HomeMy WebLinkAbout010506 PC Agenda
..
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
January 5, 2006 - 6:30 P.M.
***...**
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2006-01
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Harter
Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio and Mathewson
PUBLIC COMMENTS
.
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a
salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLI~
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 16, 2005
. 1.2 Approve the Minutes of December 7,2005
"
~~;;:o~~o~ ';.oB;llil.l\i!@\<>MM\~,92.iltlas~og:~e:j;ll5~o6,docc .
.
..._-.,~~
- .....--.--
.~""...,-;
,COMMISSION' BUSINESS
. i~:1"i~:~';""- -":';.:':.. ,'," L _ _ '.
PUBLIC ,HEARING ITEMS
Anypel'$On may subllllt written comments to thePlarfniri'~"C~inn'ili;Sl~it'b~fore a
public hearing or may appear and be heard In suppoitofor!n:'9P'p9$ition to the
approval-of theprojEl9t(~) at the time of hearlng.lfyq!-'Challi!lnge 8!1y'ofthe
projects In cQurt; YQu,/!Iay ~,Ih:nited to raising QI,lIYi1~~l:!s~;,I~su~!I YOI,I.or;sQ~eone
else raised at the p"3blic'hea'rlng or'ln written '!:'orresI19nden~esdellvered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the poblii:-hearing.
')
;,.,. .. ,f'"
Any person dissatisfied wJ~h~llY decision of the Planning Commi~siol1 may file an
appeal of the Commi~slori;s decision. Saidappeall,llliSt~',filed'wit~ln 15
calelldlllr,days after servl~ of written notice of the decision; nl~StbefU9'dOnt~e
approP~,~~'~nnlng Department application and must be' aecompanl~' by the
approprlllte 'filing fee. '
Continued from December 7, 2005
2 , Plan nino Agglication ,No., PA04.0462, General Plan Ametldment, ,pA05-03l'l2,';Blar:in~a
'Develooment'(:)vEifiav: 'FlAb4~ii'B3 Cdn'aifional' 'Dse"Pe'rffiit~arf(!fDevelt:Spmei':I~Blan\l\el<<"e~,~
0571 Parci:!I.!Mso. ':submitted bvUr:iiversal,Hea.lfh ," :SeMces: ,lnc.::,;fotJ'i!\iH(;ie[je'fslinelam, .
Ji.menament;.zoneChanps, Cbnditiorllil Use, Pern:\it,DeVi:J16pmEintlRlam:fan~~l1emfiVeJ !
',,/',8arceLMaQtlj,eoris1ructa'.5fl6i,1:l)0,lfquarefooti,hOsQital, inel'i:idiiil.ctl11ediearricrffi6B'!Iil~ildir.(q&;DA
:,'.~:'3'5ia:1';acres.::looatea':0ri;Noithjsiae,6fIili6fiwaV19':SblItlil\amd2s'6iliFi\'Of~l!!}gFlO'H0Ia"RBa'd~!arid 'J
~f~~l:1pr6xTiTllifelVr10lffEietwesfbfMaraaHtaRoad.EJTielV'PapP':'Seniof;PJElrnner7:'!'-'''. . "
. ..~-. -", ,':.;" -"\';--' .- - , ,..' ,," . '.' .,- ,.... ',' , : "., 'i." .. -',
"~'~',,,~ , . . . " ' .
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS ,!
",'"
pUAiilNING :DIRE€l'OR!S,REPORT.
ABJOURNMENT
;;,It:i}
..',-,
. ';.4" ~.
Next regular meElting: Wednesday, January 18, 2006,16:30 PM, Coulilcil.Gf:\ar:t)ber$, ,43200
Business Park Drive, T emecula, .California.
, i
.:l' .
~ ; .
.r.;
,
, '
"'."-'-'.
')
R;\PLAN,cOMMlAgendas\2006\01-oS-06.'doc
e
.
ITEM #1
.
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 200S
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on
Wednesday, November 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Per requirements of the Fire Marshal, Chairman Mathewson announced that additional seating
will be available in the Main Conference Room.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005.
2 .Director's Hearino Case Uodate
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005.
M(>TION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
.
New Items
3 Planninc ADPlication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned
DeveloDment Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and DeveloDment Plan. PA04-
0571 Parcel Map. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan
Amendment. Zone Chance. Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and a Tentative
Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 scuare foot hosQital. includinc medical office buildincs on
35.31 acres. located on North side of Hichwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and
aDDroximatelv 700 feet west of Marcarita Road
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp presented the Planning Commission
with a staff report (of written record), advising that subsequent to the preparation of the agenda
report and packet of this meeting, two additional letters and three emails were received
concerning the proposed project.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that all street
improvements along 79 South, the intersection at 79 South, and the driveway on De Portola will
be in the first phase, except for the Dartolo Road connection.
With regard to helicopter flights, Mr. Papp noted that the type of license that the applicant will be
applying for would allow an average of one flight to six flights a month and that the perimeter
landscaping will have 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees installed.
.
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson, representing P&D Consultants,
presented the Environmental Impact Report (of record), highlighting the following:
. Impacts considered but found to be less than significant
o Aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality
o Air Quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies
o Hydrology and water quality
o Land Use Planning
o Noise - construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading
dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exteriorlinterior
noise environment
. Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated
o Aesthetics - Light and glare
o Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators,
mechanical equipment, rooftop equipment)
o Transportation - Project impacts
. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
o Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
o Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
helicopters flights
o Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
2
.
Ms. Stetson stated that given all the information, and as part of the approval process, if the
Planning Commission were to recommend and the City Council were to approve the project with
these significant unavoidable impacts, a finding must be made that the project benefits out-way
the unavoidable significant affects (as noted below) associated with construction and operation
of the hospital.
. That the proposed hospital will provide negessary medical services to the local
community including Emergency Acute/Outpatient and Cancer Medical care and
rehabilitation
. That the proposed hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for
highly trained medical staff and medical service workers
. That the proposed hospital will support diversification of Temecula's Economic and
Employment base including and not limited to the biomedical research and office
facilities that would be on site
. That the Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located with access from a major
roadway to best serve the medical service needs of local residence as well as the
region.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the applicant how the noise concern of sirens at night will be
addressed.
.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson stated that because staff does not have all
the responses to the numerous comments that were received from private parties, the Planning
Commission will be asked to continue this item to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting; at that time, staff will be addressing concerns of the Planning Commission as well as
concerns from speakers.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that all questions and
comments will be addressed at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Scott Crane, Director of Business Development for Riverside County for Universal Health
Services and Ms. Linda Bradley, CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Health Care System
(consisting of Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center) spoke in favor
of the proposed project, offering the following:
. That in light of the size of the City and considering its anticipated growth, this City should
have a high-quality, state-of-the-art hospital
. That a hospital would be a key facility in providing health care services to citizens of
Temecula
. That Temecula Valley is currently served by two Universal Health Service Hospitals,
Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, both part of
Southwest Health Care System; that Rancho Springs Medical Center (closest
emergency room to the proposed site) is approximately eight miles north of the hospital
. project for Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\111605
3
. That both current hospitals regularly operate at above 90% capacity for its average daily .
census; that the health care team desires and needs the proposed hospital; and that
currently patients are treated in hallways because the community and demand for
medical services has exceeded the design capacity of the current facilities
. That Universal Health Services will be investing more than $50 million in expanding the
two existing hospitals to add beds and rooms, an open heart and cardiac unit at Inland
Valley Medical Center, O.B. Department at Rancho Springs, including a neo-natal
intensive care unit, and doubling and tripling the size of the current emergency room
. That expansions of Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs will not
be able to accommodate the current demand
. That in the event of a natural disaster, the community will not have the facilities to
adequately handle a natural disaster or national security event
. That although other properties were considered, it was determined that the 79 South
corridor is properly configured with appropriate access
. That for years Southwest Health Care Systems has proven to be a good corporate
citizen for the community
. That if the proposed project were approved, the hospital will be providing high-quality
services easily accessible to Temecula residents who will no longer have to travel long .
distances to receive such care
. That the hospital design will be based on clinical needs and patient-care concerns; that
departments that need to be close to each other for optimum critical patient care are the
emergency departments, x-ray, and surgery; that out-patient services tend to flow
horizontally within a hospital and in-patient services tend to flow vertically; that
additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, and other support services
are all areas that have primary relationships to the first-floor functions; and that
departments such as administration, Human Resources, and Education are also located
on the first level, to enable access from the public while maintaining secured areas on
the non-public side of the hospital, including patient care towers
. That patient rooms will be designed in stacking order, similar to a hotel; that typical bed
floors operate most efficiently at 34 to 38 patient rooms per floor; for initial construction
of the 170 beds; that the project will dictate five floors of patient rooms above the first
floor of the whole facility; thereby, defining the project as a 6-story bed tower
. That the State limits the distance hospital staff may travel from a nurse station to the
patient room to 90 feet which, in turn, has an affect on how large a bed floor may be
designed in order to maintain practical efficiency; that State code requires that all patient
rooms have an exterior window; that with 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed
to ensure that code requirements are met will dictate multiple levels of patient floors
.
R:\MinutesPC\111605
4
.
.
.
. That after establishing a need for a multilevel tower, the location of the hospital tower will
be determined by how the tower will relate to internal functions; and that the key criteria
for locating the bed tower will be dictated by the proximity of the critical core
departments, ER, Imaging, and surgery
. That in the design of the Temecula Hospital, the core elevators are located centrally
among the core departments and central to the first-level floor plan; that optimum patient
transfer efficiency will be achieved with the central core; that if you were an in-patient in
the hospital, one would desire to be closer to the elevators so that one could get to the
needed services faster
. That mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are more efficiently designed with the
central tower which lead to faster construction and help provide quality health care
sooner
. That if the proposed hospital were designed with shorter bed towers, patients would
have a longer distance to access needed critical services and, therefore, taking longer to
get life-saving services to patients
. That the hospital project will bring between 1,000 and 1,200 new local jobs and will
eliminate long commutes; and that the hospital will also bring two medical office
buildings, one that will be built prior to the hospital, providing outpatient hospital services
such as outpatient care, x-ray and lab, physical therapy as well as physician offices
. That the hospital will bring medical and surgical services, an intensive care unit, eight
operating rooms, lab and x-ray, and an emergency department that will be able to assist
more than 40 patients at one time
. That the hospital will not be designated as a trauma center
. That when the hospital will be built, it will be one of the top three employers and tax
payers in the City of Temecula
. That the applicant is aware of the concerns of the helipad but that the helipad would only
be used to transport critically injured or ill patients to a specialty hospital
. That the patient care tower will allow for a future planned expansion if necessary, with no
need to expand infrastructure; therefore, expansion may occur rapidly to meet the needs
of the community
. That the proposal including a complete plan for the hospital with no hidden parts and/or
no changes contemplated down the road for the hospital
. That with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the
City Council's approval, Universal Health System will deliver a hospital.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
5
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern regarding the sound of sirens at night, Mr. .
Crane stated the construction of a hospital would not create more ambulance runs; that
ambulance runs are currently based on population, that ambulance needs occur whether there
is a hospital or not; and that it would be the destination of the ambulance that would cause the
siren.
Referencing Chairman Mathewson's question regarding doubling up on nurses station to reduce
the height of the towers, Ms. Stetson advised that doubling nurses station to have broader
patient towers and less stories would result in a longer distance to get a patient to emergency
services; that it is very important to have patient care floors be the perimeter in order to provide
shorter distance times from the furthest patients out to the central core down to the emergency
services; and that higher towers, with less square footage, would be best for patient care.
For the Planning Commission, Mr. Crane stated that a designation for a trauma center would be
designated by the County, not Universal Health Systems.
Ms. Stetson informed the Commission that because sudden and unanticipated changes in
patient's conditions occur, it would be difficult to determine how patients are placed in a hospital.
It was also stated for the Commission that the State and County regulate the disposal of
hazardous materials.
Mr. Crane advised that Universal Health Systems explored other construction sites but that the
sites were not adequately designed to meet the needs of the hospital.
.
In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. Crane stated that typically the number of
helicopter flights would relate to emergency room visits; that there will be occasions when
conditions will change with a patient which would require relocation and that if the hospital were
to exceed the maximum number of helicopter flights allowed, a viable alternative would be to
ground transport patients to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (Trauma Center) from a
critical care ambulance transfer and helicopter transport the patient from there.
Chairman Mathewson thanked Mr. Crane and Ms. Stetson for their report.
