HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-13 PC Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 16-13
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 Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
('Project').
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04-0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services, Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change),
PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07-0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198,
PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17
approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application (PA13-0141) and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons
had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
HH. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-06,
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Project (PA13-0141) and approve a Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the Project.
II. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received
at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-05, recommending approval of the Major
Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Project (13-
0141).
JJ. On July 27, 2015, prior to the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing
scheduled for the project, staff received a letter from legal counsel representing the Los
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. 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:
Lu atson, 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. 16-13 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: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GUERRIERO, TELESIO, TURLEY-
TREJO, WATTS
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NONE
ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS YOUMANS
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NONE
Luke Watson, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
RECIRCULATED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
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 FIR.
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.
IL Proicct Objectives.
As originally established in the 2006 FIR, 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 Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Studv
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine potential
significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less
than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of
project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be
significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agricultural
and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E)
Cultural Resources; (F)Geology and Soils; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (1-1) Land Use and
Planning; (1) Mineral Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; (M)
Transportation and Traffic; and (N) Utilities and Service Systems. In addition, aesthetic issues regarding
scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and visual character were determined not to
be significant. The project would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of
hazardous materials, hazardous emissions, location of a hazardous materials site, public airports,
emergency response plans, or wildland fire hazards. The project would also not result in significant
impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, or noise impacts related to a public
airport. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were
studied in the SEIR: (A) Aesthetics (light and glare); (B) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (safety in
vicinity to private airstrip); and (C) Noise.
A. On December 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a
Notice of Preparation(NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies,
organizations, and persons that may be interested in the project. The NOP requested comments
within 30 days of the notice. On December 11, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section
15082(c)(1) of the Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from
interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. No comments were received on areas other than
those already found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR
The Recirculated SEIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact
without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant
environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based
on the more expansive discussions contained in the Recirculated SEIR.
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 anytime of the day or night. Helicopter landing
lights during the approach to the interim helistop will be directed forward toward the helistop touchdown
and liftoff(TLOF) lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. During use of the permanent
helistop, the landing light will be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The helicopter's landing lights
would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop, not downward upon non-hospital uses, and would
not spillover onto adjacent uses. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce
lighting on non-hospital ground uses. The distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential
property line is approximately 225 feet, and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest
residential unit is approximately 305 feet. Because of the distance, and the focused lighting within the
urban environment, the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result
in significant impacts.
In addition, the lighting used to facilitate the safe transport of patients between the helistop locations and
the hospital would be intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off
before its departure. The lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass-through is
needed and would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with
City lighting standards. Lighting not regulated by the FAA or Caltrans Aeronautics will comply with
City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655. For the interim helistop,
spill-over would also be reduced through landscaping, shielding of light fixtures, and intermittent use.
Lighting on the permanent helistop would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting
shadows on adjacent properties. Lighting would also be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and
lighting from surrounding uses, not affecting viewers' nighttime vision.
The project would also not introduce substantial glare to the project area because the project would
construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage buildings with typical building materials, which
would not create substantial daytime glare. Any daytime glare from the helicopter would be intermittent,
as the helicopter would only be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading and unloading
approximately eight times per month. Because of the limited and temporary source of potential glare
from implementation of the project, impacts related to glare are less than significant.
Potential Impact: The project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to
lighting and glare.
Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(x)(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. Potentiallv 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." In the environmental areas of noise there are instances
where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Noise
Potential Impact: The project may expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and
Unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: The project would result in temporary and periodic exceedances of the
City's Noise Ordinance(Section 9.20.040) as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops. The
City's Noise Ordinance states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level
on single-family residential land uses to exceeding 65 dB Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family
residential. The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 of the Recirculated
SEIR would be limited, occurring approximately eight times per month(four departure operations and
four arrival operations) as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind
conditions(for a majority of flights to and from the hospital), the noise generated by helicopter flights to
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.
VI1. ProiectAlternatives
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(1)).
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 11 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
lelistop 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 I 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 11 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 comer 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:
L 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 were considered but
ultimately found not to substantially reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable noise impacts or
meet the project's objectives for the various reasons stated below.
1. Alternative One—No Project/Existing Condition Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that the existing
condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition, none
of the required implementation measures, such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista
apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path, adding a second egress/ingress flight path, or
trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital that would require approval and permits
from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also
not be developed.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative
would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project's less-than-significant
impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed.
