SITE Combined Difference Ambient Ambient and Between Ambient Site Measurement CNEL, Helicopter Helicopter and Combined Number Site Description/Address Period dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 25.8 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 46.9 59.2 +0.3 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 47.5 63.6 +0.1 4 On project site,at offset of 20 minutes NIA NIA NIA NIA proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78,7 0.0 ladjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by Environmental Science Associate$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,2414. As shown in Table 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience an increase of 3 dB CNEL,nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB CNEL. Overall, the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 dB CNEL at Site 2,which is below the 1.5 dB threshold_Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an excecdance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria,which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing.As a result,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be less than significant,which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Sh ort-Term !Noise In addition to the CNEL noise information that averages ambient noise over a 24-hour period, modeling of single-event noise generated by helicopter operations from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative was prepared. As described previously,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would continue to use both the ground surface at the City-approved helistop location and the one original flight path(shown in Figure 2-4)that crosses over the Madera Vista apartment buildings both to and from the helistop.Table 4-2 shows the single-event noise that is generated from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative as helicopters arrive and depart using the one original flight path(shown in Figure 2-4). Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-13 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARemaWes TABLE 4-2 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FROM THE NO PROJECTIEXISTING CONDITION ALTERNATIVE Helicopter Arrival Helicopter Departure site No. Site Location Lmax,dB Lmax,dB 1 30390 De Portola 48.4 48.5 2 30955 De Portola 75.5 74-1 3 31775 De Portola 76.4 74.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 62-5 60.5 6A Equestrian Trail 77.1 75.7 6B Equestrian Trail Overflight 75-0 75-0 6C Equestrian Trail 65.3 64.2 7 Madera Vista 94.0 96•0 8 43941 Via Montalban 57.4 55.1 9 David Ln 1 Kevin PI 51-8 51-1 DOTE:Receptor receiving the greatest noise from arpvals and departures is indicated in Bold. SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Level of Noise Impact: As described in the Section 3.3,Noise, significant impacts related to a short- term increase in noise from helicopter operations would occur if the project results in an excecdanee of the City's allowable exterior noise levels. As with the proposed project,the duration of the maximum single-event noise would be limited in frequency occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights), but would result in a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise.The short-term noise that would result from helicopters using the one existing flight path would have the greatest impact at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments,resulting in a maximum of 94.0 dB Lmax during arrivals and 96.0 dB Lmax during departures,which is a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, helicopter overflight noise from the proposed project would be greatest in Santa Ana wind conditions during use of the proposed interim helistop Iocation,which could expose receptors to noise levels of up to 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail.Because the No ProjcetTxisting Condition Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 96.0 dB Lmax in a southeastern (similar as Santa Ana winds) flight path,it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. However, for a majority of helicopter operations(the interim and permanent helistop in prevailing winds),the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise level that would be greater than that from the proposed project(94.0 and 96.0 Lmax dB for No Project/Existing Condition Alternative compared to 93.4 and 89.8 Lmax dB for interim and Temecula Valley Hospital Heli stop Project 4-14 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives permanent helistops). Moreover,the maximum noise level at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments, would be substantially lower under both the interim and permanent helistop locations than as compared to the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4.2 also shows that the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 6 of the 10 receptor sites during arrivals,and at 5 of the 10 receptor sites during departures. In comparison, the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations in both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. However,maximum short-term noise levels at the 6 impacted receptor sites during arrivals, and the 5 impacted receptor sites during departures from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would occur more frequently than the proposed project due to the single flight path used for both arrivals and departures. In addition,because pilots may need to adjust their approach and departure routes based on conditions at the time of the flight under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative because of prevailing winds,trees in the drainage,and the existing hospital building,actual helicopter noise at sensitive receptors would vary and could be higher. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to noise because the noise from helicopter overflight under this alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month (four arrival flights and four departure flights). However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise level that would be greater than with the proposed project for a majority of flights to and from the hospital. Moreover, although less receptor sites would exceed the short-term noise standard,the affected receptor sites would be impacted more frequently due to the single flight path used for both arrivals and departures,and actual helicopter noise at sensitive receptors could be higher due to variations in the flight path. As such,noise impacts from the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would be similar or potentially greater than from the proposed project. Conclusion The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed. However, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards and similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed project.The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative,and Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop ProjW 4-15 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Alternatives additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project)only partially meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However,because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautical review and approval,and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion,the No ProjectlExisting Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes,noise impacts,ha'ards impacts,and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. 4.6 No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted,and that the proposed storage building would not be developed and that the City-approved helistop site would be developed. The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot by 60-foot helistop that would be located near the northeast corner of the hospital,approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line (shown in Figure 2-4, City-Approved Helistop Site).The helistop in this location would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria for vehicles on the adjacent driveways. This alternative would include the original City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction(a true heading of 109 degrees/096 degrees magnetic flight corridor),and a second flight path (true heading of 285 degrees/272 degrees magnetic,which was listed as a condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter)that would travel both to and from the helistop over the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site.These flight paths are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. As described in Section 2.4,Project Description,prevailing winds in the project region is to the east, except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. As a result,helicopters would generally approach the City-,approved helistop site from the east, flying northwest bound into the wind to land at the helistop, and would also take off in a northwest-bound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions,which occur occasionally,helicopters would approach from the west flying southeast bound to land at the site, and take off also in an southeast-bound direction. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-16 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 r 1,J r� r ti �•,� II r •" .r `Ir �+ l� -+rte �.'i"• r. r ' f,'� .. `t•t F' � a1 F . ' ,� �`�~ '� � �� � �n + }'• ��^ �4 ,� ., ;rig, f -_` •-jl •.�, f l,�1 �. ( Site 8 - Ilk r+' •, - r' moi, ..,:���� � f .•i ` • � ,` � E _ ■ E �• Site 6B s Approved Helistop Rd_ Site 3 Lai Site a f Site FA PROJECT r .'4 SITE Site 7 .Site 6C pec. ha $Ite S e � 79 d .. Slte r '� ' .. + :• °=' >\. s` "� #i► 0 Site Locations w",ra ♦ r 1*.p''eiv y ► Flight Corridors ' rwyf... �� . sg.� - Arrivals 1 ,• "* '• Departures 0 1600 Feet Temecula valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.0d;USDA Figure 4-2 City Approved Helistop - East-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wind Conditions -P] Site$ •E Approved Helistop. ;y Site 68 Site 3 - �.._, . -e 7► oro � _ Site 2 , PROJECT 1 .�ilte a`* Slte 6A SITE Site 7 w ' , 7 Site 6C y , �Cu�a a.I I Site 5 sr' 79 kiy 4 , Site x }V'04.fTrKt+ �_A�j' t + r f •� a a ;'�,�:, ... +�:�, °'° `!.� s` �♦ +.s.►17 ❑ Site Locations ",:a ° ' • P *�. ' +� 1, Flight Corridors ` :�"l ! '�' .E ��, Ar • ;, � Arrivals departu res y w' y '.�.-- ��fini _ -rr, 0 16x0 { , ° !'/•;j+.i i"1`��`""��' , � `�y��Y.� ,� � --I Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.6d;USDA Figure 4-3 City Approved Helistop- West-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions 4.Project Altematives 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 li=,rhted windcone. Lighting under this alternative (perimeter lights, lead- in lights and local lighted windcone)would be activated only for nighttime landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans 'Division of Aeronautics standards. Should the lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings,the additional lighting would be outside of the project site and would be red and visible to the occupants of the apartment buildings and adjacent residences.The other lighting associated with helicopter takeoff/landing events would be within the hospital's grounds and would largely be shielded by intervening landscaping. Because the red obstruction lights could be located off-site at the Madera Vista apartment buildings under this alternative,this alternative would result in greater lighting related impacts than the proposed project. In addition, implementation of the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would require (per FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics)reducing the height of the large row of mature trees that are in a drainage located adjacent to the east of the project site,which would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies to trim. Should these trees be reduced,removed, or cut as a result of the helistop project,aesthetic impacts that are greater than the proposed project(that would not result in tree trimming)would occur. Overall, this alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant aesthetic impacts. Hazards The helistop site that would be developed under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative has undergone review and approval by the FAA and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.The reviews conducted by these agencies evaluate the effects the helistop would Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-19 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARematives have on the safety of persons or property on the ground and objects that extend into the airspace. However, since the original approval of the helistop,the FAA has issued new regulations and new residential uses have been constructed within the flight path. As a result, the No Project/City- Approved Helistop Alternative has been conditioned to include a second flight path to meet FAA safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. In addition,because the new residential uses are within the current City-approved flight path,Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires Temecula Valley Hospital to either rotate the single proposed flight path clockwise (approximately 36 degrees)to clear the Madera Vista multi-family residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure,or arrange for red obstruction lights to be installed on the residential buildings.Also,as described previously, approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies are required,but have not been obtained,to trim the trees in the drainage adjacent to the hospital to meet obstruction height requirements. In addition,the installation the off-site lighting;on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City; thus,implementation of these safety features cannot be guaranteed. Therefore,the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in potentially greater hazards impacts than the proposed project. Noise Construction Noise As described in Section 3.3,Noise, construction of the proposed project would not substantially change, and would not increase,construction noise impacts beyond those identified for the hospital project by the previous CEQA documentation in 2006 EIR,2008 SEIR,and 2011 SER Addendum (described in Section 1.3 of this RDSEIR-2016 and incorporated by reference). Under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative,the proposed helistop locations and storage building would not be constructed;however,construction noise associated with the City- approved helistop and the phased development of the other hospital facilities would continue.The approved and proposed construction activities are within the same portions of the project site,just the locations of the facilities have changed and an additional 5,000 square feet of building space would be developed. The locations of development would have the same general distance to sensitive receptors,which include the adjacent residential uses and the hospital itself.Therefore, impacts related to construction noise under the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed project. CNEL Standards The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be developed one a 5.5-foot-high berm at the City-approved helistop location, and would result in the same CNEL contours as the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative,which uses the existing ground surface at the same location. Thus,as shown in Figure 4-1,the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours from the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative are contained within the project site. Because. the 60 dB CNEL contours from use of the City-approved helistop site are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan,Title 21,and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. Similarly,the 65 and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-20 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItem atives 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 Praject/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be the same as the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels As described previously,both the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative and the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would use the same helistop location. The single location would result in the same CNEL noise for both alternatives. As shown in Table 4-1, Sites 1 and 2 would not experience a CNEL increase of dB,nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience a CNEL increase of 1.5 dB from operation of the City-approved helistop. Overall,the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 dB CNEL at Site 2,which is below the 1.5 dB CNEL threshold. Furthermore,this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria,which sets noise standards for residential areas at fi5 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing. As a result, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be Less than significant, which is the same as what would occur from the proposed project. Short-Term Noise As with the proposed project,the duration of the maximum single-event noise generated by the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is very limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month(four departures and four arrival flights). However, as shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3,the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would include flight paths directly over residential uses that are adjacent to two sides of the hospital property and the planned equestrian trail. Table 4-3 shows the single-event noise at receptor sites(shown in Figure 4-2)that would be generated by the No Project/City-Approved Alternative. Level of Noise Impact: As described above,an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur ifhelicopter operations results in exceedance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels.The short-term noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the City-approved helistop has the greatest impact at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments,where it results in a maximum noise level of 94.0 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights) and 96.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions,which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison,helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would be greatest in Santa Ana wind conditions during use of the interim helistop location that could expose receptors to noise levels of up to 100.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. Because the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 96.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments, it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-21 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project,alternatives TABLE 4-3 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS-NO PROJECTICITY-APPROVED HELISTOP ALTERNATIVE WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival No. Site Location Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax„dB Lmax,dB 1 30390 De Portola 64.4 48.4 48.5 66.4 2 30955 De Portola 85.7 75.5 74.1 84.9 3 31775 De Portola 74.4 76.4 74.6 75.9 5 31662 Caile Los Padres 60,5 62.5 60.5 61.8 6A Equestrian Trail 79.6 77.1 75.7 80.5 613 Equestrian Trail Overflight 93.6 75.0 75.0 936 6C Equestrian Trail 70.4 65.3 64.2 71.8 7 Madera Vista 77.2 94.0 96.0 77.1 8 43941 Via Montalban 55.1 57.4 55.1 55.9 9 David Ln f Kevin PI 55.9 51.8 51.1 58.5 NOTE:Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold. SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. However, for a majority of helicopter operations(prevailing winds at the interim and permanent helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative results in a maximum single-event noise levels that is greater than would be generated by the proposed project(94.0 Lmax dB for No Project/City-Approved Alternative compared to 93.4 and 89.8 Lmax dB for interim and permanent helistops). Moreover,the maximum noise level at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments, and at Site 6B,an Equestrian Trail Overflight Location,would be substantially greater than would be generated under both the interim and permanent helistop locations. Receptor Sites Impacted. Table 4-3 also shows that the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 6 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and 7 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison,the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition,the proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise from the No Project/City- Approved Helistop Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations in both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. Additionally,receptor Sites 5, S and 9,which Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-22 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItem atives are located furthest away from the No Project/City-Approved lielistop Alternative northwest/southeast flight path, would generally experience]ower maximum short-term noise levels than from the proposed project.Although,receptor sites 6B and 7,which are located closest to the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative northwest/southeast flight path,would experience greater maximum short-term noise levels than the proposed project. Also,the second flight path that was provided as a condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter that would be implemented under this alternative would fly over the Los Ranchitos single- family residential areas north of the hospital site,which would directly expose the area to helicopter noise that would be greater than under the proposed project. As shown in Table 4-3,in prevailing;wind conditions Site 2 would experience a maximum noise of 85.7 dB Lmax and Site 6R,the equestrian trail location adiacent to the Los Ranchitos area,would be 93.6 dR Lmax. In Santa Ana wind conditions Site 2 would experience a maximum noise of 84.9 dB Lmax and Site 6B would be 93.6 dB Lmax. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to noise because the noise from helicopter overflight under this alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month (four arrival flights and four departure flights). The No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative would generate 0.6 dB Lmax greater noise in prevailing wind conditions and 4.8 dB Lmax less noise in Santa Ana wind conditions as compared to the proposed interim helistop.This alternative would also generate 4.2 dB Lmax greater noise in prevailing wind conditions, and 8.2 dB Lmax less noise in Santa Ana wind conditions in comparison to the proposed permanent helistop.Therefore,for a majority of helicopter operations,the No Project/City-Approved.Helistop Alternative would result in greater single-event noise than the proposed project. However, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would exceed the exterior short- term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing and Santa Ana conditions. Overall,because the helicopter overflight noise would result in greater single event noise than the proposed project for a majority of helicopter operations,but exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations under prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions than the proposed interim and permanent locations,and the 96.0 dB Lmax noise generated from helicopter operation under this alternative would result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less than the maximum single-event noise that would occur under the proposed project (100.8 dB Lmax),the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in similar or slightly reduced single-event noise impacts compared to the proposed project. However, like the proposed project,the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to noise because the noise from the No Project'City-Approved Helistop Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-23 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARemaWes allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Conclusion The No ProjectlCity-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards,and similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable.Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would(consistent with the proposed project)meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula.However,it would not meet the objectives of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes,hazards impacts,aesthetics(lighting),and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. 4.7 Alternative Interim Helistop Site The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site as shown in Figure 4-4. This alternative would include an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north of) Temecula Parkway. It would also travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e.,the Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). Figure 4-5 depicts the northeast-flow flight corridors and Figure 4-6 depicts the southwest-flow flight corridors for the alternative interim helistop site. This helistop would include the same design,lighting,and security features as the interim helistop described in Chapter 2,Project Description. However,red obstruction lights would also be required on(or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE)power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of the pole locations at night. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). As described in Section 2.4,Project Description,prevailing winds in the project region is to the east,except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. As a result of wind direction,helicopters would generally approach the project site from the east, flying westbound into the wind to land at the helistop;and would also take off in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions,which occur occasionally,helicopters would approach from the west flying eastbound to land at the site,and take off also in an eastbound direction. Both of these flight corridors are shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-24 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 _s SINGLE FAMILY eco �� �SINGLE FAMILY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Pa RESIDENTIAL ree� 4oto � v , SINGLE FAMILY J b RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SITE ` t . 48'DIAMETER CONCRETE Equestrian Trail TLOF APPROX. 1060'MSL �l sr ae 5'3`R y (APPROX.5-6-ABOVE yYE r��� �f scr ',��0 GRADE ON MOUND) / ws. $7'DIAMETER rs ° t1 FATO" OMME'tCIAL�' 1x— y FOOT ALL --SECURITY ! J E —FENCE COMMERCIAL l `;•' uRFNC�' SINGLE FAMILY 1 v` pROK+MPt� �Nyg+t+ORESIDENT WL \ � ING +ON q q SAFETY W+p AREAS - - - -- -- - --- - 50URCE.HHpennors — Temecda Valley Hospital Helislop SEIR.130652 Figure 4-4 Alternative Interim Helistop Site 4Pm;WAIW- 'Ibis pie left in1cnlianally blank Tp ulo Wdlyy Hyp1pl MtlfiSMp RW 4-26 ESA 13mn RWULM4 P+eR SuPO"Mtp Eft,,W MIBI I Wp ROW Foou"2010 i r jw47 �' 'Ir� ::ides� � {�x3• � t �� i... r• � .r��y `. + -� �� '"�c ��- f r I Site 8 y y Site 6B f''. Slte 3 poCal3�dp Site 7 Site i Slte ��1 PRQJEGT Volk SITE Site C s p _ 1 ti 1.1 '1 •'+ i-1.. s' '�,�� - � s 79Y k Site 5 Alternative Helistop-- Site N� �,i Via•^ 1 { - Site Locations .# aAl '' ° Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures _ ,r ;a ► ;• •, li � � s a 'rte . �� �' . J y .. dN ( .' - •� ', fir+ JJ" i� t�art» r 0 1000 a , ��/;j+.;{i i1 ..,■� .y,' � f A 4 r�- Feet Temecula valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.134652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.6d;USDA Figure 4-5 Alternative Interim Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors for Santa Ana Wlnd Conditions e as rR¢ r • - . _'. `' �. y . Alt • !' 'Y fir ! 1 v. ArY', b r ! „� :.�.� w � Mlk P4' - y ��A .• > I� r �. �f r ti .�a r .r � A R t ti r , . f T a Site 6B f a Site 3 •fi . � Dep°.F�. I+�'' '.,�.- Site .r Site 7 . Site I �g Site BA PROJECT 4 �i. • SITE rt . fr ,. ' S1te BC 50- } /"�' • _�F 79 y Slte'5 `.AIternstve Helistop 1r r 1. tr i t I! fly f =fix - .�Al�� �� t.:�.k+ a IF�• l.� gyp. _s .,✓ �.ii a�^ fry- F � U Site Locations Flight t C arridors Arrivals F sr..y .'" 'R •,a Departures . rr. '� •��a ���� ,� orf ••�- .� R ^,.."1�•" F •� }!. a "'ma c✓ *,� E .as` 1 ".;` 0 1000 F ,,,y i\� �y 1r •►a[ ,1r + + r' � Feet Ternecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.0d;USDA Figure 4-6 Alternative Interim Helistop- South-Flow Flight Corridors for Prevailing Wind Conditions 4.Project AftemaWes It should be noted that this alternative interim helistop site only applies to the proposed interim helistop and does not affect the proposed permanent helistop,which is proposed on the roof of the future hospital tower,or the location, design,or operation of the proposed 5,000-square-foot storage building. Aesthetics The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would install lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would be similar to the proposed interim site. In addition,this alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway (shown in Figure 4-4)due to their proximity to the alternative interim helistop site and because the FAA identifies power lines and poles as"hard to see"objects from the air,especially at night. Should SCE not allow modification of these poles,new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path, because of this avariance to regulations related to transitional surface penetration would be required from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. However,this variance could only be granted if this light pole would be lighted at night with red obstruction lights. If installed on the SCE poles, the lights would likely be on a dusk-to-dawn photocell system,and be on all night If the hospital installs the lighting poles along Temecula Parkway the lights would be connected to the helistop lighting system and activated only for nighttime helicopter operations. Either way,with the additional lighting on SCE poles along Temecula Parkway that would be on all night,or with the additional lighting poles along Temecula Parkway that would be operated during nighttime helicopter operations and visible all day along the roadway, implementation of the Alternative [ntcrim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than those of the proposed project. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially additional lighting pole structures along the roadway. Like the proposed site,the alternative interim helistop site would be surrounded by an approximate 5-foot-tall security fence. However,unlike the proposed project, the helistop would not be screened behind other planned hospital facilities and parking areas.The alternative interim helistop site and the security fence would be much more visible from travelers along Temecula Parkway. The storage facility that would be constructed under this alternative would include the same massing and design features and exterior lighting features that would occur under the proposed project and would result in the same less-than-significant aesthetic impacts. Therefore,because this alternative would result in a more visible helistop surrounded by security fencing,and additional lighting and potentially lighting poles, this alternative has greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-29 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Dmft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives Hazards The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located 114 feet north of Temecula Parkway,which is lined with aboveground power poles and transmission lines on the same side of the street as the proposed project.The flight path required for this site(because of the prevailing winds at the project site)is an cast-west flight path that would run parallel to Temecula Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative site's flight path and the planned MOB 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface. The alternative interim site's flight path along Temecula Parkway would cause an additional hazard related to one power pole located directly south of the site, and additional red obstruction lighting along Temecula Parkway would be required along with a variance for a transitional surface penetration from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.If SCE does not install obstruction lights on its existing poles,the site would require additional poles equipped with obstruction lights to be erected on hospital property between the SCE poles and the helistop.This introduces new,closer airspace obstructions. Further,it is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant variances for one side of a flight path.Therefore,Caltrans Aeronautics would not grant a variance for power lines that would penetrate the southern transitional surface and a second variance for MOB 2 that would penetrate the northern transitional surface.The planned building,along with the already developed underground utilities,would need to be relocated or reconfigured so that it would not penetrate the transitional surface. Overall,the need for a variance for implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative that is not needed for the proposed project indicates that potential hazards impacts related to the alternative interim helistop site are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site. As shown in Figure 4-5, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative in prevailing winds,not only travels parallel to Temecula Parkway,a major arterial and state highway,but also across the frontage of the existing hospital and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence,the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude)as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helistop that is 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to pedestrian,bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity;and increased risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway during helicopter operations, could increase traffic accident potential,or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle.In addition,helicopter landings and take-offs 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian safety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclist safety on Temecula.Parkway due to rotorwash(winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison,the flight path of the proposed interim helistop(shown in Figure 2-4)would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities,and would cross(not travel along) Temecula 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-30 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives The location of the proposed interim helistop is in the northwestern portion of the project site toward the rear of the hospital facilities,and helicopter activity at the proposed interim site would consist of middle ground activity,with parking;lot and hospital facilities in the foreground. The middle ground helicopter activity would be buffered from Temecula Parkway by other hospital uses,including medical office buildings,which would reduce distraction to travelers along the roadway in comparison to the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. In addition,the proposed flight path would not travel above or cross vehicular paths from Temecula Parkway through the hospital site to the emergency room(such as would be done by the alternative interim helistop site),and would not result in the level of potential confusion for persons in an emergency situation to access the emergency room that could occur from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path. Also,because helicopter]an dings.and takeoffs would be not be adjacent to Temecula Parkway and would be buffered by hospital facilities, safety concerns related to pedestrians along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclists an Temecula Parkway would not occur, as it could by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. Overall,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative results in greater potentially significant impacts related to hazards than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed interim helistop site. Noise Construction Noise Construction of this alternative would not result in any changes related to construction noise and construction noise impacts would be the same under this alternative as would occur under the proposed project and the No ProjcctlCity-Approved Helistop Alternative as described above. CNEL Standards Figure 4-7 shows the CNEL noise contours that would result from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. As shown,the 65 dB CNEL contour would remain within the project site;the 60 dB CNEL contour crosses the mid-line of Temecula Parkway. In comparison,the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours from the proposed interim helistop site(shown in Figure 3.3-7)would remain within the project site. Henee,60 dB CNEL contours from both the proposed interim and the alternative interim sites would remain within the hospital site. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing. Similarly, Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP have also established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-31 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 ry 1 -46 ' v� d[* ■ ' . • _ +s5 A � �y r ,•� y1 1 f �' PROJECT ` SITE ... ..i } r V ,Ploy •` a " 79 `•- e `� r� * R ' t► .Alternative Helistop • low 4Pk �. y- - : ��. •moi' `_ ,>� . CNEL Contours �.� 60 dB 65 dB A Noise Sersitive Land Use . •. 