At 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a 15-minute break. At 8:15 the Planning
Commission resumed with the meeting.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed hospital project:
. Dr. Russ Hatt
. Dr. Kevin Flaig, Murrieta
. Dr. Edward Pillar, Murrieta
. Ms. Linda Maxwell, Temecula
. Mr. Charles V. Bahr, Corona
. Ms. Joan Sparkman
. Mr. Rick Meyer .
. Ms. Leah Patterson, Murrieta
. Ms. Tomi Arbogast, Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
6
.
. Ms. Vanessa Ruelas
. Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula
. Ms. Alice Sullivan, Temecula
. Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula
. Mr. Michael Murphy, Canyon Lake
. Ms. Rene Aberle, Murrieta
. Ms. Debbie Parker, Temecula
. Janis Rustard, Temecula
. Mr. Mark Nelson, Temecula
. Dr. Brett Ginther, Fallbrook
. Dr. Reza Vaezazizi, Temecula
. Ms. Debbie Moss, Temecula
. Ms. Barbara Lasko-Hoellinger, Temecula
. Ms. Chesi Levy, Temecula
. Ms. Susan Wildgoose, Temecula
. Ms. Linda Barr, Murrieta
. Mr. Norm Everett, Temecula
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval.
.
. Ms. Trisha Heide, Temecula
. Ms. Justine Castro, Temecula
. Mr. David Moorhead, Temecula
The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following
reasons:
. That Universal Health System is committed to quality patient care
. That there are not enough beds at the current hospitals to provide the health care needs
of the community
. That the expansion efforts of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional
Medical Center will only help with the current over crowding issues
. That true adequate future health care coverage could only be obtained with building the
proposed hospital project
. That in terms of an emergency, minutes are critical
. That to avoid a local health care crisis, the proposed project must be built
. That if the proposed project were not approved, the health of the public will be in
jeopardy
. That the combined yearly volume of patient visits at Rancho Springs Medical Center and
. Inland Valley Regional Medical Center would be over 60,000 patients a year
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
7
. That the City of Temecula needs and deserves a state-of-the-art hospital
.
. That the diversity and accessibility of the helicopters would make medical operations
more capable
. That good emergency care is needed in the Temecula Valley
. That the current and future growth of Southwest California and Temecula Valley requires
that a state of the art hospital be a key component in the community
. That the health and well being of Temecula citizens depend greatly on the ability for
pave the way for such facilities to be built
. That considering the projected population growth of the combined cities of Temecula
and Murrieta will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years, it will require immediate
action and approval of this hospital facility
. That any delay in approving the proposed project will have profound impacts on the
region's ability to grow, prosper, and meet future health care needs of the community
. That while Temecula's population has tripled since incorporation, the City of Temecula
and its outlined region cannot rely on medical facilities at its immediate service areas
. That in the event of a major catastrophe access to Murrieta or Wildomar may not be .
available
. That Southwest Healthcare System will be committed to developing a state-of-the-art
facility to serve the need of the community
. That although the services at Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho
Springs Medical Center are excellent, the facilities are inadequate to deal with the
current growth as well as the future growth
. That Universal Health System is a great organization to work for and will provide high-
quality cost-effective, coordinated health care services to the Temecula Valley.
The following individuals spoke in ODDosition of the proposed hospital project:
. Mr. Brad Storman, Temecula
. Ms. Gloria Smith, Murrieta
. Mr. Matt Hagemann, San Marcos
. Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula
. Mr. Jerry Toliver, Temecula
. Mr. Richard Anderson, Temecula
. Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula
. Mr. Don Brown, Temecula
. Mr. Raymond Bennett, Temecula
. Mr. George Di Leo, Temecula .
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
8
.
.
.
The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not completely addressed the noise
traffic impacts that the proposed project will bring
. That a block wall installed between the proposed project and nearby residents would
significantly reduce the noise impacts that will be created by the proposed hospital
. That the EIR should include estimated number of helicopter flights and its associated
noise
. That the EIR does not describe the project
. That the EIR does not analyze the reasonable/feasible impacts
. That the residents surrounding the proposed site are of the opinion that the City could
mitigate the noise impacts to the homes by installing a brick wall along DePortola Road
and Pio Pico Road, advising that this would be a simple, inexpensive, and affective
opportunity to reduce the noise impacts
. That the surrounding residents are concerned with the additional impacts that the
hospital will have on Pio Pico Road
. That the EIR does not address leaking underground fuel tanks from nearby gas stations
that are contaminating ground water and moving toward the hospital site; and that the
EIR must address all issues regarding leaking underground fuel is warranted under the
law and requires the preparation of an EIR
. That the EIR only addresses a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the
proposed project
. That the EIR has failed to address hazardous waste materials and geology
. That in review of documentation obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's website, there are gas stations leaking plumes to the area of the proposed
project; and that a Methyl Tertyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) gasoline additive has been detected
in the drinking water along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site
. That further evaluation of the proposed site and a revised EIR would be necessary to
ensure hospital water and patient safety; that sampling of ground water should be
granted in the vicinity of the proposed hospital to ensure that the water supply well will
be protected; and that any necessary clean-up should be conducted prior to construction
. That the proposed hospital is located in a liquefaction hazard zone; that the Riverside
County Geologist has designated this area as very high potential for liquefaction; and
that maps indicate that a study will be required prior to a public hearing for the project
entitlement
. That although residents agree with the need for a hospital in the community, it will have
a negative impact on the surrounding residences
R:\MinulesPC\ 111605
9
. That surrounding residents of the proposed project are concerned with traffic problems .
as a result of the DePortola Road access; and that a No access on DePortola Road
would be preferred
. That noise from sirens would be a safety issue for equestrian-type activities that occur
around the area
. That the proposed project will lower property values and destroy the rural setting of the
community
. That visual tranquility will be destroyed with the lights and tower height of the proposed
hospital
. That Los Ranchitos and Santiago Rancho Estates represent equestrian areas within the
City of Temecula; that the streets in the area are narrow rural residential streets without
cement curbs, sidewalks, and street lights; and that the streets cannot handle the daily
cut-through traffic that will be generated by a DePortola entrance
. That the proposed height of the hospital site will be unacceptable
. That the applicant of the proposed hospital must make reasonable modifications to
better conform to the City's height limits.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item No.3 to the December 7, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote .
reflected unanimous aooroval.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the doctors and nurses who spoke on behalf of the hospital.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised the Commission that he will not be in attendance of the
December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting due to him being out of the Country.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Referencing the selection process and reappointments of Commissioners, Deputy City Manager
Thornhill, advised the Planning Commission that at some point in the future, staff will ask the
Commission for their thoughts with regard to the selection and reappointment process.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Planning Commission meetings for the month of
December 2005 will be December 7 and December 14, 2005, advising that that December 21,
2005, will be cancelled.
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
10
.
.
.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:21 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reoular
meetinq to be held on December 7. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
11
..
:.
!
'.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 7, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on
Wednesday, December 7, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
Chiniaeff .
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Mr. Chris Donelli, Temecula, queried on the status of the proposed residential development
surrounding the Vail Lake property.
Referencing Mr. Donelli's query, Chairman Mathewson stated that he would need to contact the
County for any status information regarding the proposed residential development surrounding
the Vail Lake property, advising that the proposed property is out of the jurisdiction of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from November 2, 2005
Due to the applicant not being able to attend this meeting, staff requested that Item No. 1 be
continued to the December 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item NO.1 to the December 14, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
1 Plannino Aoolication No. PA05-0064. a Develooment Plan, submitted bv Matthew Faaan. for
a Comprehensive Sian Proaram for the Maroiirita Crossinas shopoina center on 5.56 acres.
located on the southwest corner of Maroarita Road and Overland Drive
Staff is requesting that Item No. 2 be continued to the December 14, 2005, Planning
Commission.
R\MinutesPC\ 120705
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continued Item No.2 to the December 14, 2005, .
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
2 Plannina Apolication No. Planninp Application Nos. PA05-0155 a Pedestrian Plan and Sion
Prooram. submitted bv Allen Robinson. on a 0.55 acre site for Butterfield Souare. located at
the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street
Continued from November 16, 2005
Staff is currently in the process of finalizing the responses to the general public and comment
letters and therefore requested a continuance of Item No.3 to the December 5, 2005, Planning
Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue Item No. 3 to the December 5, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
3 Plannino Aoolication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment PA05-0302 Planned
Develooment Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Develooment Plan. PA04-
0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan
Amendment Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit Develooment Plan and a Tentative
Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 sauare foot hosDitaL includino medical office buildinos on
.;35.31 acres., located on North side of Hiohwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road, and
aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
.
No reports at this time.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No reports at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:38 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reoular
meetinq to be held on December 14. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 120705
2
.
ITEM #2
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
January 05, 2006
Temecula Regional Hospital: PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-
0302, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay); PA04-0463, Development
Plan and Conditional Use Permit; PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2005, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Commission to present
the comprehensive T emecula Regional Hospital Project, the associated applications that will
require City Council approval, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for this
project, and to take public testimony concerning the proposal and the EIR. The Planning
Commission was informed by the EIR consultant and staff that the responses to written
comments on the EIR had not yet been completed, and the Planning Commission determined
that a continuance would be in order to review the entire record prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council. It was determined that the public hearing would be
continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005. It
was also recommended that the City Council meeting, originally scheduled for November 22,
2005, be continued to December 13, 2005. Chairman Mathewson then opened the hearing for
public comment.
A total of 46 people submitted Request to Speak forms. Of these, 39 people spoke, 29 in favor
and 10 against the proposed project. During the public testimony portion of the public hearing,
new evidence was presented with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks and
the potential for these to contaminate groundwater and an existing Rancho California Water
District well site adjacent to the project site. The California Environmental Quality Act requires
jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts of a project on the environment, and not the impacts of the
environment on the project. This pre-existing condition has been monitored by the State of
California and it is the sole responsibility of the owners of the Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks to remediate the conditions. As a result, staff does not consider this to be an
environmental impact that should be addressed in the EIR.
Staff and the EIR consultant have prepared responses to Agency comments and general public
comments. CEQA requires local jurisdictions to respond in writing to Agencies that provided
comments on the Draft ErR no less than 10 days prior to the City Council's certification of the
EIR. The City sent written responses to the Public Agency comments on November 12, 2005.
Under CEQA, the City is not required to provide written responses to general public comments,
or comments that were received after the Public Review period has closed. The City, however,
has chosen to respond to all comments received up to and at the public hearing held on
November 16,2005. The responses to comments are included as Attachment NO.1 to this staff
report.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-OS-Q6\PC MEMO 01-0S-Q6.doc
,
The responses to comments clearly demonstrate that the EIR and the Technical Appendices .
have satisfactorily addressed all of the concerns raised by Agencies and the general public
through the public review process. While some of the commenting public may disagree with the
analyses contained in the EIR, staff believes that with the responses to comments, the EIR is
sound and meets the State CEQA Guidelines requirements for disclosure of public information.
The EIR states that there will be Unavoidable Significant Impacts created by this project that
cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. State Law, in particular the California
Environmental Quality Act, permits a local jurisdiction to approve a project having Unavoidable
Significant Impacts, provided the local jurisdiction discloses this information in the EIR and can
make the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration. These Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Consideration are contained in the Staff Report of record for the
November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as Exhibit A of Attachment 2 which allows
the City Council to render a decision to approve the applications put forth by Universal Health
Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. and to certify the EIR.
The Planning Commission meeting which was originally continued to December 7, 2005 was
convened and once again continued to allow the EIR consultant and staff to have additional
time to complete the responses to the extensive comments presented at the November 16,
2005 Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the Planning Commission approved a motion
to continue this item to January 5, 2006. Staff has now finalized the responses to the general
public comment letters.
ISSUES RAISED AT THE NOVEMBER 16, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Phasinq
.
The project is broken down into five project Phases. The construction schedule, however, is
broken out into three phases. The first construction phase will include the project's Phase 1A
and will consist of grading, clearing, and constructing Medical Office Building (MOB) No.2 and
surface parking. This phase is expected to last 10 months.
The second construction phase will include Phase 1 B and will include the one-story hospital,
six-story bed tower, and additional surface parking. This phase is expected to last 14 months.
The third and final construction phase will consist of project Phases, II, III, IV and V and will
include the second hospital bed tower, MOB No.1, Cancer center, Fitness center, and
additional surface parking. This final construction phase is expected to last 12 months..
Traffic
Staff has re-evaluated some of the traffic impacts associated with the approval of this project.
Originally the City felt that providing a "second phase" connection to Margarita Road via Dartolo
Road would be a good alternative that may lessen concerns regarding the project's driveway
access on to De Portola Road.
The EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access alternative and found that the connection actually
creates a significant traffic impact. The traffic impact is an operational problem created by
adding additional turning movements to the Dartolo Road! Margarita Road intersection. The .