However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards, as the landing site does not
meet the standards of the FAA's Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria
for a helistop, and pilots need to divert from the existing flight path depending on wind conditions. This
alternative would also have similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed
project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative, and
additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project.
Therefore, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the
proposed project.
In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would only
partially meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services
within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However,
because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics review and
approval, and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion, the No
Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of
development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, hazards impacts, and other
environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. Therefore, the No Project/Existing
Condition Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
Finding: Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, the existing conditions will continue and
the City-approved helistop would not be developed. Under the No Project/Existing Condition
Alternative, impacts to aesthetics may be reduced, but hazard impacts would increase. This alternative
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 Project/Existing Condition Alternative.
2. Alternative Two—No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative assumes that none of the
requested project approvals are granted; that the proposed storage building would not be developed, and
that the City-approved helistop would be developed. The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot
by 60-foot helistop that would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm located near the northeast corner of
the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include the
City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed
Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction, and a second flight path(as listed as a
condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter)that would travel both to and from the helistop over
the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site. This Alternative would also
involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings,
and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as
required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the
apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City, but these lights would be
requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings. If the owner of the apartment buildings
refused to install the lights, the applicant would be required to rotate the southeastern flight path
clockwise as required by Caltrans Aeronautics, resulting in frequent crosswind conditions for pilots
during approaches and departures.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: This Alternative may require installation of red
obstruction lights on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings, which is not in the control of the
applicant or City, and if installed, would result in greater lighting impacts. In lieu of red obstruction
lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings, because new residential uses are within the current City-
approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division would require Temecula Valley Hospital to rotate the
single proposed flight path clockwise(approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista multi-family
residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure.
Regarding noise, for a majority of helicopter operations (prevailing winds at the interim and permanent
helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater single-event noise
than the proposed project. However, this Alternative would exceed the exterior short term noise standard
at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing
and Santa Ana conditions. The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater
impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and
similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is not environmentally superior compared
to the proposed project.
In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would
(consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible
emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objectives of
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 Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would
not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council therefore rejects the
No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative.
3. Alternative Three—Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The Alternative Interim helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed
interim helistop at a different location on the project site, which would be at ground level in the
southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and
approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This alternative would include an
east-west flight path that would cross the front of the hospital site as it runs parallel to (and 144 feet north
of) Temecula Parkway. It would also travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e., the
Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). This helistop would include the same design,
lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would be required
on (or next to) several Southern California Edison(SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn
pilots of their locations at night. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path
design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and FAA). This alternative would include development of the proposed
one-story, 5,000 square foot storage building.
Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project due to a more visible
helistop with security fencing, lighting, and potentially lighting poles. Specifically, this Alternative would
be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway. Should
SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed
on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this
flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the
southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path, requiring this light pole be lighted at night
with red obstruction lights. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially
additional lighting pole structures along the roadway.
The hazards impacts by this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the flight path
that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. The flight path required for this site(because
of the prevailing winds at the project site) is an east-west flight path that would run parallel to Temecula
Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim
alternative site's flight path and the planned MOB 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface.
Accordingly, the alternative interim site's flight path along Temecula Parkway would cause an additional
hazard related to one power pole located directly south of the site, and additional red obstruction lighting
along Temecula Parkway would be required along with a variance for a transitional surface penetration
from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. If SCE did not install obstruction lights on its existing poles, the
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 hnefim Helistop Site Alternative that is not needed for the proposed
project indicates that potential hazards impacts related to the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site.
Further, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative in prevailing winds not only
travels parallel to Temecula Parkway, a major arterial and state highway, but also across the frontage of
the existing hospital, and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence, the helicopters would
reduce altitude (or increase altitude) as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on
the helistop that is 114 feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity, and
increased risk of driver and bicyclist distraction along Temecula Parkway during helicopter operations
could increase traffic accident potential, or could cause confusion/distraction to patients and visitors
entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take-offs 114 feet away from
Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian safety along the sidewalk that front the hospital and bicyclist
safety on Temecula Parkway due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter).
Noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced in comparison with the proposed project, but
would continue to be significant and unavoidable because helicopter noise from the Alternative Interim
Helistop Site Alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise and the
existing ambient noise levels and would directly impact residential areas. This alternative would exceed
the exterior short-term noise standard at 9 of the 10 receptor sites in prevailing winds and at 8 of the 10
receptor sites in Santa Ana wind conditions. Receptor Sites 2, 3, 6A, 6B, and 8, which are located furthest
away from the alternative interim helistop east/west flight path, would generally experience lower
maximum short-term noise levels than from the proposed interim helistop. Conversely, Sites I 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 Flelistop 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 Flelistop Site Alternative would not meet the project
objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
Finding: Under the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative, there would be greater impacts related to
aesthetics, greater and potentially significant impacts related to hazards, and reduced noise impacts that
would continue to be significant and unavoidable. The Council finds the Alternative Interim Helistop
Alternative would not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council
therefore rejects the Alternative Interim Helistop Alternative.
4. Alternative Four—Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would
develop and operate helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location until start of
Phase N 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 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.
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 I 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 pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that
fronts hospital due to rotorwash.
The noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a
maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana
wind conditions. In comparison, the noise from the interim helistop location would be 93.4 dB Lmax, in
prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future'fower
Location as Interim Flelistop 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 Flelistop
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. In addition, Sites 3, 5 and 7 are located adjacent to
the densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and Country Glen Community and would impact more
receivers than the Sites at the non-residential equestrian trail and lower density residential uses within the
Los Ranchitos community. Moreover, compared to the proposed project, the helicopter overflight noise
from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term
noise standard at the same number of receptor locations during prevailing wind conditions (for a majority
of flights) and at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. The Future Tower Location as
Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable impact because
helicopter noise from the alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise
and the existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Thus, noise impacts from the Future Tower
Location as Interim Flelistop 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 Flelistop Site
Alternative would require two interim helistop sites, each with new operating plans that could be
disruptive to operations of hospital, especially the transfer of emergency patients. This would result in
interfering with the project objective to provide superior, easily accessible emergency services in an
operationally efficient manner. In addition, the full review and permitting processes required by this
Alternative would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop, and would not fully satisfy
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 northeast/southwest flight
paths, similar to those identified for the permanent helistop. In addition, this Alternative would implement
the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop, and no additional obstruction or
lead-in lighting would be required. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would include
development of the storage building.
The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require helistop and flight path design
approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria (Riverside County ALUC, Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics, and FAA); and seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California
Building Code(CBC); including the following:
• Gravity Support Modifications: (1) Strengthen roof beams by welding cover plates or
tees to the beams; (2) Strengthen beam connections by fillet welding; and (3)
Strengthen the full length of approximately eight structural building columns with
cover plates. This structural work would impact use of the following hospital areas
during construction:
a. First Floor: parts of kitchen, main housekeeping, pharmacy, and the only
service corridor
b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms, patient mentoring room,
respiratory services work room, and main corridor
c. Third Floor: rive 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 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(IIVAC) system may need to be replaced.
Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months. Exterior construction areas or
near construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable, and would affect hospital
operations.
Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The proposed interim helistop site would be required
to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site
Alternative. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required
lighting than the proposed interim helistop. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and similar impacts related to
hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts, because the hospital is a sensitive receptor and
construction would occur during its operations, construction noise would be greater under this alternative
than the proposed project. Helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both
the City's allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels. Thus, noise related to operation of
the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Therefore, because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics
impacts, similar hazard impacts, greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise
impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative.
In regard to meeting the project objectives, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would
require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator
to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop, and
implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The
construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would
hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise, vibration, and potential hazards related
to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative, portions of the existing hospital would be
unusable, such as the rooms on the top floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such
as cranes, and would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the
proposed project.
Therefore, implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be disruptive to
operations of hospital, which would result in interference with the project objective of providing superior,
easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. In addition, the full review and
permitting processes required by this Alternative would further delay the introduction of a permitted
helistop facility. As such, it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility
that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital
doctors. This alternative would meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with
surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop
Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
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.
S'T'ATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval
of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project(the"project").
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other
benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a
project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be
considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific
reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must
be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for
proceeding with this project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in
this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant and unavoidable noise impacts generated by helicopter activities. In making this
finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts and has
indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the
following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the project
notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project.