6 5[30 1 sl A Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SE IR.130652 SOURCE:ESA;INM 7.Dd-,City of Temecula;USDA Figure 4-7 Alternative Interim Helistop Location - CNEL Contours 4.Project AItematives 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 Norse Levels The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located closer than the proposed interim site to Temecula Parkway and the single-family residential neighborhood across (south of)Temecula Parkway where existing ambient noise levels are 78.7 dB CNEL. As shown on Table 4-4,the alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 dB CNEL and the remainder of the sites,including the residential across Temecula Parkway,would not experience an increase in CNEL noise. In comparison,the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2 dB CNEL at Site 2 and 0.1 dB CNEL increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-9). TABLE 4-4 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE Difference between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined site Site Descriptionl Measurement Ambient Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Number Address Period CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 28.6 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 68.9 39.8 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.6 33.8 63.5 0.0 4 On project site,at offset 20 minutes NIA NIA NIA NIA of proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 53.4 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) !VOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26,2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute(ANSI)51.4-1971. SOURCE;ESA Airports Analysis,2014. The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim site and the alternative interim site are very minimal and below the 3 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL,and below the 1.5 dB CNEL,threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria,which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL,for multi-family housing. As a result, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; impacts would be less than significant,which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-33 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Dmft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project A ternatives Short-Term Noise Table 4-5 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the alternative interim helistop site. As described above,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would utilize an east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north of)Temecula Parkway. As with the proposed project,the duration of the maximum single-event noise would be very limited in length and frequency occurring approximately eight tunes per month (four departures and four arrival flights). TABLE 4-5 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE ALTERNATIVE WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival No. Site Location Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB 1 30390 De Portola 68.1 51.1 51.1 73.3 2 30955 De Portola 67.9 68.6 67.9 69.2 3 31775 De Portola 58.5 70.1 69.1 58.9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 79.6 80.9 79.6 79.7 6A Equestrian Trail 70.8 72.1 70.8 71.9 6B Equestrian Trail 63.9 65.5 63.9 64.8 6C Equestrian Trail 73.6 73.3 73.4 79.7 7 Madera Vista 62.7 78.3 78.2 63.7 8 43941 Via Montalban 49.0 60.2 57.9 48.9 9 David Ln I Kevin PI 76.4 58.5 57.7 77.5 NOTE:Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold_ SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Level of Noise Implact: As described above,an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exceedance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels. As shown in Table 4-5,the short-term noise generated by helicopter flights to and from alternative interim helistop would have the greatest impact at Site 5,the Country Glen neighborhood,where it would result in a maximum noise level of 80.9 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights)and 79.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison,the maximum helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop would be 93,4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail.Thus,the Alternative Interim Hclistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level that is 12.5 dB Lmax less in prevailing winds and 21.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana winds than the proposed interim helistop. Therefore, the Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-34 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in single-event noise levels that would be less than the proposed project. Receptor Sites Impacted: `fable 4-5 also shows that helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing winds and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison,the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-tenon noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus,compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 2 fewer receptor locations in Santa Ana wind conditions. Receptor Sites 2,3, 6A, 6B, and 9,which are located furthest away from the alternative interim helistop east/west flight path,would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely, Sites 1 and 5,which are in close proximity to the alternative's east/west flight path, would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: The maximum noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be 12.5 dB Lmax less noise than what would occur by the proposed interim helistop in prevailing wind conditions,and 21.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at fewer receptor locations than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced single-event noise impacts compared to the proposed project. However, like the proposed interim helistop,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas.Thus, noise impacts from the Alternative Interim. Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the proposed project;however,impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Conclusion The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards.The alternative's aesthetics impacts are greater than the proposed project's due to a more visible helistop surrounded by security fencing,lighting,and potentially lighting poles.The hazards impacts under this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the flight path that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-35 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARema tives Noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison with the proposed project. However,noise from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be substantially louder than the City's allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise in the project area, and would occur approximately eight times a month.Thus,noise related to the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the proposed project; however, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Because impacts under this alternative related to aesthetics are greater and hazards are greater and potentially would result in a new significant impact,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior,easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. The helistop in this location is less accessible and less operationally efficient because of the location away from hospital,which would increase patient transport distance and time to and from the emergency department. Furthermore, implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site would need to undergo the full review and permitting processes with the FAA, Riverside County ALUC,and Caltrans Aeronautics that would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop. As such,it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that would be an operationally efficient,state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Furthermore,this alterative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.8 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location,which is shown in Figure 2-4. Development of the future hospital tower will occur in Phase IV of the hospital project.To allow for construction of the future hospital tower, the helistop would need to be relocated to the proposed interim helistop site. After completion of the future hospital tower,the pennanent helistop (on the roof of the new tower) would be operational and the location that would be used during construction of the new tower would be removed. As shown in Figure 24, the future hospital tower location is in front of the existing hospital building,toward Temecula Parkway.Under this alternative the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used while the helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site.The flight paths are shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-5, and 3.3-6. Because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the ground level,flights would travel at a lower altitude over the existing Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot than would occur by use of the permanent helistop at this location, which would be on the roof of the future tower. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-36 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives When the helistop is moved to the proposed interim helistop location (upon construction of the future tower)the flight paths identified for the proposed interim helistop(shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-3,and 3.3-4)would be used. The helistop location that would occur under this alternative would be required to be consistent with the applicable criteria of the aeronautical agencies(Riverside County ALUC,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA), and would have the same design, lighting, and security Features as the proposed interim helistop described in Chapter 2,Project Description. In addition, for the helistop at the future tower location,red obstruction lighting would also be required on the southeast corner of the lower hospital structure,on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings,and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway- Aesthetics The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would install lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would be similar to those installed for the proposed interim site. In addition,this alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on the southeast corner of the lower hospital structure,on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings,and potentially on light standards in the hospital parking lot that is adjacent to Temecula Parkway. With the additional red obstruction lighting that would be required for the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative that would be visible from Temecula Parkway; this alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. Like the proposed interim helistop site,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would surround the helistop with a 5-foot-tall security fence. However,unlike the proposed project,the future tower helistop location is in front of the existing hospital building and visible from Temecula Parkway. This helistop would not be screened behind other planned hospital facilities and parking areas,and as a result,the helistop site and the security fence would be much more visible from travelers along Temecula Parkway under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative. The lower flight path that would result from the ground level helistop at the future tower location would have obstruction clearance conflicts with the existing trees in the drainage that is adjacent to the hospital site. Based on Caltrans Aeronautics criteria, the large row of mature trees would need to be reduced in height to meet obstruction clearance standards. However,as described previously, trimming or removal of the trees within the drainage would require approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies;but should these trees be reduced,removed, or cut as a result of the helistop,aesthetic impacts would be greater than the proposed interim helistop (that would not require tree trimming). As described above,under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative,prior to commencement of construction of the future tower,the helistop would be moved to the proposed interim helistop location.Thereforc, in addition to the impacts that would occur from the ground level helistop at the future tower location,this alternative would also result in the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-37 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AI[emaWes same less-than-significant aesthetic impacts that would occur under the interim condition of the proposed project. The storage facility that would be constructed under this alternative would include the same massing and design features and exterior lighting features that would occur under the proposed project and would result in the same less-than-significant aesthetic impacts. Because the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in more red obstruction lighting and a more visible helistop that would be located in front of the existing hospital building and visible from Temecula Parkway that would be surrounded by security fencing,this alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts. Hazards The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location,which would be moved during construction of the future tower.The same northeast/southwest flight paths for the permanent. helistop would be used while the helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site (shown in Figure 2-4). However,because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the ground level, flights from this ground helistop location would travel at a low-altitude over the existing Madera Vista apartment buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot. This flight path would have obstruction clearance conflicts with the existing trees in the drainage that is adjacent to the hospital site. Based on Caltrans Aeronautics criteria,the large row of mature trees would need to be reduced in height to meet obstruction clearance standards. However, as described previously,approval and permits from state and federal resource agencies are required to trim these trees,which have not been obtained.As a result,hazard impacts related to the tree obstructions would be greater than the proposed interim helistop that would not require tree trimming. The planned MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings (shown in Figure 2-4)may also penetrate the northern transitional surface of the flight path for the ground level helistop at the future tower site, which generates a potential hazard impact. In addition, depending on the timing of development of the "future building site"located on the south east corner of the project site,the future building in this location could penetrate the southern transitional surface,generating an additional potential hazard impact. It is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant one variance per flight path. Penetrations of the transitional surface in more than one area would not be allowed by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and would not receive a permit to operate the helistop. Furthermore,the obstruction conflicts with the trees and future on-site buildings that would occur from the ground level helistop at the future tower site would not occur from the proposed interim helistop.The proposed interim helistop would not require a variance from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.Thus,potential hazards impacts related to obstruction clearance conflicts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be greater than what would occur by the proposed projeet. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-3$ ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Altematives As shown in Figure 4-5, one of the flight paths from the future tower location would cross the hospital entrance driveway, a hospital parking lot, and Temecula Parkway. Hence,the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude)as they cross Temecula Parkway,the parking lot,and the maim hospital access road to land or take off from the helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. This helicopter activity would be a low-altitude event that would cross over pedestrians,bicycles and vehicle travelers in the hospital driveway,parking lot,and Temecula Parkway. This would be a large-scale forefront activity that could cause distractions to drivers in the driveway,parking lot-and along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and takeoffs crossing Temecula Parkway at a low altitude could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts hospital due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop(shown in Figure 2-4)would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance,height, and trajectory to be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the ground level future tower helistop location. The location of the proposed interim helistop,where the helistop would move during construction of the future tower,is in the northwestern portion of the project site toward the rear of the hospital facilities,and helicopter activity at the proposed interim site would consist of middle ground activity,with parking lot and hospital facilities in the foreground. The middle ground helicopter activity would be buffered from Temecula parkway by other hospital uses, which would reduce distraction to travelers along the roadway in comparison to the ground level future tower helistop location. In addition,the flight path for the proposed interim location would not travel above or cross vehicular paths in the hospital parking lot,driveway, or along Temecula Parkway(such as would be done by the ground level future tower helistop location),and would not result in the level of potential confusion for persons to access the hospital that could occur from the ground level future tower helistop location. Also,because helicopter landings and takeoffs would be farther from roadways,driveways,and sidewalks,safety concerns related to pedestrians and bicyclists along the public sidewalk that fronts the hospital would not occur, as it could by the ground level future tower helistop location. Overall, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater potential impacts related to hazards than would occur by the interim helistop site proposed by the project. Noise Construction Noise Construction of the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in construction of two interim helistops. Thus,noise from helistop construction would be greater under this alternative than would occur by the proposed project. However,construction noise associated with the phased development of the other hospital facilities would continue to occur Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-39 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARematives during the construction of the helistops. The locations of development would have the same general distance to sensitive receptors,which include the adjacent residential uses and the hospital itself. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise under the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed project. CNEL Standards The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location for use prior to construction of the new tower. Therefore, the CNEL noise contours that would be generated by this alternative would be similar to what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop and would be contained within the hospital site,as shown on Figure 4-8.Therefore, the average noise increase (CNEL)resulting from the helistop at the future tower location would be less than significant, which is the same as the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. As shown on Table 4-6,the alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 dB CNEL and the remainder of the sites would not experience an increase in CNEL noise. In comparison,the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2 dB CNEL at Site 2 and 0.1 dB CNEL increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-9). The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim site and the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative are very minimal and below the 3 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing;ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, and below the 1.5 dB CNEL threshold for locations with existing;ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. Furthermore,this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria,which sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low-and medium-intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi-family housing;.As a result, the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels; impacts would be less than significant,which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-40 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 - ,dw 0 We it r� woof ...r79 - Future Tower Ground Level { C,1a.P Legend CNEL Contours 66 dB 65 dB Hospital Campusw�,. F Noise Sensitive Land Use . 10 "` . 5110 •{S Feet r SOURCE:ESAAirports,2015;lNM 7.Od;City of Temecula;USDA,2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Hel€stop SEIR.130652 NOTE:The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations Figure 4-8 only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from ronaircraft sources. CNEL Contours for the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative 4.Project ARematives TABLE 4-6 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL NOISE AND HELICOPTER NOISE FROM THE FUTURE TOWER LOCATION INTERIM HELISTOP SITE ALTERNATIVE Difference between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Site Site Description/ Measurement Ambient Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Number Address Period CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB CNEL,dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 23.7 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 41.5 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 42.5 63.5 0.0 4 On project site,at urfset 20 Iriillules NIA NIA NIA NIA of proposed five-story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 40.6 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between.dune 19 and 26,2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute(ANSI)51.4-1971. SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Short-Term Norse The Future Tower Location as interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location. The same northeast/southwest flight paths for the permanent helistop would be used while the interim helistop is located at ground level at the future tower site (shown in Figure 2-4).Table 4-7 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the ground level future tower location interim helistop. Level of Noise Impact: As described above,an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exceedance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels. As shown on Table 4-7, the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the ground level interim helistop at the future tower location would result in a maximum noise level of 94.5 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions, both of which would occur at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments,which would be a substantial short-term increase in ambient noise. In comparison, the maximum helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop location would be 93,4 dB Lmax,in prevailing wind conditions and 100.5 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions,both at Site 6A,the equestrian trail. Therefore,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a short-term maximum noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights),and 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-42 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu later Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Alternatives TABLE 4-7 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS- FUTURE TOWER LOCATION AS INTERIM HELISTOP ALTERNATIVE WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Site No. Site Location Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax. dB 1 30390 De Portola 58.6 48.3 48.3 63.3 2 30955 De Portola 68-9 68-8 68.9 72-5 3 31775 De Portola 67.2 83.8 83.8 67.8 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 86.5 64.6 64.7 87.3 6A Equestrian Trail Overflight 72.3 72.3 72.3 76.3 613 Equestrian Trail 67-1 67-5 67.1 68-8 6C Equestrian Trail 71.5 64.1 64.2 76.2 7 Madera Vista 77.1 94.8 93.7 78.4 8 43941 Via Montalban 52.2 74.4 72.5 52.3 9 David Ln f Kevin PI 71-8 51-9 51,9 79.7 NOTE,Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Sold_ SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-7 also shows that the helicopter overflight noise from the ground level helistop at the future tower location would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. In comparison,the proposed interim hclistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus,compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. Receptor Sites 1,2, 6A,613,6C,and 9,which are located furthest away from the Alternative Interim Helistop flight path,would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than by the proposed interim helistop location. Conversely,however, Sites 3, 5 and 7,which are directly under or in close proximity to the alternative's northeastlsouthwcst flight path would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels by the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative in both prevailing and Santa Ana winds, compared to the proposed interim helistop location. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum short-term noise level at receptors of 1.4 dB Lmax greater in Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-43 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AI[ematives prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights)than the proposed interim site. However,this alternative would generate a maximum noise of 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana conditions than the proposed interim helistop. In addition,this alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard one less receptor location than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site .Alternative would result in a slightly greater maximum single-event noise for a majority of flights;however,it would impact one fewer receptor location than the proposed interim helistop in Santa Ana conditions. Similar to the proposed interim helistop, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, occur approximately eight times a month, and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Thus,noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Conclusion The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards; and similar noise impacts.As with the proposed interim location,noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month. Thus,noise related to the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts.Therefore,because the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts and would not reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level,it is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project. In regards to meeting the project objectives,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would require two interim helistop sites,each with new operating plans that could be disruptive to operations of hospital; especially the transfer of emergency patients. This would result in interfering with the project objective to provide superior,easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. Finally,a ground-level site at the future tower location would be required to undergo the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics,which would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility.As such,it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-44 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.'Project Aftematives 4.9 Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop the helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building. As shown in Figure 2-4,the existing five-story hospital building is in the central portion of the project site,behind the future tower location. Under this alternative the approximate northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop would be used by the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building.The flight paths are shown in Figures 2-4, 3.3-5, and 3.3-6. Like the existing hospital building the future tower would be five-stories high; thus,helicopters would be arriving and departing from this location at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop.This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. The helistop located on the roof of the existing hospital building would have the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop described in Chapter 2,Projecl Description. No additional obstruction or lead-in lighting would be required under the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative. However, implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path designs pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). Because the additional mass from the helistop and helicopter would be substantial relative to the existing roof mass, seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California Building Code (CBC). In particular,the existing hospital building was designed and constructed in compliance with 2Cn7 CBC requirements. Building modifications under this alternative would be required to comply with either the current 2013 CBC or the CBC that is in place when building permits are issued.The 2013 CBC is more stringent in terms of seismic requirements than the 2007 CBC. The 2013 CBC requires the following improvements to support a helistop on the roof of the existing hospital: • Gravity Support Modifications: (1)Existing roof beams of the hospital structure would be required to be strengthened by adding cover plates or tees welded to the underside of the beams; (2)Connections of the affected beams would need to be strengthened by supplemental fillet welding; and(3) Approximately eight existing structural building columns would be need to be strengthened from the ground up to the roof with cover plates.This structural work, involving walls, floors, and ceilings from the ground floor up to the ceiling,would impact the following areasisystcros within the hospital building for the duration of construction: a. First FIoor:parts of kitchen,main housekeeping,pharmacy,and the only service corn dor 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 C. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to g=o to the roof Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-45 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Dmft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project ARematives • Pile Foundation Modifications: The existing pile foundations of the hospital structure would be needed to be strengthened with additional piles. As with the gravity support work, this structural work would impact the first-floor kitchen,main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only service corridor during construction. • Framing Modifications: The existing moment frames and braced frames would need to be strengthened as a result of the increase in seismic loading. Likewise,the pile foundation supporting the existing seismic bracing system would need to be strengthened with additional piles. This structural work would impact medical surgery patient rooms throughout the tower and the first-floor emergency department,pharmacy,and kitchen areas. • In addition to the CRC-required improvements, a fuellwater separator would need to be installed on the rooftop,and the fire suppression system of the hospital would be required to undergo substantial upgrades,and the existing rooftop heating,ventilation,and air conditioning(HVAC) system may need to be replaced. Insufficient separation between the HVAC intakes and helicopter engine exhaust could create harmful air quality conditions within the hospital. Should insufficient separation exist,the hospital would need to modify or replace the HVAC units with advanced carbon filtration and ionization systems. This would require an increase in air handler fan size to increase static air pressure. Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months,depending on the strategy chosen for facility operations,during which time the affected areas would be significantly disrupted and/or unusable. Areas outside of the hospital,which are nearby or underneath construction equipment(such as cranes),would also be unusable,which would affect hospital operations. Aesthetics Like the permanent helistop proposed by the project,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would include 16 green flush-mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics standards. However, due to its location five-stories above ground,no additional obstruction lighting or lead-in lighting would be required under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. The proposed interim helistop site would be required to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required lighting than the proposed interim helistop. In addition, the proposed interim helistop would be located in the western portion of the hospital site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west. Pursuant to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics requirements, the proposed interim helistop would consist of a 5.5-foot-high berm from which helicopters would land and take off and would be lighted for nighttime operations. The Proposed interim helistop would be visible from adjacent roadways and off-site uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Projeet 4-46 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Altematives The rooftop nighttime lighting for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be consistent with what would be used for the permanent helistop,which would be low-level lighting that is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that would be directed toward the interior of the rooftop to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent properties. Like the permanent helistop location,some of the rooftop lighting from the helistop on top of the existing hospital building would be visible from nearby residences and other land uses,but would be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and would not affect viewers' nighttime vision. Therefore,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer aesthetic impacts than the less-than-significant impacts that would occur from the proposed project. Consistent with the other alternatives described previously,the storage facility that would be constructed under this alternative would include the same massing and design features and exterior lighting features that would occur under the proposed project and would result in the same less-than-significant aesthetic impacts. Hazards The helistop site that would be developed under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be located on top of the five-story existing hospital building and would use the northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop,which meet safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. Because of the height and location of the building in the central portion of the project site, a helistop on top of the existing hospital building would meet the FAA's Heliport Design Guide standards and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria for obstructions and lighting. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not result in any potential obstruction clearance conflicts,and no variances would be required. As a result,no additional obstruction or lead-in lighting would be required by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would meet FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics safety standards,and no variances or additional safety lighting would be required,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts related to hazards as the proposed project. Noise Construction Norse Construction of this alternative would result in construction activity on top,within,and directly adjacent to the operating hospital,which is a sensitive receptor. As described previously,to implement the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative,the hospital building would need infrastructure upgrades, including: extending the elevator to provide a rooftop elevator stop, installation of equipment and machinery on the roof that would be lifted by crane above operating portions of the hospital building, and implementing substantial upgrades to the building's fire suppression and structural systems. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in direct noise impacts to the hospital (sensitive receiver),which would not occur by the proposed project.Therefore,construction noise impacts by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be greater than those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed hospital development project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-#7 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AI[ematives CNEL Standards The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would develop a helistop on the roof of the existing five-story hospital building,which is located in the central portion of the project site, behind the future tower location. Like the existing hospital building, the future tower would be five-stories high.Thus,helicopters would be arriving and departing from this location at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop, and would generate similar CNEL contours. As shown in Figure 3.3-8,the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter flights to the permanent helistop are completely contained on the hospital site. Because the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital is located behind and more centrally located than the future tower location, CNEL contours from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would also be contained within the hospital site, as shown on Figure 4-4. Furthermore, this alternative would not cause an exceedance of the City of Temecula General Plan criteria,which sets noise standards for residential areas at fi5 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 Norse As discussed,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would use the approximate northeast/southwest flight paths identified for the permanent helistop.The single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive at and depart from the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building would be similar to what would occur with the proposed permanent helistop location that would be on the roof of the future five-story tower. As with the proposed project,the duration of the maximum single-event noise would be limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). Table 4-8 shows the single-event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop on the roof of the existing hospital building. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-48 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Pratt Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 dy ... Existing Tower t , do Rooftop Helistop r Ir it qe _ �- 1r 1 la�arkrra4 *� a - ,�, �-t , Legend r ,�r i - '+��PM1 CNEL Contours � � i� 60 dBW 1:: 655 d6 {ytxaa'0. Hospital Campus Noise Sensitive — _ • -� Land Use 500 '. x - •' . a4, =. JLL Feet r fi SOURCE:ESAAirportS,201 5-IIVM 7.11d;City of Temecula;USDA,2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 NOTE:The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations Figure 4-9 only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from ran-aircraft sources. CNEL Contours for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative 4.Project A tematives TABLE 4-8 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE EXISTING HOSPITAL ROOF HELISTOP SITE ALTERNATIVE WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditionsl Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Departure Arrival Departure Arrival No. Site Location Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB Lmax,dB 1 30390 De Portola 48.3 49.6 491 63.7 2 30955 De Portola 78.3 78.2 78.3 79.2 3 31775 De Portola 70.2 81.7 81.6 70.2 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 81.5 68.6 67.7 84.0 6A Equestrian Trail 82.8 82.8 82.8 83.7 613 Equestrian Trail 75.3 75.3 75.3 76.3 6C Equestrian Trail 71.9 70.8 70.8 76.3 7 Madera Vista 76.1 88.6 87.2 76.1 8 43941 Via Montalban 53.7 73.6 71.5 53.7 9 David Ln I Kevin PI 70.1 55.3 55.0 78.3 NOTE:Receptors receiving the greatest noise in each wind condition is indicated in Bold_ SOURCE:ESA Airports Analysis,2015. Level of Norse Impact: As described above,an impact related to short-term single-event noise would occur if helicopter operations results in an exeeedance of the City's allowable exterior noise levels.As shown,helistop operations in this location would have the greatest impact at Site 7,the Madera Vista apartments,resulting in a maximum noise level of 88.6 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions,and 87.2 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions. In addition, this alternative would result in 84.0 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 5,Country Glen neighborhood; and result in 82.8 dB Lmax at Site 6A, the equestrian trail,in prevailing wind conditions and 83.7 dB Lmax Santa Ana wind conditions,which would be a substantial short- term increase in ambient noise.. In comparison,helicopter overflight noise from the proposed interim helistop would result in a maximum of 93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions at Site 6A, the equestrian trail. Because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level of 88.6 dB Lmax,dB in prevailing wind conditions,and 87.2 dB Lmax,dB in Santa Ana wind conditions,it is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax,dB less in prevailing wind conditions,and 13.6 dB Lmax,dB less in Santa Ana wind conditions than would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. In addition, the noise generated by helicopter flights from the proposed permanent helistop would result in a maximum noise level of 89.