Dartolo Road / Margarita Road intersection is too close to the Margarita Road / Route 79S
intersection and there is not enough vehicle stacking distance in the Margarita Road turn
pockets to accommodate the additional project turning movements. The Dartolo Road
connection to Margarita Road would result in the intersection's break down and forces the
R:\C U P\2OO4\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01..QS.06\PC MEMO 01.0S-QS.doc
2
'.
!.
i
,
i
I
.
signal's removal at an earlier date. The EIR has clearly shown that the De Portola Road
driveway access has no significant traffic impacts.
For these reasons staff is recommending that the condition of approval for the Dartolo Road
access to Margarita Road be removed. By removing this condition of approval, no further
biological studies will be required. Furthermore, staff concurs that there is no need for traffic
mitigation on Pio Pico. Staff believes that the traffic consultant's observation that Pio Pico
would not serve as a route for Hospital access is correct. To mitigate the concern that traffic
may be encouraged to use Pio Pico, the City required that the DePortola Road access does not
align with Pio Pico and has been moved to the east of Pio Pico. Even if a very large percentage
of the project's traffic would use Pio Pico, this would not cause the Level of Service for this
roadway segment to exceed the City's goal of Level of Service "D".
Alternative Sites
Two additional sites were discussed as potential locations for the proposed hospital. The first is
a 32-acre property west of Diaz Road and north of Dendy Parkway which is owned by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula. The Agency has entered into a Disposition
and Development Agreement for the sale of this property to the AGK Group, LLC for the
development of a mixed-use project that includes a higher education center, approximately 280
apartment units, of which 50 are reserved for affordable housing, retail, a conference facility,
and a child care facility. The City also has a development agreement in place with the
developer of this project and also has approved plans for the project. The project is in the
building plan check phase at the present. This site is, therefore, not available for the hospital.
A second site is a property west of 1-15 at 79S, which was purchased for the sole purpose of
upgrading the 1-15!79S interchange. The property is approximately 30 acres, but less than 20
acres is out of the flood zone. The property will have limited access after the interchange work is
done. The property was purchased with regional transportation funds and the City has a
contractual obligation to use the property for the interchange improvements. This site is,
therefore, not available for the hospital.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and accept the responses to
comments as adequately addressing the concerns raised by reviewing agencies and the
general public, and recommend that the City Council of the City of Temecula certify the EIR for
this project and approve the following:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A
RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL
R\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-QS.06\PC MEMO 01-0S-OS.doc
3
HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462,
PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM
THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION
AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY' OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0463, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED
HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL,
A HEll PAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING
140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER
CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS
.
A:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-05-Q6\PC MEMO 01-05-oS.doc
4
.
.
.
REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING 566,160 SQUARE
FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH
959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31
ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
ATTACHMENTS
1.
PC Resolution No. 06-_ (Draft Environmental Impact Report) - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 06-_
PC Resolution No. 06- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 06-_
2.
3. PC Resolution No. 06 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 06-_
4. PC Resolution No. 06-_ (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 06-_
5. PC Resolution No. 06-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 10
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 06-_
6. Responses to Agency and General Public Comments - Blue Page 11
7. November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 12
8. November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Agenda Packet - Blue Page 13
R:\C U P\2004\04"()463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-QS-D6\PC MEMO 01-QS-QS.doc
5
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
R:\C U P\2004\04-D463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-05-06\PC MEMO Q1..Q5.Q6.doc
6
i
'--."~,~.'.
-~~~
.-,>1
i
I
_"<>"c"
,. -.-.....,.
.- ~ .
...-- ~-_"c.
, ~'
'. .. -
' '4.ii}~>"j';~'~.c~~,;Sk-iBj~~~;j:.~:i~
.
I.
i
I.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-
0463, PA04-0571
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT:
Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission
hereby finds and determines that:
A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described herein.
B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions ("Project"),
initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the development of
a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula. The Project site
is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of Temecula,
California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of
the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided by Highway
79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462) to
remove the project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from the Land
Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two-
stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-
8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the
Hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, .
also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-
007 through 959-080-010.
C. Universal Heath Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed 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 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-
080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
D. 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; and,
E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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.
F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general .
public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this
Project.
G. 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.
H. Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project;
I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR")
was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other
regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15082.
J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of
Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft EIR.
K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project .
implementation pursuant to CEQA.
:.
i
!.
.
L. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated September 26, 2005,
the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with
the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005.
N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of
the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for
review at City offices.
O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR,
the City received eighteen (18) written comments, all of which were responded to by the
City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR).
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all commentors on and before November 22, 2005, including those
received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency
commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005.
Q. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005, November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on
the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to
present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIR.
R. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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,
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.
T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the 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.
3.
.
. U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council
finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3 of
the proposed City Council Resolution.
V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
set forth herein are described in Section 4 of the proposed City Council resolution.
W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in .
Section 5 of the proposed City Council resolution.
x. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 6 of the proposed City Council
resolution.
Y. 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 Section 7 of the proposed City
Council resolution.. 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 assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures; and,
z. 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 meetings
and hearings. In making the recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this
resolution, findings contained herein and in the proposed City Council Resolution
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related
actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional .
environmental review of the Draft EIR under CEQA require additional public review
.
.
.
because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial
increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
Section 2. Recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula, California, hereby recommends that the City Council for the
City of Temecula adopt a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA05-o302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)" certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Draft City
Council Resolution for certification of the above, substantially in the form contained in
Exhibits A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth in
full.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTION by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 5th day of January, 2006.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske
Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of
January, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CC RESOLUTION 06-_
(DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT)
.
^
~,
:;.
....;;~~ "~
,
0~~'>__~":~~~~4t~~::;;.:,~~~:,,, "
.
e
e
.
~.
i
i
I
'.
RESOLUTION NO. 06 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-
0463, PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT:
,
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that:
A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described
herein.
B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions
("Projecf'), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the
development of a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula.
The Project site is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of
Temecula, California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles
and north of the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided
by Highway 79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-
0462) to remove the Project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from
the Land Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed
two-stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and
PDO-8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the
hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres,
also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-
007 through 959-080-010.
C. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed 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 in a manner in accord with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby
incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s), 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
.
D. 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; and,
E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005,
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.
F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project.
G. 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.
H. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the
City is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general
governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implernenting the Project;
I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR") was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible
agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15082.
J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the
Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives
for analysis in the Draft EIR.
K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the
Project implementation pursuant to CEQA.
L. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent .
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
.
.
i.
M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated September 26,
2005, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion
with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005.
N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the
Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at
City offices.
O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft
EIR, the City received eighteen (18) written comments, all of which were responded to by
the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact ReporVResponse to Comments document (Final EIR).
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided its responses to all commentators on and before November 22, 2005, including
those received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency
commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005.
O. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005, November 16, 2005, and January
5, 2006 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public
hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons interested had the
opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft EIA.
A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council of the City of Temecula held
duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft EIR at which time all persons
interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Project and
the Draft EIR.
S. Section 15091 of the State CEOA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a Project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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,
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.
T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the
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.
(3)
U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City
Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section 3 hereof.
V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the
Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 4 hereof.
.
W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in .
Section 5 hereof.
X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 6.
Y. 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 Section 6 hereof.
Z. 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 assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures; and,
AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record
including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings
and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and
related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional
environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the
Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental .
I.
i
.
.
impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur.
Section 2. Findings Concerning Impacts Identified in the Initial Study as
Having Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment. The City Council hereby
finds and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final
EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of
testimony from the public. organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental
impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital will have a less than significant
impact through the Initial Study:
A. Aaricultural Resources The Project site is not currently in
agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15 to 20 years), the site has not
been used for agricultural purposes. The Project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid-1800s, the Project site
was cultivated as an agricultural field. However, the Project site has not been utilized
for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural
resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural
uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local
importance, as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of
Temecula General Plan. In addition, the Project will not involve changes in the existing
environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5)
The proposed Project could, because of its regional significance, cause other
agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some
remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and
surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural; however, the
conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the
proposed Project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of
San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the
proposed Project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external
economic forces rather than the proposed Project. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5)
B. Biological Resources A habitat assessment study was prepared for
the Project site (Habitat Assessment, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., September
14, 2004). The study identified a man-made flood control channel that parallels the
eastern boundary of the Project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows
and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes has
also been identified within the man made channel. The habitat within the channel is
likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The
Project applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular
access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require
Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside
County Flood Control. The study (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) .
concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed
alteration, placement of fill into the channel, and the encroachment into jurisdictional
areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In
order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be
present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition, if activity
within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur
between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols
shall be provided to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In
the event either of these endangered birds is found, the construction of the bridge
(schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the
birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the Project with mitigation measures.
The Project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery
sites. The Project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or
state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site has been grubbed and disturbed for
many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16).
There are some grasses on the Project site; however, they are not considered sensitive
habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the
Project site.
The proposed Project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The Project site
is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic
plants, as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP
guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the
Burrowing Owl. A Burrowing Owl survey was conducted by AMEC and the results
reported in a report dated August 9, 2005. The survey did not identify the presence of
Burrowing Owls on the subject property.
.
The following Mitigation Measures will be required in the event that an extension of
Dartolo Road across the flood control channel occurs:
Due of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would
need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and
the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found,
bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts
to the birds' reproductive cycle.' Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected
under the MSHCP. (DEIR, p. 5-14)
1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September '4, 2004.
.
.
.
.
C. Cultural Resource A Phase I survey (Historical/Archaeological
Resource Survey Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004)
has been prepared for the proposed Project. The survey did not identify any historical
resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 on the Project site. No
impact on historical resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
The Phase I survey did not identify the Project site as a potential site for historical
resources, including human remains. Historically, the site has been used for agricultural
production, which involved substantial and repeated soil disturbance. The archaeology
survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the slJrrounding area is known to
contain historical and archaeological resources. Given the known sensitive resources
discovered within close proximity of the Project site, conditions of approval are required.
The Project site is also a potential site for paleontological resources, and conditions of
approval are required. The City will apply standard conditions of approval to the Project
to address monitoring during grading operations.
The following Conditions of Approval have been required of the proposed Project and
shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the
Project:
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a
written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human
resources, and human remains discovered on-site.
2. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including archaeological artifacts found on the Project site, to the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent
authorized by law.
3. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and
paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the
applicant's sole cost.
4. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities,
they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the
pre-excavation agreement referenced in Condition A above.
5. The applicant shall comply with, all recommendations in the
Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment
Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September
16,2004, respectively, except as modified by Project Conditions of Approval.
6. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological, and
Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities.
The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert
grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The
monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain .
remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
7. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates
and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they
can be identified and permanently preserved.
8. All specimens shall be identified, cu rated , and placed into a repository with
permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires
alternative treatment.
9. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens,
should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report
should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens.
The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
10. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and
the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any
Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program
shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the
resources unearthed. (Initial Study, pgs. 14 and 15)
D. Geoloav/Soils A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for
the proposed Project "Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula,
CA," PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula
segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed Project will not be subject to fault
rupture since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the Project site. The
Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large
magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project has the potential to be
exposed to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby
faults. The site, in its current condition, includes subsurface strata that could
experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural
loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial
soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and
recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent
a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive
environment with respect to buried metals. The Project site has a moderate risk for
liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor
slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement
due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the
groundwater.
The following Conditions of Approval have been required as a part of the proposed
Project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant, and will be established
as enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
.
.
. 1. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the
Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004
and as stated below without deviation.
a. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious
materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction.
Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the
proposed building limits, where practical.
b. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly
compacted fill. The depth of over-excavation should extend at least
12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-grade and pavements, or
24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be
saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The
removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method 0157) until design
finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four
feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
c.
.
The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform
horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified
(to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import
soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a
maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an
expansion index of less than 20 (UBe 18-2). Most of the on-site sols
appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading
operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may
be generated. These materials should, not be placed within the
compacted fill.
d. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should
be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture
content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and
thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of
compacted-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The
edges of compacted fill should extend 1 0 feet beyond the edges of
buildings prior to sloping.
e.
.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison
to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be
placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced
lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the
geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth
pressure used in the wall design.
.
f. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be
removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum
moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
based on Test Method D1557. The upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base
material and not during the initial grading operation.
g. As mentiqned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial
deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to
moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional
earthmoving equipment.
h. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code, (1997 edition), PSI's
Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of
Temecula standards.
The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project
site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including .