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either
lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
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 STEM[ 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.
1-1. 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 SE[R 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.
24
DRAFT CC RESOLUTION
CC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE RECIRCULATED
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL
HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING
MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP
RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR
MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE
HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.
("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on
October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development
Overlay-9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel
Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property
consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway
79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
("Project').
B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or
opposition to this matter.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October
28, 2005.
G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning
Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463).
J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of
information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the
City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)."
L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an
opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for
the Project (PA04-0463).
N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of
Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal
Health Services, Inc.
O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the
City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and
permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project
into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside
County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens
Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was
significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation
measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts.
P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final
Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare,
and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources;
(4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency.
Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the
extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the
Project.
R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new
Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and
circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007.
S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning
Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change),
PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201
(Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference,
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support of or opposition to this matter.
T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending
that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project
and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the
Development Plan (PA07-0200).
V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its
approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463,
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map
for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010.
W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan
(PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support
or opposition to this matter.
X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10,
entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED
FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA
PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198,
PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses
the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution.
Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.,
filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner
in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-
28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194
and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application
No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di
testify either in support or opposition to this matter.
DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due
consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17
approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an
addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major
Modification at a noticed public hearing.
EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed
Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a
Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the
Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new
locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a
permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a
later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage
building for non-hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and
storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of
the previously approved helistop.
FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the
Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing.
Il. 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 CECA 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.
W. 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 A
FINDINGS IN FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
EXIIIBrr A
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. 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, Tight, 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 Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Studv
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine potential
significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less
than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of
project characteristics producing effects of this type.The following issue areas were determined not to be
significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A)Agricultural
and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D)Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E)
Cultural Resources; (F)Geology and Soils; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and
Planning; (1) 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 groundbome 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 Sienificant Without Mitieation 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 anytime of the day or night. Helicopter landing
lights during the approach to the interim helistop will be directed forward toward the helistop touchdown
and liftoff(TLOF) lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. During use of the permanent
helistop,the landing light will be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The helicopter's landing lights
would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop,not downward upon non-hospital uses,and would
not spillover onto adjacent uses. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce
lighting on non-hospital ground uses. The distance from the interim helistop site to the nearest residential
property line is approximately 225 feet,and the distance from the permanent helistop to the nearest
residential unit is approximately 305 feet. Because of the distance, and the focused lighting within the
urban environment, the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not result
in significant impacts.
In addition, the lighting used to facilitate the safe transport of patients between the helistop locations and
the hospital would be intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off
before its departure. The lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass-through is
needed and would be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with
City lighting standards. Lighting not regulated by the FAA or Caltrans Aeronautics will comply with
City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Municipal Code,and Ordinance 655. For the interim helistop,
spill-over would also be reduced through landscaping, shielding of light fixtures,and intermittent use.
Lighting on the permanent helistop would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting
shadows on adjacent properties. Lighting would also be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and
lighting from surrounding uses,not affecting viewers' nighttime vision.
The project would also not introduce substantial glare to the project area because the project would
construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage buildings with typical building materials,which
would not create substantial daytime glare. Any daytime glare from the helicopter would be intermittent,
as the helicopter would only be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading and unloading
approximately eight times per month. Because of the limited and temporary source of potential glare
from implementation of the project, impacts related to glare are less than significant.
Potential Impact: The project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to
lighting and glare.
Finding: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that"changes or
alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
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 dE 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 Sieniticant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than
Sienificant 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." In the environmental areas of noise there are instances
where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Noise
Potential Impact: The project may expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies.
Finding: The City makes the above finding in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA
Guidelines 15091(a)(3) and determines that this potentially significant impact is Significant and
Unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Finding: The project would result in temporary and periodic exceedances of the
City's Noise Ordinance(Section 9.20.040) as helicopters arrive and depart the proposed helistops. The
City's Noise Ordinance states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level
on single-family residential land uses to exceeding 65 dB Lmax, and 65-70 dB Lmax for multi-family
residential. The duration of the maximum single-event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 of the Recirculated
SEIR would be limited,occurring approximately eight times per month(four departure operations and
four arrival operations) as the helicopter is approaching and departing the helistop. In prevailing wind
conditions(for a majority of flights to and from the hospital),the noise generated by helicopter flights to
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. ProiectAlternatives
A. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated in the SEIR
CEQA requires that an FIR 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(t)).
CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered. Among the factors that can be used to
eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an FIR 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) I and a 325-space parking facility; therefore, the location for MOB I 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 I 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 1 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 II. The MOB 2 site also has
additional constraints making it an infeasible alternative. Specifically, the Flight path required would
result in low-altitude helicopters Flying over Temecula Parkway and obstruction clearance constraints
with the MOB I 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 tlelistop 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 11 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
comer 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 northem 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(e)).
The Recirculated SEIR analyzed five project alternatives. These alternatives were considered but
ultimately found not to substantially reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable noise impacts or
meet the project's objectives for the various reasons stated below.
1. Alternative One—No Project/Existing Condition Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative assumes that the existing
condition would continue and that the City-approved helistop would not be developed. In addition,none
of the required implementation measures, such as installing obstruction lights on the Madera Vista
apartment buildings, realignment of the flight path,adding a second egress/ingress flight path,or
trimming the trees within the drainage adjacent to the hospital that would require approval and permits
from state and federal resource agencies, would be completed. The proposed storage building would also
not be developed.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: The No Project/Existing Condition Alternative
would result in fewer impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project's less-than-significant
impacts because the helistop facility would not be developed and helistop lighting would not be installed.
However, this Alternative would result in greater impacts related to hazards, as the landing site does not
meet the standards of the FAA's Heliport Design Guide or the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics criteria
for a helistop,and pilots need to divert from the existing flight path depending on wind conditions. This
alternative would also have similar or potentially greater impacts related to noise than the proposed
project. The significant and unavoidable noise impacts would not be reduced under this alternative,and
additional or more intense impacts could result that would not occur from the proposed project.
Therefore,the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the
proposed project.
In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative would only
partially meet the project objectives of providing superior,easily accessible emergency medical services
within the City of Temecula because the helicopter does transport patients as necessary. However,
because existing use of the EMS site has not completed full FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics review and
approval,and has varied flight patterns due to wind conditions and pilot discretion,the No
Project/Existing Condition Alternative would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of
development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes,noise impacts, hazards impacts,and other
environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. Therefore,the No Project/Existing
Condition Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
Finding: Under the No Project/Existing Condition Alternative, the existing conditions will continue and
the City-approved helistop would not be developed. Under the No Project/Existing Condition
Alternative, impacts to aesthetics may be reduced,but hazard impacts would increase. This alternative
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 Project/Existing Condition Alternative.
2. Alternative Two—No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The No Project/City-Approved I lelistop Alternative assumes that none of the
requested project approvals are granted; that the proposed storage building would not be developed,and
that the City-approved helistop would be developed.The City-approved helistop would include a 60-foot
by 60-foot helistop that would be developed on a 5.5-foot-high berm located near the northeast corner of
the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include the
City-approved flight path that would travel both to and from the helistop over the recently constructed
Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction,and a second flight path(as listed as a
condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter) that would travel both to and from the helistop over
the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site. This Alternative would also
involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings,
and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as
required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the
apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant or the City,but these lights would be
requested to be installed by the owner of the apartment buildings. If the owner of the apartment buildings
refused to install the lights, the applicant would be required to rotate the southeastern flight path
clockwise as required by Caltrans Aeronautics, resulting in frequent crosswind conditions for pilots
during approaches and departures.
Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative as Infeasible: This Alternative may require installation of red
obstruction lights on the roof of the Madera Vista apartment buildings,which is not in the control of the
applicant or City, and if installed, would result in greater lighting impacts. In lieu of red obstruction
lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings,because new residential uses are within the current City-
approved flight path,Caltrans Aeronautics Division would require Temecula Valley Hospital to rotate the
single proposed flight path clockwise(approximately 36 degrees) to clear the Madera Vista multi-family
residences to the east, resulting in a near crosswind condition for pilots on approach or departure.