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions,at Site 7, the Madera Vista apartments.This noise would be Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop Project 4-550 ESA 1130652 Rec i rcu latec Pratt.Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItem atives 1.2 dB Lmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop in prevailing wind conditions,and would be 0.6 dB Lmax lower than what would occur by the proposed permanent helistop in Santa Ana wind conditions.Therefore,helicopter operations using the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum single-event noise levels that would be slightly less than with the proposed project. However, as described in Section 3.3, Noise,a change in noise that is less than 3 dB is not perceivable (heard)by humans. Therefore, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a slightly less maximum noise level; however, the difference would not be noticeable. Receptor Sites Impacted: Table 4-8 also shows that the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in helicopter overflight noise that would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing; and Santa Ana wind conditions. Receptor Site 1,which is located furthest away from the Existing Hospital Roof as Helistop Site Alternative northeast/southwest flight path,would generally experience lower maximum short-term noise levels than under the proposed project. Conversely, however, Sites 7 and 3,which are directly under or near the alternative's flight path,would generally experience greater maximum short-term noise levels under this alternative during prevailing and Santa Ana winds than as compared to the proposed interim and permanent helistop locations. In comparison,the proposed interim helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing wind conditions and at all receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. The proposed permanent helistop would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions. Thus, compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term noise standard at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions than the interim helistop, but would exceed the standard at the same number of locations as the proposed permanent helistop in both wind conditions. Therefore,impacts to receptor sites by the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be slightly less than the proposed project. Short-Term Noise Conclusion: Similar to the proposed project,the noise from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, and would occur approximately eight times a month. Therefore,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is anticipated to result in a maximum noise level at receptors of 4.8 dB Lmax less in prevailing wind conditions,and 13.6 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana wind conditions than what would occur from operation of the proposed interim helistop. However,this alternative would generate very similar noise levels as the proposed permanent helistop because helicopters would be arriving and departing from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative at the same altitude as the proposed permanent helistop. Further,the exterior short-term noise standard would be exceeded at one less sensitive receptor location in Santa Ana conditions then the interim helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-51 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Aftematives Thus,noise impacts from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be less than the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. However, similar to the proposed interim and permanent helistop,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact because helicopter noise would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels, occur approximately eight times a month, and would directly impact residential areas by helicopter overflight. Conclusion The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor,construction noise would be greater under this alternative than the proposed project. Operational helicopter noise would be less from the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative than the proposed interim helistop,but would be very similar to impacts that would be generated from the proposed permanent helistop. However,helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels and would occur approximately eight times a month. Thus,noise related to operation of the Existing Hospital Roof Hclistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore,because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts, similar hazard impacts,greater construction noise impacts,and reduced operational noise(particularly,at the interim helistop)impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative. In regard to meeting the project objectives,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise,vibration,and potential hazards related to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative,portions of the existing hospital would be unusable. such as the rooms on the top floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such as cranes,and would result in operational impacts to the hospital,which would not occur from the proposed project. Therefore,implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be disruptive to operations of hospital, which would result in interference with the project objective of providing superior,easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. Finally, a helistop on the existing hospital roof would be required to undergo the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC,and Caltrans Aeronautics, which would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. As such,it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-52 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project AItem atives state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. However, this alternative would meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.10 Envirvnmen#ally Superior Alternative As described,each of the identified alternatives would reduce the maximum noise level at the receptor sites that would be generated by the proposed project,which would be 93.4 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions for the interim helistop site,and 59.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 87.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana wind conditions for the proposed permanent helistop. However,noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under all of the alternatives because each of the alternatives would result in noise that would substantially exceed the City's allowable noise limit and the existing ambient noise in the project vicinity. Table 4-9 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. Section 15126.6(e)(2)of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis in this RDSEIR-21116,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 4-9 and described previously,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics impacts,similar hazard impacts,and less helicopter noise (particularly,at the interim helistop) impacts. As a result,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However,noise impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable under the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative. In addition,this alternative would require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital,including: extending the elevator to add a rooftop stop,installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would result in operational impacts to the hospital,which would not occur from the proposed project,and would hinder achievement of the project objectives. The disruption to operations of the hospital that would occur by implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would interfere with the project objective of providing superior,easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner, and the delay caused by the full review and permitting processes with FAA, Riverside County ALUC, and Caltrans Aeronautics of the existing building roof site,would interfere with the objective of providing a regional hospital facility that is an operationally efficient,state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-53 ESA 1130652 Reciroulatec Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 4.Project Alterrtelives TABLE 4-9 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT No Project/Existing No Project/City- Future Tower Location Existing Hospital Roof Impact Category Proposed Project Condition Approved Project Alternative Interim Site as Interim Helistop Site Helistop Site Aesthetics Less than Significant Fewer Greater Greater Greater Fewer Hazards Less than Significant Greater Greater Greater,Potentially Greater Similar Significant Noise Significant and Similar or greater, Similar or fewer,but Fewer,but Significant Similar.Significant and Greater construction Unavoidable Significant and Significant and and Unavoidable Unavoidable and fewer operations, Unavoidable Unavoidable but Significant and Unavoidable Meets the project Yes Yes,but not tot he Yes,but not tot he Would not fully meet Would not fully meet Yes,but not to the objectives same extent as the same extent as the project objectives project objectives related same extent as the proposed project in proposed project in related to hospital to hospital operations proposed project,as it regards to hazards and regards to access operations and and compatibility of would be disruptive to compatibility with routes and hazards compatibility of development related to existing hospital adjacent development development related to aesthetics and hazards operations aesthetics and hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-54 ESA 1130852 Recirculated Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 CHAPTER. 5 References Air Combat Command.2001. Initial F-22 Operational Wing Beddown Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volumes 1 through 3. April 2001. Accessed at htW://www.alobalsecuriiy.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 S 12.9-2000/Part 6). American National Standards Institute. Blazer, Don. 2012. Can You Hear Me Now? Horses and Hearing. Accessed at htip://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/acronaut/hclipads/doeuments/ 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/hg/env/noise/in 2014 and 2015. City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines.August 9,2005. Accessed at http://www.cit„yoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planningf zoningdocuments./eitywidedesign.htm on December 31,2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at htip://www.ciiyoftemecula.orWTemecula/Government/Comm Dev/Planning/zonitigdocume nts/generalplan.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Accessed at http:J/www.gcodc.us/ code s/temecula/view.php''topic=l7&frames=off on December 31,2013. Department of the Air Force. 2000. Realistic Bomber Training Initiative: Final Environmental Impact Statement.Volume 1. January 2000. Accessed at http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/ media/document/afd-070806-041.pdf on June 4, 2014. Department of the Navy, 2005. Guidelines for Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations.April 2005. Accessed at: http://rican.org/aviation-noise-issues/in 2015. Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). 2012. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, Subject: He]iport Design.AC No: 150/5390-2C. April 24, 2012. Accessed at htip://www.faa.gov/documentLibra[y/media/Adviso!y 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.rescarchgate.net/publication/235203930_Federal_Interagency_Committee_on Aviation_Noise_1997 Annual Report in 2015. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ESA 1130652 Redreulatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 5.References Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise(FICAN)2008, Recommendation for use of ANSI Standard to Predict Awakenings from Aircraft Noise.Accessed at: http://www.fican.org/pdf/Final_Slccp_Dcc2008.pdf Unice of Planning and Research (UPR). 2003. State of Calitornia General Plan Guidelines(in coordination with the California Department of Health Services). October 2003. Accessed at ht!p://opr.ca.gov/smencralplanguidelines.php on January 22, 2014. Riverside County. 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 2004. Accessed at hitp://www.rcaluc.oW/ in December 2013. State of California.2014. Aeronautics Law State Aeronautics Act Public Utility Code.Accessed at htip://www.dot.ca. ov/hg/planning/aeronaut/documents/regulationa/cpuc_21041.pdf on January 10, 2014. State of California.California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560. Airports and Heliports. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/bg/plannin�/aeronaut/ documents/regulations/Reps pub.pdfon January 10, 2014. United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety &Health Administration(OSHA). Appendix I:A-1. Decibel Notation. Accessed at www.osha,gov/dts/osta/otm/ noise/health effects/decibels.html on January 10,2014. Wieland Associates, Inc.2007. Supplemental Noise Study,for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula,October 2007. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 55-2 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec draft Supplemental Errvironmental IrrpBcl Report February 2016 CHAPTER 6 List of Preparers Lead Agency — City of Temecula Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby,Project Director Steven Alvcrson,Director of Noise Analysis Renee lscario, Project:Manager Sean Burlingame,Noise Analyst Kelly Ross, Project Analyst Paige Anderson, Project Analyst Jason Nielsen, GIS Linda Uehara,Graphic Artist Temecula Valley Hospital Helipad Project 6-1 ESA 1130652 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 APPENDIX A FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' and Riverside County ALUC Correspondence Temecula Valley Hospital Hal istop ProjW ESA 1130852 Recirculatec Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2016 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHAIR March 4, 2014 Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner VICE CHAIRUMr City of Temecula Planning Department Rod Bailanee 41000 Main Street Riverside Temecula, CA 92590 Comw"� RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ArthurButler File No.: ZAP1054FV13 Riverside Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) John Lyon APN: 959-080-026 Riverside Glen Helmes Dear Mr. Fisk: Hernet On February 13, 2014,the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)found City of Greg""' Temecula Case No. PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to establish a cafted!al cty temporary (interim) heliport (specifically, a hospital helistop), consisting of a 48-foot diameter Richard Stewart (1,808 square font)Touchdown and Liftoff(TLOF)Area on a ground mounted concrete landing Moreno Valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted)markings,within an 87-foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16-foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind'cone, on the grounds of STAFF Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola Road, Director CONSISTENT with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Ed Cooper Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: John Guerin Russell Brady Barbara Santos CONDITIONS: 4pBp i.erxwSU4,Fleur. Riwok.CA92501 1 No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of (951)9555132 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through www.rcaiic.em 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-213, 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 1n conjunction with ALUC review of the permanent hel!stop, 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- 4549, or John Guerin,ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY D USE COMMISSION d'wa2 MT C. Coo Dire or RB:bks cc: Temecula Valley Hospital (applicant)(site address) Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) ,teff Wright (representative) DPRfTurner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff YWRPORT CASE FI!_ESTrench Valley17AP1054FV13\ZAP1054FV13.LTR.doc 2 US Department Western-Pacific Region P.O.Box 92007 of Transportation Los Angeles Airports District Office Los Angeles,CA 90009 Federal Aviation Administration July 3, 2013 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del RepoSo Temecula, California 92591-1718 Temecula Valley Hospital Temecula, California Airspace Case Na_ 201.3-AWP-745-NRA Lat. 33-28-48.80 N, Long. 117-06-28.80 W (NAD 83) Dear Mr. Wright: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an airspace study in response to your proposal submitted on FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, for the activation and establishment of the subject private heliport in Temecula, California on behalf of the hospital. Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Therefore, the FAA does not object to the establishment: of the proposed landing area, provided the following conditions are met: a. The landing area is operated for private-use only. b. Operations are to be conducted at this facility only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions, and in accordance with the restrictions/communications requirements of the overlying class of airspace. C. The landing area operator shall ensure and maintain obstruction-free routes of ingress/egress to the landing area. d. Ensure unauthorized persons are restrained from access to the takeoff/landing area during helicopter flight operations by use of erecting a non-obstructing safety barrier such as fencing. e. Lower the nearest parking light poles northeast of the touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) area that penetrate the 8:1 slope. From the center point of helipad TLOF, Pole#1 036 degrees, 168 ft. , Pole#2 013 degrees, 221 ft. , Pole#3 003 degrees, 222 ft. f. Adjust the ingress/egress routes in the northeast quadrant or shift the TLOF area north a few feet. Recommend changing egress route heading from 028 degrees to 020 degrees or by shifting location of the helipad prior to construction by a few feet north would allow departure on a 028 degree heading or adjust the outbound heading to 020 degrees MAG from current TLOF location to clear the main hospital building. Northwest corner of the hospital building penetrates 8:1 departure surface and 2:1 transitional surface. g. A representative of Flight Standards service (AFS) must evaluate/conduct a follow-up inspection of the heliport after construction for compliance prior to its operational use. h. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport permit. Your point of contact is-- Mr. s:Mr. Jeff Brown Senior Aviation Safety officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS40 P.O. Sox 542874 Sacramento, CA 54274 916-654-4565 This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 51-150) , as amended. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effect it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. Also, this determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinances, laws, or regulations of any other government body or agency. The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near heliports. The facility environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property rights. This determination expires on December 3, 2014, unless it is otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, or the facility is constructed before that date. An extension may be requested through our office, if necessary, up to 15-days prior to this expiration date. Also enclosed is the Airport Master Record, FAA Form 5010-5 for establishment of a "private use" landing area within our database system. Within 30-days after the landing area becomes operational, we would appreciate you completing this form for the heliport by signing, dating and returning it to me at this office, so your facility can be added into the FAA Airport Data System. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 310/725-3628. Sincerely, Margie Drill ng Airport Planner CC: California Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Brawn Senior Aviation Safety Officer Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274 1_. _r h11P-) t -� rrr56Ir" 7,q ad 44` fR rlknErLrciMLiL[l ria } + �.� •� f Y�1 P$ gWlTHSCIRS LX VLA .aH r VLA -6' Rm UNDEFINED "h" 4' YELLOW / 1 HIGHWAY �� ON WHITE CROSS �* + jwREFLECTOR l (SFE INSET) bA14F�RC1A� (TYP OF 12} ,� f{NO CLASS BEADS) QO �... �;`.v'" �. � � ' r� •� � rd.+. � ° � __5' HIGH WHITE � F "TVH" HDSPCfAL �. 01 NTTFICAIION jf : :. :� 16'-WIDE CS 1 i dS• t � / SAFETY AREA' qg �y.4� '..� _ .-� ��� �,lyg,Iyp p�4+•G s HELIPORT DETAIL low --1 INTERIM HELIPORT TO BE Bel 205, 212, 412 REMOVED UPON COMPLETION 48' - 1fi SAFETY -- 51_B' OF PERMANENT HELIPORT 16'SAFEfy AREA N/A ON FUTURE BED TOWER �F 8T M.FATO _� 81' l]iorn-Afr ? Tip 48' [}iOme- YFQ 4Er Dtk TLOF 16• ------- .. CSV [LCV. 106O-MS1. � KLA 9 �ON - KLA - - Cwoke 16'-TALL U01)TED 1% NW WINI)CONE ---- N/A APPROX, ELEV: 1668' Not Curilroitcd 1113.(1:1 AAHt} _ __......_ crane] Pho10 c"l 4113k !o Down) f'isl ° l .�o f -I fl 11, 1 I I ! E 'I 4 I�-l I ° IIT 1 II_-t�I II! —Is s t i A111 ail I i ,�'I 411 iI�• I` SIL_ P{ Ilr I4� IIII i �-II —I _ it SOUTHWEST ELEVATION CONUC!'iONAL PLAN APPROVALG FOR STATEAIRPGIM"F11POWr ...........-_.___—.__ -- - rclMlTruwasEsONLY THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVALS ONLY, NOT F( /RWECT FIEF.T�DEStE:�tiT.i\plR7�FI.'411. APr➢rl{kI.IS 51 4LIK T"ro UM,%C"ONrLWNCE -- Oate. 1)3-24-TLRev 7: G3 U8-12 �ygtgg{ Ffeolth S�yires CA�.TRANS flChecked-- liplareners Client: HMC Architects fawner: Hri RIVISON OF AERONAUTICS oj. Code:-LMS — Rev 1:94=1211 Rev 8: 10 09••17 yAlyF y Rry VIS-22-11 Rev 9- D1.31�13 5935 Comerstoae-court. Studio 300 367 South GUlph Rnnd afted= ❑B llAT�_ /e/12'�3, Rer 3:i�6-74-11 Rev 1002-0d-1 i San Ureyo. CA 92121 K1L3u 0( Pros' _ PA 19406 - JWN—`TRev 4-09-72-11.. Rev 11 03_11=t3 6144- � Pro'eet:Phone: t$7L__ 4QC7 aTemecule Yniley Hosp-sfoi Rev 5.09-76=11_ Rev 17:04-U¢_-tsC91trons Aeronoubcs A ravel $ox 3C�ijDE&3tF1GIS Q13 - Praj. Nn.•1.359004-DOC ----- _ .- Exhibit- Inter'"' HeliFanrt Loyauf Plan PP f Rev [i: 01-09-12_ Rev 13• - - CAW U.S Department Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 of Transportation Los Angeles Airports District Office Los Angeles, CA 90009 Federal Aviation Administration March 15, 2012 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del Reposo Temecula, CA 92591 Temecula Medical Center, Temecula, CA Establishment of Heliport Airspace Case No. 2011--AWP-1209-NRA Lat. 33-28-55.40 N, Long. 117-06-19.90 W (NAD 83) Dear Mr. Wright: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an airspace study in response to your proposal submitted on FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Freposal, for the activation and establishment of the subject heliport in Temecula, California for the Temecula Medical Center. Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Therefore, the FAA does not object to the establishment of the proposed landing area, provided the following conditions are met: a. The landing area is operated for private-use only. b. Operations are to be conducted at this facility only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions, and in accordance with the restrictions/communications requirements of the overlying class of airspace. c. The landing area operator shall ensure and maintain obstruction-free routes of ingress/egress to landing area. d. An additional ingress/egress route of 105/285 degrees should be added for safety. e. Trees located at 045 to 055 degrees from helipad should be removed or topped to mitigate current and future ingress/egress obstacles. f. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a "Special-Use" heliport permit. Your point of contact is: Mr. 0`eff R. Brown Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 916-654-4565 This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) , as amended. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground_ In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effect it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. Also, this determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinances, laws, or regulations of any other government body or agency. The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near heliports. The facility environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property rights. We are enclosing a graphic depiction (Figure 2) entitled "Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports" of the proper vertical clearances, which should be maintained between the approach/departure surfaces to a landing area and highways for rotor wing operations . Please note that a 17-foot minimum clearance is required for interstate highways. Figure 2 is incorporated herein and made a part of this determination. This determination expires on Monday, September 16, 2013, unless it is otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, or the facility is constructed before that date. An extension may be requested through our office, if necessary, up to 15-days prior to this expiration date. We have identified below the link to our FAA Form 5010-5, Airport Master Record, for the establishment of a private use landing facility within our database system. http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa5010-5.pdf Within 30-days after the landing area becomes operational, we would appreciate you adding the heliport to this form, signing, dating and returninq it to me at this office, so your facility can be included in the FAA's airport database system. If you have any questions, please contact me at all 310/725-3628. Sincerely, " e Margie Dril g Airport Planner cc: California Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Brown Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 Aviation Safety Officer P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 §77.29 -- Alrpor# tmagInary Surfaces for Hollports �3 11t�t�rn.�ch ar►rl Touchdown Area safety harries Departure >-111►s Width 500 feet A at 4.000 (in at ,� �— frarn and of primary surface r- � 9 tA Pedpheral Area Curved Approach-Depariure ' Paths algin f'cnnlssik+to---fes Approach Landing and Takeoff Arca Surface (Prim6ry Surtace) Transitional Surfaces ? S� t2.1 Section A-A L4---.-250, Extend 10 4.000' from Ptirnary Surfaca Holiport.Approach Suilace 0:1 slope' g;1 slope` Prolilo `Slope 101 for Mifitary t1cliports ► :Cr a 111ghway or railroad is in this area, they should be considered as Figure 2 having a ]7 ' obstruction for an interstate highway r 15* obstruction for other hi.ghwaysr and a 23 ' obstruction for a railroad. Printed 6/13/2413 1:25 PM1:25 PM Jeff Wright From: Phillip Miller<phillip miller@dot.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:34 AM To: Jeff Wright Cc: Jeff Brown Subject: Re: UHST-1 Temecula Valley Hospital -- Revised HLP Categories: Business Jeff, To recap our conversation this morning we understand that only one approach I departure path is possible due to a previously established environmental evaluation and your clients insistence. In light of this fact, and to enhance both safety and compatibility,we would like for you and your client to consider rotating the proposed flight path to the south as to clear(from overflight)the existing and proposed apartment buildings in the Summerhouse complex. Should this not be possible we will require the obstruction lighting of all two story or higher buildings in the complex that underlie the depicted approachldeparture path. As usual,we will need to have the obstruction lights or the adjusted approach I departure path shown on the HLP for permit committee approval. Thanks, Phillip Miller, C.M. Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS#40 P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Office: (916) 654-5507 Fax: (916)653-9531 E-mail: phiIIip.miller@dot.ca.gov Website: www.dot.ca.gov/aeronauties 1 ADOPTED 2006 FINAL EIR Available from the City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request ADOPTED 2008 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Available from the City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request ADOPTED 2011 EIR ADDENDUM Available from the City Clerk's Office of the City of Temecula upon request RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 2014 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHAIR March 4, 2014 Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner VICE CHAIRMAN City of Temecula Planning Department Rod Ballance 41000 Main Street Riverside Temecula, CA 92590 COMMISSIONERs RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Arthur Butler File No.: ZAP1054FV13 Riverside Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) Jahn Lyon APN: 959-080-026 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 Richard Stewart (1,808 square foot)Touchdown and Liftoff(TLOF)Area on a ground mounted concrete landing Moreno Valley pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings,within an 87-foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16-foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of STAFF Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola Director Road, CONSISTENT with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Ed Cooper Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: John Guerin Russell Brady Barbara Santos CONDITIONS: Count'Admim#a*Cenler 4090 Lemon&.CA9201 1 No operations takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of I�uorside,CA 92501 p ( g } (951)955-W2 California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through wvm.rcaluc.orp 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-2B, 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- 4549, 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., clo George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) Jeff Wright (representative) DPR1Turner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towell (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff Y:\AIRPORT CASE FILES1French ValleylZAPI054FV131ZAP1054FV13.LTR.doc 2 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSITRATION LETTER DATED JULY 3, 2013 US Department Western-Pacific Region P.O.Box 92007 of Transportation Los Angeles Airports District Office Los Angeles,CA 90009 Federal Aviation Administration July 3, 2013 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del RepoSo Temecula, California 92591-1718 Temecula Valley Hospital Temecula, California Airspace Case Na_ 201.3-AWP-745-NRA Lat. 33-28-48.80 N, Long. 117-06-28.80 W (NAD 83) Dear Mr. Wright: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an airspace study in response to your proposal submitted on FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, for the activation and establishment of the subject private heliport in Temecula, California on behalf of the hospital. Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Therefore, the FAA does not object to the establishment: of the proposed landing area, provided the following conditions are met: a. The landing area is operated for private-use only. b. Operations are to be conducted at this facility only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions, and in accordance with the restrictions/communications requirements of the overlying class of airspace. C. The landing area operator shall ensure and maintain obstruction-free routes of ingress/egress to the landing area. d. Ensure unauthorized persons are restrained from access to the takeoff/landing area during helicopter flight operations by use of erecting a non-obstructing safety barrier such as fencing. e. Lower the nearest parking light poles northeast of the touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) area that penetrate the 8:1 slope. From the center point of helipad TLOF, Pole#1 036 degrees, 168 ft. , Pole#2 013 degrees, 221 ft. , Pole#3 003 degrees, 222 ft. f. Adjust the ingress/egress routes in the northeast quadrant or shift the TLOF area north a few feet. Recommend changing egress route heading from 028 degrees to 020 degrees or by shifting location of the helipad prior to construction by a few feet north would allow departure on a 028 degree heading or adjust the outbound heading to 020 degrees MAG from current TLOF location to clear the main hospital building. Northwest corner of the hospital building penetrates 8:1 departure surface and 2:1 transitional surface. g. A representative of Flight Standards service (AFS) must evaluate/conduct a follow-up inspection of the heliport after construction for compliance prior to its operational use. h. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport permit. Your point of contact is-- Mr. s:Mr. Jeff Brown Senior Aviation Safety officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS40 P.O. Sox 542874 Sacramento, CA 54274 916-654-4565 This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 51-150) , as amended. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effect it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. Also, this determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinances, laws, or regulations of any other government body or agency. The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near heliports. The facility environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property rights. This determination expires on December 3, 2014, unless it is otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, or the facility is constructed before that date. An extension may be requested through our office, if necessary, up to 15-days prior to this expiration date. Also enclosed is the Airport Master Record, FAA Form 5010-5 for establishment of a "private use" landing area within our database system. Within 30-days after the landing area becomes operational, we would appreciate you completing this form for the heliport by signing, dating and returning it to me at this office, so your facility can be added into the FAA Airport Data System. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 310/725-3628. Sincerely, Margie Drill ng Airport Planner CC: California Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Brawn Senior Aviation Safety Officer Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274 CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS E-MAIL DATED DECEMBER 29, 2011 Printed 6/13/2413 1:25 PM1:25 PM Jeff Wright From: Phillip Miller<phillip miller@dot.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2911 11:34 AM To: Jeff Wright Cc: Jeff Brown Subject: Re: UHST-1 Temecula Valley Hospital -- Revised HLP Categories: Business Jeff, To recap our conversation this morning we understand that only one approach 1 departure path is possible due to a previously established environmental evaluation and your clients insistence. In light of this fact, and to enhance both safety and compatibility, we would like for you and your client to consider rotating the proposed flight path to the south as to clear(from overflight)the existing and proposed apartment buildings in the Summerhouse complex. Should this not be possible we will require the obstruction lighting of all two story or higher buildings in the complex that underlie the depicted approachldeparture path. As usual,we will need to have the obstruction lights or the adjusted approach l departure path shown on the HLP for permit committee approval. Thanks, Phillip Miller, C.M. Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS#40 P.D. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Office: (916) 654-5507 Fax: (916)653-9531 E-mail: phillip.millera@dot.ca.gov Website: www.dot.ca.gov/aeronautics 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 2014 r RADE COMM FIRE EWPMTMEM iN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FiRE PROTECTION t �[ Jahn R. Hawkins — Fire Chief ✓f _ 4� 210 West San Jacinto Averwe Perris, CA 92570 (951)940-6900—www,rvcfire.org PROUDLY SERVING THE uNINCORPORATEn AREAS April 23,2a l4 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY p AND THE CITIES OF: BANNING Temecula Valley Hospital 31700 Temecula Pkwy. BEAUMON? Temecula CA 92542 CAU MESA Re:Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site CANYON LAKE COACHELLA The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services(EMS)Landing Site at Temecula Valley Hospital ,DESERT HOT SPRING$ would greatly enhance the health,safety and ability to provide life-saving medical care ire our community and for the patients treated by your facility. EASTVALE INa7AN WELLS Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code,Section 2662.1,the Riverside County Fire Chief,as the authorized public safety agency,hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical INDIO Services(EMS)Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This designation is JURUPA VALLEY located at the eastern portion of the facility,situated at the proposed permanent landing site.This site is approved for one(1)year pending the implementation of the following administrative regulations, LAKE ELSINORE operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone(LZ)location: L4 Q111NTA Operational Requirements(California Code of Regulations—Title 21 Requirements) MENIFEE • Location Is reserved for medical emergcneics and t7a Wriatlons MORENO VALLEY • Title 21 Section 3527-Emergency Landing Site o Over a twelve month period with no more than an average of six NORCO landings per month with a patient or patients ion the helicopter,except PALM DESERT to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event. O Not marked as a permitted heliport PERRIS o Used for emergency medical purposes RANCHO MIRAGE Safety Enhancements RUB ROUX CSD a Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings SAN JACINTO • Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements a Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards TEMECULA a PUrnove trees,vegetation,parking spaces,etc... as necessary to accommodate LZ WILDOMAir requirements • Maintain white landing dot,per specifications in center of LZ • Designate an.appropriate safety area surrounding LZ t30ARD OF • Prevent parking,bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area SUPERVISORS: • Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital KEVIN JEFFRIES • Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter DIsrRICT t activity when a landing or rake-off is proposed Jr]HNTAYAE DISTRICT 2 The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the health, safety and welfare of our community. Furthermore,we are readily available to meet and discuss any ,JEFF STONE questions or I oncepi y tt may have with this project. DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOIT � t --arils, DISTRfGT 4 MARION ASHLEY `r DI$TRIC,T S --_ �csltn R. IawiLiirs i ire:ell `1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 16, 2015 -" CAL FIRE-RADE�UNM �iDE COUNTY FIRE DEPART John R. Hawkins— Fire Chief 210 West San Jacinto Avenue Perris, Ca 92570-1915 Bus: (951) 940-6900 — Fax: (951)940-6910 www.rvcftre.org PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY March l6,2015 AND THE CITIES OF: Temecula Valley Hospital BANNING 31700 Temecula Pkwy. Temecula CA 92592 BEAUMONT CALIMESA Re:Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site CANYON LAKE Mr.Michael Smith, COACHfLLA The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services(EMS)Landing Site at Temecula Valley DESERT HOT SPRINGS Hospital would greatly enhance the health, safety and ability to provide life-saving medical care in our community and for the patients treated by your facility. E A TVA.L£ INDIAN WELLS Pursuant to the California.Public Utilities Code,Section 21662.1,the Riverside County Fire Chief,as the authorized public safety agency,hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency INDIO Medical Services(EMS)Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This JURUPA VALLEY designation is located at the eastern portion of the facility,situated at the proposed permanent landing site.This site is approved for one(1)year pending the implementation of the Following administrative LAKE ELSINORE regulations, operat:onal requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone LA QVINTA (LZ) location: MENI EE Operational Requirements(California Code of Regulations—Title 21 Requirements) MORENO VALLEY • Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations + Title 21 Section 3527-Emergency Landing Site NORCO o Over a twelve month period with no more than an average of six PALM DESERT landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, PERRIS a Not marked as a permitted heliport RANCHO MIRAGE o Used for emergency medical purposes RuelDoux C50 Safety Enhancements SAN JACINTO + Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings ■ Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements TEMECULA . Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards WILDOMAR Remove trees,vegetation,parking spaces,etc.as necessary to accommodate LZ requirements • Maintain white landing dot,per specifications in center of LZ BOARD OF • Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ SUPERVISORS: + Prevent parking,bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area KEVIN JEFFRIES + Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital DISTRICT 1 e Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter JOHN TAVAGUONE activity when a landing or take-off is proposed DISTRICT 2 The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the CHARLES WASHINGTON health,safety and welfare of our community. DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOrT Best regards, DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY t ❑15r'RICT'S John R. 14-: Ykin lure r'►�,ef RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 21,2016 GAL FIRE - RIVERSIDE UNIT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPAR•I`MEW John R. Hawkins -'Fire Chief 210 West San Jacinto Avenue, Perris,Ca 92570-1915 16 Bus: (951)940-6900 Fax: (951)94"373 www.rvcfire.org PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY March 21.2016 AND THE crrlES OF: Temecula Valley Hospital. BANNING 31700 Temecula Pkwy Temecula CA 92592 BEAUMONT CALIMESA Re`Temecula Valley Hospital 1.:MS Landing Site CANYON LAKE Mr. Raymond Ketcham, COACHELlA The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services(EMS)Landing Site at Temecula Valley DESERT HOT SPRINGS Hospital would greatly enhance the health,safety and ability to provide life-saving medical care in our EASTVALE community and for the patients treated by your facility. INDIAN WELLS Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code.Section 21662,1,the Riverside County Fire Chief.as INDIO the authorized public safety agency,hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services(EMS)landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This JURUPA VALLEY designation is located at the eastern portion of the Facility,situated at the proposed permanent landing site. This site is approved for one(1)year pending the implementation of the following administrative LAKELSINORE regulations,operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone La QLIINTA (LZ)location: MENIFEE Operational Requirements(California Code of R_gulations- Title 21 Requirements) MORENO VALLEY • Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations + Title 21 Section 3527-Emergency Landing Site NORCO c over a twelve month period with no more than an average of six PALM DESERT landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event. PERRIS a Not marked as a permitted heliport RANCI40 MIRAGE O Used for emergency medical purposes RUSI©aux CSC Safety Enhancements SAN JACINTO a Matntain appropriate lighting for night landings • Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements TEMECULA • Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards WILDOMAR • Remove trees,vegetation,parking spaces,etc.as necessary to accommodate Ll requirements Maintain white landing dot, per specifications in center of LZ BOARD OF + Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ SUPERVISORS: ■ Prevent parking,bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LL area KEVIN JEFFRIES • Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital DISTRICT 1 • [Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LT.is Safe And secure for helicopter JOHN TAVAGL LONE activity^ when a landing or take-off is proposed DISI'RiCT 2 The Riverside Count} Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the CHARLES WASHINGTON DISTRICT 3 y health,safety and welfare of our community RFCT JOHN BENOrr si R '' dN DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY DISTRICT 5 Joh R_ Hawkins — Fire 'hies' TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2©15 TemeculaValley HOSPITAL March 9,2015 Stuart Fisk Senior Planner,City of Temecula 41GOO Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Dear Mr.Fisk: I am writing on behalf of Temecula Valley Hospital regarding the important public interest which will be served through the hospital's helistop, The hospital's Board of Governors, Medical Staff and Management Tearn believe strongly that the public benefit of having a helistop greatly outweigh impacts of having a helistop,such as noise. Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical need for rapid transportation into or out of a hospital are predominantly for the following reasons: • Rapid access to specialty services requiring time-limited treatments-such as stroke care. • Access to specialty services only available at a few centers,such as critical pediatric care,trauma and burn services. The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula Valley Hospital have been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San Diego or another Children's Hospital,the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER,speak with the ER physician caring for the patient to appropriately transition care,and then accompanies the critically ill child back to the Children's Hospital. A child's hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get them to the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from TVH with the best team of providers possible helps ensure the best possible outcome. Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients who require very specialized lifesaving procedures such as certain types of brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When Ming to save a brain that is bleeding or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts, These types of patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to he held up in traffic. They do not have time to spare. In addition to transferring out critical patients,as a STEMI Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital, Temecula Valley Hospital also receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance, remote access location,or a traffic situation,it is important to be able to transfer patients to Temecula Valley Hospital via helicopter to marimiae the opportunity to provide timely lifesaving care. lemoculu Virile),ffosjrlul 3170() Tom culrr llurkwuy. Temectrlrr, UA 92S92 www,teirnecuIavalleyhospita1.coin Temec:ulaValley HOSPITAL Without a helistop,hospitals address the need for critical care transports through these options; • The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in ground ambulance staffed with paramedics. o Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared with a critical care team, thus must cease medications and interventions auring transport. o Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion- * Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911 ambulance out of service in the community for an extended time. • An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize cr'tical care ground transport ambulances. o There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be delays in availability of this specialty ambulance. a Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. • Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a remote off-site location such as an airport,park or field. The critical care response team takes a ground ambulance to the hospital to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter for flight out. o This option provides significant enough time delay that it is typically impractical. o This option ties up the local fire department engines because they have to"secure"the off-site landing area and provide ground to air radio communications for safety. This takes the 911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of time. In critical medical situations,there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not have a halistop care for patients can suffer. Patients in the community do not have rapid access to the specialty services they need,and upon case review their outcomes are affected in an undes'rable way. Having a helistop at a hospital provides the community with ali potential options to receive rapid access to any care required at a specialty center with no change in the level of Care during transport. Temecula Valley Hospital leaders and physicians believe that significant public interest is served by having the helistop which outweighs the unavoidable impacts(noise)that would result from the project. Sincerely, X&A Carlene Wetton Chief Executive Officer lemic bi Valles°Hosj�jtul , :31 MO ]emecala 11orkwo3,; lernectrltr, CA 92592 www.tetne culavalleyhospital.coin PROJECT OVERVIEW INFORMATION (PROVIDE❑ 6Y TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL, MARCH 22, 2016) Temecula Valley Hospital: Helistop Relocation Project -_ - . . ...... err i _.. y A 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 helistop would be removed when the permanent helistop is operational. • Temecula Valley Hospital is proposing to relocate the C ty-approved helistop to reduce conflicts 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: o After the City approved the original helistop location,the Madera Vista apartments were constructed under the planned flight path, Consequently, Caltrans determined that: (1)the flight path should be rotated to the south to clear the Madera Vista apartments, resulting in 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. o In addition,the FAA determined that: (1)a second-light path should be added in a northwestern 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 lance uses,as well as concerns over crosswind safety conditions for helicopter operations on approach and departure. Therefore,Temecula Valley Hospital under-took a comprehensive site selection process that resulted in the proposed project. The helistop relocation project also wculd include a 5,OW-square-foot storage building that would provide storage space for nonhazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies,"attic stock"for the hospital,and linens. TemeculaWalley Helistop Relocation Project Contact:Raymond Ketcham Updated: HOSPITAL I Raymond.Ketcharn@uhsinc.com 1 (961)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 emergenc es demand time-limited treatments,such as a stroke patient that requ ires 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. Patients have been flowr in by helicopter to Temecula Valley Hospital to receive time-sensitive life- 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: o Critically ill or injured children requiring emergent care at a Children's Hospital o 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 Malley Hospital's top priority. ■ Temecula Valley Hospitals 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: An established helistop and protocols for use in a disaster will benefit Temecula and the greater Temecula 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. J TerneculaValley Helistop Relocation Project Contact:Raymond Ketcham Updated: HOSPITAL I Raymond.KetchamC%uhsinc.corn 1 (951)v3-8959 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. • Align approach and departure flight paths as close as possible with prevailing winds for optimal safety. • Minimize overflights of residential properties for noise abatement purposes. • Comply with published a rspace obstruction-clearance criteria, providing pilots with a safe, obstruction-free environment for maneuvering. • Design the helistop dime isions 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; however, none satisfied the site planning principles to the same extent as the proposed site. 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 east.Therefore,flight path alignments were selected to accommodate both conditions--westbound approaches and departures during prevailing conditions and eastbound during Santa Ana conditions. Fisting Heliatop ds% ` Cottrons Requires Ghslrudion fights an Summerhouse Aprsrlmeni Buildings interim Heiistap ��dr' for this Fltghl Pnlh. p olh'�o 4- Permanent HaWslop 3 Location Atop // J Second Tower Addition Exi®tlngend Frupoaed]neerim end Parrena+t fW�MCp Lxatiaq 91'+. i TemeculaValley Hefistop Relocation Project Contact:Raymond Ketcham Updated: HOSPITAL Raymond.Ketcham&uhsinc.com 1 (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). • Projected Annual Transports: 48 per year(96 operations) • Projected Monthly Transports: 4 per month(8 operations) • Projected Daily Transports: .13 per day(.26 operations) 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 operations will vary depending on the tinning 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. • 7:00 a.m.to 7.00 p.m. 3.2 transports per month(80%) • 7:00 p.m.to 10,00 p.m. .4 transports per month(10%) • 10:00 p.m.to 7.00 a.m. .4 transports per month(10%) Helicopter Heise: • A helicopter noise event would be limited, lasting not more than approximately 5 minutes for landings and takeoffs. a Estimated descent-to-landing and ascent-to-departure time—30 seconds. a 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 equiva ent 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 CN EL determined helicopter noise impacts to be less than significant: the area of potential impact is entirely contained on the hospital site. • Single event noise exposure level(SENEQ,which relates to a single event such as helicopter arrival or departure.Analysis using SENEL determined helicopter noise impacts to be significant due to 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); 12)for only a short duration(approximately five minutes or less); and(3) predominantly during daytime hours (approximately 80%of the time). California Public Utilities Code 21662.4 exempts"emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes' from 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 arrival and departure flight path procedures are followed; maintain a log of helicopter activity including 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 lending site,which is allowable ureter state nula*ms related to medical transport(California Code of Regulations[CCR),Title 21,Section 3527;g)). �r1 I TemeculaValley helistop Relocation Project Contact:Raymond Ketcham Updated: HOSPITAL I Raymond.Ketchamduhsinc.com 1 (951)3f13-8959 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: The relocated interim helistop site was specifically designed to meet aeronautical agency design safety 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 acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft." • The Riverside County Airoort 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 in making their findings.The design meets all published safety-related design 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 capability. I herefore, flight operations would occur only during times when weather conditions are acceptable for visual flight rules(VFR)operations. • 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. 1 i f.- 1�T TerneculaValley Hefistop Relocation Project Contact:Raymond Ketcham Updated: HOSPITAL Raymond.Ketcham&uhsinc.com 1 (951)303-8959 � March 22,2016 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Stuart Fisk From: Lee R <leerosu@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, december 22, 2014 1:35 PM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Maryann Edwards;Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Chuck Washington;Matt Rahn Subject: Helistop SEIR- resident feedback Attachments: Resident-Comments on TVH Helistop DSEIR 2014.pdf; Temecula_Hospital-EmergencyGenerator- Notice_12-15-14,PDF Dear Mr. Fisk, Please find attached our response to the hospital helipad SEIR. This isn't the first message we sent to the City of Temecula officials. In all messages we're bringing up the problems the hospital placement brought to the community. The first issue associated with the hospital ( even without the helipad or emergency generator) is increase in traffic and noise. The helipad and emergency generator(see letter attached) bring additional health and safety issues to the community. Nobody denies the need for healthcare facilities in this area,but the planning of such facilities is what is creating all these issues. The location of the hospital lacks common sense and therefore we suspect some special interests at work here! A more appropriate site location for a hospital would have been a parcel near the freeway, for instance at the WEST end of Temecula Pkwy. Advantages of such site: easy access to/from freeway, non-residential community, plenty of room for a helipad and ultimately, such placement would have shown that the City actually cares about it's residents? There is still time to do the right thing: the best solution for the helipad issue would be to place the helipad at location mentioned above. I hope the City will make a decision in the best interest of the community! Thank you, Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTDLA AVE i From: Steve Chen DEC 17 2014 44501 Verde Dr �.4 Temecula, CA 92592 To: p City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 (via USPS certified mail#7003 0500 0003 9665 3622) Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 Date. 12/16/2014 Dear Sir, I oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR)for the following reasons: 1.The City violated California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original(2008)helistop permit.The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the helistop project. ■ The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project.There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. ■ A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project(that includes this helistop project),including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits,until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order,the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project(that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. ■ But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all.There was no environmental analysis,mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. ■ The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. in fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project.But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal,all overriding excuses used in current(2014) "Supplemental"EIR are preposterous and irrelevant.There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be"supplemented"to. I 3.Despite the current(2014)SE1R's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects,the facts remain: ■ Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren,helicopter "noise"can not be turned off at will during operation_ ■ Helicopters are prone to crash,especially medical helicopters_Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005,and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. ■ The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway(Highway 79).The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise,pollution,vibration,dust, landing lights etc)will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. ■ Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors,transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes_That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service,Temecula (along with 990/6 of all places in Southern California)certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious,there is no doubt that if approved,the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4.The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5."California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR§ 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available,the ground. transport ambulance,no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Steve Chen 2 Katie & Doberl Jenkins 43810 Villa Del Sur Dr Temecula CA 92592 Attn Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEER 2014 December 16,2014 Dear Sir, We oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR)for the following reasons: 1. The hospital is not a trauma center so there is no good reason for a helistop other than to run up larger bills for the patients and insurance companies. 2. Despite the current(2014)SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: ■ Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter"noise"can not be turned off at will during operation. ■ Helicopters are prone to crash,especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005,and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. ■ The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway(Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation(noise,pollution,vibration,dust, landing lights etc)will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. ■ Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors,transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes.That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service,Temecula(along with 99%of all places in Southern California)certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious,there is no doubt that if approved,the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 1 3.The City violated California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original(2008)helistop permit.The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project.There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project(that includes this helistop project),including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. ■ In response to the 2007 Court order,the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project(that includes this helistop project)in January 2008. ■ But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all.There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 4.Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal,all overriding excuses used in current(2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant.There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be"supplemented"to. 5.The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this he]istop project that in fact outweighs its detriment to the environment. 6."California Enviromnental Quality Act 14 CCR§ 15021:A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available,the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Katie and Robert Jenkins 2 South east }fir Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drtve, Dlamond Bar. CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.,Sov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE "PERMT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE" PURSUANT TO RULE 212 This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)has received an application for permit to construct an internal combustion engine driving an emergency generator at a location in your neighborhood. The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles,Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to install, operate.or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollution within this region must first obtain a permit from the SCAQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain projects,such as this one, to distribute a public notice prepared by the SCAQMD prior to the issuance of a permit. This notice is being distributed because the project is located within 1000 feet of Rancho Community Christian School located at 31300 Rancho Community Way,Temecula,CA 92592. The SCAQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our Rules and Regulations. COMPANY NAME: TEMECULA CA UNITED SURGERY CENTER,LP APPLICATION NO.: 567707 LOCATION ADDRESS: 31459 RANCHO PUEBLO RD,TEMECULA,CA 92592 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL AND OPERATE AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE DRIVING AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR Temecula CA United Surgery Center, LP, is a new surgical.center. The engine will drive an electrical generator that supplies power in case of an electrical emergency. The engine will be tested on a weekly basis for a maximum of one hour. Our calculations show that based upon a 30-day average a maximum of 0.28 lb/day of nitrogen oxides,0.07 lbs/day of carbon monoxide, 0.0021bs/day of fine particulates, 0.01 lbs/day of organic gases,and 0,00061b/day sulfur oxides will be emitted from project described above in any one day. Generally,the amount will be less as most emergency generator engines do not operate at maximum capacity. The engine operation will emit small quantities of some toxic compounds. The SCAQMD has evaluated the long term(chronic)health impacts associated with the maximum potential emissions. Using worst case conditions, our evaluation shows that the chronic health risk is well below our rule's toxic thresholds (below a Hazard Index of 1). According to the state health experts,a hazard index of one or less means that the surrounding community including the most sensitive individuals such as very young children and the elderly will not experience any adverse health impacts due to exposure to these emissions. In addition,the cancer risk from these emissions is below the SCAQMD risk threshold of one in a mullion, The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the SCAQMD's headquarters in Diamond Bar. A copy of the draft permit to operate can be viewed at h :Nwww3. md. ov/webs ll ublicnot cesZ/Se=h, . Information regarding the facility owner's compliance history submitted to the SCAQMD pursuant to California Health& Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to SCAQMD,based on credible information, is also available from the SCAQMD for public review. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit their comments in writing within days of the distribution date shown below. If you are concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility has been sited at this location,you should contact your local city or county planning department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Ms. Vicky Lee,Air Quality Engineer,Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District,21865 Copley Drive,Diamond Bar,California 91765-4178. For additional information,please call Ms. Vicky Lee at(909) 396-2284. For your general information,anyone experiencing air quality problems such as dust or odor can telephone in a complaint to the SCAQMD by Galling 1-800-CUT-SMOG (1-840-288- 7664), Distribution Date: 12 - 15 - 2014 Stuart Fisk From: Azim Azhand <azimazhandmd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 20141:02 PM To: Stuart Fisk Subject: Against having Helicopter landing pad at Temecula Valley Hospital I am a doctor and living in Santiago Estates, despite the pollution and noise issue with Helicopters disrupting the lives of the community, one have to ask the need and the necessity of having the Helicopter landing pad. TVH is not a trauma center and neither has newborn or QB services, so that there is no urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients, for all other medical cares the hospital should be able to provide initial care, stabilized patients could be transferred in and out of the hospital safely and cost effectively by BLS or ACLS Ambulance services. Azim U. Azhand, MD i Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main St REGEIUEp Temecula, CA 92590 .ISN ��� 951-694-6444 May&_,2014 To Whom It May Concern: 1, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident in Temecula,oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons: •e The fact that Temecula Valley flospital is not a tray nia center ineans there is no need or iusritrcation of helicopter facility, espcycitrlly �,ulre>n eonsiderizra the c�rtreme deirlrrreli the surrolirrrfl�r� neighborhoods have to put up with. ❖ Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB,helicopter produces 105dB of noise(that's twice as loud as a jackhammer) CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter"noise"can not be turned off at will during operation. ❖ Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005,and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. *:• Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. •*• No human,structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead—the noise,the vibrations and the rattling. Please,please,please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our community. Sincerely, r J lr� Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main St Temecula, CA 92590 951-694-6444 April 23,2014 To Whom It May Concern: I, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident in Temecula, oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons: ❖ The fact that Temecula Valley Ifoeital is not a frauma center means there is no need or jEr kation of a helico ter Lacifify, es eciall, when con.viflerbg-the extreme fletrimerrfs fire srfr-rorrrrflirr ne :ifihorlsoods have to put up with. Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB, helicopter produces 105dB of noise(that's twice as loud as a jackhammer)CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter"noise"can not be turned off at will during operation. ❖ Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters.A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005,and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. ❖ Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. •* No human,structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead—the noise,the vibrations and the rattling. Please, please, please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our community- Since ly, t ie Gert Jenkins 43810 Villa Del Sur Dr Temecula, CA 92592 From: Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTOLA RD TEMECULA,CA 92592 To: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula,CA 92590 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Walley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 Date: Dear Sir, We,as residents of Temecula in the best interests of our community, oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR) for the following reasons: 1.The City violated California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008)helistop permit.The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental impact Report(EIR)for the helistop project. ■ The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project.There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. ■ A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project(that includes this helistop project), including without limitation,its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits,until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. ■ In response to the 2007 Court order,the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project(that includes this helistop project)in January 2008. ■ But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop issue at all.There was no environmental analysis,mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 2.Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal,all overriding excuses used in current(2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant.There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be"supplemented"to. 1 3. Despite the current(2014)SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: ■ Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB.And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise"can not be turned off at will during operation. • Helicopters are prone to crash,especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005,and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. ■ The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway(Highway 79).The effects of low altitude helicopter operation(noise,pollution,vibration,dust,landing lights etc)wil l pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors,transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes.That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service,Temecula (along with 99%of all places in Southern California)certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious,there is no doubt that if approved,the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4.The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already exists,the ground transport ambulance,no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Simona Rosu 2 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. o r s A5 G > F � O o � ? � 9f 4'OFt17 '� a 50LQ AL} Project Site W`�uovuk�aRo �Mf�LyRx aR PL U 5dG ,7170 2,s7]� Feel a The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for v ewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula-org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8.00 a.m. — 5.00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. RESOLUTION NO. 16- 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 (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. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-01987 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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. 00. 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: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution No. 16- 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: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 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. 1 hl 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. hl the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A)Agricultural and Forest Resources; (B)Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E) Cultural Resources; (F)Geology and Soils; (G)Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (1) Mineral Resources; Q)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 groundbome 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. 2 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 any time 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 3 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 4 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 5 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." hl 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 6 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 7 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 8 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. Proiect 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. 9 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 IL 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 10 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 De Portola 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. hl 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; 11 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 are rejected 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: The City Council rejects the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative on the basis that hazard impacts would increase,noise impacts would not be avoided or substantially lessened, and the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually 12 provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. Accordingly,the Council rejects the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative as infeasible. 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 maximum single- event noise than the proposed project. 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. However, direct overflight of the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and potentially the Madera Vista multi-family residences would not be avoided. 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. hl regard to meeting the project objectives,the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project)meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However,it would not meet the objectives of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes,hazards impacts, 13 aesthetics (lighting), and other environmental conditions, or incorporating buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/City Approved Helistop Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative as infeasible. 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. Objects would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR)Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport on both sides of the flight path,which would adversely impact operational safety. Specifically, an existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative's flight path and the planned and approved MOB 2 would penetrate the northern 2:1 transitional surface. Also, should SCE refuse to permit obstruction lights on its existing poles,the site would require additional poles equipped with obstruction 14 lights to be erected on hospital property between the SCE poles and the helistop. This introduces new, closer airspace obstructions. 