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the
implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify
any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project.
According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the Project is
not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), and, thus, will not create substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical
exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the
Project site as "very low expansion potential," as defined in the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The Project is required to comply with the recommendations
in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004.
The Project will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available; approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District
for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this Project as the current sewer system and waste treatment
facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. (Initial
Study, pgs. 16, 17, and 18)
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project could potentially .
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
I.
i
i.
.
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project consists of medical
uses and will include the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials. The
Project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However,
the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in hazardous emissions materials or
wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit to the City an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of
the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health.
A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore
would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20)
The Project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP). There are no other airports located near the Project.
The Project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project does
include a private helipad that will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of
patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to
commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
The Project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or
evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would not impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. The Project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local
treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated
as a result of this Project.
The following standard Conditions of Approval have been required of the Project and
will be established as an enforceable condition on the entitlements:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a
hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials
Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation
of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20)
F. Mineral Resources The Project is not located in an area that is
known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state.
The Project will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource because the
Project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as
shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated
as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p.25)
.
G. PODulation and Housina The Project is a regional facility that will
add additional medical services to the region. As a result, the Project could potentially
cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside
County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial)
since the mid-1980s without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built out with residential dwellings. The Project, therefore, is not
anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has
already occurred over the last 10 to 20 years. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The Project includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and a fitness
rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The Project site is vacant and
will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The
Project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial
~~p.~ .
H. Public Services The Project will have a less than significant impact
upon, or not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation, or other public
facilities. The Project will provide additional public services available to the community
and general public. The Project will also provide better emergency medical response
and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The Project will contribute. fair-share contributions through City Development Impact
Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure. The Project will not have
an impact upon nor result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The Project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The Project will
have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental
Health have been made aware of this Project. A condition of approval has been placed
on this Project that will require the applicant to obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the
public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential
and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the Project.
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual
analysis concerning sewer flows from the hospital, and the total flow is estimated to be .
approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the
:1.
I
I
i
i
,
,
I
Ii
I.
'[
I
hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity,
assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP
sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service, the applicant is responsible for
payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee.
Impact is less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 31)
I. Recreation The Project is a hospital and medical office Project in a
professional office zone. The Project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or
remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to
increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of
this Project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project.
The Project does not include an open space or recreational aspect. Furthermore, the
Project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32)
J. Utilities and Service Svstems The Project will not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities,
nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The Project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems.
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections. The applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, EMWD, to
determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in
place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the
proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle
this quantity of wastewater.
The Project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The Project may require
various state and federal permits. The Project will include the construction of
underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the Project
site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a
result of this Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project.
The Project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded
water entitlements. According to RCWD's Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban
Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported,
and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The
ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while
the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet. Based on the
projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands
. projected for the Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water
Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the Project location. .
The Master Plan projected demands for the Project site are based on use of the site as
30 acres of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate
Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the Project
area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided
for and can be met with existing supply capacities.
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a
combination of the following:
1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells.
2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake.
3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed
to be available.
4. Conservation measures.
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910. (DEIR, p. 4-35 and 4-35)
The Project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from
solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 35
and 36)
Section 3. Findings Concerning Impacts Found in The Draft EIR to Have
Less Than Significant Impacts on the Environment. The City Council hereby finds
and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR,
written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony
.
.
1.
!
.
Ie
from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts
associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have a less than significant
impact through the EIR and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
A. Aesthetics - Scenic Hiahwavs and Visual Character or Quality The
Project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by
the California Department of Transportation.2 According to the City of Temecula
General Plan, the Project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for
its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. Development of the
Project will result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p.4-4)
The proposed Project will be visible from various residential lots north of the Project site,
as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b in the EJR. However, the views are
considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by
any City regulation or policy. While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently
taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development. As illustrated
in Figure 4-2a in the EIR, while the Project site can seen from residential areas to the
north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will
not be blocked by the Project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent
residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the Project site.
Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the
residences to the north.
To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the
preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine,
Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences
and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the
development of the site. Incorporation of these Project features will help to reduce
viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct
views from nearby locations. However, because the views are considered private, are
not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or
policy, impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-5)
B. Air Qualitv - Construction Odors and Consistency with Adooted
Plans and Policies The Project has the potential to create objectionable odors during
construction. Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines
during site preparation. However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments
and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper
maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions. These emissions are also of
short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Therefore, the Project
will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction. (DEJR,4-24)
2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
htlo:/lwww.dot.ca.oovlhoILandArchlscenic hiohwavsl Date accessed: August 11, 2005.
With respect to determining Project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air
quality planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the attainment of the ambient
air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. The SCAQMD CEQA emissions
thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify
those Projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the
attainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards.
General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the
framework for attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards. The Temecula Hospital Project proposes development on the Project
site at an intensity greater than the two-story building height limit established in the
General Plan Land Use Element for this site. However, the proposed hospital and
medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building area, whereas a
commercial office development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations
could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor-Area Ratio of 0.5.
The proposed uses would generate up to 65% fewer vehicle trips than the
commercial/office uses on the site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of
Alternative 2 in Section 5.0 of the EIR). Finally, Policy 1.8 in the Land Use Element
states: "Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university." Therefore, the Project is
consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. As the Project is consistent
with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Open Space/Conservation
Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP, and the development's
assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4-25)
C. Hydroloav and Water Qualitv Storm Water Drainage and Water
Quality Compliance with the existing regulations, which require Riverside County Flood
Control District review to ensure adequate flood control capacity, on-site drainage
provision, drainage fees payment, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
preparation, will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and
water quality. (DEIR, pA-33)
.
.
California Water Code Sections 10910-10915
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development
Projects pursuant to the General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required
to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and
multiple-dry water years will be sufficient, to satisfy demands of the proposed Project, in
addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development Project will be
permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Water Code Section
10910 applies to the Project because the proposed hospital and medical office building
complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(1) in
square feet and potential employment.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public .
water system within which the proposed Project will be located. RCWD will be the
i
I
!.
,.
I
.
water purveyor to the Project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the
proposed Project; this assessment states that the projected water demand for the
Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This demand has
been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and
Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD. Furthermore, based on the projected water
demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the
Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan
projected demands based on land use for the Project location. Therefore, the 42 acre-
feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided for and can be met with
existing supply capacities.
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following
alternatives:
1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells.
2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake.
3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed
to be available.
4. Conservation measures.
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Ternecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-33, 4-34, and 4-35)
D. Land Use and Planning, The Professional Office General Plan land
use designation will continue to apply to the Project site. The uses proposed are all
permitted within this designation. Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land
use policy will apply. The elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height
restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO
zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has
submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum
height of 115 feet for the tower structures. In approving the Project, the City Council .
has determined that no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations
result, and impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-39)
The Project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of
public facilities and services within the Project area. Furthermore, potential jobs will be
created through the development and programming of this regional hospital, and the
housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing
developments anticipated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project
will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities
Element. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-40)
All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in new
PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact will result. The primary changes that will occur
as a result of the new proposed PD~ and the Development Plan will be a change to the
building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development
standards applicable strictly to this site. The PD~ document submitted with the
application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet. In
approving the PDO-9 zone, the City Council has determined that the PDO-9 zone is
appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. Therefore, impact will
be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-40)
The hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and .
planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola
Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by,
respectively, a six-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-
way to the north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and
landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses.
The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses;
impact will be less than significant. (DEJR, p. 4-41)
With regard to intensity of use, the Project will result in a more intense use of the site
than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased
height standard. The Project will require approval of a planned development permit to
provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping,
and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development
standards for the Project.
The hospital bed-towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The
nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially
zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter
landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These Project
features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding
uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards
are not considered significant. (DEIR, p. 4-41)
.
.
.
.
E. Noise (Construction. Ground-Borne Vibration. Traffic-related Noise.
Sirens. Loading Activities. Parkino Lot Activities, Trash PickuD.
Landscao.ino/Maintenance. and Future Exterior/Interior Noise Environment
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8.32.020 of the Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
The proposed Project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the
demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very
near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the
short duration of the activity. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
Although siren noise may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors,
noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact
because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens
are necessary for safety during an emergency. (DEIR, p. 4-58)
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
Activity at the loading docks have the potential to create excessive noise. Assuming
that the worst-case 1 a-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be
the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading
docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the estimated 1 a-minute
average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50
dB(A). With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB.
This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB.
Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading
dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. The impact is less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4-61)
At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet) from the loading docks,
the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City's standard of 70 dB,
and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less
than significant. (DEJR, p. 4-61)
Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to
commercial uses. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50
feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this
noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts
only three minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the
community. Therefore, this Project impact will be less than significant. (DEJR, p. 4-63)
The exterior noise standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior .
locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South.
However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Impact
will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
The interior noise standard will not be exceeded within any medical office building nor
hospital facility given the noise estimates and the noise reduction characteristics of the
buildings themselves. The noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior
CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will
be lower than. 50 dB. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
Section 4. Findings Concerning Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can
be Mitigated to Levels of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR have been incorporated
into the Temecula Regional Hospital Project that avoid or substantially lessen the
fOllowing potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Project Draft EIR
to a less than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts and the
mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than significant
level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics - Liaht and Glare
1.
Potential Significant Impact
.
The Project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically
associated with a hospital and medical office. A minimum of one-foot
candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas,
and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main
entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fUlly
shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto
adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium
outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. The City
is requiring the Project applicant to locate all ground-mounted lighting as
far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the
parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the
Development Code and Design Guidelines.
The hospital towers have the potential to emit glare from the upper floors.
(DE/R, p. 4-14)
2. Findings
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 DEJA. Implementation of the following .
mitigation measures will reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a less than
significant level:
i
:.
,I
I
..
.
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a
photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed
light levels for the entire Project site onto adjacent Project
boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate.
Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means
to mitigate potential light impacts. (DEIR, p. 4-15)
,
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medicaJ
office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-
reflective glass/window~) to reduce the amount of glare emitted
from the upper floors. (DEIR, p. 4-15)
A-3. The applicanVdeveloper shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and
replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs
(15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the Project site.
Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The
Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or
berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required
along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
(DEJR, p. 4-15)
B.
Noise - Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard. Emeraencv Generators.
Mechanical Eauipment Room. Rooftoo Eouioment\
1. Potential Significant Impact
Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment
The mechanical yard duty equipment's noise level for all the equipment is
74 dB(A) at 50 feet. At the worst-case noise-sensitive location, the
estimated noise level is 51 dB(A) and, over a 24-hour period, the CNEL
will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City's standard of 65 dB;
however, the CNEL at the residence will increase by approximately 4 dB.
In addition, the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be
71 dB at the nearest office location. This exceeds the City's standard of
70 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required.
(DEJR, p. 4-62)
Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators
The emergency generators' estimated noise level for each of the two
generators is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include additional
noise from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level
by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. At the worst-
case noise-sensitive location, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A),
without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test
day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the .
City's standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-
hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the City's 65
dB standard. In addition, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB at the nearest
office property if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, which
exceeds the City's standard. Therefore, the generator impact is potentially
significant at both the worst-case noise-sensitive location and the office
location as well. (DEIR, pgs. 4-62 and 4-63)
The Mechanical Equipment Room
The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB
hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the
central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the
construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the
equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central
plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers,
and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at
nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the
design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is
required. (DEIR, p. 4-63)
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration .
units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise
sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new
construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be' included
during the final design of the Project to minimize rooftop mechanical
equipment noise. (DEIR, p. 4-63)
2. Findings
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 DEIR. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than
significant level:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators)
is fully operational upon completion of Project construction, the
applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24-hour noise
monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be
conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels
exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the
City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that
may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement
measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such .
.
measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation
barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed
appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation
has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report
with the City documenting compliance. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
N-5
Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office
buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise
standards established in the General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
C. TransDortation - Proiect ImDacts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
The Project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring
mitigation:
Phase 1: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or
cumulative impacts:
.
I. hours
.
hours
.
.
.
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak
Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak
Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak
Highway 79 South/Red hawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours
Phase 1: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or
cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
· Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Project at Build-out: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-
related or cumulative impacts:
.
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak
hours
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak
hours
. Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at
A.M. and P.M. peak hour
. Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak
hour
.
Highway 79 South/Red hawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours
.
Project at Build-out: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to
Project-related or cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
2. Findings
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 DEI A. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures will reduce potential transportation - Project impacts
to a less than significant level:
The Project applicanVpermittee will be required to contribute fair-share
payments for the following improvements:
T-1. Signalize the main Project site access from Highway 79 South
opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
.