Regarding noise, for a majority of helicopter operations (prevailing winds at the interim and permanent
helistops), the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater single-event noise
than the proposed project. However, this Alternative would exceed the exterior short term noise standard
at fewer receptor locations than both the proposed interim and permanent helistops under both prevailing
and Santa Ana conditions. The No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would result in greater
impacts than the proposed project's less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics and hazards, and
similar or slightly reduced noise impacts that would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Therefore, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative is not environmentally superior compared
to the proposed project.
In regard to meeting the project objectives, the No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would
(consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior,easily accessible
emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objectives of
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 Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative would
not meet project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. The Council therefore rejects the
No Project/City-Approved Helistop Alternative.
3. Alternative Three—Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed
interim helistop at a different location on the project site,which would be at ground level in the
southwestem 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 wam
pilots of their locations at night. Implementation of this alternative would require helistop and flight path
design approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,and FAA). This alternative would include development of the proposed
one-story, 5,000 square foot storage building.
Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative
would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics than the proposed project due to a more visible
helistop with security fencing, lighting,and potentially lighting poles. Specifically,this Alternative would
be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway. Should
SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed
on hospital property adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this
flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the
southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path,requiring this light pole be lighted at night
with red obstruction lights. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting,and potentially
additional lighting pole structures along the roadway.
The hazards impacts by this alternative would be greater and potentially significant due to the flight path
that would run parallel and adjacent to Temecula Parkway. The flight path required for this site(because
of the prevailing winds at the project site) is an east-west flight path that would run parallel to Temecula
Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the interim
alternative site's flight path and the planned MOB 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface.
Accordingly,the alternative interim site's flight path along Temecula Parkway would cause an additional
hazard related to one power pole located directly south of the site,and additional red obstruction lighting
along Temecula Parkway would be required along with a variance for a transitional surface penetration
from Caltmns 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,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.
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 Helistop Alternative.
4. Alternative Four—Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative
Summary of Alternative: The Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would
develop and operate helistop at ground level at the planned future hospital tower location until start of
Phase IV of the hospital project,at which time the helistop would be relocated to the proposed interim
helistop site. After completion of the future hospital tower,the permanent helistop(on the roof of the new
tower)would be operational and the interim helistop site would be removed.
This alternative includes northeast/southwest flight paths,and because helicopters would be arriving and
departing from ground level, flights would travel at a lower altitude over the Madera Vista apartment
buildings and over the existing hospital parking lot than would occur by use of the permanent helistop
that would be on the roof of the future tower. The ground level helistop in this Alternative would include
the same design, lighting,and security features as the interim helistop. In addition,red obstruction
lighting would be required on the southeast 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.
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 I 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 comer 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 pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that
fronts hospital due to rotorwash.
The noise from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a
maximum noise level of 94.8 dB Lmax in prevailing wind conditions and 93.7 dB Lmax in Santa Ana
wind conditions. In comparison,the noise from the interim helistop location would be 93.4 dB Lmax,in
prevailing wind conditions and 100.8 dB Lmax in Santa Ana conditions. Therefore, the Future Tower
Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in a maximum noise level that is 1.4 dB Lmax
greater in prevailing wind conditions(for a majority of flights),and 7.1 dB Lmax less in Santa Ana
conditions than the proposed interim helistop.
A comparison of Table 4-7 (single-event noise levels from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop
Site Alternative)and Table 3.3-9 (single-event noise levels from the interim helistop) shows that Receptor
Sites 1, 2, 6A, 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. In addition, Sites 3,5 and 7 are located adjacent to
the densely populated Madera Vista Apartments and Country Glen Community and would impact more
receivers than the Sites at the non-residential equestrian trail and lower density residential uses within the
Los Ranchitos community. Moreover,compared to the proposed project,the helicopter overflight noise
from the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would exceed the exterior short-term
noise standard at the same number of receptor locations during prevailing wind conditions(for a majority
of flights) and at one less receptor location in Santa Ana conditions. The Future Tower Location as
Interim Helistop Site Alternative would continue to result in a significant unavoidable impact because
helicopter noise from the alternative would be substantially louder than both the City's allowable noise
and the existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Thus,noise impacts from the Future Tower
Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be similar to the interim location's significant and
unavoidable noise impact.
Overall, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts
than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards, and noise impacts would be similar to the
proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Future Tower Location as Interim
helistop Site Alternative is not environmentally superior compared to the proposed project.