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). While noise would be somewhat less than the proposed project,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise 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 (for a majority of flights) and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. This is the same number of receptors during prevailing winds and 2 fewer receptors during infrequent Santa Ana winds as compared to the proposed interim location. Receptor Sites 2, 3, 6A, 613, 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. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be less accessible and less operational efficient because it would be located further away from the emergency department, and ground transport to and from the helipad would traverse more parking lot area than the proposed interim site. This increases the patient transport time as well as the opportunity for conflict with cars,future pedestrian and Medical Office building traffic and therefore decreases accessibility and operational efficiency. Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative,which the interim helistop has already undergone,would further delay its implementation. More importantly,however, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula,providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility, or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards 15 impacts. Therefore,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics,greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards,and the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas. Further,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Finally,the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative as infeasible. 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. 16 Further,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would create greater and potentially significant hazards impacts as compared to the proposed interim site. The planned and approved MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings may 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 planned"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. Further, 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 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 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would experience similar noise as compared to proposed interim site and would not avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant and unavoidable noise impacts. 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. Further,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed exterior short term noise standard at the same number of sensitive receptors for a maj ority of flights than the proposed interim site (one less receptor under infrequent Santa Ana conditions). 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, 613, 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. 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. Finally,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would necessarily be relocated to the proposed interim site during construction of the medical tower,which is estimated to take approximately three years. During this period,it would experience identical noise impacts as the interim site. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable 17 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. 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. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would not fully meet 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. Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative,which the interim helistop has already undergone,would further delay its implementation. More importantly,however, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula,providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility, or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site 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: The City Council rejects the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative on the basis that there would be greater impacts related to aesthetics,greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards, and similar noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Further,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Finally,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. The Council therefore rejects the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative as infeasible. 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 18 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 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 19 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 extremely disruptive to operations of hospital. In addition,the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative,which the interim site has already undergone,would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. Accordingly,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula and providing for a regional hospital campus, including hospital facility, designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors. Overall,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. Finding: The City Council rejects the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Alternative on the basis that it would be extremely disruptive to operations of the hospital,would impair and/or preclude use of important hospital facilities during construction, and 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. The City Council further finds that each of these grounds separately and individually provide sufficient justification for rejection of this Alternative. 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, 20 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. This alternative would severely disrupt hospital operations, including impairing and/or precluding use of important hospital facilities during construction. Further,the full review and permitting processes required by this Alternative,which the interim site has already undergone,would further delay the introduction of a permitted helistop facility. Overall,this would interfere with the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula and providing for a regional hospital campus, including hospital facility, designed to be 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. 21 TABLE I COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Future Tower No Project/ No Project/City- Location as Impact Proposed Existing Approved Alternative Interim Helistop Existing Hospital Category Project Condition Project Interim Site Site Roof Helistop Site Aesthetics Less than Fewer Greater Greater Greater Fewer Significant Hazards Less than Greater Greater Greater, Potentially Greater Similar Significant Significant Noise Significant and Similar or greater, Similar or fewer, Fewer,but Similar. Significant Greater Unavoidable Significant and but Significant Significant and and Unavoidable construction and Unavoidable and Unavoidable Unavoidable fewer operations, but Significant and Unavoidable Meets the Yes Yes,but not to the Yes,but not to the Would not fully Would not fully Yes,but not to the project same extent as the same extent as the meet project meet project same extent as the objectives proposed project proposed project objectives related objectives related to proposed project, in regards to in regards to to hospital hospital operations as it would be hazards and access routes and operations and and compatibility of disruptive to compatibility with hazards compatibility of development existing hospital adjacent development related to aesthetics operations development related to aesthetics and hazards and hazards 22 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 proj ect, independent of the other benefits,would warrant approval of the proj ect 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 23 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 Maj or 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 location. 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 24 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. 25 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Impact Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Noise Mitigation Measure N0I-1: Prior to issuance of a City permit allowing Ongoing Temecula Valley City of Temecula Field verification helicopter operations at the interim helistop,the Temecula Valley Hospital Hospital Building Official and sign-off by shall prepare and implement a Heliport Operations Plan which requires the following measures: or other City of Temecula • Prior to helicopter operations,Temecula Valley Hospital shall develop Designee 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. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1 ESA/130652 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2016 RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NOW HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 127 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. II. 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 47 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. 00. 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 General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal I),- "A ),"A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels'; it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile"and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The modification to the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the proposed modification application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the ("Project"): A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 227 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the "Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents 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 Ranchitos Homeowners' Association concerning the noise analysis, alternatives 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 Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 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, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, 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: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA13-0141 Project Description: UHS Helistop Major Modification: A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit(PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700 Temecula Parkway. Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-026 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial/Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial/Office Quimby Category: NA(Non-Residential Project) Approval Date: May 25, 2016 Expiration Date: May 24, 2018 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination 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 Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. 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 be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 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 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 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. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 23. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 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 Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 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 Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. 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 be made by a qualified biologist." 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 stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 38. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 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 maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 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. Refer to the City's 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. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer(QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/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 Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 65. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer-of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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) 85. 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) 86. 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. 87. 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. CIDEON KRACOV Ateos ney at Law 801 South Grand Avenue 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 629-2071 gk@gideonlaw.net Fax: (213) 623-7755 www.gideonlaw.net Via E-Mail Denise.iacoboC7a cityoftemecula.9 May 3, 2016 Ron Guerrero, Chair John Telesio, Vice Chair Lanae Turley-Trejo Gary Watts Gary Youmans c/o Denise Jacobo, Planning Commission Secretary City of Temecula Planning Commission 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments On Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Universal Health Services Applicant Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report PA 07-0202/PA 13-0141 Planning Commission Hearing May 4, 2016:Item#4 Dear Chair Guerrero and Planning Commissioners: This Office respectfully writes on behalf of the United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals ("LINAC Ul-!CP" or "Commentor"). UNAC/UHCP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the referenced Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop project proposal and Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("RFSEIR" or"Project"). The Project is scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing May 4, 2016. UNAC/UHCP has, as set forth below, California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA")comments concerning the Project on issues including adequacy D-1 of the alternatives analysis, any statement of overriding considerations and whether the environmental document may need to be further recirculated. This Project is discretionary, not by right. The applicant Universal Health Services ("Universal Health") seeks discretionary approvals under the City Municipal Code including a Major Modification to a development plan and a Conditional Use Permit. As such, the City and its decisionmakers must make express findings that the Project is best designed to protect the 1 public health and welfare and "to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding D-1 cont. neighborhood." Brief Prolect Description The proposed Major Modification would relocate the 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 helistop location would be developed with a new single-story 5,000-square-foot storage building that would be used to store non-hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed storage building,the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet(from the 566,160-square-foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the helistop site,the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to those changes to the Project description, are reviewed in the Recirculated Final and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to identify potential environmental impacts from the revised Project. D-2 It is likely that the interim location for the helipad will be used for at least six years, a condition undoubtedly burdensome for the community. The RDSEIR notes that "[o]peration of the permanent helistop is currently anticipated to occur in 2022, 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 helistop." This assumes the second hospital tower/permanent location will be built, or that it will be built according to schedule. Neither of these is certain to occur, so the interim helipad location will in fact likely be used for a long duration of time. Standing of UNACJUHCP UNAC/UHCP represents over 25,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals, including optometrists; pharmacists; physical, occupational and speech therapists; case managers; nurse midwives; social workers; clinical lab scientists; physician assistants and nurse practitioners. UNAC/UHCP has many members who reside and work in Riverside County and the City of Temecula where this Project is located. D-3 UNAC/UHCP therefore is a stakeholder in this Project, and all of applicant Universal Health's projects and facilities, and worker and labor organizations like UNAC/UHCP have a long history of engaging in the CEQA process to secure safe working conditions, reduce environmental impacts, and maximize community benefits. The courts have held that "unions have standing to litigate environmental claims." (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) 2 This comment letter is made to exhaust remedies under Pub. Res. Code § 21177 concerning the Project, and incorporates by this reference all written and oral comments submitted on the Project by any commenting party or agency. It is well-established that any I)-3 cont. party, as UNAC/UHCP here, who participates in the administrative process can assert all factual and legal issues raised by any commenting party or agency. (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865, 875.) General Legal Background on CEQA EIRs An EIR must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. (Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond(Chevron) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449- 50).) The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and applicants to overcome.The EIR's function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important,that the public is assured those consequences have been taken into account. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the D-4 foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id. Indeed,the fundamental goals of environmental review under CEC,A are information, participation, mitigation, and accountability. (Lincoln Place Tenants Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 425, 443-444.) A central purpose "of an EIR is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official." (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1456.) The alternatives analysis is the "core of an EIR," and forms the foundation for CEQA's "substantive mandate" which prohibits approval of projects "if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564-65.) The AnalVsIs Of Feasibility Of The Alternative Interim Site Heli,pad Alternative Lacks Substantial Evidence 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 D-5 substantially reduce operational noise impacts at receptor sites 2, 3, 6A, 613 and 8. UNAC/UHNC is informed that the neighbors and many community members prefer this alternative, yet it is discarded as infeasible based on one sentence of the RDSEIR on page 4-36 (indicating it is "less 3 accessible and less operationally efficient because of the location"), with no supporting evidence or analysis. The RFSEIR does not remedy this lack of supporting evidence or analysis. A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs under CEQA "if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation,thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 7221; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. EI Dorado County Water Agency(1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946.) The EIR must disclose information that is needed for a reasoned analysis of the issues. (Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4'h 48, 104.) While the courts review an EIR using an "abuse of discretion" standard, "the reviewing court is not to 'uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.' A 'clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.'" (Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391409,fn. 12 (1988).) Substantial evidence in the record must support any foundational assumptions used for the impacts analyses in the EIR. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal. 3d at 568 (EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just bare conclusions); Laurel Heights, 47 Cal. 3d at 392-93 D-5 cont. (agency's conclusions must be supported with substantial evidence).) Here, additional substantive information is required on the alleged infeasibility of the Alternative Interim Site. This would include, but is not limited to: • A comparison of flight times for patient transport along the incoming routes that would be taken to the alternative site and to the preferred site; • A comparison of times that it would take to transport patients once the helicopter arrives at the alternative site or at the preferred site to the emergency medical services that the hospital provides; • The distances (in feet, along the paths the medical personnel would take once the helicopter has landed) in reaching emergency services under the two alternatives; • Special provisions that could be made to speed transport from the alternative site to emergency services if time and distance proves to be a factor following the above analysis, i.e. dedicated corridors, walkways, and bridges between buildings; and • Total time differences between alternatives to transport patients to medical services from incoming flights. Without this analysis, the RDSEIR and RFSEIR's analysis of and conclusions about the feasibility of Alternative Interim Site lacks substantial evidence in the record. 4 Additional RFSEIR Recirculation is Reauired CEQA requires a lead agency to re-circulate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR following public review but before certification. (Pub. Res. Code § 21092.1.) The Guidelines clarify that new information is significant if"the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse D-6 environmental effect of the project" including,for example, "a disclosure showing that ... [a] new significant environmental impact would result from the project." (Guidelines § 15088.5.) This principle applies here. The RFSEIR should be further recirculated in order to properly assess the feasibility of the Alternative Interim Site alternative, and allow public comment and review of same. overriding Considerations Should Include Consideration of Job Quality No matter what,the Project will have significant, unmitigated noise impacts. As a result, a statement of overriding considerations will be required. Under CECIA, when an agency approves a project with significant environmental impacts that will not be fully mitigated, it must adopt a "statement of overriding considerations"finding that, because of the project's overriding benefits, it is approvingthe project despite its environmental harm. (Guidelines §15043; Pub. Res. Code §21081(B);Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County(1992) 10 Cal.App.4tn 1212, 1222) A statement of overriding considerations expresses the "larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs, provide housing, generate taxes and the like." (Concerned Citizens of South Central LA v. Los Angeles Unif.Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 847.) A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Guidelines §15093(b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa Co. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1223).) As with all findings, the agency must present an explanation to supply the logical steps between the ultimate finding and the facts in the record. (Topanga Assn,for a Scenic D-7 Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) To the extent that overriding considerations are needed, key among the findings that the lead agency City must make is that: "Specific economic, legal, social,technological, or other considerations, including the provision of ern to ment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.. [and that those] benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." (Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(3), (b) emphasis added.) Here, the RFSEIR and the proposed findings being presented to the Planning Commission make no attempt to determine whether new jobs created by the Project, in either the construction phase or the operational phase,will be for "highly trained workers," and what 5 the likely salary and wage ranges of these jobs will be. Without this information,the City lacks substantial evidence to make any statement of overriding considerations. This issue of job I7-7 cont. quality is critically important to UNAC/UHCP. Conclusion UNAC/UHCP appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments concerning the Project on issues including adequacy of the RFSEIR alternatives analysis, any statement of overriding considerations and whether the environmental document may need to be further recirculated. This Project is discretionary, not by right. The applicant Universal Health seeks a host of discretionary approvals under the City Municipal Code including a Major Modification to a development plan and a Conditional Use Permit. As such, the City and its decisionmakers must make express findings that the Project is best designed to protect the public health and welfare and "to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood." UNAC/UHCP respectfully reserves the right to supplement these comments at hearings and proceedings for this Project. (See Chevron, 184 Cal.App.4th at 86 (EIR invalidated based on comments and expert reports submitted after Final EIR completed); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at 1120 (CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR comment D-8 period).) Finally, this Office is requesting, on behalf of UNAC/UHCP, all notices of CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the Project under any provision of Title 7 of the California Government Code (California Planning and Zoning Law), as well as the City of Temecula Municipal Code § 17.03.040(6). This request is filed pursuant to Pub. Res. Code §§ 21092.2 and 21167(f), and Government Code § 65092,that require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them. Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to: Gideon Kracov, Esq., 801 S. Grand Avenue, 111h FI., Los Angeles, CA 90017, gk@gideonlaw.net. Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that they be placed in the Administrative Record for the Project. Sincerely, Af & G'e- Gideon Kracov Lawyer for United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals 6 Response to Letter D: Gideon Kracov, Attorney at Law This letter is from Gideon Kracov, Attorney at Law, representing the United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals ("UNAC/UHCP") and makes comments pertaining to the proposed project description, the CEQA statute and guidelines, client standing, RDSEIR alternatives analysis, RDSEIR recirculation and the Statement of Overriding Considerations requirements. D-1 Comment: The comment introduces the commentator's client and references CEQA statute and guideline requirements. Response: The comment does not address CEQA concerns, and a detailed response is not required. D-2 Comment: The comment reiterates project description information contained in the RDSEIR and indicates that the future hospital tower may not be built on the schedule mandated by the project's original conditions of approval. Response: With respect to operation of the interim and permanent helistops, see RFSEIR Response to Comment C-1. The project condition of approval requiring commencement of construction of the future hospital tower no later than February 2019 remains valid. There is no basis upon which to believe that this construction will not occur; to do so would require speculation,which CEQA expressly discourages. See CEQA Guidelines § 15145. No additional substantive information is presented in the comment and a detailed response is not required. D-3 Comment: The comment indicates that the UNAC/UHCP has legal standing with regard to the RDSEIR. Response: The comment is noted. Although standing in CEQA cases is liberally construed, it is not automatic; "[n]o party, individual or corporate,may proceed with a mandamus petition as a matter of right under the public interest exception." Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011)52 CalAth 155, 170 fn. 5. No union has automatic standing. The holding in the Bakersfield Citizens case has virtually been overruled by subsequent cases. Standing is not conferred based on naked assertions of genuine environmental interests. See Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of West Hollywood(2007) 153 Cal.AppAth 825, 833 [holding in order to "dispel the aura of self-interest masquerading as environmentalism, some evidence is likely to exist of a party's engagement in environmental issues...."] The California Supreme Court recently found it necessary to point out,that in granting standing to the petitioners in Save the Plastic Bag Coalition,that they did not intend to suggest that public interest standing is freely available to business interests lacking a beneficial interest in the litigation.Unions, like any other party, must sufficiently demonstrate they are entitled to beneficial interest standing. The fact that UNAC/UHCP may have several members who reside and work in Riverside County and the City of Temecula is not a sufficient basis to be granted standing automatically for CEQA purposes. D-4 Comment: The comment presents information on the CEQA statute, guidelines, and CEQA case law. Response: The comment is noted. The City's environmental analysis of this project complies with CEQA. A detailed response is not required. D-5 Comment: The comment presents information on CEQA case law and asserts that the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative was rejected as infeasible based on one sentence in the RDSEIR that the alternative is "less accessible and less operationally efficient because of the location." Response: To clarify,there are no statements in the RDSEIR or RFSEIR indicating that the proposed project has been"selected"or otherwise approved relative to the other alternatives considered in the RDSEIR. As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,the purpose of alternatives analysis is to provide decision makers and the public with a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that can readily attain most of the basic projects, while avoiding or lessening the proposed project's significant impacts. Ultimately,the decision makers have the discretion to approve the proposed project or approve one of the alternatives considered in the RDSEIR. Under CEQA, an agency may reject project alternatives if it finds them to be"infeasible." (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(c)(3). "Feasible"is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, social,technological, and legal factors. (Pub.Res. Code § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) "Specific economic, social, or other conditions"may render a project alternative infeasible. (Public Resources Code § 21002.) An alternative may be also found infeasible on the ground it will not fully satisfy project objectives. (See e.g.,Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012)208 Cal.App.4" 899, 947.) The RDSEIR evaluates in detail the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative as compared to the proposed project on pages 4-24 through 4-36. RFSEIR Response to Comment C-2 further reiterates the RDSEIR's evaluation of the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the degree to which it satisfies project objectives. As such, the record supports that the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is infeasible and less desirable for a number of reasons,which are further summarized below. • The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would create greater and potentially significant hazards impacts as compared to the proposed interim site. Among the reasons described in the RDSEIR and RFSEIR, objects would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport on both sides of the flight path, which would adversely impact operational safety. An existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative's flight path and the planned and approved MOB 2 would penetrate the northern 2:1 transitional surface. Undergrounding of the existing electric power transmission lines would not be feasible as part of the helistop project due to the time and cost that would be added to the helistop project, including additional time required for Southern California Edison's review and approval process for the undergrounding of their transmission lines. The planned and approved MOB 2 has already installed its underground utilities and will be developed in Phase III, during operation of the interim helipad and prior to the construction of the permanent helistop. Further,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path would increase risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway, increase traffic accident potential, and could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle during helicopter operations due to the proximity of the flight path. In particular,the flight path would travel parallel to Temecula Parkway, a major arterial and state highway, and also across the frontage of the existing hospital, and flights would land on the helistop at ground level. 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 only 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 at low elevations. The elevations in which this alternative would approach Temecula Parkway are much lower than as compared to the proposed Interim site due its close proximity to Temecula Parkway. 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). • The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns (see attached e-mail dated April 7, 2016 from Jeff Brown, Chief, Office of Airports,Division of Aeronautics, California Department of Transportation). The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts as compared to the proposed interim site due to a more visible helistop with security fencing, lighting and potentially lighting poles. • While noise would be less than by the proposed project,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise 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, 613, 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. • The Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives. With regard to accessibility and operational efficiency as compared to the proposed interim site,the RDSIER describes that the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be less accessible and less operational efficient due to its location. In critical medical situations, there is a direct correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. Thus, it is important that the helistop be located as close as is reasonable possible to the hospital emergency department. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be located further away from the emergency department and ground transport to and from the helipad would traverse more parking lot area than the proposed interim site. This increases the patient transport time as well as the opportunity for conflict with cars, future pedestrian and medical office building traffic and therefore decreases accessibility and operational efficiency(see attached Figure 1 and Figure 4-4 in the RDSEIR). Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative,which the interim helistop has already undergone,would further delay its implementation. More importantly,however, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula, providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility, or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. D-6 Comment: The comment presents CEQA requirements for recirculation of a Draft EIR and indicates that the RDSEIR should be recirculated for additional public review. Response: The RDSEIR was recirculated for additional public review in February 2016, as new information was added to the Draft SEIR. This new information included additional project alternatives and associated analysis and additional CNEL and single event noise analysis.No additional new information regarding the feasibility or the rejection of the alternative site alternative is required to be added to the RDSEIR, as it is already contained in the RDSEIR. The RDSEIR does not require recirculation. D-7 Comment: The comment restates noise impact information contained in the RDSEIR, CEQA statute and guidelines requirements and CEQA case law pertaining to the Statement of Overriding Considerations.The comment also indicates that employment opportunities for highly trained workers is required to be included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Response: The comment infers that all projects with significant environmental impacts must provide employment opportunities for highly trained workers in order for the Lead Agency to find that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential environmental effects. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to balance the Project benefits against its significant environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the Project. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a).) Findings supporting"the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers"are not specifically required,though the Lead Agency may make such findings if applicable. Findings concerning the"provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers" can be made in order to show that the employment of such workers"make[s] infeasible [] mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report." Public Resources Code Section 21081 illustrates that it does not require that an agency determine whether jobs created by a project will be for highly trained workers. Instead, it allows,but does not require, an agency to determine that the provision of these types of workers will make infeasible identified mitigation measures or alternatives. CEQA is only concerned with physical impacts on the environment. Under CEQA, purely economic impacts are not in themselves considered significant. In order to meet the definition of a"significant impact"under CEQA,there must be a substantial physical effect. (Guidelines, § 15064(e)). "[E]vidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence." (Guidelines, § 15384(a)). "Economic and social changes resulting from a Project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." (Guidelines, § 15064(e)). Notwithstanding that such finding is not required to be made, and that the proposed project is very limited in scope,the project will provide a small number of employment opportunities and/or help sustain existing employment. These include construction jobs to construct both the interim and permanent helistop sites and jobs related to the emergency helicopter transport itself, such as helicopter pilots and highly trained in-flight critical care medical response teams which have advanced scope of practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital during air transport. It should also be noted that the proposed project and the alternatives considered would provide roughly the same extent of employment. The draft Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project includes the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations which make infeasible the proposed project alternatives, and clearly show how the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the noise impacts.The City of Temecula City Council is responsible for the final content of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No additional response is required with respect to the noise comments. D-8 Comment: The comment summarizes the previously stated comments, and requests notification of all project related CEQA and public hearing notices. Response: All future CEQA and public hearing notices will be provided to the commentator. Figure 1 - L METER ss. — Oposed OL ----- MOS TmffiL .