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) (DEIR, pA-93)
T-4. Improvements on the Project site shall include a driveway onto De
Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works
Director. (DEIR,4-94)
Section 5. Findings Concerning Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated
to a Level of Insignificance. The City. Council hereby finds that, despite the
,
incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts .
cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included herein:
,
,
!I.
A.
Air Qualitv - ShorHerm. Lona-term. and Cumulative
1.
Potential Significant Impact
Short- Term
Construction activity will produce daily emissions above the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (RaG). The NOx
emissions are primarily attributable to exhaust from construction vehicles,
and the RaG emissions are primarily from the application of architectural
coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a
significant adverse short-term regional air quality impact because the
levels of these emissions are projected to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant
significance thresholds. (DEIR, p. 4-23)
I.
Long- Term and Cumulative
Air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called
stationary sources) and by the operation of on-road vehicles (mobile
sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where
production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be
regional in nature. Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the
production of energy were calculated using emission factors from the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (DEIR, p. 4-24)
Regional emissions from the operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital
are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and RaG. As such,
regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project
will result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to RaG and
CO. (DEIR, p. 4-25)
2. Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce air quality
impacts to the extent feasible.
AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area
(or turn-out) appropriate for the Project site. Written authorization
and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department. (DEIR, p. 4-26)
.
AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for
reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the
daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall
include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and
vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the .
on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to
the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of
the medical offices. (DEIR, p. 4-26)
AQ-3. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency
standards appropriate for medical facilities and, professional office
buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. (DEIR, p. 4-
26)
AQ-4. The applicanVpermittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the
Project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and
mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than
100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning
of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary
landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and
erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the
applicanVpermittee's expense. (DEJR, p. 4-26)
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of
construction activities, the applicanVpermittee shall verify in writing
(to the Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions.
In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where
feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed
considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy
efficiency reasonably possible. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall
be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for
approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on
site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works
Director reseNes the right to modify this requirement as necessary
based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-7. The applicanVpermittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive
Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 -
Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include
applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and
Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the
following examples listed below:
.
.
. Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally
safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active
operations have ceased.
. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading
completion.
. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily,
at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon.
. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the
surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there
is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary
coverings.
. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
,
,
I
I
'.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation
operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be
subject to periodic site monitoring by the City. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-8. During the course of the Project grading and construction, the
applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-
related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
(DEJR, p. 4-27)
AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and
supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest
property line of a residentially improved parcel. (DEJR, p. 4-27)
AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-
related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission
controls to ensure against Project site related odors during
construction and subsequent use. (DEJR; p. 4-28)
.
AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the Project
site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with
State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site
(to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code
23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F),
(e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall
be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall
be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to
prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they
leave the construction area. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-12. During the course of the Project grading and construction, .
the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent
streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt
in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be
done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of
each day of grading and/or construction. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (Le., wind speed sufficient to
cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind
speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving
and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the
degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site
activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either
off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole
discretion. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the
construction and repainting of the Project to the maximum extent
feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95
percent over convention architectural coatings. The following
websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content
coatings:
.
htlo://htlP://www.agmd.oov/prdaslbrochureslSuper-Compliant AI M.pdf
http://www.delta-institute.oro/publications/paints.pdf (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-15. The Project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times
(not including the morning and evening water down) during
construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. (DEIR, p. 4-
28)
AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a
covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and
covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site
removal. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel
for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets
(De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative
transportation. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
3. Supporting Explanation
.
The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project will result in significant
air quality impacts during the Project's construction and operational
.
phases. With mitigation, AOG emissions will be less than significant.
However, NOx emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will continue
to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and result in a significant,
unavoidable short-term air quality impact. (DEIA, p. 4-29)
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated
emissions of CO and AOG will exceed the operational phase thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip
reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a
level of significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and
unavoidable. (DEIA, p. 4-29)
B. Noise - Associated with the Maximum Potential Number of Emeraencv
Helicooter Fliohts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
,
Ie
The Project includes a helipad to be used for the emergency evacuation of
any patient who cannot be treated at the hospital. The helipad permit to
be issued by the California Department of Transportation will have a limit
of a maximum six flights per month. The applicant anticipates no more
than one flight per month. However, assuming one flight on a "worst-
case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or
climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) would be 94 to 100 dB(A). The
estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4
(on a scale from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to six times per
month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered
significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. (DEI A, p. 4-61)
2. Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts
to the extent feasible:
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances
for critical patient transport. The applicanVpermittee shall apply for
a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services
Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Aegulations,
Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit
allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6
landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter,
except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty
event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond
these limits. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
,.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be
informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350
southeast. (DEJA, p. 4-65)
3. Supporting Explanation
.
Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts,
these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance
because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to
the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given
month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR, p.4-66)
C. Traffic & Circulation - Cumulative ImDacts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring
throughout the Project area, combined with Project trips, will increase the
number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area.
Vehicle trips from the Project and related Projects are anticipated to
create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near
the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections.
The 21 cumulative Projects generate a total of 160,500 average daily
trips with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak
hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be
confined to the area (short trips), while others would travel outside the .
Project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the
regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation
network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction
measures and programs are not implemented.
In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development
Project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway
improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City
to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation
programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of
service at local intersections.
Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally
anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment
of fair share fees and citywide and Project-level roadway improvements.
The proposed Project will not result in any cumulative impacts to
intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over
capacity:
. Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
.
.
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at Project build-out will be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15
will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future.
Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant
and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
;
I.
.;.
'~
2.
Findings
.
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce traffic impacts
to the extent feasible. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be
pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General
Plan Circulation Element. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
T-2. The Project applicanVpermittee will pay Riverside County
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate
cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15.
(DEIR, p. 4-94)
T-3. The Project applicanVpermittee will contribute a fair share toward
the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the
Project's contribution toward cumulative impacts:
Intersection
Required Improvements
Highway 79 South/I-15
Southbound Ramps
Highway 79 South/l-15
Northbound Ramps
Additional southbound left-turn lane
Additional eastbound through lane, plu~
convert westbound right lane to free rig hI
turn ~
Widen southbound movement to duallehW
turn lanes and one shared through/righ1
lane
Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus
eastbound and northbound free right-turn
lanes
Signalize and provide dual eastbound
left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-
turn lanes with a shared through/right-
turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn
lane for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/La
Paz Road
Highway 79
South/Pechanga
Parkway
Highway 79
South/Project
Driveway/Country Glen
Way
Highway 79
South/Redhawk
Parkway/Margarita
Road
(DEIR, p. 4-94)
Provide southbound and eastbound dual
left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
3. Supporting Explanation
Cumulative impacts on these roadway links at Project build-out will be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15
will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future.
Cumulative impacts, as noted in the EIR, will be significant and
unavoidable.
.
.
.
:.
Section 6. Findings Concerning Alternatives to the Project. The City
Council hereby declares that it has considered the alternatives identified in the EIR as
described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to a Project, or to the location of a Project, which: (1) offer substantial
environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only
evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly attain most of the
Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases,
the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead
agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in
an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over a proposed
Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects
of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic,
technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
The City's objectives for the proposed Project and the Project area are to:
.
Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's economic and 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
. Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the
City of Temecula
. Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity,
and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses
. Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an
operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the
City
The objectives of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, for the proposed
Project are to:
. Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
surrounding communities
. Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with
outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices
. Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-
of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
.
. Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of
doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures
. Provide a regional hospital facility that is centrally located, with access from a
major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the
region
A. No Project Alternative - No Build
1 . Description
The "No Project Alternative" alternative assumes that site conditions would
remain the same as existing conditions, and no development would occur
in the near future. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
2. Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative does not meet any of
the Project objectives identified by the City nor the applicant. However, it
has fewer environmental impacts than the Project.
3. Supporting Explanation
.
This alternative generally would avoid the significant air quality impacts
associated with the Project and would not generate any additional traffic.
No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with
the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the
Project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the
proposed Project, it meets none of the Project objectives identified by the
applicant and the City. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
B. No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan
1 . Description
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General
Plan" alternative assumes that the Project site ultimately would be
developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and
policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the
standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and
the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-
8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square
feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning
regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
.
2. Finding
'.
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General
Plan" would not attain the City's objective to encourage future
development of a regional hospital and related services, or the applicant's
objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of
Temecula and surrounding communities. It would potentially have greater
air quality and traffic impacts, while potentially having reduced land use
and planning impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation
This alternative could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic
impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced
compared to the Project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter
operations would be avoided. However it would not attain the City's
objective to encourage future regional hospital and related services nor
would it attain the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health
services to Temecula or surrounding communities' residents. All other
impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed
hospital Project. (DEIR, p. 5-6)
C. Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties
I
i.
1.
Description
The alternative site considered for this Project includes land now owned
by Corona Family L TD Partnership located at the northeast corner of
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of
three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN
952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN
952150002,20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within
the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for
Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located
within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of
Riverside. The Project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan
planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County
zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant's
control for the Project to proceed, and a County General Plan
amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the
larger parcel. (DEIR, p.5-7)
2. Finding
:.
The "Alternative Site" alternative has the potential to result in similar traffic
and air quality as impacts the proposed Project, and could also result in
adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility
impacts. This alternative will not attain the applicant's objectives.
However, this alternative would attain the City's objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation
This alternative has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricuitural
resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the Project does
not. Also, the alternative site would require annexing a portion of the site
into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be
greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the
Project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight
path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are
uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to
determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those
associated with the Project. The alternative site would not attain the
applicant's objectives because the site is located farther from the broad
population to be served City and the site has limited access. The
alternative site would attain the Project objectives set forth by the City of
Temecula.
D. Access from Dartolo Road
1 . Description
.
The "Access from Dartolo Road" alternative would require the extension of
Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the construction of a bridge
across the existing flood channel immediately east of the Project site. For .
this alternative, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and
those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed
Project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access
point. As with the proposed Project, the access points along Highway 79
South were assigned ihe majority of the Project trips (63 percent), with a
slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the
remaining (4 percent) Project traffic assigned through the reciprocal
access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Glen Way.
Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to
Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there
has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo
Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans
to do so.
2. Finding
This alternative has the potential to create greater environmental impacts
than those of the proposed Project. The alternative would, however, attain
each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the
Project applicant.
3.
Supporting Explanation
.
:.
..
.
Traffic and biological resource impacts of the Access from Dartolo Road
alternative could be greater than those associated with the proposed
Project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at
the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more
delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of
more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this
intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go
through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were
removed in the future at the Margarita RoadlDartolo Road intersection,
only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would
improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this
location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79
South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario.
Additionally, the biological impacts of this alternative would be greater
than those of the proposed Project, as the Initial Study found that no
biological impacts would result from the Project. (DEIR, p. 5-14)
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise
impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project
objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant.
(DEIR, p. 5-14)
E.
Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road
1. Description
The "Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road" alternative was
conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction
with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as
described for the proposed Project, would be provided with Phase I, with
access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns
would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would
require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described
above for Access from Dartolo Road. This alternative would involve the
extension of Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east
of the Project site. (DEIR, p. 5-15)
2. Finding
This alternative would not avoid nor eliminate adverse environmental
impacts; however, it attains both the City and the applicant's Project
objectives.
3.
Supporting Explanation
.
This alternative would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated
with the Project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase" would
not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on
Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance.
Biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be
greater than those associated with the Project due to construction within a
jurisdictional wetland. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts
would result from the Project.
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise
impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The
alternative would, however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth
by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant. (DEIR, p. 5-20)
F. Construction of Hospital Only
1 . Description
The "Construction of the Hospital Only" alternative would result in a
smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or .
fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative was considered as a means
to reduce the overall impact of the Project while still providing the
community with a regional hospital. (DEIR, p. 5-20)
2. Finding
This alternative has the potential to reduce environmental impacts and it
meets the City's objectives. This alternative, however, does not attain the
Project applicant's objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation
The "Construction of Hospital Only" alternative would result in reduced
impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there
would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the
visual impact, trips generated by the Project, and short- and long-term air
quality impacts would be less than those associated with the Project.
Noise impacts associated with mechanical equiprnent could be reduced.
While this alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future
development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure
compatibility of the proposed Project with surrounding uses, it fails to meet .
the City's objective to support development of biomedical, research, and
office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base.
'.