In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Future Tower Location as Interim Helistop Site
Alternative would require two interim helistop sites, each with new operating plans that could be
disruptive to operations of hospital,especially the transfer of emergency patients.This would result in
interfering with the project objective to provide superior,easily accessible emergency services in an
operationally efficient manner. In addition, the full review and permitting processes required by this
Alternative would further delay the introduction of a fully permitted helistop, and would not fully satisfy
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 northeast/southwest flight
paths, similar to those identified for the permanent helistop. In addition,this Alternative would implement
the same design, lighting, and security features as the permanent helistop,and no additional obstruction or
lead-in lighting would be required. The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would include
development of the storage building.
The Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would require helistop and flight path design
approvals pursuant to all applicable aeronautical agencies criteria(Riverside County ALUC,Caltrans
Division of Aeronautics,and FAA); and seismic upgrades would be required pursuant to the California
Building Code(CBC);including the following:
• Gravity Support Modifications: (1) Strengthen roof beams by welding cover plates or
tees to the beams; (2) Strengthen beam connections by fillet welding; and(3)
Strengthen the full length of approximately eight structural building columns with
cover plates. This structural work would impact use of the following hospital areas
during construction:
a. First Floor: parts of kitchen,main housekeeping,pharmacy,and the only
service corridor
b. Second Floor: two intensive care unit rooms,patient mentoring room,
respiratory services work room,and main corridor
c. Third Floor: five patient rooms and corridor
d. Fourth Floor: five patient rooms and corridor
e. Two patient elevators would need to be modified to go to the roof
• Pile Foundation Modifications: Strengthen the pile foundations of the hospital
structure by adding piles. This structural work would impact the use of the first-floor
kitchen,main housekeeping,pharmacy,and the service corridor during construction.
• Framing Modifications: Strengthen the building moment frames and braced frames
that support the seismic bracing system. This structural work would impact medical
18
surgery patient rooms throughout the tower, the emergency department,pharmacy,
and kitchen areas.
• A fuel/water separator would need to be installed on the rooftop, the fire suppression
system would need substantial upgrades, and the existing rooftop heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning(HVAC)system may need to be replaced.
Construction of these improvements could take approximately 16 months. Exterior construction areas or
near construction equipment (such as cranes), would also be unusable,and would affect hospital
operations.
Reasons for Rejecting Alternative as Infeasible: The proposed interim helistop site would be required
to install lead-in lights that would not be required for the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site
Alternative. Therefore,this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to the amount of required
lighting than the proposed interim helistop. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and similar impacts related to
hazards. In regard to construction noise impacts,because the hospital is a sensitive receptor and
construction would occur during its operations,construction noise would be greater under this alternative
than the proposed project. Helicopter-generated noise would continue to be substantially louder than both
the City's allowable noise levels and the existing ambient noise levels. Thus, noise related to operation of
the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would continue to be significant and unavoidable.
Therefore,because the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would result in reduced aesthetics
impacts,similar hazard impacts,greater construction noise impacts, and reduced operational noise
impacts, it is the environmentally superior alternative.
In regard to meeting the project objectives,the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would
require substantial improvements and upgrades to the existing hospital including: extending the elevator
to add a rooftop stop, installing equipment by crane over operating hospital areas to the rooftop,and
implementing substantial upgrades to the fire suppression and structural systems of the building. The
construction activities that would be required to implement these necessary building upgrades would
hinder use of the existing hospital facilities because of the noise,vibration, and potential hazards related
to rooftop construction. During construction of this alternative,portions of the existing hospital would be
unusable, such as the rooms on the top floor and areas nearby or underneath construction equipment, such
as cranes, and would result in operational impacts to the hospital, which would not occur from the
proposed project.
Therefore, implementation of the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop Site Alternative would be disruptive to
operations of hospital, which would result in interference with the project objective of providing superior,
easily accessible emergency services in an operationally efficient manner. In addition, the full review and
permitting processes required by this Alternative would further delay the introduction of a permitted
helistop facility. As such, it would not fully satisfy the objective of providing a regional hospital facility
that is an operationally efficient, state-of-the art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital
doctors. This alternative would meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with
surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Overall, the Existing Hospital Roof Helistop
Site Alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
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 I. 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 1
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 on substantial evidence in the FIR 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 unavoidable environmental impacts.
24
EXHIBIT B
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 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