� FOOT-TALL, —SECURITY J1 10001.01 J Stuart Fisk From: Brown,Jeff R@DOT <jeff.brown@dot.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday,April 07, 2016 11:55 AM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Smith, Michael D@DOT Subject: RE:Variances for 2:1 Transitional Surface Penetrations for Heliports Mr. Fisk, Yes, I can confirm that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, as the State of California's heliport permitting authority, may be willing to grant variances to a single Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surface of a heliport, provided the safety conditions you outlined below have been met. We will not grant variances for penetrations of the FAR Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path. Please let me know if we can be of any additional assistance. Jeff Brown Chief, Office of Airports Division of Aeronautics California Department of Transportation (916) 654-4565 From:Stuart Fisk[mailto:Stuart.Fisk@citvoftemecuia.vr .] Sent:Tuesday,April 05,2016 8:19 AM To: Brown,Jeff R@DOT<ieff.brown@dot.ca.gov> Subject:Variances for 2:1 Transitional Surface Penetrations for Heliports Mr. Brown: Please confirm, via return email, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics' policy regarding variances for 2:1 transitional surface penetrations for heliports. It is my understanding that: 1. Caltrans is willing to grant variances for objects to penetrate 2:1 transitional surfaces where the Division determines that the objects will not adversely affect operational safety provided the objects are adequately highlighted for pilots at night with red obstruction lights 2. Caltrans grants such variances for objects on only one side of a flight path; it would not grant variances for objects on both sides of a flight path. Thank you in advance for your help. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula (951)506-5159 stuart.fisk r@cityditeniecula.vrg 41000 Main St,Temecula,CA 92590 1 Letter E Johnson , Sedlack AT TOR& RV S.tL A W Raymond W.Johnson,Esq.,AICD 26785 Camino Seco,Temecula,CA 92590 E-mai. Ray@SoCaICEQA.com Carl T.Sedlack,Esq.,Retired Abigail A.Smith,Esq. Abby@SoCa10EQA.com Kimberly Foy,Esq. Kim@SoCa10EQA.com Kendall Holbrook,Esq. Kendall@SoCa10EQA.com Telephone: (951)506-9925 Facsimile: (951)506-9725 May 4, 2016 VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.iiskncityoltelrlc ctlia.org City of Temecula Planning Commission Denise Jacobo,Planning Commission Secretary 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 denise,j acobo@cityoftemecula.org Re: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project;Item 4 Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 2016 To the City of Temecula and City of Temecula Planning Commission: On behalf of Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association("Los Ranchitos"), I submit this letter regarding the proposed Temecula Valley Helistop Project ("the project") and associated Recirculated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Recirculated FSEIR"). The project is scheduled for hearing before the City's Planning Commission at its meeting of May 4, 2016 (Item 4). Los Ranchitos continues to oppose the project in its current form particularly with E-1 respect to the"interim" helistop location. As mentioned in my previous letters, Los Ranchitos believes there are feasible alternatives to the location of the interim helistop which would substantially lessen the project's significant noise impacts to the neighboring rural Los Ranchitos community. Regarding the Recirculated FSEIR and the proposed CEQA findings of fact (Exhibit B to Draft City Council Resolution), I have the following comments: May 4,2016 City of Temecula Page 2 I. The Pro*ect Description Is Still Vague. Los Ranchitos previously commented that the project description is inadequate because it describes the interim location as "temporary"when, in fact, the timing of the permanent helistop is uncertain or subject to change. Regarding the need for future agency review of the permanent helistop location, in Response to Comment("RTC") C- 1, it is stated that the City does not"anticipate the [Caltrans Aeronautics] review process to delay the project schedule." However, the ALUC's 2014 finding of consistency for the project only applied to the interim helistop. According to the ALUC, subsequent ALUC review will be required for the permanent helistop and this approval is required before its approval by Caltrans Aeronautics and its installation. Where future review and approval by other agencies is E-2 required and could lead to conditions affecting the operations and/or even the location of the permanent helistop, it cannot be assumed that noise impacts due to the interim location are of a short-term or"temporary" nature. Apart from outside agency review and approval, we note that numerous factors could influence whether and to what extent the permanent location is implemented including whether the permanent location continues to be in line with plans for the hospital campus including but not limited to the Future Cancer Center in Phase V. While RTC C-1 asserts that the cancer center is "proposed to be a one-story building,"there are other factors such as noise disruption to the facility that may cause the applicant to reconsider the permanent helistop location. Just as the applicant presently seeks a modification of its permit to move the helistop's location from its approved location, the applicant too could seek a modification of its permit for other reasons. II. There are Feasible Project Alterimlives Availably Which Lessen Significant Noise Impacts. a. Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative It is acknowledged at RTC C-2 that significant noise impacts due to the operation of interim location would be lessened under the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. As we previously commented, by moving the helistop closer to Temecula -3 Parkway/Highway 79, this alternative would substantially reduce operational noise impacts at receptor sites 2, 3, 6A, 6B and 8 (Le., homes and sites within the Los Ranchitos community and the equestrian trail) as compared to the Interim Location/the project. See RDSEIR pp. 4-34—35. CEQA provides that the lead agency may not approve a project with significant impacts if feasible alternatives exist that substantially lessen significant project impacts. Public Resources Code § 21002. The Recirculated FSEIR is correct that noise impacts under the alternative would still be significant May 4,2016 City of Temecula Page 2 compared to the allowable noise levels of the City's noise ordinance; however, impacts under the alternative would be substantially less than the proposed project. See State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, subd. (a). Because this alternative offers a clear benefit compared to the proposed project it should be adopted. The Recirculated FEIR asserts that aesthetic and hazard impacts could be greater under the Alternative Interim Site alternative. But because aesthetic and hazard impacts are not deemed significant impacts of the project, it is arguably irrelevant that these impacts would be purportedly greater. Regarding aesthetic impacts relative to the 5-foot fence, the Interim Location itself requires a 5-foot tall security fence which will presumably be visible from certain viewpoints including, for instance, the homes to the north of the Interim Location and the equestrian trail. Motorists traveling along Temecula Parkway are arguably less likely to observe the security fence at the Alternative Interim Site location than users of the equestrian trail or residents of the neighboring homes at the Interim Location. The project also introduces new lights to the project area, which may be visible from surrounding uses. And the lighting that would be required for the Alternative Interim Site location appears from Recirculated FSEIR Figure 4.4 to be atop existing power poles along Temecula Parkway, which may not be visible from ground level. In short, the aesthetic E-3 cont. impacts associated with the alternative are either nonexistent or minimal as compared to the Interim Location. With respect to hazards, the impacts associated with the Alternative Interim Site location appear from the discussion at RTC C-2 to be speculative in nature or capable of being addressed,perhaps at some additional cost and/or with some additional agency review. For instance, it seems unlikely that the "one existing power pole"which exists in the "2:1 transitional area" (not the immediate flight path) would be a complete bar to the implementation of the alternative. The Interim Location crosses Temecula Parkway so that many of the purported hazard impacts of the Alternative Interim location(which does not cross Temecula Parkway) are not substantially different than those of the proposed project. Overall the Interim Location itself involves logistical, site design, and compatibility issues that would be present with any of the proposed alternatives. Case law interpreting CEQA holds that the feasibility of alternatives must be evaluated within the context of the proposed project. Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Ca1.App.41" 587, 598. The Alternative Interim location also has not been shown to be infeasible by virtue of requiring outside agency review and approval. The permanent helistop location, i.e., the project, also requires future ALUC and Caltrans Aeronautics review and approval. And the project, defined as including the Interim Location, has not yet received Caltrans May 4,2016 City of Temecula Page 2 Aeronautics approval based on Los Ranchitos' understanding. Indeed, if the requirement of review and approval by other agencies is a valid reason for rejecting this alternative, E-3 cont. not one alternative is even facially feasible since all would require further agency review and approval. b. Future Tower Location Alternative The Recirculated Final EIR indicates that the Future Tower Location alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project as to noise. The conclusions of the Recirculated Final SEIR, like those of the RSDEIR, are not supported and are, in fact, contrary to the noise data. As Los Ranchitos previously commented,Receptor Sites 1, 2, 6A, 6B, 6C and 9 would all experience lower noise levels under the Future Tower Location alternative. In terms of the locations of Sites 5 and 7 being the"densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and the Country Glen Community" (RTC C-3), Los Ranchitos observes that when viewed in the context of existing ambient noise conditions, the alternative does improve noise conditions to those sites most affected by the proposed project. Site 5 is immediately adjacent to Temecula Parkway and has an existing ambient noise level of 78.5 dB CNEL. In contrast, the existing ambient noise level at Site 2 (within in the Los Ranchitos community)is 58.9 dB CNEL.Thus Site 5 is already exposed to substantial background noise. The introduction of helicopter noise nearer to homes within Los Ranchitos arguably creates a greater impact than the same noise events E-4 occurring closer to homes nearer to Temecula Parkway. Overall, the discussion of the comparison of the Future Tower Location to the proposed Interim Location gives the reader a false impression of the relative impacts. And because the Future Tower Location substantially reduces significant noise impacts over the Interim Location, it is environmentally superior to the proposed project. As with other alternatives,the City's proposed findings of fact repeat the conclusions of the Recirculated FSEIR but do not show that the Future Tower Location alternative is infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. And because feasible alternatives exist, these must be adopted over the proposed project in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for your consideration of these additional comments. May 4,2016 City of Temecula Sincerely, Abigail Smith JOHNSON & SEDLACK Response to Letter E: Johnson & Sedlack, Attorneys at Law This letter is from Johnson& Sedlack, Attorney at Law, representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association and makes comments pertaining to the proposed project description,the CEQA statute and guidelines, client legal standing, alternatives analysis,RDSEIR recirculation and Statement of Overriding Considerations requirements. E-1 Comment: The comment introduces the commentator's client and indicates that the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association is opposed"to the proposed project, particularly with respect to the interim helistop location. Response: The comment does not address specific CEQA concerns, and a detailed response is not required. E-2 Comment: The comment reiterates project description information contained in the RDSEIR and indicates that the interim helistop location will not result in only short term impacts due to the unknown nature of construction of the future hospital tower. Response: The commenter largely repeats its previous comment on the RDSEIR. As such,this comment has already been addressed in RFSEIR Response C-1. Importantly,the RDSEIR fully and comprehensively analyzes and describes the anticipated noise impacts of the proposed interim and permanent helistop locations. With regard to subsequent ALUC approval for the permanent helistop,RFSEIR Responses ALUC-1 and C-1 describe that the project, including the proposed permanent helistop, 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. Further,the planned and approved cancer center is proposed to be one-story and will not result in any airspace obstruction-clearance constraints for the permanent heliport that will be on top of the five story tower. Also, as with all structures planned for the hospital campus,the cancer center will be designed and constructed to accommodate existing site conditions, including any noise from the helistop. Given this, and the limited frequency in which helicopter operations are anticipated,there is no reason to believe that the contemplated operations or location of the permanent helistop will materially change. The commenter has not presented any credible information indicating that ALUC's review of the permanent helistop location or development of the hospital campus in accordance with its approvals will materially affect the operations and/or location of the permanent helistop site. CEQA does not require the City to engage in speculation; see CEQA Guidelines § 15145. Moreover, in the unlikely event that the permanent helistop was to be modified in some way, any subsequent changes to the project would be considered in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15162. E-3 Comment: The comment restates impact assessment information contained in the RSDEIR and indicates that the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative should be selected as the preferred alternative. Response: Under CEQA, an agency may reject project alternatives if it finds them to be "infeasible." (Pub.Res. Code§ 21080(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(c)(3). "Feasible"is defined as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, social,technological, and legal factors. (Pub. Res. Code§ 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.) "Specific economic, social, or other conditions"may render a project alternative infeasible. (Public Resources Code§ 21002.) An alternative may be also found infeasible on the ground that it will not fully satisfy project objectives. (See e.g.,Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012)208 Cal.App.4`h 899, 947.) The RDSEIR evaluates in detail the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative as compared to the proposed project on pages 4-24 through 4-36. RFSEIR Response to Comment C-2 further reiterates the RDSEIR's evaluation of impacts of the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the degree to which it satisfies project objectives. As such,the record supports that the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed interim site for a number of reasons, which are further summarized below. ■ The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would create greater and potentially significant hazards impacts as compared to the proposed interim site. Among the reasons described in the RDSEIR and RFSEIR,objects would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport on both sides of the flight path,which would adversely impact operational safety. An existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim alternative's flight path and the planned and approved MOB 2 would penetrate the northern 2:1 transitional surface. Undergrounding of the existing electric power transmission lines would not be feasible as part of the helistop project due to the time and cost that would be added to the helistop project,including additional time required for Southern California Edison's review and approval process for the undergrounding of their transmission lines. The planned and approved MOB 2 has already installed its underground utilities and will be developed in Phase III, during operation of the interim helipad and prior to the construction of the permanent helistop. Further,the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path along Temecula Parkway would increase risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway,increase traffic accident potential,and could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors entering the facility by personal vehicle during helicopter operations due to the proximity of the flight path. In particular,the flight path would travel parallel to Temecula Parkway,a major arterial and state highway,and also across the frontage of the existing hospital,and flights would land on the helistop at ground level. 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 only 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 at low elevations. The elevations in which this alternative would approach Temecula Parkway are much lower than as compared to the proposed Interim site due the alternative's close proximity to Temecula Parkway. 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). • The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies.The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concenis(see attached e-mail dated April 7,2016 from Jeff Brown, Chief, Office of Airports,Division of Aeronautics,California Department of Transportation). • The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts as compared to the proposed interim site due to a more visible helistop with security fencing, lighting and potentially lighting poles. The Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative is located in closer proximity to Temecula Parkway than the proposed interim helistop Iocation, and as a result,would expose substantially more drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians(viewers), as well as surrounding residential areas to views of the helipad and associated facility operation, security and lighting components. The Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative location would be considered a foreground view to the aforementioned viewers as comparted to the proposed interim helistop location which is considered a background view from the primary viewing area along the adjacent portion of Temecula Parkway. • While noise would be somewhat less than by the proposed project,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would continue to result in significant unavoidable noise impacts because helicopter noise 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(for a majority of flights)and at 8 of the 10 receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions(i.e., the same number of receptors during prevailing winds and 2 fewer receptors during infrequent Santa Ana winds as compared to the proposed interim location). 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. The Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives. With regard to accessibility and operational efficiency as compared to the proposed interim site,the RDSIER describes that the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be less accessible and less operationally efficient due to its location. In critical medical situations,there is a direct correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. Thus, it is important that the helistop be located as close as is reasonable possible to the hospital emergency department. The Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would be located further away from the emergency department and ground transport to and from the helipad would traverse more parking lot area than the proposed interim site. This increases the patient transport time as well as the opportunity for conflict with cars,future pedestrian and medical office building traffic and therefore decreases accessibility and operational efficiency (see attached Figure 1 and Figure 4-4 in the RDSEIR). Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative, which the interim helistop has already undergone,would further delay its implementation. More importantly, however,Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, 2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly,the Alternative Interim Site Helipad Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior,easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula,providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-ref the art facility,or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. E4 Comment: The comment restates impact assessment information contained in the RSDEIR regarding the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative and indicates that conclusions in the RDSEIR and RFSEIR are not supported by the noise data. Response: The commenter largely repeats its previous continent on the RDSEIR. As such,this comment has already been addressed in RFSEIR Response C-3. Importantly,the noise conclusions in the RDSEIR regarding the Future Tower Location Alternative as compared to the proposed interim site are fully supported by substantial evidence. As shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 4-8,although the 60dB and 65 dB CNEL noise contours do not extend beyond the hospital property boundary, the noise associated with the Future Tower Location Interim Helistop Alternative would be greater for those residents south of Temecula Parkway and east of the hospital property. The commentator correctly states that the ambient CNEL noise levels in the vicinity of receptor sites 5 and 7 are generally higher than the other sites in closer proximity to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood. Nonetheless,the helicopter noise resulting from operation of the Future Tower Location Alternative would create higher CNEL and single event noise in the residential areas surrounding receptor sites 5 and 7 than to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood and would affect substantially more residents due to the higher density of the residential neighborhoods. Regarding infeasibility of the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative,the RDSEIR evaluates in detail the Future Tower Location Alternative as compared to the proposed project on pages 4-36 through 4-44. RFSEIR Response C-3 further reiterates the RDSEIR's evaluation of the Future Tower Location Alternative as compared to the proposed project and the degree to which it satisfies project objectives. As such, the record supports that the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the proposed interim project for a number of reasons,which are further summarized below. The Future Tower Location as interim Helistop Alternative would create greater and potentially significant hazards impacts as compared to the proposed interim site. Among the reasons described in the RDSEIR and RF,SEIR, the planned MOB 1 and MOB 2 buildings may 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 planned"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. Further, 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 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 Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would experience similar noise as compared to proposed interim site. Accordingly, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant and unavoidable noise impacts. The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level that is 1.4 dB Lmax greater for a majority of flights than as compared to the proposed interim site(7.1 dB less under infrequent Santa Ana conditions). Further,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed single-event noise levels at the same number of sensitive receptors for a majority of flights than the proposed interim site(one less receptor under infrequent Santa Ana conditions). 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. Sites 3, 5 and 7 arc 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. Finally,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would necessarily be relocated to the proposed interim site during construction of the medical tower, which is estimated to take approximately three years. During this period, it would experience identical noise impacts as the interim site. + The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative is inconsistent with applicable helipad operational safety regulations and policies.The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns(see attached e-mail dated April 7, 2016 from Jeff Brown, Chief,Office of Airports,Division of Aeronautics,California Department of Transportation). • The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would have greater aesthetic impacts as compared to the proposed interim site due to a more visible helistop with security fencing, lighting and potentially lighting poles. This alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on the southeast comer 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. • The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would not fully meet 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.Also,the aeronautical agencies' review and approval process required by this alternative,which the interim helistop has already undergone,would further delay its implementation. More importantly,however, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would not permit the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative because it will not grant variances for penetrations of the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path due to operational safety concerns. Accordingly,the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Alternative would not fully meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula, providing for a regional hospital campus designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the art facility,or ensuring compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Figure 1 METER oposed �►1'x,'1'.. �F��� � � Tfeeffk-- FOOT-�AL, r •F, 5ti1'��� rtw��s+��0�p -- —SECURI --FENC TY P J Al n ,vAt► u��r �� .f�� � � x'1..1��'•� Stuart Fisk From: Brown,Jeff R@DOT <jeff.brown@dot.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday,April 07, 2016 11:55 AM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Smith, Michael D@DOT Subject: RE:Variances for 2:1 Transitional Surface Penetrations for Heliports Mr. Fisk, Yes, I can confirm that the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,as the State of California's heliport permitting authority,may be willing to grant variances to a single Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surface of a heliport, provided the safety conditions you outlined below have been met. We will not grant variances for penetrations of the FAR Part 77,2:1 Transitional Surfaces of a heliport by objects on both sides of a flight path. Please let me know if we can be of any additional assistance Jeff Brown Chief, Office of Airports Division of Aeronautics California Department of Transportation (916)654-4565 From:Stuart Fisk[rnailto:Stuart.FislcClcityaftemecula.org] Sent:Tuesday,April 05,2016 8:19 AM To:Brown,Jeff R@DOT<ieff.brownL6)dot.ca.env> Subject:Variances for 2:1 Transitional Surface Penetrations for Heliports Mr. Brown: Please confirm, via return email, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics'policy regarding variances for 2:1 transitional surface penetrations for heliports. It is my understanding that: 1. Caltrans is willing to grant variances for objects to penetrate 2:1 transitional surfaces where the Division determines that the objects will not adversely affect operational safety provided the objects are adequately highlighted for pilots at night with red obstruction lights 2. Caltrans grants such variances for objects on only one side of a flight path; it would not grant variances for objects on both sides of a flight path. Thank you in advance for your help. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula (951)506-5159 stuarl,f isk(ftlyoliameculamgi 41000 Main St,Temecula, CA 9259E 1 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No . 13 Approvals City Attorney A� Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Appoint Members to the Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint two applicants, John Telesio and Gary Watts, to each serve a full three-year term on the Planning Commission through June 15, 2019. BACKGROUND: The terms of Commission Members John Telesio and Gary Watts expire on June 15, 2016. The City Clerk's office has followed the Council's established procedure for filling Committee vacancies by advertising the openings in the local newspaper and on social media sites. Notices were also posted at various locations within the City and on the City's web page. Seven applications were forwarded to the committee comprised of Mayor Naggar and Mayor Pro Tempore Edwards for review and recommendation. Both Mayor Naggar and Mayor Pro Tempore Edwards have recommended the appointments of John Telesio and Gary Watts to each serve a full three-year term through June 15, 2019. All applicants are registered voters and live within the city limits of the City of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Seven Commission Appointment Applications 04-04- 1 Li'US .26 City of Temecula Board and Commission 41000 Main Street RECEIVE p Temecula, CA 92590 Appointment Application www.cityoftemecula.org _ (951) 694-6444 AF K 0 4 20 For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. P%e check one: anning Community Services _Public Traffic Safety _Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Are you a City Registered Voter? NAME: ff OCCUPATION: �� �. c�i ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: 2TiC-t, �t�y/c�� EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EMAIL Educational Background/Degrees: List any City or County Board, Co mIttee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: -�1 ` Jo• T� ea"' 2>2-5 ._ Ce3r. ,v i ��'' List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) 562F - t understand that any or all Information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this Informatio for public Information purposes. ure: SignatDate:. Plea it or ret rnFIC2, of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 4 000 Nfa Temecula, C.4 9259(7 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Larry R. Metz To Whom It May Concern: As a resident of Temecula since February 2002, 1 have seen the outstanding growth of this city. Temecula is my home and I have been privileged to live here the past 14 years. I am now developing temeculagolftrail.com, a website that will attract groups of Golfer's from all over the nation to Temecula to play golf and enjoy the wonders of our City. As a small business owner I have had several businesses and offices in Temecula. My Primary business has been Suncoast Marketing which is a Manufacturers Rep firm representing Major Consumer Electronics firms. I have called on Major Retailers including, Wal-Mart, Costco,Target and BestBuy. I have also called on Pechanga Resort and Casino selling their retail gift shops. I have owned a restaurant delivery service called We Just Deliver, from 2006 to 2009. We employed up to 11 drivers and delivered for 30 of the local restaurants. After 4 years we sold to our competitors Dine-In Delivery. After Senior Management positions at Emerson Radio, Packard Bell Electronics and Panasonic, I decided to venture out on my own and started Conquest Marketing Group, Inc. to represent Manufacturers who wanted to sell to the Major Retail Chains, Buying Groups and Distributors. I have been self-employed since 1992. 1 have a great deal of knowledge in regard to building businesses, contracts, negotiating skills and working with all levels of people, from senior management to floor sales people. I believe that I would be an asset to the planning commission board. Larry Metz Larry 1L Metz Current-Owner Temecula Golf Trail—In development. TemeculaGolfTrail.com is a new online site that offers{Golfers from all over the country Tee times, Hotel reservations, and Tours for Golf outings to the Temecula area. (Currently in development) (Also SanDiegoGolfTrails.com and Socalgolftxail.com) 1992-Present—President of my own manufacturer's rep company. Originally Conquest Marketing Group, Inc and now called Suncoast Marketing. Selling to major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Costco, Target,and BestBuy, also Distributors and Buying Groups on a national basis. Consulting to and Representing Audiovox, RCA, Emerson, Energizer, Kinfrne-USA, Concept Green Energy Solutions. 1990-1992 —Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing, EMERSON Computer Corp. I was recruited to run Emerson's new Computer Division that I took from zero to over 200 million dollars in sales in less then 18 months. EMERSON bought out my contract when they asked me to move to New Jersey and I chose not to accept. 1983-1990—Executive Vice President,Packard Bell Electronics. I purchased the name Packard Bell from Teledyne for$90,000 for three partners. I took the company from zero to over$650 million dollars in sales. Packard Bell owned 42% market share for the retail computer category. Responsible for all Sales, Marketing and Operations. 1980-1982—President Filmway's Audio Croup. I was originally hired to run Filmway's Audio Concepts a high-end Audio retailer catering to the recording and broadcast industry. After successfully turning that profitable they asked me to run two other companies Filmway's Audio and RF Wireless Rents. Eventually they made me president of all 5 companies in their Audio Group and after turning them profitable, I helped negotiate the sale of these companies. 1974-1979—S. California Sales Manager, Panasonic Inc. I controlled sales for 12 divisions of Panasonic, including Technics,Video, Audio, Microwaves, Vacuums, Batteries, and even Bicycles. Took the territory from$1 million to over$10 million. Prior employment, Edwards of California, Christian Dior Menswear and American Airlines. Personal—Divorced, three grown children. Avid Golfer, Temecula resident since 2002. President Chatsworth Youth Sports 1977-1980 Commissioner Valley Conference Youth Basketball 1981 Commissioner Golfer's Getaway 2006 to Present Education—NY State University at Farmingdale 1962-64 American Airlines Management Training program 1966-1967 Emerson.. November 12, 2015 To Whom it May Concem: f am writing a letter of recommendation on behalf of my longtime friend and business associate Mr. Larry Metz. Larry and t began working together more than 20 years ago and have maintained an even greater friendship at the same time. I have always appreciated Larry's ability to communicate well even in extreme environments such as the large retail market_ His professionalism has always made it possible in all our business ventures to succeed. His biggest attrbute may be his integrity and respect for making sure projects were completed as promised. Larry's keen ability with fellow up and follow thru skills made his career in our industry a great success. I believe Larry Metz would be a great asset to the City of Temecula and possibly improve the abilities of others to build better bridges of communication within your community. Best of luck as I know Lamy would be a great addition to your team. Best regards, We Churchman Sr_ Vice President Emerson Radio Co EMERSON RADIO CORP. 3 UNIVERSITY PLAZA #405 HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07061 973.428.2000 1 kTATwJ WESTERN November 9, 2015 Temecula City Planning Commission Re: Larry Meta To Whore It May Concern: have been asked to provide a letter of reference for a good friend Larry Metz. I have known Larry Metz for approximately 10 years and have found hlm to be a man of great moral character and honesty. One of Larry's many strengths is his ability to work with others in problem solving issues between parties. He is a very kind individual who always believes in fairness between people demonstrating great communication skills. He has many friends which is a testament to his success in life and being someone we have great respect for. It has been a pleasure to be associated with Larry Metz.I would highly recommend him as a member of the Temecula City Planning Department. Sincerely, f� Tom Bardos CEO Western Computer Western Computer 351 Candelaria Road * Oxnard,California 93030 (80S)581-5020 www.westemcomputer.com SLP Enterprises Steven L Padgett Thursday,November 12, 15 City of Temecula Planning Commission To whom it may concern: This letter should serve as letter of reference (both professional and personal) for Mr. Larry R Metz who is seeking to fill an open position on the City of Temecula Planning Commission. 