Furthermore, it does not meet applicant's objective to provide a regional
hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient
care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in
construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of
rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's
objectives. (DEIR, p. 5-22)
Section 7. Findings Concerning Project Benefits and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must balance the
benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against any unavoidable environmental
impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Temecula Regional
Hospital. If the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant
effects that will occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can
be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant
impacts as discussed in Section 5 of these Findings.
;.
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula
Regional Hospital.
The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because
they would impose restrictions on the Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit
the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers. The City Council further finds that
such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
effects of the Temecula Regional Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending
adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire
administrative record on the Temecula Regional Hospital, and having weighed the
benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its unavoidable adverse impacts
after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
: . 1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical
services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute,
outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services.
2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new
employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services
workers.
3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of
Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to
biomedical, research, and office facilities.
4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a
major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and
the region.
, The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. The
City Council further finds that each of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above,
standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these
unavoidable environmental impacts.
Section 8. Review and Independent Judgment of the Council. The City
Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the
Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies
with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that
the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
Section 9. Certification of EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the
Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Finding
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final
EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 6 of this Resolution but
cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant short-term and long-term
Project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the
potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative traffic and
circulation impacts.
B. Conclusions
1.
All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional
Hospital's construction and operation have been identified in the
Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, except
for those impacts listed in Section 5 of this Resolution.
.
.
.
:.
I.
i.
2.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital
that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula
Regional Hospital have been considered and rejected in favor of
the Temecula Regional Hospital.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Temecula Regional
Hospital override and make infeasible any alternatives to the
Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures beyond
those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
Section 10. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
.,....w_::',,:::':_""''''_'''<_~,';)'C'::''''
Sec.tioi1~.'." of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is
_._._~.~_.._..._-_._."---<...........
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In
the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program shall control.
Section 11. Location of Records. The documents and materials that.
constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are
located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Section 12. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of 2006.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 06-_ 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 January, 2006 by the following
vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
.
~
\.
o
0-
~
o
~.g
C)
z
tl
o
t:
z
o
~
z
o
...-
.~
4:.
C)
-
t:
~
I.
t5
O! 4."
z.
4.-
..J\l-
::>
(.)
uJ
~
.\-
uJ
'J:
t-
lJ:)
o
~
...
i
::>
o
-z.
~
ro
o
.
:E
~
0:
Cl
o
0:
n.
Cl
Z
j::
0:
o
a.
w
~
o
z
~
Cl
z
it
g
2
o
a
z
o
~
Cl
j::
:1E
'\
.
-'
~
l-
ii:
Ul
o
:r
-'
~
z
U)Q
PO
~~
o:~
W...J
ID=>
::;;0
ww
>::;;
Ow
Z 1-.
~Q)--.......cn:J-
" tII OJ ~ =
'J.s:::._cC ,..
O::.....c.-aJ(/);>
D-roECDLL-02m
--- .c Q) Q) ..c
Q)-C.cN(l)......
(l)O........_'-~
-g\...\...,+-C:3-e
,,::l'50(01I)1lI
'-"tncce>con
II) Iii Q).Q 0Q) E Q)
(1) <D-'<J) -
e.9:O~I.-..c:f!
;:JUJco~(Uo~
o'-ot(/)llIo
(/)o.=Q)Q)Wa.
<Do:~o:s U)
O:::::2;(iQ)13c~
.!,!:::2;=-5Q)00>
DQ)llI.s:::.E"'.s:::.
:J +-i m--
D-:5:5'~ c1::'U
__-- ooc.
.s:::.o~e", 1lI
:!::.Q)cnOo::li
3(1)Q)n.~
0::: c:-
a. D.:>
5 E'
a.o
Q)
'001
e
Q):;:::
-olll
::lC
-'-
'c: E
01=
(00)
Eo
~Ol
Oc
Q)'O
~:>
0l'U
Q) ~
-0....
Q)O
.s:::.~
_'0
Olc
elll
:;J ...;
.- c
E Q)
=E
>'c
.00
t/).=
->
Oc
j1<D
E'O
.- Q)
-
010
CQ)
'N~
.- OJ
E
'c
z
o
i=
()
;:)
o
o
~
I-
Z
~<{
EO
llIW
0,0-
0--......
~ -- co >..
a... 0_..0--
<{ C >
Ol>.Q)'O>
.~ ~ E ~ '._
1:: ro c a.D- (/) = .
o~ooo::oQ)
0.-'.=1:J :;:::::;~
<D 0> (0:::2; <D (/)
O::tiiWc (1):2-5 1lI
- .0 <h
"'0 C__.!a a>-o
c:<I>ro=..cCUG)
co E.f: ~ - ~!E
o>cu-t).9T"""c
.s: e Q) Q).~-d>
.9'~:5'e-o 1.::2
'-W- a.Q) 0 Q)
c: 0 -'-?.-
0m me o::Ii
:;Eo_-.J::cn<Drn
Elil::Q)~Q)
c:oJ:)o1::..c:;
.Q:=:J"--......fh
roaco<nmcm(tJ
0> 1-6>"'0<1>
.- (!) <D ::l Q) ;:J E
~.t:~U).oo
:::2;_ 1lI C C .
_U)Q)cP--o"'O
.!!! 0'- E ro-o';p~
..c I"'-.c: ..c c: to c
......0>.2 C (lJ..Q>a>
...... 0 .c:.2 en ~- E
g.1O ~ ro ~ ~ E Q)
-oT"""" .a>:::S 0 uo..
ro C - :;:; (/) 01<;:: E
o 1lI.- ro <D'-
-.-:=:'2; (I)...... 0'-
=-a. EllIQ)OO
~ 0 00. 0 a.'-
Q)0<h me
OJ (f) I ...... C ...... 'U'~ 0
_ coo.
:J"U (1)-- Q) .:p.
oCllIEro:nQ)u
CDmc CJ) On)
E O~:;:::~c.c
(1)<00-__-""" ~ 0
1-"":g'~E>'Q)co
_(()[t(1)Q).D'Q)Q)
00 '- U) 1.--
~ro 0'"'O_t\\
>.C'\I_ c: ~ Q) m..c
__ ::10~ot)-
.- c 0:;:;1- C'e Q)
UOQ)tO 0)....'-
:;:; C>>. '- ..... ::J
Q)oE:;:;OC(l)Eoo
.c: Q) (I)---'-::J C
1-(f)I-Ew~co>
~
::l
<3 rn-o
coo
O"C: C
c-- 0
._ ro._
'0 a.-
.- 0> 1lI
g-~
ro>.a.
Q).oo
-o<hQ)
:J "00
-roc
g a.1lI
.- E C
0.-2
C1> c>.!:
.......c t\1
e.s. E
a.!!:'
t1)o"U
.,Ca>c
_....1lI
o - C
.....co
0> 0.-
.--
--1lI
.oi'li::
\3co>
.- W (J)
o.EQ)
a.Q)....
1lI- a.
a.
OOE>'
~ ._.n
::looQ)
(/)""E
<G"'D':;j
WCL..
EllIQ)
>
cCo
_Q.2 fI)
---
'" 0 u
Ol",ro
.- a.
""OlE
:::2;:5._
....
'- 0).5
.. ::1.5 c
~~~O
co>o>.
Q) a.-
oQ)(I)
~::a:L-
"'0 Cu'
1lI 0>
Q)E
...Ja
010
-5'0
<h tii.
~c:o
.- Ol
~E:::2;.Q
Q)C:c:~
""'oo<l)(])
,~ .... ._ 0 '-
-:';; Gi ~-S
~ C 0)-- CT
a:>CD:;:O""O(l)
o ~:o:::-- L.-
~f::~C:U)
"'ro Q)1lI
ec~E(/)
O"-__~::J
n"OL-gco
~~.g"Uti
~>."UQ)
<1>0 (.) 55
"'OCC:Wtn
O'-Q) -(13
O~g'~o>
00.... oE
Q)::l -
c/)"'D'OC
o 1lI1l1 COO
::;Q)..9:!+,~
gE'Ocgj,
Q) 0> Ol .-
oc5--E~
._roo>E
o1QCO.x:
:'=0)0>'-0
.0 :;:; 'en.e Q)
::l'- (!) c.s:::.
o.E-oo>o
Ii=
_1lI
::l_
Otll
Ol'O
Ec
Ollll
1-(1)
- ....
O>ro
>
-c "0
OQl
..l<(/)
.... 1lI
llI.o
0. 00 .
'- (/)
~ c:.~
<n.Q Q;
coo-
.-'- (13
oooE
::lQ)
lD'O~
0000>
O ->>.s:::.
",;!:'o
C')o~
"<to>O
-.s:::. '"
..l<_-
.... e
Q) .s:::. Q)
agE
>>-!; ::l
_,,0
.- 0
OC'O
o
-a..s:::.
~::JO
::l (/) ::l
001 (J)
<Dc....
E.- 0
(1)'0.....
~Q)c
"Qltll
....... 0"-
00'0
~ 0
.?:- Q.Ui'
.-13 ~
.s:::."'Q)
__ :5
.5a
<h'
01'
.!;
.tp
-r-
-
(~
=s
<l:
a:
. Cl
i,..~
: a.
. Cl
z
i=
a:
o
D..
w
a::
a
z
<(
Cl
Z
oc
o
I-
Z
o
::iE,
z
o
i=
<(
Cl
E
::iE
I~
...J
~
ii:
UJ
o
J:
...J
<(
z
\.~ Q
IV
:m =>
:=s 0
'w w
1>=S
10 w
121-
CIICII
::> GI
--
co 0
wZ
I
I
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
L
GI
1G
o
c:
o
,.,
GI
a.
E
o
(,)
[
I~ 01 I
.Q c: '
ii)';: >)
g,g '51'
c..c:o..
ClIO
GI:2:
0::
I
I
I i
GI
:2:
c:
o
+:;
co
01
:2
I-~-
-
o
If
--'I
'"
<ii
.,
E
<h
m
.,
S
<l)
1il
o
<l)
E
l1J
Z
co
.Q
Q;
a.
g *
o 0
<l)
E
l1J
Z
ji
-'~~
om'{' c
Q) a. c 0
.s g g' 0 .~u
L.. ro- g>-- Q)
O::J;g-c;ga.
t::UJ:::J:::J:::JtO
a..~.c"O..Q.E
-
.~o 0>
1I)"t .s
c.l1JU
(J)a.= c
co","
:cm..ag
HQ)O
lD~Q)
.0 C) (I) Cl..c
--Sc:~
<( C/) 0._
co
l1J
E -g
CD CDl1J
t-g'Eo> E
'0'2 ai'.!:: c~
~ C a.;g..e a.
._~ Q):::J co Q)
on.omCllo
::: .g ~.~ t5 E.:B 0 B ~ .9
s::-..e-lDcnco""'"c .
t:lD<oc,:O'=cn mG
O>E 0)"- - -(1)(1)
0.0"0 a.Q):!::: :::J- c
+--.cQ) >E .o('lJro
g' 0 ,2.:5 '- :e E = CD <Ii
-.s:..&::,,-co> (UcocoE-
u-::o.o,(I)J -cu.c 0
=tG;>~()~oQ)cU) ro
:J ...... ro ....... ... 0-
..c ..... 'oJ (/) "-,- "I: m (I) "" E
c:u CD <D "'0 to O' CI) C "0
ro:5E> roE (1)022:;
_ ,~E Q) ~ U) .... 0 .c
o ~- .0:: 0 ~ ~ :J E .5 .2>
<DQ):::J.cc ro -eID =
0>(/)0>0"0(1) 00. ro
C:';;';';' c:= c:.E O).Q-o"O:o=
~(ijQ)"O(l)aJ .E<D"O~~
(I) .c, Q) Q) _ UJ "'O.c c .....
o (I).,C (1)10 Q) , C"'i::ro 0
- ~ (/) 8. - L: OJ 8..$ Q) i ~
.e J9'jg e 'O.g.!::: (/) a. ~ L.. ....
,-<0 a.Q)c-g~8_[~
.o~c. ,0:;)- "-=.c Q)-
-.::._tOCDlO:.OooQ)o>L..:!:::
Q..Oo..:5 q,...o.EO.c= o..E
:t
'"
<l:
co
__ roO .E
= 0 .....+-- Q) E
3= (I) >.'6.. o.1?.c-
oB~~2-f--;;~
'~5.Q..c ~ iOlQ
eoc..~.o"-:"J::~ .
c..U)C..cE1::.UJ-~
"O~~=5o..!2lQ;Eo
lD(I)ro>-<t>::..Q)o
en C-"'O (tJ...c. > o eo:
8.Q)0l.s-2 c..s= "-
oo"'Oro"O__-rolD
,-::l C,_ Q) UJ.ro~,c...