1 have known and worked with Larry for over 40 years. In many situations we were peers and in many He was my supervisor. In that period of time we have become close personal friends as well. Larry would make a good candidate for your position for some of the following reasons: * Never ending work ethic * Works well with other professionals * Good organizer -4- Excellent and professional sales person # Completely honest with uncompromising principals. I hope this letter will help you make a favorable decision for Larry to fill the position you have available.You could not do better. Respectfully, Steven L Padgett 11112=5 Gmaii-City of Temecula Plarrinp Commission Paeition AvsilaUe-Closes I IrA IS C;1*1 • Larry UeU City of Temecula Planning Commission Position Available - Closes 11/20/2015 DAN WACICH Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:04 PM To: Larry Mentz I have known Larry Metz both personally and professionally for 30 plus years. Two words immediately come to mind-Integrity and perseverance. I have witnessed Larry grow companies against the toughest odds and succeed only to shoulder the burden of others shortcomings. The relationships he has gained in the CE world are legion and very loyal. From computers, peripherals, audio products, fumiture and video products Larry has blazed the trail with unique offerings and creatine procedures. But far and away where Larry has shined beyond most human capabilities is with his family. He has faced down incredible odds and brought his family through. I know his family very well and all are people you would love to know and would enhance your lives. They arrived at this place only by the love and strength of Larry. Obviously Larry's attributes would make him an excellent commissioner. Dan Vuicich From: Larry Metz Sent: Friday, November 6,2015 5:11 PM To:John Spinelli; Mike Churchman; Pete Thorsen;John Gentleman; Steve Padgett; Dan Vuicich; Robert Vassallo;Tom Bardos Subject: Fwd: City of Temecula Planning Commission Position Available-Closes 11/20/2015 [Quoted text hiddeni 1m-41mailoww4a 111 1t 6 Gmait-RE:Recc omendafim for opwirg on ft Temecula City PfarOng Commission GmL..arry MirR RE: Rnendation for opening on the Temecula City Planning Commission _ I rnessaw -_._.. Sura. Nov 2M6 at 3:09 PM To: rry To wOorn it may Conccern. I have known Larry R. Metz for many, many years. We first met In the 5th grade in 1953. We have remained good friends over the years. Larry has always had an excellent rapport with people of all ages. His excellent communication skills allow him to connect with all kinds of people. He is one l can recommend with c ornlAete contfidwwa and i know that he will measure up to your expectations. In summary, I highly recommend Larry for any position or endeavor that he may seek to pursue. He would be a tremendous asset to any organization. Sincerely, Peter R. Thorsen rrlrx•lMuit arr�ilw nnmhnelUulOfAi=2dik���P�crrinboKbrrri m 1=137�abc Robert Vassaiio November B.2015 To whom It may concern: I have been friends with Mr. Metz for over 50 years. I am certain he will be an asset to the planning commission as he Is a personable, logical and intelligent individual. His past successes can attest to this. I know he is nappy and proud to be a resident of Temecula and would work hard for the future of your city. Robert E Vassalio Sent from my Whone City of Terwt Board and Commission 41400 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 APR 1 1 2016 Appointment Application www.btyoltemecula.org G1989989, g (951) 694-6444 CITY CLERK* wO 0 4- 1 1-1 G P O? = 0 7 R C V D For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: QPlanning Elcornmunity Services ❑Public Traffic Safety [:]Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Arno Are you a City Registered Voter? Yes NAME: Anthony J. Tamraz OCCUPATION: Mortgage ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: Ameristar Financial, Inc. EMPLOYER ADDRESS: EMAI Educational Background/Degrees: Associate degree. Microsoft Systems Engineer. List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: None. List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): In the process of joining the Temecula Citizens Corps State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I lived here in 2005. Moved back 11 months ago. I want to serve this beautiful community. I also have two children and I want to make sure Temecula stays safe and beautiful. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: A9Z Date.04/11/2016 P ase mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Board and Commission Temecula, CA 92590 Appointment Application www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: QPlanning Community Services ❑Public Traffic Safety [710Id Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 7 Are you a City Registered Voter's Yes NAME: John S. Locke OCCUPATION: Doctor ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: Corona Temecula Orthopaedics EMPLOYER ADDRESS:28076 Eater Road, Murrieta EMAI Educational Background/Degrees: California state University East Bay,Hayward,CA BA Chemistry 1986, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda,MD 1991; Stanford University,Palo Alto,CA Orthopaedic Residency 1997; UC San Diego,San Diego,CA 2005 Sports Medicine Fellowship List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service; None List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): American Medical Association,American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery,Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons Riverside County Medical Association,Flying Doctors of Mercy-Mexico mission, Special Olympics Medical Support Rancho Community Church-community outreach,food pantry, Linfield Christian Sch000l-volunteer football coach State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) See Attached Sheet I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. �''L . Date: /`7 �, / / / 2016 Signature: - j Ple se mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Corona-Temecula Orthopaedic Associates M E D I C A L G R 0 u r' G.Carleton Wallace,M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Ari! 11,201 fi Total Joint Replacement p Arthroscopic Surgery Richard L.Rouhe,M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Total Joint Replacement Sports Medicine Bradley L_Baum,M.D. I would like to be considered for a position on the Temecula Planning Commission. General Orthopaedic Surgery I have been a resident of Temecula for 7 years. Prior to that I was in the U.S. Navy Foot is Ankle Disorders Total Joint Replacement Station in various places from Oakland California, 29 Palms and Camp Pendleton, Sports Medicine Arthroscopic Surgery California and Portsmouth, Virginia. Ghassan S. Tooma,M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery I was born and raised in northern California (Hayward), a suburb in the San Francisco Bay Hand Et Rep acement r Extremity Surgery Area that was growing quickly and I saw what can happens when growth is planned for and Sports Medicine also saw what happens when it is not. Some areas and cities did better than others simply Industrial Injuries because they were proactive and took time to plan for change. Mario E.Luna,M.D. Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon Adult and Pediatric spine Surgery My career in the Navy lasted 25 years and retired as a Navy Captain (Medical Corps) three Amy Starry,D.O. years ago. In addition to being a doctor, I served as a department head, director and chaired General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine or was on several committees such as process improvement, ethics, credentialing and moral, Shoulder Surgery welfare and recreation. These experiences taught me the value of proactive planning and John Locke,M.D. improved my communication and teamwork. Now, I am in private practice and a business General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine owner. This has added to my experience on business topics such as marketing, employee Shoulder surgery retention and takes. Reza Roghani,M.D. General Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Temecula is clearly a wonderful place with a great future. I feel I am uniquely qualified to Shoulder&Elbow Surgery Total Joint Replacement be a member of the planning commission for several reasons. My degree in science will Demrtrio Quismorio,Jr.,PA-C allow me to look at issues such as air quality, water, noise, traffic flow,zoning, land and Orthopaedic Physician Assistant economic development with a scientific, fact based focus. In addition,my 25 years in the Steven M.HinoJos,PA-C military and in medicine gave me a breadth of experiences,working with a variety of Orthopaedic Physician Assistant people, paperwork and issues. My experiences have given me the background and Do-Ttao Neria,PA-C foresight. Now, I have the time and desire to be a part of and contribute to the great future Orthopaedic Physician Assistant of Temecula. If you have any questions, I can be reached at or Thank you for your time. John S. Locke M.D. 341 Magnolia Avenue,Suite 101•Corona, California 92879-Telephone:(951) 735-6060-Fax:(951) 735-4510 28078 Baxter Road;Suite 330•Murrieta. California 92563• Telephone:(951)677-2157•www.CTOAUG.com G939 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Board and Commission Temecula, CA 92590 Appointment Application www-cityaftemecula.org (951) 694-6444 . 4e vr•y vt TZT3Cu!aaiu i�r, yuu uaY urrerYiy ue a 11 8fucrit or arFor :rw:cr v i8idlicrcativ+ `' w ..r4 % n41.. L'_ f4a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is . submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: 2016 [EPlanningElcommunity Services ❑Public Traffic Safety F]OId Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident 35 Are you a City Registered Voter? Yes li NAME; 'John H. TPIPBin RtMirpd II I� ADDRESS r^1TV! TATE!71D �I IDAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: Same III €MtPL YER NA Mf€: II II EMPLOVFR ADDRESS- F1JA11 I� �rYtr��w4innwl R,a�;;krir4Yrn.�llf,:}erYrocr• Mastei of rllVtll.AlNlrl{I7latratNJn.Crus, ,',aster of ai,ierrCe, var✓,GA,aw,ial'J`ludi'esll-tistory,i.."iULA Graduate, USAF Command and Staff College List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Member and twice Chair,Temecula Public Traffic/Safety Commission, 1997-2000, Member, current Vice-Chair and three time Chair, i emecuia Planning commission,zuuu-Present,Member,Citizens Ueneral Plan Heview Committee,2004-2005. Currently serving on Planning Commission sub-committees for Altair Project and Promonade Mall Expansion project List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer qroups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): American Planning Association, Military Officers Association of America, Red River Rats Rghter Pilots Association,VFW Post 4089,Volunteer Susan B. Komen Race for the Cure,Volunteer, Temecuta Ballooniwine festival, Volunteer,SMURF State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) Please see attached I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of iris iniorrnabon for public iniormation purposes. Signature: Date: 0414912016 Please mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE John H. Telesio Planning Commission Application - Continued: State why you wish to serve on this commission and why you believe you are neialifInAfnr thin nncitinn- _+___._._- •— _... r__._._.._ I believe I have the education, experience, time desire, energy and the demonstrated F. t e!w1 d ul Suul d, UUJe ilvc, uiy necessary to continue performing at the level required of this important position. I take this work very seriously; as a retired citizen I consider it to be "my job" and I plan my personal schedule around meeting dates. As a result, in the course of my over 18 years of combined commission service I have had only four absences (none unexcused) each due to a personal or family emergency. I have no personal or professional conflicts of interest which might interfere with my full participation in the Commission review process. I consider it a privilege to serve my city in this capacity and would be honored hi thcb npr-%^rt"ini]i tr Cnn+iiniia rir%inn en. While I µm content ter'. rely nn the cr%llective judgment of the City Council as well as the Planning staff as to my record of performance and suitability for reappointment, I offer as references for our p tY pp Y consideration five of the most prominent and respected citizens of the many with whom have worked closely and well over the years: California State Senator Jeff Stone Former City Manager Shawn Nelson Former City Mayor and Councilman Ron Roberts Lead Pastor, Rancho Community Church, Scott Treadway My Physician, best Doctor in the Valley and Founding Member of the Board of Directors, Temecula Valley Hospital, Dr. Gerardo "Jerry" Hizon City of Temecula Commission and Board 41000 Main Street lRECEIVEI Temecula, CA 92590 Appointment Application 1 1989 www.cityoftemecula.orgAPR 2 201b (351) 694-6444 CITY CtLERW� UlftPl For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: X Planning _Community Services _Public Traffic Safety _Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident Are you a City Registered Voter? NAME: Gary Watts_ tate ar anger istnct OCCUPATION: Superintendent-Retira�+�. ADDRESS; CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: Retired - California State Parks 17801 Lake Perris Dr. EMPLOYER ADDRESS. EMAIL Educational Background/Degrees: I+G.TF S�_c dflSf_�. List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Please see attached List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): Please see attached State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) Please see attached understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public informati n purposes. Signature: Date: 9'tNc Pleg&e mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Planning Commission Appointment Application Gary Watts, Temecula, CA Educational Background/Degrees: Humboldt State University- B.S. Natural Resources Management UC Riverside- Executive Management Program - Graduate School of Management List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Dec 2015 to present Temecula Planning Commission Aug 2015 to Dec 2015 Temecula Traffic/Public Safety Commission 2008-2015 Temecula Old Town Local Review Board 2003-2007 Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Resource Conservation District 2001-2008 Santa Rasa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Advisory Committee 2005-2008 Riverside County MSHCP Reserve Management Oversight Committee 1997-2008 Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority List any organizations to which you belong: 1998-2004 Palomar Community College Adjunct Faculty 2006-2008 Temecula Film Festival Volunteer 2002-2008 Villages Community HOA Board of Directors 2008-2016 Peace Officer Research Association of Califomia-retired member State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the positron. I was appointed to the Planning Commission in December 2015 after serving briefly on the Traffic/Public Safety Commission from August 25, 2015 to December 8, 2015. Prior to these appointments I was a member of the Old Town Local Review Board for 7 years. Although new to the Planning Commission the other members have made me feel very welcome and have been very helpful with advice and observations of Commission business, future projects, and interacting with staff and other members of city management including the Council. I am seeking reappointment to the Commission because of my interest in maintaining Temecula as one of the finest communities in California and to be a participant in its future. I enjoy the Planning Commission and embrace its importance and responsibility to the community. I have lived with my family in Temecula for 23 years. During that time I have been a involved as a volunteer or park professional with several entities and events including the Temecula Film Festival, the Villages HOA, a Resource Conservation District, a federal agency advisory committee,the MSHCP reserve management operation, and a Joint Powers Authority. My 31 years of experience as a State Park Ranger/Superintendent provided great opportunities to work cooperatively with all levels of government. It also allowed me to become involved with many issues including park planning, private sector and government development, cultural and natural resource management, and environmental laws and regulations. I believe that the combination of my personal and professional experience and involvement have prepared me well to serve a new term on the Planning Commission. 04-29-16PD3 : 39 RCVD 1 , 1GCit of T11 " + Board and Commission 41ot70 Main StreetTemecula, CA 925ND �Q�6 Appointment Application www.cityoftemecula. (951) 694-6444 - C IV 11 r ITY CLERKS DEPT. For proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City Limits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Please check one: Planning ❑community Services ❑Public Traffic Safety ❑Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident �(' Are you a City Registered Voter? v NAME: A Wsl(t nrr tQd'1 0 OCCUPATION: C- r kPdtl ESI'A C2 ti t'tt3 t'�14 IJV "jxr'TS_ ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP DAYTIME PHONE: EVENING PHONE EMPLOYER NAME: C?IIfor YlID b" EMPLOYER ADDRESS:3{G(a3 Paot�kv EMAIL ,1 i r v-+t et Educational Background/Degrees: /r List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: Tcmecul& Ck,�&r-►-aloe►- Ay,-.bc5-sad0C List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non-profit organizations, service clubs, etc.): 1 i ut�rn b�err w s i n s s ,nc a� fie r �� E� I�r� L crrc{J 7, [c .ter _ bl os f )O(Al Li51'v1P� 4'�vel pe 1r� u�#e � of , Ci turcG t P01 4-�, r ra sSi rJr� l F1)r' P VAIlt s c`(J �tt r7r�'1 State whyyou wish to serve on this commission, and why ou litve you are qualified for the position. S eV(;3 Y YY p Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. 1 consent to the release of this information for public informatlton purposes. SignatureT l l� tL I Date: Please mail or return to: City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Main Street, Temecula. CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE City of Temecula Planning commission position (attachment to Board and Commission Appointment Application) Alesia Amodio State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) I have been a residence of Temecula for 10 years. I believe it is important to support and serve the community I live and work in. I am co-owner to an independent Real Estate Brokerage. I understand the details of a well-planned procedure and how necessary they are to have viable businesses and cultivating a positive image for the City every step of the way. I believe my skillset of training and communication would be an added value to the Planning Commission. I am team player and I am capable to many tasks for high priority items to administrative task. I am organized. l look to use my real estate knowledge of communities, local neighborhoods and new construction to support the planning commission. I am a very good communicator and time efficient when it comes to tasks and follow-up. Being a business owner allows me to relate to new incoming business. I work in high level office that require immediate directions and legal advice during transaction. It would be an honor to serve my community through the Planning commission. Hard skills: ✓ Microsoft word 10 ✓ Outlook 10 ✓ Excel ✓ Power point Soft skills: ✓ I am able to collaborate and bring people together to come to the conclusion of the greater good ✓ Organized ✓ Time efficient ✓ Team player ✓ Positive influence 04-29-16PO4 : 17 RCVD V' City of Terre���- Board and Commission 41000 Ma+n Street - Temecula, CA 92590 APR 29 21Appointment Application 1989 www.cityoftemecula.org (951) 594-6444 GITY CLr-KKV Ultfe'l For :proper consideration, you must currently be a resident of the City of Temecula and a Registered Voter within the City fruits of the City of Temecula at the time the application is submitted. The original completed application must be received by the deadline. Pleas check one: Planning Elcommunity Services ❑Public Traffic Safety [—]Old Town Local Review Board Number of years as a City of Temecula Resident I(p Are you a City Registered Voter? . NAME: 0 CLf-r-C.`L L u-c W I c{ OCCUPATION: App 0 CV MCI ADDRESS. CITY/STATEIZIP DAYTIME PHONE: rr r EVENING PHONE: EMPLOYER NAME: EMPLOYER ADDRESS: O�+opra«~� dec4c4�{ C� EMAI Educational Background/Degrees: 0 0-c-k e1 p f- O e -C_e. Irt Cj-4 a r'� List any City or County Board, Committee or Commission on which you have served and the year(s) of service: List any organizations to which you belong (professional, technical, volunteer groups, non- ,,rold organizations, service clubs, etc.): Too_s rr^Lk.S41, `S ��111 rG�'1 C1l State why you wish to serve on this commission, and why you believe you are qualified for the position. Please be specific. (You may attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary. Letters of Recommendation and/or references are encouraged.) W i5K AIZ6 Sey"O le-1 "4 e .�o Ter "e w-k at Cxri, e0 e , b e r- C Gl ce, Ll I l U f, o.L^v W C0 r-(C . I understand that any or all Information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for public information purposes. Signature: Date: 7 Please marl or return to: a of Temecula, City Clerk's Office 41000 Mara Street, Temecula, CA 92590 PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE ADVERTISED DEADLINE Christian K. Berke To Whom It May Concern: RE: Letter of Recommendation—Darren Ludwig I have worked with Darren for over 14 years. I find Darren to be a highly energetic, open minded and competent individual. As a manager at Pacific Life, Darren is responsible for planning and scheduling large development efforts that span multiple months to up a year. In his role Darren is required to meet with various individuals, across organizations, at varying levels within our company. Darren effectively leverages his communication skills, solution delivery capabilities and general business knowledge in gaining credibility with his clients and counterparts within Pacific Life. Darren is able to quickly understand and analyze broad concepts and challenges faced by his client, assimilate information and develop strategies to deliver capabilities to the clients. He adds value to his company, his clients and his group through creative solutions development. In addition to the respect he gained from his clients and teammates through his solution delivery abilities, he also excellent at establishing clear communication channels. He is able to identify and capture issues that needed to be addressed, and define appropriate processes to resolve them through both formal and informal communication strategies. I would most certainly recommend Darren for your considerations as he will prove to be a valuable addition to the team. Sincerely, Christian K. Berke AVP Technology Services Pacific Life z,&.sunR1DGE -- - COMMUNn CHURCH Britt Sipe Sunridge Community Church 42299 Winchester Road Temecula CA 92590 I've known Darren Ludwig for sixteen years_ Over those years I've had the privilege to watch Darren raise a family in this community, and also be an integral part of the family of faith here at Sunridge. He's volunteered on our worship team, served in global efforts to establish new churches in Panama, and led small groups that meet in homes through out the week. He has also volunteered with organizations that serve the under-resourced within the local community. He is an enthusiastic volunteer. Darren is intelligent, genuine, thoughtful, inclusive and compassionate. He is an excellent listener and a good communicator. He works well within a collaborative context. I've known Darren to have the highest integrity. He will be an asset to any organization. I highly recommend Darren. Sincerely, Britt Sipe Lead Pastor bsi pe @ sun rid gech urch.org 42299 WWw.hes3er Road-Temewle,CA 92590 JJ phone-951 298AM H fax 061,M.1e70 JJ eunrfdgachurch.orq Jerry Mensik Date:June 22, 2015 Pacific life insurance/Senior Software Developer Subject: Darren Ludwig/Reference I have known Darren Ludwig for over 13 years. Darren is an extemporary leader and responsible Corporate citizen. In working with Darren, I observed his commitment to excellence to the business process and to the organization which he serves.Always doing the best for the customers and the organization at large. Darren has high quality analytical talent for details that most individuals would overlook, and incorporating these into a bigger picture. I have known Darren to be a man of high integrity and his focus is always centered on doing what is right and in pursuit of the truth. Darren is well liked, respected by his staff and upper management,and would be a major contributor and asset to any organization that would be lucky to have him. Jerry Mensik To the Temecula City Council My name is James "Stew" Stewart. I am on the Board of Directors for Rancho California Water District. I have known and been a friend of Darren Ludwig for about 10 years. He is a great fit for the Planning Board. He has been a discussion leader with me and knows how to listen. In my opinion the listening part is the most valuable, especially as a Planning Board member. This City is very well planned out and that is no accident. I would like to give you my recommendation for Darren to be on the Planning Board. He is a very dedicated guy and would be a asset to the board. Sincerely James "Stew" Stewart DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No . 14 Approvals �- City Attorney /I Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Community Development Director DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly-Lehner, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following are the highlights forthe Community Development Department for the month of April 2016. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases: In April, Planning received 26 new applications, including 2 pre-applications, and conducted 3 Public Hearings. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached to this report. Audi Dealership: On February 18, 2015, staff received a pre-application for a 37,000 square foot Audi dealership to be located on Temecula Center Drive, adjacent to 1-15 and south of the existing Mercedes-Benz of Temecula dealership. A Development Plan application was filed for the project on April 6,2015. A community meeting was held with the Harveston community on March 25,2015 to discuss the plans for the dealership. Approximately 20 Harveston residents attended the meeting and were positive about the addition of the Audi dealership to the community. A Supplemental EIR is being prepared for the project and went out for public review from July 20,through September 8, 2015. A second community meeting was held with the Harveston communityon August 13,2015,to discuss the findings of the Supplemental EIR and to provide updates on the project. The Planning Commission approved Audi on October 21, 2015. Construction began in April 2016. (FISK) Temecula Promenade Expansion: On December 3,2015,staff received an application for a Major Modification to the Promenade Mall to convert a portion of the existing enclosed retail mall (Macy's wing) to an open-air shopping experience. In addition, two new restaurants will be constructed adjacent to the Macy's wing in the existing mall parking lot. Modifications to the existing mall area include removal of the roof, construction of open air concourse/plazas, addition of new exterior wall finishes with new tenant storefronts, new decorative paving, landscaping, lighting and amenities in public areas. Additional site changes include modifications to the access/circulation at the Ring Road and Promenade Mall South, adjacent parking lot, and restriping of parking areas throughout the site. Staff met with the applicant and with the Promenade City Council Subcommittee on January 11, 2016 and the Planning Commission Promenade Subcommittee on February 25,2016 to discuss the plans. The Planning Commission approved the project on April 20, 2016. (KITZEROW) Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ambient Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and multi-family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Staff is currently reviewing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Report and has prepared an Initial Study. The City entered into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates in July 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December 3,,2014. Keyser Marston Associates has prepared a fiscal impact analysis for the project. Staff is working through environmental issues associated with the MSHCP and wildlife corridors as well as negotiating the Development Agreement. A Draft EIR is currently being circulated. A Planning Commission workshop is scheduled for June 6, 2016. (PETERS) Temecula Creek Inn (TCI)Specific Plan: On February 23, 2016, the City Council approved a new contract with Michael Baker Incorporated (formerly RBF) to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed Specific Plan at the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course and Resort. JC Resorts is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Plan for a hotel expansion. This project also includes a Fiscal Impact Analysis to evaluate the project's potential impacts on the City's General Fund. Since 2008, the Developer has modified the site plan and project description to address concerns regarding site layout, number of dwelling units, traffic impacts, avoiding cultural resources, deciding whether or not to include multi- family, debate about a Development Agreement, and timing of the hotel expansion. As a result of the changes, City Staff requested the applicant to complete a pre-application to make a final determination on the site plan and project description in an effort to move the project forward. Pre- application number PR15-1239 resulted in a revised final project description to include 385 single family dwelling units reducing the current 27-hole golf course to an 18-hole golf course resort and community on 305 acres located 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. The Specific Plan proposes four Planning Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel by 99 rooms from 128 to 227 guest rooms, and the addition of a spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837 square feet. Planning Areas 2-4 accommodate the 385 single family homes. Planning Area 5 consists of the golf course. For recordkeeping purposes,the project has been assigned new 2016 Planning Application (PA) numbers, (which replace the 2008 PA numbers), in order to correspond to the new project description and EIR contract with Michael Baker Incorporated. Staff is currently reviewing a draft fiscal impact analysis. A Draft EIR is anticipated to be circulated in August 2016. (PETERS) Temecula Valley Hospital: City Council approved the Temecula Valley Hospital project on January 22, 2008. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital bed tower was received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) on July 19, 2013. United Health Services obtained State licensing to open the hospital for patients on October 14, 2013. On May 31, 2013, staff received a Major Modification application to modify the site plan and heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from an area nearthe northeast corner of the hospital building. UHS indicated that the heliport needs to be relocated based on concerns from the FAA and the aeronautical division of Caltrans. UHS proposed two phases of movement for the heliport: Phase I would place the heliport to the west of the hospital building, in one of the parking lot areas. Phase 11 would place the heliport on the roof of the second hospital tower. In both cases, the proposed locations result in a change to the flight path that move it away from the Madera Vista residential project and changes the path to either head directly into or away from the prevailing wind direction (rather than perpendicular to the prevailing winds), as directed by the FAA and Caltrans. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). In July 2014, the applicant indicated intentions to add a 5,000 square foot facilities maintenance building to the hospital site. Staff has provided information regarding this new building to ESA for analysis in the SEIR, and the 45-day public reviewwas from November 12, 2014 through December29, 2014. The project was reviewed at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and received a 4-0 vote (Guerriero absent) recommending approval. Staff has worked with the applicant's consultant and ESA to respond to comments received from the community at the Planning Commission hearing and has worked with the applicant's consultant to prepare additional graphics for use at the City Council hearing. The project was scheduled for the July 28, 2015, City Council hearing but was continued off calendar so that staff and the Supplemental EIR consultant could make revisions to the Supplemental EIR to address comments received from Ray Johnson on July 22, 2015. The Revised Draft Supplemental EIR was available for public review from February 8, 2016 thru March 23, 2016. The project is scheduled for the May 4, 2016 Planning Commission hearing and staff anticipated bringing the project to the May 24, 2016 City Council hearing. (FISK) Temecula Gateway: On November 3, 2014, staff received applications related to the proposed Temecula Gateway project. The proposed project will consist of a Planned Development Overlay/Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Community Commercial and the zoning designation to Planned Development Overlay 14, a Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the creation of seven lots from four, a Development Plan to allow for the construction of four commercial buildings totaling approximately 23,666 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an automobile service station with a corresponding carwash and convenience store that will serve alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive-thru for a restaurant. The City has entered into an agreement with Michael Baker International/PMC to conduct an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Draft EIR is anticipated to be circulated in May 2016. (JONES) Cypress Ridge: On December 21, 2015, staff received applications Development Plan to construct 245 market rate residential units in the form of duplex, triplex, attached and detached cluster units. The project will be located on the northeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. Along with the Development Plan are applications for a Tentative Tract Map(for condo purposes), a Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay, and a General Plan Amendment. The applicant is also proposing to upgrade Pala Park to include amenities and play equipment for special needs. (JONES) LONG RANGE PLANNING Uptown Temecula Specific Plan: The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Area encompasses approximately 560 acres and is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan is based upon the eight visioning recommendations of the community and as directed by the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee. The Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council along with the certification of the Final EIR on November 17, 2015. Staff is developing the scope of work for the Request for Proposal for the Streetscape Beautification Plan for the Specific Plan area. (WEST) Hike Bike Temecula (Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update): On May 14, 2013, City Council awarded a contract to KTU+A to update the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. A community workshop was held on October 26, 2013, and attendees provided feedback on bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, hiking paths, and equestrian connections. Community input was also collected through a survey via the project website www.hikebiketemecula.org. A Steering Committee meeting was held on February 25, 2014, with over 30 participants in attendance. The focus of the meeting was to summarize the survey results and to get feedback on proposed improvements in Old Town. The Old Town improvements include sharrows(shared bike lane markings) on Old Town Front Street, Bicycle Friendly Community signs, and strategically placed bike racks. On March 25, 2014, City Council approved an amendment to the contract that included Phase II of the Master Plan Update and additional sidewalk analysis. Phase I concluded with a community walk-ride event on May 10, 2014, highlighting priority locations for future trails and bike lanes based on the community's feedback. Presentations to the Community Service Commission,Traffic Public Safety Commission,and Planning Commission are scheduled forApril and May. The Master Plan is scheduled to go to City Council in June. (PETERS) Alcoholic Beverage Manufacturing Performance Standards: On March 16, 2016, the Planning Commission directed staff to research and return with options for a potential Development Code amendment relating to microbreweries. Since the March 16th meeting, staff has received preliminary interest for the opening of a micro-distillery with a tasting room. As a result, staff proposed an Interim Urgency Ordinance for the moratorium of businesses manufacturing alcohol and requiring a CUP for the tasting room portion of the business, while staff researches and proposes new performance standards. Interim Ordinance No. 16-04, establishing the moratorium adopted by the City Council, took effect immediately upon adoption on April 12, 2016 and is set to expire on May 27, 2016. On May 2, 2016 staff met with local breweries to gain insight into their operations and discuss many of the possible new standards. A special meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 11, 2016 to review new proposed standards, followed by a May 24, 2016 City Council meeting. (WEST) SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Town Square Marketplace: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement(ENA)with Truax Development(Truax) in order to negotiate the disposition and development of the two, currently Successor Agency owned, vacant lots in front of the Civic Center, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. On June 23, 2015, City Council extended the term of the ENA for an additional six months. While both Truax Development and the City have been negotiating in good faith, the complexities of the project require that the ENA be extended to allow for additional work to be completed. Upon agreeing to terms, the City and Truax envision drafting a disposition and development agreement that will be brought back before the Council for approval. The second amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement was approved by City Council on March 8th to extend the term of the agreement. (WATSON) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind-down of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS)outlining the financial and debt obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due in the six month period being reviewed, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the appropriate payments. On March 2, 2015, the Oversight Board resolution approving ROPS 15-16A was delivered to the California State Department of Finance, the California State Controller, and the Riverside County Auditor Controller per the requirements of the redevelopment dissolution legislation. The ROPS 15-16B was approved by the SARDA Oversight Board in September 2015. The ROPS 16-17 was approved by both the SARDA Board and the Oversight Board in January. (WATSON, LEHNER) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) &AFFORDABLE HOUSING CDBG Administration: The City will receive$540,214 in CDBG grant funding for Fiscal Year 2015- 16. The funding will be allocated as follows: 20 percent for program administration ($108,042), 15 percent for public services ($81,032)to be divided evenly between nine non-profit service providers ($7,892 each)and $10,000 to the Fair Housing Council. The remaining 65 percent was allocated for infrastructure improvements. The Old Town Sidewalk Improvement projectwill receive$351,140. In April 2015, the City processed a Substantial Amendment to redirect$160,561 of unspent funds from previous fiscal years. A total of$26,223 was allocated to Habitat for Humanity for the Critical Home Maintenance and Repair Program, $12,000 to GRID Alternatives for the Solar Affordable Housing Program, and $122,338 to the Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement project. The City entered into an agreement with MDG Associates on November 1,2016 forthe administration of CDBG services. In preparation for the FY2016-17 application process, and in accordance with our Citizen Participation Plan, staff held two community and technical workshops for potential applicants on December 7, 2015. The application period for the 2016-17 fiscal year was open from December 1 through December 17, 2015. Staff has reviewed 14 applications for eligibility and presented them to the Finance Subcommittee for recommendations on February 9, 2016. City Council approved the Annual Action Plan on April 26, 2016. Staff will submit the plan to HUD by May 15th. (LEHNER) CDBG Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice: Every five years, the City, as an Entitlement City, is required to prepare an updated Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help states and local jurisdictions to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The City entered into an agreement with MDG Associates on January 26, 2016. The Consolidated Plan will cover the period July 1, 2017 —June 30, 2022. (LEHNER) Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014- 2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28,2014, and the City received certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) on March 10, 2014. A project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3. The project is in the initial planning phase. Staff is currently conducting research and anticipates completing the ordinances for adoption in 2017. (WEST) ENERGY & CONSERVATION Temecula Energy Efficiency Management (TEEM) Fund: The TEEM Fund is a self-sustaining fund that utilizes rebate incentives while also re-directing annual utility cost savings from energy efficiency projects into the fund. City Council established the fund in June 2013, with an initial deposit of $119,728.90 in SCE and SCG rebates. As energy efficiency projects are completed, rebates are deposited into the fund for future energy efficiency project. The current fund balance is now $196,797.00. Staff worked with Public Financial Management, funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership, to develop a policy manual for the TEEM Fund, focusing on policies and methodologies for determining the amount of utility savings to be deposited into the fund after projects are completed. (WEST) Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern California Gas (SCG), provides incentives for participants to develop energy efficiency programs. Temecula was the first City in the Partnership to achieve Gold Level status by completing 13 energy efficiency projects in FY 2012-13, resulting in nearly$100,000 of annual utility cost savings. In FY 2013-14, the City has upgraded the Community Recreation Center parking lot lights with new LED lighting fixtures. This resulted in 9,155 kWh saved and an additional $2,280 in annual savings. Staff recently completed a comprehensive energy audit of the Temecula Library with assistance from the Partnership. The audit identified 9 energy efficiency measures which could save an estimated 107,429 kWh annually,which also equates to an estimated annual cost savings to the City of $17,278. If all efficiency measures are implemented, the City would receive approximately $20,952 in rebate incentives from SCE and SCG. Implementing these measures would allow the City to achieve Platinum Level in the Partnership kWh savings requirements, giving the City higher rebate incentives for future energy efficiency measures. Staff is also working with NRG EV Services to install an electric vehicle fast charging station in the 6th Street Parking Lot. The fast charging station will complement the existing electric vehicle charging stations in the 6th Street Parking Lot and the Civic Center Parking Garage, by adding fast charging capabilities allowing drivers to add 50 miles of range in 15 minutes. (WEST) Solid Waste and Recycling Program: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. The last Citywide Clean-up was on April 23, 2016. The event is open to City of Temecula residents only. Staff also assists with outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the Backyard Composting Workshops. The Residential Organics Recycling Program was adopted by the City Council in June 2015 to be implemented in 2016. Outreach to City residents began on April 18th, 2016 with information on the City's website, Public Information Channel (Ch-3), the City's Facebook page, and a letter mailed to each resident/home. Distribution of the kitchen pails for food scraps took place at the April 23,2016 Citywide Clean-up and on April 30, 2016 at the Field Operations Center. For those residents that were unable to attend either distribution event, kitchen pails will be available at the Civic Center. Through Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), grants funds are available to cities and counties on an annual basis, to be used for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities. Staff will be using grant funds to purchase recycling receptacles for City parks. The purchase of recycling receptacles will improve recycling opportunities at City parks and support the State's objective of reaching and maintaining an 80 percent recycling rate for all California Refund Value beverage containers. (WEST) BUILDING & SAFETY Inspections: For the month of April, Building and Safety conducted 1,751 inspections. On average there were 83.38 inspections per day, or 20.84 inspections per day, per inspector. Permits: During the months of April, Building and Safety issued 284 building permits. Of these permits, 33 were new single family, 24 multi-family units and 56 were photovoltaic permits. Some of these permits from this month included: New Commercial Buildings Highgate Senior Living —42301 Moraga Road Shearwater Creek Recreation/Leasing Office —29575 Pujol Street Non-Construction Certificate of Occupancy D'Sotos Mexican and Seafood Restaurant—29000 Old Town Front Street Banana Boy All Natural Juice Bar and Deli — 30590 Rancho California Road Tony's Restaurant—41413 Margarita Road Brigada Elite Ring Sports and Fitness —41800 Enterprise Circle South Toward Maximum Independence —41707 Winchester Road Destiny Hospice of Temecula —27919 Jefferson Avenue The Dental Suite at Temecula — 31560 Rancho Pueblo Road CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month of April, Code Enforcement responded to 104 web complaints. In addition, the division opened 67 code cases and forwarded 27 referrals to Public Works, Police,Animal Control, and Fire. Code Enforcement also pulled 500 non-conforming signs in the community and assisted 40 people at the Community Development Counter. April continued our weed abatement season. The City sent 654 "Notice to Abate" letters to applicable properties. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can be found in the following chart: TYPE OF CODE CASE TYPE TOTAL Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle 2 Vacant Home/ Property Maintenance/ Rodent/ Mold 9 Business or Home Occupation w/o license/CUP 8 Trash and Debris/ Dumping 5 Overgrown Vegetation /Weeds/ Fire Hazard 12 Green Pool/Vector Control 5 Graffiti 4 Noise/Nuisance/Animal Control 0 Trailer/ RV Stored/Boat 9 Construction w/o Permit/Building Code 7 Encroach Public ROW/Trash Cans 1 Other/Homeless Encampment 2 Signs Pulled -Violations 1 Public Safety& Health 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES 67 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate the past six months of activities in Temecula. Residential Foreclosure Tracking November December January February March April 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 DEFAULT 80 81 84 81 83 86 FORECLOSED 50 45 60 64 68 70 REO 85 1 90 1 81 1 83 1 81 1 76 TOTALS 215 1 216 225 228 232 232 Commercial Foreclosure Tracking November December January February March April 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 DEFAULT 2 2 2 2 2 1 FORECLOSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 REO 11 10 10 10 9 11 TOTALS 13 12 12 12 11 12 ATTACHMENT: Current Planning Activity Report PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0503 953-130-021 Brandon Rabidou 04/01/2016 Heather Young (951)308-2459 Plan Review Case Title/Description: HHH Large Day Care: a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Heather Young to operate a large day care facility at a single-family residence. The use will have a maximum of 14 children with 2 school aged children. The day care will provide breakfast, lunch and snacks daily. There will be 1 full-time employee and 1 part-time employee. Hours of operation are Monday thru Friday 7:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. Drop-off and pick-up times will between the hours of operation due to parents work schedules. The site is located 41342 Salt River Court. PA16-0505 922-220-013 James Atkins 04/01/2016 04/27/2016 Arvin Norouzi (818)653-1393 Approved Case Title/Description: PCS LTE SDSU MOD: a Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to allow for the addition of three(3)new RRU's, one(1) PCS main unit, one(1)equipment rack,three(3)hybrid tails, and six (6)coax jumpers to an existing wireless telecommunication facility. The site is located at 30025 Old Town Front Street. PA16-0506 922-033-012 Scott Cooper 04/04/2016 05/02/2016 Samantha Rita Starnes Approved Hershowitz Case Title/Description: Reptile Recon TUP:A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow for Reptile Recon to operate a live educational event with reptiles on July 4, 2016, September 13, 2016, December 15, 2016, and March 3, 2017 at 41975 4th Street PA16-0507 921-171-004 Jaime Cardenas 04/04/2016 04/04/2016 Brent Dyer II Approved Case Title/Description: Brent R. Dyer II (Home Occupation) PA16-0508 959-182-030 Jaime Cardenas 04/04/2016 04/04/2016 Remi Malahieude (951)553-6174 Approved Case Title/Description: The Gardanne Group(Home Occupation) PA16-0509 962-171-013 Jaime Cardenas 04/04/2016 04/14/2016 MICHAEL (951)297-0760 Approved MCDONALD Case Title/Description: Michael McDonald(Home Occupation) PA16-0511 919-384-015 Jaime Cardenas 04/05/2016 04/05/2016 Samuel Asiedu Approved Case Title/Description: Mega Game Truck(Home Occupation) PA16-0514 945-050-017 Brandon Rabidou 04/05/2016 Gray William (951)972-0865 Trinity Lutheran Plan Review Case Title/Description: Trinity Lutheran Church Mod:A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to modify the existing site lighting and upgrade the parking lot lighting at 30470 Pauba Road Page 1 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0517 922-073-025 Eric Jones 04/05/2016 Christopher (951)639-0301 Neil Cleveland Out Campbell Case Title/Description: First and Front/Old CUP PA93-0030 Minor Modification:A Minor Modification to allow for revisions to be made to the existing CUP for the Stampede.The project is located at 28721 Old Town Front Street. PA16-0519 922-044-025 Brandon Rabidou 04/05/2016 Richard Leigh (909)615-7622 Richard Leigh Plan Review Case Title/Description: 1909 Historical Appropriateness:An application for Historical Appropriateness to add an outdoor bar,walk-in cooler, expanded patio cover,fans, and heaters to the existing restaurant located at 28656 Old Town Front St. PA16-0520 920-142-015 04/06/2016 STANLEY Plan Review AZEVEDO Case Title/Description: Temeclua Pistol Training(Home Occupation) PA16-0521 922-322-002 Jaime Cardenas 04/06/2016 04/12/2016 Douglas Jantz Approved Case Title/Description: Divine Lawn and Landscape, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0522 944-220-003 Jaime Cardenas 04/06/2016 04/06/2016 Josefina Navedo Approved Case Title/Description: Josie's House Cleaning(Home Occupation) PA16-0528 944-332-060 Jaime Cardenas 04/07/2016 04/12/2016 Shunda Approved McGinest Case Title/Description: Hall Soul Food(Home Occupation) PA16-0529 954-261-032 Jaime Cardenas 04/07/2016 04/11/2016 Philip Chapman (951)545-1234 Approved Case Title/Description: PGC Construction, Inc. (Home Occupation) PA16-0532 920-142-075 Scott Cooper 04/07/2016 04/07/2016 WILLIAM Approved STANTON Case Title/Description: Case at Hand(Home Occupation) PA16-0535 959-211-008 Scott Cooper 04/07/2016 04/07/2016 Karen Black Approved Case Title/Description: Coffee House Counseling, Inc. (Home Occupation) PA16-0539 910-341-028 04/08/2016 Edgar Shrum Plan Review Case Title/Description: The Shrum Shop(Home Occupation) PA16-0540 960-110-009 Jaime Cardenas 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 Christopher Approved Salas Case Title/Description: SoCal Salas Music(Home Occupation) Page 2 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0545 960-271-019 Jaime Cardenas 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 David Bradley (951)374-0009 Approved Case Title/Description: Music Connection LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0549 955-442-053 Jaime Cardenas 04/11/2016 04/11/2016 Erwin Sedlmayer (951)265-3687 Approved Case Title/Description: Erwin Sedlmayer Consulting(Home Occupation) PA16-0555 04/12/2016 Jack Werdowatz Plan Review Case Title/Description: Cushy-Grip Inc. (Home Occupation) PA16-0556 921-040-018 James Atkins 04/12/2016 Diane Kucera (951)551-6659 Carlos Alvarez Plan Review Case Title/Description: Refuge Summer Series TUP: a Major Temporary Use Permit to allow of Refuge Brewery to conduct their 2016 Summer Series events. The dates are single Saturday night events on May 14, June 18, July 16,August 27, September 10, and October 8. Hours for the events will be from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on the listed dates. Food will be available from Food Trucks, and live entertainment will be provided from 6:30 p.m.to 9:30 p.m. on the listed dates. The site is located at 43040 Rancho Way. PA16-0557 Jaime Cardenas 04/12/2016 04/12/2016 Tavis Davidson (760)351-6577 Approved Case Title/Description: Tavis Davidson (Home Occupation) PA16-0563 944-261-007 Brandon Rabidou 04/12/2016 04/14/2016 Robert McCarthy Robert Approved McCarthy Case Title/Description: McCarthy Residence Mod:A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to remove an existing fireplace and replace it with a sliding glass door at 42244 Cosmic Drive PA16-0565 961-032-013 04/13/2016 Jose Garcia Plan Review Case Title/Description: Lunas Auto Detailing(Home Occupation) PA16-0569 920-074-007 04/13/2016 Jason Daoust Plan Review Case Title/Description: Handy Fireman (Home Occupation) PA16-0570 959-080-036 James Atkins 04/13/2016 Ron Owens Acie Inv Plan Review Case Title/Description: MOB Con Trailer TUP: a Temporary Use Permit to allow for a construction trailer to be located off-site. The construction trailer will be located within an existing parking area on the adjacent parcel to the Temecula MOB while under construction. The site is located at 31775 De Portola Road. PA16-0571 918-302-023 Jaime Cardenas 04/13/2016 04/28/2016 Kris Johnson (909)747-7337 Kris Johnson Approved Case Title/Description: Johnson Residence MOD:A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)for the Johnson Residence to remove two windows and install one new window and close-in a previous window at 45312 Esmerado Court Page 3 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0572 Jaime Cardenas 04/13/2016 04/14/2016 Faisal Alsawaf Approved Case Title/Description: Qwest Auto(Home Occupation) PA16-0573 922-331-001 Jaime Cardenas 04/13/2016 04/13/2016 Chris Ebbs Approved Case Title/Description: Chris Ebbs Plumbing(Home Occupation) PA16-0575 910-420-030 Jaime Cardenas 04/14/2016 Alexis Kaiser TEMECULA Plan Review TOWNE CENTER ASSOC Case Title/Description: Davis Enterprise Carnival Major TUP:A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow a carnival to be held in the Promenade Mall west Macy's parking lot.The carnival will operate May 6-8 and May12-15, 2016.Weekday hours are 5 pm- 11 pm and weekend hours are 2 pm- 11 pm. (APN: 910-420-010) PA16-0576 921-060-018 James Atkins 04/14/2016 James Roberts (951)216-1700 False Front Plan Review Case Title/Description: Tent Sale Minor Temporary Use Permit:A Minor Temporary Use Permit to allow for a BBQ tent sale to be conducted at 28011 Jefferson Avenue. PA16-0578 959-090-011 Eric Jones 04/14/2016 Andrew Dixon (951)240-5261 Thomas Olds Plan Review Case Title/Description: Temecula Healthcare Center Minor Modification(Planning Review Only):A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to allow for down spouts to be placed on a recently approved structure located at 44280 Campanula Way PA16-0579 960-191-005 04/14/2016 DANNY WILDER Plan Review Case Title/Description: Danny Wilder(Home Occupation) PA16-0581 Jaime Cardenas 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 Daniel Page (951)870-7194 Approved Case Title/Description: Precision Electrical Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0583 921-020-001 Brandon Rabidou 04/15/2016 Kelly Daken EMWD Plan Review Case Title/Description: EMWD TUP: A Temporary Use Permit for a construction yard and construction trailer at 42565 Avenida Alvarado PA16-0584 916-373-007 Jaime Cardenas 04/15/2016 04/28/2016 Arturo Gonzalez (714)273-3574 Greg Garver Approved Case Title/Description: Garver MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to allow for the replacement of 4 front elevation windows,with 2 large windows. The new windows will match the existing architectural style of the existing windows. The site is located at 28888 Lake Front Road. Page 4 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0588 955-020-001 Jaime Cardenas 04/15/2016 Karl Blackmun (951)541-6876 Plan Review Case Title/Description: TVHS Bingo License: a bingo license for TVHS to conduct charitable bingo events for a one year period. The events will be conducted at Temecula Valley High School during the evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The site is located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road. PA16-0589 944-341-020 Jaime Cardenas 04/15/2016 04/20/2016 Roberto Nuques Approved Case Title/Description: DLR&Associates(Home Occupation) PA16-0590 953-421-001 James Atkins 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 GEORGE VEGA Approved Case Title/Description: Boondocks West(Home Occupation) PA16-0592 953-050-036 Jaime Cardenas 04/15/2016 The Planning& The Planning& (800)344-2944 Carefree Plan Review Zoning Resource Zoning Resource Communities Company Company CA Case Title/Description: Hreritage Zoning Letter:A Zoning Letter for the property Heritage Mobile Home Estates located at 31130 South General Kearny(APN 953-050-036&953-050-005). PA16-0593 920-100-018 Scott Cooper 04/18/2016 05/02/2016 ShantAzizian Greg Spiro Approved Case Title/Description: Protea Downspout Modification: A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to revise the approved elevations for PA15-0172 for the addition of external downspouts and to remove the COA requiring for downspouts to be internalized. The project is located at 27350 Nicolas Road. PA16-0594 955-142-013 Brandon Rabidou 04/18/2016 Jonathan Smith (858)735-2788 Jonathan Smith Plan Review Case Title/Description: Smith Residence Mod:A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to install a new kitchen window in a kitchen nook area located at 31687 Calle Barcaldo PA16-0597 916-441-003 Brandon Rabidou 04/18/2016 04/18/2016 ROXANNE Approved SPEARS Case Title/Description: Play From The Heart PA16-0600 944-333-011 04/18/2016 Patricia Justice Plan Review Case Title/Description: Hugs 4 Kids N Steam, Inc. (Home Occupation) PA16-0601 919-410-022 Jaime Cardenas 04/18/2016 04/18/2016 Keith Whitehead Approved Case Title/Description: KTW Investments, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0602 962-121-012 Jaime Cardenas 04/18/2016 Jeff Boyer (760)918-4469 Kirk Lamar Plan Review Case Title/Description: Lamar Residence Exception:A Minor Exception to reduce the rear yard setback to 4' 3"at an existing residence located at 45443 Callesito Altar Page 5 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0603 909-310-015 James Atkins 04/18/2016 Vicky Phillips (951)296-3466 Diamond Plan Review ext 202 Hearts Ranch Case Title/Description: Diamond Hearts MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)to allow for a change in the proposed landscape concept plan. The change consists of replacing the originally proposed African Sumac trees at the south perimeter of the site,with Canary Palm trees. The site is located at the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Fuller Road. PA16-0605 957-580-040 James Atkins 04/19/2016 04/29/2016 Dave Henrickson (951)764-2302 Approved Case Title/Description: McLeod Patio: a Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to allow for the construction of a 616 square foot patio on the rear of the existing home. The patio will extend the existing gable roof to form the new patio cover.The site is located at 40813 Carlena Lane. PA16-0607 957-712-002 Jaime Cardenas 04/19/2016 05/03/2016 Tina Approved Mcconnaughey Case Title/Description: SourceForce, LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0610 910-272-020 Jaime Cardenas 04/19/2016 Total Production Total Production PACIFIC Void Group Group MAKAI PROP MANAGEMEN T Case Title/Description: OneSource Distributors Open House TUP:A Minor Temporary Use Permit for OneSource Distributors to host a tabletop product display at 41437 Bueking Drive on April 28 between 11 a.m. through 2 p.m. PA16-0612 910-272-020 Jaime Cardenas 04/19/2016 04/28/2016 Total Production Total Production PACIFIC Approved Group Group MAKAI PROP MANAGEMEN T Case Title/Description: OneSource Distributors Open House TUP:A Minor Temporary Use Permit for OneSource Distributors to host a tabletop product display at 41437 Bueking Drive on April 28 between 11 a.m. through 2 p.m. PA16-0613 959-423-072 Jaime Cardenas 04/20/2016 04/20/2016 Lucina Lopez (951)821-0263 Approved Case Title/Description: Lucina Lopez House Cleaning Services(Home Occupation) PA16-0620 Jaime Cardenas 04/22/2016 04/22/2016 Cindy Rehm (707)246-6973 Approved Case Title/Description: Cruise Planners PA16-0623 965-041-019 04/22/2016 Brittany Stewart Plan Review Case Title/Description: Sno Cones and Snacks(Home Occupation) PA16-0624 920-152-009 Jaime Cardenas 04/22/2016 04/22/2016 Sandra Williams Approved Case Title/Description: Art Party, USA(Home Occupation) Page 6 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0628 960-102-008 Dale West 04/25/2016 04/29/2016 Glen Hulsen Approved Case Title/Description: Flooring&Home Maintenance(Home Occupation) PA16-0629 922-046-028 Brandon Rabidou 04/25/2016 05/11/2016 Brittany (909)868-8419 Christopher Approved Mendibles Baily Case Title/Description: Baily's Old Town Night Market TUP:A Temporary Use Permit to allow a booth style market in the courtyard of Baily's on May 12, 2016, July 14, 2016 and November 10, 2016 located 28699 Old Town Front Street PA16-0638 954-280-021 Scott Cooper 04/26/2016 04/26/2016 David Bettge Approved Case Title/Description: Screenchex LLC(Home Occupation) PA16-0639 909-270-045 Brandon Rabidou 04/26/2016 Fenn Moun (949)466-8978 JEFFERSON Plan Review AVENUE TEMECULA Case Title/Description: Plaza Seville Minor MOD:A6,478 square foot drought tolerant landscape Minor Modification (Planning Review Only)for Plaza Seville located at 27375 Jefferson Ave PA16-0641 961-290-002 Brandon Rabidou 04/27/2016 Henry-Ann Henry-Ann (951)302-2600 PARKER Plan Review Company Inc Company Inc MEDICAL CENTER Case Title/Description: Parker Medical Center MOD:A Minor Modification(Planning Review Only)to alter the exterior elevations of the Parker Medical Center located at 44605 Avenida de Missiones PA16-0642 961-173-006 04/27/2016 James Milbauer (951)216-0613 Plan Review Case Title/Description: Temecula Auto and Truck Mobile Repair PA16-0646 955-201-012 Jaime Cardenas 04/28/2016 04/28/2016 ENRIQUE Approved ALVARADO Case Title/Description: Enrique Alvarado(Home Occupation) PA16-0647 945-090-001 Scott Cooper 04/29/2016 Bill Parker (951)676-2773 South Pointe Plan Review Dev Inc Case Title/Description: TTM 30434 EOT:An Extension of Time application for Tentative Tract Map 30424 (previously approved under PA08-0281)to extend the Tentative Tract Map approval for one year. PA16-0652 959-292-054 Jaime Cardenas 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 Carol Beveridge Approved Case Title/Description: Busy B Window Cleaning(Home Occupation) Page 7 of 8 Assigned Planner Approval Business PA Number Project Name APN Apply Date Date Applicant Company Name Phone Owner Status PA16-0655 921-830-041 Jaime Cardenas 04/29/2016 Amanda Roe (800)344-2944 OCC Retail Plan Review ext 4604 Case Title/Description: Overland Corporate Center ZL: a Zoning verification letter for the propoerty located at 41653 Margarita Road(APN 921-830-041). PREAPP16-055 940-310-031 Scott Cooper 04/12/2016 Gil Mendoza (951)286-9520 Void 4 Case Title/Description: Parking Deck Pre-App:A Pre-Application to construct a parking deck over ground level parking for 32 additional parking spaces and a new driveway for an existing building located at 43500 Ridge Park Drive. PREAPP16-056 940-310-030 Scott Cooper 04/13/2016 04/28/2016 Ellen Kim (951)403-9725 M &A Completed 6 Case Title/Description: Parking Deck Pre-App:A Pre-Application to construct a parking deck over ground level parking for 33 additional parking spaces and a new driveway for an existing building located at 43500 Ridge Park Drive. Page 8 of 8 Item No . 15 Approvals City Attorney All Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of April 2016. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service 3,150 "Priority One" calls for service 44 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 6.67 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours 226 Special Events hours 102 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 755 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 74 Training hours 37 Total Volunteer hours 1091 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 0/1 Safety presentations/Training 1/0 Special events 2 Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/0 Businesses visited 0 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 4/0 Station Tour 1 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits 12/1 Sq. Footage of Graffiti Removed 1,105 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served 207 Sets of fingerprints taken 43 Police reports filed 18 Citations signed off 26 Total receipts $2,995 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP/ SET) On sight felony arrests 13 On sight misdemeanor arrests 15 Felony arrest warrants served 5 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 24 Follow-up investigations 8 Parole/Probation Searches 0/17 Pedestrian Checks 47 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 27 Crime Free Housing Checks 289 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations 1069 Grant funded D.U.I. /Traffic safety checkpoints 3 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0 D.U.I. Arrests 19 Non-hazardous citations 416 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 110 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 77 Parking citations 107 School Zone 36 Seatbelts 35 Cell Phone Cites 161 Injury collisions 34 INVESTIGATIONS Beginning Caseload 230 Total Cases Assigned 67 Total Cases Closed 69 Search Warrants Served 8 Arrests 3 Out of Custody Filings 3 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service 428 Felony arrest/filings 1 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 24 Traffic Citations 1 Fingerprints/Livescans 241 Total receipts $7,315 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felony arrests 1 Misdemeanor arrests 10 Reports 17 Youth counseled 170 Meetings 91 Item No . 16 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager (SY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2016 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. City of 2re�nzecufa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT MAY 24, 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Citywide Slurry Seal for Arterial Streets $658,750 • City Council approved the solicitation of Slurry arterial streets (Winchester, Jefferson, and construction bids at the January 12, 2016 Temecula Parkway) with the goal to prolong their meeting useful life and avoid much more costly roadway • Bid opening is scheduled for May 25, 2016 rehabilitation measures Interstate-15/ State Route 79 South $50,646,123 • Processing project approvals through Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Caltrans Construction of ramp system that will improve • Anticipate soliciting construction bids in late access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway/ summer of 2016 State Route 79 South Pavement Rehabilitation Program — $395,000 • Bids were opened on April 28,2016 Temecula Parkway(Bedford Court to • Award of a construction contract is Pechanga Parkway), PW12-13 scheduled for the 05/24/2016 City Council Rehabilitation and improvement of pavement meeting conditions pursuant to the Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program Pechanga Parkway Widening, PW15-14 $5,000,000 • City Council approved a Professional Widening of Pechanga Parkway between Via Services Agreement for the Design and the Gilberto to North Casino Drive Environmental Document at their meeting on April 26, 2016 • Design is underway Winchester Road at Roripaugh Road $92,000 • City Council approved the solicitation of Signal construction bids at the January 12, 2016 Provides for the design and construction of meeting modifications by providing designated left run • Bid opening is scheduled for May 24, 2016 movements from Roripaugh Road onto Winchester Road City of 2re�nzecufa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT MAY 24, 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (continued) INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Old Town Front Street Pavement and $770,000 • Construction is underway Storm Drain Rehabilitation, PW12-14 • Anticipate completion August 2016 Replacement of the cross gutter at the south end of Old Town Front Street with underground pipes; rehabilitate Old Town Front Street from Temecula Parkway to First Street Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 $2,764,093 • Construction began March 28, 2016 Design and construction of a park and ride facility • Anticipated completion: November 2016 in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground $648,888 • Notice to Proceed with Design and Enhancement, PW12-20 Fabrication was issued on June 9, 2015 Design and construct a new innovative play area • Design plans (90%) have been reviewed to replace the existing equipment and comments were provided to the designer • An agreement for construction will be executed at a later date City of 2re�nzecufa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT MAY 24, 2016 PROJECT NAME ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES BRIEF DESCRIPTION LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS DePortola Professional Building • The sewer main and required water main realignment Located at the corner of DePortola Road and Margarita should be completed by the end of May. Road Murrieta Creek Restoration Project • Creek restoration has been begun with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Riverside County placement of additional BMP protection and the Flood Control and Water Conservation District establishment of the cement stabilization plant. Creek soil cement sidewall construction has begun Terracina • The sewer main segment along Deer Hollow Standard Pacific Housing Development in County between Peach Tree Street and Peppercorn Drive is complete • Anticipate the sewer main segment between Pechanga Parkway and Peachtree Street will be constructed during the summer of 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Citywide Tree Trimming and Maintenance To be • Responses to Request for Proposals (RFP) Services determined were received on April 21, 2016 Annual Agreement for Services • Responses to the RFP are currently being reviewed Fire Station #84 Estimated • Contractor is scheduled to start the work on Paint exterior wrought iron fence around facility Cost$9,500 May18, 2016 • Anticipated completion: June 2016 Former YMCA Building Estimated • Work is underway Prepare building for temporary TCSD use. Work Cost Anticipated completion: by June10, 2016 includes interior painting, roof patching, carpet $12,000 cleaning, re-keying and re-certifying fire sprinkler system City of 2re�nzecufa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT MAY 24, 2016 PROJECT NAME TOTAL BRIEF DESCRIPTION PROJECT ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES COST MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (continue) Janitorial Services for Park Restrooms To be • Responses to Request for Proposals (RFP) and Gazebo/Picnic Shelters determined were received on April 28, 2016 Annual Agreement for Services • Responses to RFP are currently being reviewed Landscape Maintenance Services To be • Responses to Request for Proposals (RFP) Annual Agreement for Services determined were received on April 29, 2016 • Responses to RFP are currently being reviewed Margarita Park Splash Pad Signage Estimated • Anticipated completion: June 2016 Construct and install Eagle Soar signage at entry Cost$4,500 to facility • Building Permit has been approved and the sign is under construction Playground Equipment Enhancement and $275,000 • Priority list and replacement program are Safety Surfacing being prepared Replace aging play structures and associated safety surfacing Temecula Valley Museum $11,000 • Work is underway Replace all leaking dual glazed windows with UV . Anticipated completion: June 2016 blocking glass Temecula Valley Museum $10,020 • Painting project is complete Paint exterior of building and replace rotted fascia boards and portion of exterior wood steps REQUESTS TO SPEAK City Council Meeting 05/24/16 f REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA ,vav Date: xI I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: ❑ Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑ �r lr4L- end Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: '�C "� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 1959 Date: I wish to speak on: Q Public Comment CITY (�UNCIL/CSD/SARDA/THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: !�j Agenda Item No. For 171 Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Address: Phone Number:, If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: SVDpoy � -+�j' 6NLIS+,6D TRO (GG�- Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA YV 1 /\M Date: �J • 24 I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUN L BUSINESS Subject: I Agenda Item No. (��) For X Against El Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name /when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. �K Name: /�'[l�tlr ( z � Address: / Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA ��y� "" luau Date: 7/ �[I I wish to speak on: dPublic Comment CITY COUNCIL BJU1�'�S,I�N�ESS Subject: 7-exw_ctJk, Vall9I u� DU AAf�Mmi— r/11�f LZAgenda Item No. J'a— For Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Mar-1 Pn P, Address: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. �� REQUEST TO SPEAK a CITY OF TEMECULA im Date: I wish to speak on: Public CommentCITYCOUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: / VH Agenda Item No. For Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. 0 Name: ��) �°GCIInn / /- Address: `)! �� , Phone Number If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK 3 CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: 5 '� I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/ CSD/SARDA/THA/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: Agenda Item No. For Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 1:74n rbdAk N04 � Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK /� CITY OF TEMECULA was Date: I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: ❑ Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Address: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK 5 CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD //SS,ARDA/THA//TPFA (Circle One) Subject: 1� X Agenda Item No. For Against F-1 J 7 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: I� S6'0 Address: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA @ Date: I wish to speak on: D Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD / SARDA/THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: j�- l� 1 '-� Agenda Item No. For F] Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk REjqf to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK 7 CITY OF TEMECULA a Date: I wis h to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD / SARDA/THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: NAgenda Item No. —LZ= For [� Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Address: = ? / '� Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: ry1j Imo- /-N'� k I� I/ /\( �� Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA �9ee Date: a I I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: 1 Agenda Item No. For Against V1 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: /� Address: �� Phone Number. If you are representing an orgNnization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK 9 CITY OF TEMECULA �,sK9 Date: Z I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY WUNCIL/ CSD / SARDA[THA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: 00w,I r/fiL— A4-rJ ❑ Agenda Item No. ForAgainst F-1 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk urior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: pq"t � A�lri ""�0 . Address: �� If you are reprdsenting an organization or group, lease give the name: do �c Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK /J CITY OF TEMECULA G Date: Hm 29 ; 206 _ I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: ❑ Agenda Item No. 2 l2 For E� Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: ��C/FI' Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: LIEU R4\vvNI-C-9 Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA 0 Date: 5 -Z L4 I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD / SARDA/THA/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: d IR Agenda Item No. 17— For ❑ Against 141 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prlor to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: Ji FF 1�vnACZr:t,✓S [� (� Address: � Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: L(JS f`\e i L (Jai A-1 1A k Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA �, e 189 Date: I wish to speak on: Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/ CSD /SA)DA/T /TPFA (Circle One) Big - Subject: - 7imeecat—Lik vv Agenda Item No. U For Against El Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk R[iE to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk arior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 1ISW&aAS ; Address: Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK j CITY OF TEMECULA IY89 Date: HAA 21120(16 I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: t=t-AE 0 U LA VAWL J- CC R-FA HELI P609-1 Agenda Item No. For p Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk urior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. uII p. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: 71�� tt h I CISSt� Address: ?) hone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA G1989 Date: MAH 24 , 2ici6 I wish to speak on: ❑ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: '5CfA62,JLA VpLtEH i4CCSRIP�- HI;LtPDK Agenda Item No. I2. 2 For 0 Against Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. "Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: fi�1 A L moi\j name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.