0."'0 ro 0. E Q) ~ c' a..
0- 0 ..- c..([)::l
1DL..J::UJ"OQ:cn_Q)
..cc: 0)00 C._ o,o..r;:
r-._=,romoo..cc.........
<h
Jg
E
i::
o
'a;
A..
E CD
o 1il
o 0
CD
E
l1J
Z
!9
- .~
OCD
<l)c.
oUO)
_coco
....ro:c
0"-
&:~~
-
<h 0
co CD
"'u_
c.r::-
O)l1JE
co"",
'0 'a~ a.
~,ro 0 0)
<Dg-E
':;;"0 "-:Q
Q) C 0._
^'" ro'E::;:J
u... _ 0..0
l1J
'5
u
'"
E co co
<l) CD <l)
t-g>Ec>E
_._1::: C1:::
o C (0:0 ro
~ c..::= '0.
_Q);:JQ)
omo
U
co
'"
N
~
l1J
C.
<ii
CD ,...,
t).o"Cc
<D <D~
m '0",;0- 8-7D
CD en o..'E 0.. ~
~
ji
"
a
g-g ~ ~ 0 (.l
'g.iij 3=. ..2 c =
~ :s: -g .8 o,jjf e g
"'o~ (1)-,2 0 (tl ro 0-
c>oJ9;--(1) ~-:-
(0 Q) 0.'- ~ >- ~ Q) a o.
:: o..e .go o."€: .2.10 cD.c
o::lQ.oom>.2.oe
C ~ Q)..c.._ Q) cD. Ci a ,to
o "-J::. Q) <Des::.' --0
~Bt-f.;~E,,:~-g~
"- .-- 0 "- L......
o.Q:I>>OC':::~Q)cD+7
o.Q)'O- 0 ---U""01t::
.... J:: ro..r:: 0 U) (() 7D 1ij Q)
8 - a..Q>_ ~ ~ c c c
E3g~::~'5:t: g 8$
~
o
~.
"
1>
..
~
..
.s=
o
m
"
III
:>
_~__.----.J
-'
~
Q.
U)
o
:z:
-'
<(
z
It)Q
00
O.W
NO::
ct:<(
w-,
lD:::l
::;;U
Ww
>::;;
Ow
Z....
::;;
~
Cl
o
ct:
Q.
Cl
z
~
o
Q.
W
0::
c
z
<(
Cl
z
ii:
o
....
Z
o
:a:
z
o
~
Cl
E
:a:
j
, I
I ,
,I I I
I ~ i I
8 '; I
I
i
!
III III
;;, CD
... ...
lU 0
ii)z
I
~ Cl I
:f!.=
Ill...:>'
cot::
O;t=lU!
a.CIl.
III 0 I
l~:E i
I
III
e
;;,
t/I
lU
CD
:E
c
o
:;::
lU
Cl
E
:E
j
I
...
U
lU
a.
E
'",
(ij
"'
~
i::
0
:a;
a. CD
E .s E
0 '" '"
u 0 z
'"
(ij
"'
:E
'"
o
"'
CD
a.
E
o
U
CD
1ii
o
CD
E
'"
z
E
CD
a.
'0 L.. ~ 0'(;
Q) SU-::/D
OOOHI)2.go
:: ffi..s~- a.~
o::J~E~"O:J
-C:ClJi.:(I)OC:CI)
a..~C)a.oro.~
>-~'"
o.e c
I:: 0
t'OCI')~
a.~ f!
5ECD
o CD a.
00.0
00 '0.19
~~-g~~
c:.'t::' ro c: <D en
~Ec:~a.c:
CI) .Q) 0 CI) >..2
~ a.:g.!Q ge
.sg>.s.s~[
o:000JO
"C ~ 5-c g "-
a.. 0)0 a.o.:E
co
1::'
:t;
..
~
t>>
e
ll..
to(J)cotJ(ij~~
.c c: o-a> c: ::J
Cl)m~ 0''+= 0
i.: tUtti L.. _Q)..
I-Ofa.U(ijE
.2ro CoCa)
CD CD m cr.q-
Q) ~ (ij g>":5 c: _
Q) L.. c:- 0 I" 0
= lDq::; Oh-;:J is: ,
~~ .m.E~J2~
_0::: co "t: 0.-
\&01 _ <D 0 0"";
gm....Om.c "S
c:=J2Q)"i:'5~CDE
B..c:_a.em1i)~-e
=:!:::c;(~a.c:Q) ctI
~=:t-"tJ a:m'O,S ~
ltIQ)~caJ~ 0
1tj ro _:::>> "D -g en
c:>- -:;>(1):::1::
- 0 c: >_-
"E c tn 9 .e E c:
Q) 0 Q) 1i) E cD 0..0 ~
~ 3~-8.a1ij g-~o:
o
"l::
0._
OJ-o 0
.!:cc
015aJQ)
~ C>>~ 010
~CC)CDo
_---c Ec;:
c: o.a c: CO ~.:e
c:oe::J~_OCD
.m CJ) a. (/) a.. 0 CO ()
~
o
<(
c
U~
o
>.=
I ~ 8-
>-~
.00
,,'"
i Q).Q
010
CD-
~::l
00>
~ CD
a. ~
E
c: wEc 12
0>. 5~O-
=fl1ij Q)-g~Ui.oUC):f;' ui
2"'OQ)gm.!!!S20:a C)
U)~:5m xEEtia:::E .f:
C:.::J!1) UO <D.c i:: Q)"t:--=
0"'0 >!EZ ><::: OoC 0.0 '"
020c,,-OmO-(I)c8
o. o.~~.EZ~E-g rog(ij
e=(I)O~~~.gtOU)~:;
CD 3 c~_1- E- u)"c=t)
~ c-~o2 .'C ~~~ 8::2
52".!2<( ~C9 CLm2.~ m:c;
J::oEO~O~~~E~e
Cl)mCDcn~O::mQ)><D~m
CD (ij u..n-
_ ~ ~.c::: en CD...... m
C:!::CD .....-_ CLm_OC
~3~ '0;>. ~~Em((g
:3'0= L:.Q .c-_ ro
-m3CDl1u"O u_"O....
8.of(l)5~ 5 ~~.!!-rg ~ 8. <P
oc:om.VL..._Cb -0 0 (I).c
L... 0'0-""" en f m+'" c. "0_
<( U)+:i CD 0 eGg 0.10 oO~o >.
(I) ~:J c: 0)-....., c: e.~.....,_.c..c
;; m (1),"0- 0..... 00 0 1: 0 U U)"C
f: (I) nU a. ~_ C L... Q) U) <I) e CD ci
CD OC oS E.a 0 r6 ~ CLa "'0 CD~-Eoo::;:
- - f! m;::; (1)-'- 0 .~o<::
QU)o ~c~Q.oc(ijxQ)::aO
c:.~~:g~"O CD.:E'"O-~~ ~.f!<(
o e'e CDO C 0-(1) C ~ E=s.c (1)0
...... Q) CL t>> 0 m 0 > ro (0 Q) ;>_ a. <D (/)
'"
a.
:s
CD
32m
.<=.<=
CD~
>05
c,;~
::."
"'CD
..~
-'"
,,-
sg
" '"
u:tl
.tJ
M
,~
-~
'-....-
:;:
;2
o
o
i.~
z
1=
'II:
o
Q.
W
0::
o
z
c(
o
z
i2
o
I-
Z
o
.:iE
z
o
~
o
1=
:E
I
!.
I
"''''
.as
CUo
[ii)Z
1--;- I
I ~
I C
I ~ I
! Gl
a.
~.1 ~
.~g]
() CD
....::2 .
-0'
5Gl
'",
ro
'"
:E
'"
~
c
c C
0 0
.:a; 'g
0. '" 0. '"
E '" E E '" E
0 <0 '" 0 <0 '"
() 0 z u 0 Z
A
"''0
s'"
0(0) (f)
_c.c:~
~"''5''
0:1= t:
'C: <n::J CD
a.. ~..o Q.
j::
, 't:l.!:!
II ~ a.
'I '- a.
::2~
0',
Gl.....
0::0 I
i ~i:'
o ~ cul
15;50..1,
Gl "'" ,
~O:: "" ,
ui
'"
o
~.
o
- >'(0 cPo
<0000
.c.C_E
(JJ.~ 1? 0 Q)
0,''''' .....
~E .l!!
'" _ en
CD .... ~
CD .eo>-
E tij.o
E >'"(1) :8 '0'
Q)E>:m -0 CD ui
...... (J)."C '- C
S'C'a.a.q::.~
fijCD2 ~:;:::
..Q - ~-a ~
Ci (U5~0l
'a. ..... '... CD
t\1Cl), '-
1ii fI) ~ co
L::~ en f;t-E
OmIDe::
e-"t(J E ~.e
00C=..:::!=
.s.: 0 (13 03 (Q
~-?'t).m.ou
'"
l!!
::2
I '"
(lJ
41
::i:
C
0
, 1U
,i .E>
oW
:E
....I
~
ii:
U)
0
J:
....I
0;(
:z
1/'),2
i. 1)
CU
0.
E
iii .;.J
::;;8 I
w w
> ::;; i
OIU
Zt-
~
'i'i
'"
E
.,.
S
-
o
c
o
~
,(D.
r
!
I c ~ c .f;
~C3 IV ~ 0 ~
.0.-00 (h, :P m.&:- .
....E.cmB'o~Q)>.ro G== C
iQ) ro Q),,.e: ro LLI > -...... :p ro Q) ro
~-a,>f-s.Q m~~ ~_ iji ~$a:
o t: m 'EC=3~ E 03;2 '-..!;Cij
.~ ~ ~ ~E ~.f: E [~c.!!! 1ii:5 <<i
Q)0 "- a1 c: ~..c .:J lD a. CD CD -0 '$ c:
O'UO~O='=::o..oEE>c: <l>
nCD~ m~ g,;: '=.>.~~ <tJJ9C>
2'=2ro'U-g~~.o~:ga..5j~
Q) 0.3 (U= m co-c"f9"tJ.c. o:E,c:J
~ ~ € .~ ~,m ~ ?; g ~ g ': ~ g g
a. 0 ~ CO 0) ~ _m (tJ 0..-5' -0 - CD E E
ec,-c.9-2gcnElbcEJ::oQ>
a.~ en 0 .P':: _ (lJ _ ..... ro Q)..... 0 I-
<'i
<:'1
"''0
S'"
000)(1)
- c. c~
6 ~3;!-E
'l:0"5<D
Q.~.oa.
Cl
C
:g
':;
.0
"'0
,s",
00",
+-- c_.
'- ro.c
O:JE
[t.~ 8.
"
.....
<:'1
- - -
~ \ \
l/ll/l
~\ a.!
50 i
0 Ill%.
~ - -
0-
0 , I.!!! '.!!!
% I $ "' "' \
~ , t1I ;e ;e
0 E E
0 c:
... 0
~ +'
41 C C
0 a. 0 g
%i .:J ""
'" .S!
<( 0. <ll a. '"
0 E '" ~ E '" E
% 0 \8 0 \8 '"
II 0 % 0 ,%
\ -\
CO
'- C ~o
, 5 41 ""
CO'" -'"
~~ cno2$ 000)(,1)
z crr _cc::<=
041 C ~ OJ .- ~ "'- E
0 'C\!!c~ 0:1"'0
~ Q)~:::)O "C.(I)(Qm
en 0.."0 "C 0 (l] a.. 2! t:>> 0-
<:I
E
~
.!tD "'
J:lC ~ ,-
_'1: <ll -
cot: E C '"
o ~ cu <ll Ol '"
c.CQ. tE.E
l/l 0 0"'"'
Q):!: z,"'o.
It: ._s cD
ou.D
0)- 4) C ~ 13> "'0 C. "'0 . (1l G) .-
.~ o~.-c: ~t:- .!!!,!!!..o.:5 ~ oi
"'0 q) to' as- CD :e .c :0
e 5 ~E- ui.a ~'U ~.Q)'jj)
C7)~ -c "t! 'tJ C ' cD "5 'c ~ en \
e CD(Q--o(DOC.-oG) &.
l/l 01 ;> o.c eu; ca'd)..c:.-O'"O
Q) _.am gas~~~~(I)W~'~
... oQ):=:' e..c;.c-.a
~ , Q) ~ ~ ~ t>>~ CD ?; t= a In ~
~ ~,s1S ",,,E \l\.o> 0>'0 ~'O% g
\ QI '" '" lij~go>'" CD '"
:!: 3 ~ '" _ E a..g 16 ~ % ~J!! e
=~ ~Q..c eEq)cro..c>-
c -'0 €0>'l::2! $.a"'~.Qg
ft 0 , ~'OC(\),s:ll"'.B\Ii~c-g~~
~ ....<<=00.0 ~"O -5.gasEi:
tD o co 13 ~ e.== (ll. ~ ~ t/J 0 -0 CD Gl
E :"".s~ g>'" ~:eg~~%1h ~
~ .g ~ ~ Q.'E 10 :; ~ 'g:JO 5 .S! ~ lD \
-tl '0.. Q;. g g. 3 ~ g E ro ~ (.) m .Q i
\ ..... .,;
0:: 2
tJl
0
:x: -I
;;J.
z
Jl) 0
95 U ,4
~~ '"
\ n:: <( g \..,:
W J~ \
Ill:;)
:;;u
Will
:;.:;;
n.ll
-'
-
-
-
-
<II <II
~\ ~~
C) l/)Z
0
~~\ ..- -- -
,S \.$ \
Z ~
~ I1l
0 ~
0 C
P- O
W ',p
~ .! " \
~ ~ 0
'" \i
Q)
0 -0.
C) 0 E ~
z 8
~ 0
0 --
!=
z
0
:E \
z
0
~
C)
~\
\.
\
<f\
!=
P-
tlI
o
x,
<f
\ ,Ii
.D 5\
':EO
ww
, :> ':E
ow
.!t>>
ac
<11"1:
cot:
o~ to
o.CB.
III 0
&':E
-
'"
!2
"
o
"''''
EC
G)c;G cPo
l-(7.l EO ><P".J
oE""'t::.c?:'.'ii\'P
:9 (l) ~~""ij)-cE
:;;;-_----..... ('is f/)
._" '" "'O""~-
O<llrf>Orf>"-',""O
.9
-fi~~~
~"O,g'n
(I).2!"O 2
-0 ~.g
0'" '&.
~~
<<DE.e 1.1)
CD
c"-
oEm'O
~ c:s:. -....
~e.cntDG)
::::"5U}C:~
:nilO~~{i 1!
~ "Co,o- o~
oo'O'!} a..-::o.5,r;..,...-
:= ti to .~ S2 ~ d).'o:t:
:r,,,E$ll$81~g~~
B-"O to . ~
, '" g '" C ~ e
~cae\ ~(IJ
",.0 o..~ 0 p..
mO(UU> 00
.
<II
e
::l
<II
111
G>
':E
c
o
~
!:II
E
':E
e~o ? -g~ .~re -1f -g g
(I):;:::; .0:; (13~ ="- ~ 0)-
0.'0>"" :> - '0' C . "
~ ::J <3 8 8 g> c:- 8 T- ~ g
o.l.L a c; ~ "-: .:a .e
'" '" ",'" '" . J!! '"
m.24.l:=;~t=.~.!!.DaQ)
1i,~-5 E~...;--5i~~~-S
(l) <P 0 0 tit. '"ii"' -Co
1II{5+-'o I :3~>E::3~.'
:1;:"' __.0_",,:0 "
~o.c~'" "" '" 0
t=E~~~~O-~$!S-a"'ij)
cD 0 a..:l :;::0 (#).....'Cf':J'O
.g-O_'O~cn_dl:2.G>(I)""O
\ij "'g.~~&. gD ~& cJ1
o:t:: t: . _ Ie. 0'-
:;::::Eo(GOcho~UJoi~f/)
g:.go-g::;:oO,gfN2J!!
too) Q)O..q' o~IV-E
1.1)"0 ~ E,iS~ ~~~:o ~ to
t=. ao~tJ).oco g-E~ 8 ~
.
.
.
--
"ai.c
:>
Co~
",0,"
(1)1~~8
_8..c"Oa
::= m - 0-
D't:~.~E
1ta~3~
.
I';'
~
.
ti
E.
E
....
~
i[
II)
o
X
....
~
Z
100
<:>5
~&!I
t:i:s
ro j
2: 0
u ~
> :;;
'w
~f-
00 I I
::JGl
--
100 1
02 I
'4
.
I , f I
I I~
'" I~
- '"
111 E s
0
C
0
:0::
Gl c c Ij
Q. 0 /1 .2
'"
E <l) 10
0 a. a. <l)
0 E .2 I E E J
0 /;g 0 lU
0 0 Z
0> f
1: c - u e: I
u
f? 0 ~o CQ)'O.!2
""
0> 0 - CD (Q.c "0 CI)
0) E .s g g>[J;'8 s~
e: '" '- (0-- E c: . (I)>
'Cue: Q :3"0 "t: l! c:"-
"e:o a:~I!(l):J;:'oo
OlUO -<:>>o.-o"Ooro
1
0>0)
i 1:c
I U'C
J ~::J_
o>U 0
1V'O-g.Q&
5(2)('0.......00
004?~2q)
..... C.'t:'::J ~
J...roE'Oq;'>
o:::J c::~
"C:grD~oo
ll._Q._OffJ
'"
/- 01 4t
.QC
0~ C ....
CO '"
O"'! 111
Q.CQ.
00
"'~
a:
~ CI) 10- --0 ~~aj~
~ .QS~~~-
0 'iij ~,gOOO '0' II,)
~ e:
0 ..c>'o~(l)Q)_ a.
IE 0..0 C (l) >.:0-0 c"
e g c (1) a.~ ::J CD <DO
.!!1 EOo,.,;; ;;'8
e: Q.a?Ee:" 'O~
- > 8 0 u.., CD >.
::J 0 eo :0= ..0.0
0 'B' E' C: CD ~ <D_ f}
I 10 E~ o a.;; '" (5.= 'C c: ",gii
Gl
~ "'0 Oa:s 0 a:JO .2 f? '"
e:~ 't),.8~~"i=E - g ~~:ii
0- 0
C cDt>i ::::J-o ...."OS 0 2 og~E 0>",
0 oe:oe: e:E -
:0:: . "'~.c "''''lilUB.!!1", .. en CD CD J;'=tij.g'!
III '" u > 0>0.:: c: 1:: 0.-. '-
<l) .. 0 - '+iI -00
2 ;;-.c :2-00 r; c:. CI) 0 C:"a~
0., g>Q)~=ti.!9_ 0
"'! 0> = ?: -au 'D QOJ(Q~ 5
~' E .Q l.L. 0 ~ 0..::& O' c: c..soO)o
'Si ~ Q)-~(J Q)E C1= '" 'c"Oa e:-=
..c _OO(Z) .,. "f?a."'g...
.. <D I-~CI)oOOa. I:: OOca:!; a.
=g oj
I .
~ 0
. 0 -.: i
:;;1
~
0::
o
:?
Q.l
o
z
;::
0::
o
a..
w
Ill:
o
z
<(
o
z
ir
o
I-
Z
o
:E
z
o
;::
<3
;::
:E
-
~
E
L
,
.
/
-
cJt
\.
:
I1l
\
,~.
e
0,
~~
~
.~
.~
5
($)
"
:;
" "
"", <l>
~ \a ~
l- ~ Z"Q'
0:06>0-
"-~lD
~~iflO
o ~~
"() Z-.9....... (G
~$,~E!~
~~gg~a
"i-og~1$
<l>'\a~<$~
~ ~.t1) 0 d) c:
""€' $"'15'0
:::;~t/1"'"t)
.4) iO '1>-"E 0. di
Q. c:$. Q) ~ (>>,th
~-a"O cc::3
'" - \as...., -c:.o;:.
"c:: tOtO;)....
-"os in 0-0 G)
l5.ecn l'3 6-
D- (I) Q), Q)
~~~~ife.8'
'i ~ . a o.::t
o.."6€ c::"& (/)
<l> e c'~ '"
F 0."
~
~
"
d:
.,,;
~
<i
'tj
~
-
~1Il
.....e
50
II)%.
oJ>
, oJ> to
~ to '"
; ',e .~
\G ;;
~ 0
0 e
~ 0
.... ... sa
0:: G) c
- 0 '"
~ 0- '" !!l
e <II % '"
4: 0- '" ~ E.
0 :) E. ~ ~ 0 " ~
8 " 0 0
z 0 z.
~ '"
0 :%
t: c
Z. " g
0 '6> 0
~ g? ~
~ s"eg
0"
~
0
t::
~
-
$01
s;l.C
,--
Ill'"'
CO
o ~ to
O-co.
11I0
~~
III
e
i
a
i
01
'';:;
~
a
t:
~
<I)
o
~
a
z.
U)g
gO
~&
ffi4
U).J
",,?
;;io
-~
.tt
'"
to
'"
.~
%
'"
!9.
%
8
~
<II
o
'"
E
~
c
o
"6
g?~
.c c
83
,;
c
o
.",
o
~
c
'3
'"
-E
:>
o
~
~
3
G)"O ..-!~
~~ ~OC1'l
cg? €~€
o:o~tn.g (G
?l:::' ta g..g ~
6 ii\ ",0 ,,-0
t; !!"eE ~"e i-'" go
~::i-".~ lO......-:~tO \l";"''''
e.,CD C'O (j)(I3.e
0- ..~s%tOt<<8-oO)
cotn'!?.....ecPG).... .
(p c.....- ~c:.tI)O
t'::~Q)DgG)...... 0-
:0:;/':0 tAJ:::!,&.t.>>t.n
_ ~ ~ ~ 0..- ~ to;f '86i
o~~~Q).s~Q)c:'O
05 ~ 0 co' .
~ '3 ~.!!!._'<i%.g c%a
5 ;<~~'"Q"''''~~''6
0-0'" ",_-'" :s
c:."t:'OJll'-O 4>""''''
G)C3cg. o.g ~~oe
.z; ~cno~~.c-"O'6
O)~.s~ ='-0.. u)c; c:. "-
g?;;,,'toJ>~"'~"''''E.
8Uf\~l2~~~
c-i
~
6
<(
~
3
t~ ~
",m '"
I- '" €
'0 J3 Z"'('$
.,..::=;;~o..
;!::?(GG>
0<0",0,
'"
o"i~
~€.'"
~:J:i:-
~O>c E ~
o~O-€:1O>C: to
L- ~o.(04l
~~z.'Oe~e:
...
~
6
<l:
,.;
~
~
1)
<lI
0-
:s
-
:;it
~
Cl
.~\
z
i\
&
o
a
Cl
,z.
it.
o
!::
z
o
:i!:
z
o
~
Cl
i=
:1E
I.
'\
\
-
Ul II)
a~
so
lIJZ
CD
16
o
I:
o
~
0.
E
o
o
\
~\
\' ~.
:x:
...'
<(
z
o
U')_
'ii
\ ,JI:>
:EO
ww
~~\
.!!tll
I a.5
"en ....
! I: 01::
,0: 10
0.1:0.
UlO
CD:iE
ex:
II)
e
::I'
~
CD
:iE
I:
o
;;
10
tll
-::
~
-
l-c6.sg0
~ cnJa 0
oc:-:>-
~Q)
co:9o
<DP~~
2- o.N
.. e '
o.:::3w-
()~ ,0
",lo'"
CD~~e
.g~e(,)
:;>>....7::10)
.a tU a-.C
__' CUP
c:'- to to
~o~~g
o'-E= co.......
U)a>,gE~
'" >.. -
EC c:
/D 8~o g
e
'"
{5
e
.a
~-
"''0
100.
-e~
0-_
"% <(I
q>c
'0,"
e""
.,.0.
OlE
.,0
i~
",0-
., '"
%CJ>
.c'iil
1)
III
0.
~
'"
~
E
\
c
o
'"
..
(i.
E
o
<.)
\
..
.,
o
..
\ij
,Z
'"
"
=0 5
e '"
'" ~
'" .&
-E-o~
8gg
-
"Ooc>>C8
~ c E..Q :1
Q)_ct)-o
1Utf)~2f
31.1)4)1,;)
(llE-oC.e
.o~c8
. m .0)
_C"'> (1)'
- t>> -p
~ ffi E: ~~
(t)-5E~O
(0' 0-0 to
;ijiU)E. Cb
en .-..C::
1J~5i:O
tDo ot!
e c _g-o en
0. c: :0 ... a .'
<D3.2..e:u"th
x::og~C:l
r"O~::>GJ,-o
\ .0
~
-
\
',"
<0
'"
E
\
c \
~
(i.
g ~
<.) 0
lo
\~
==:cDW
3,s,s
o>Qi-
,,>0
50\1)'0
~""EQ)
c ?.:P'~
o~I.1)O
oc::::o_l.,.
~o:=o.
\
1'l
.~
'"
0.
",-
.cO(;
.- <D,C
o(J~
_"0-
~1O",
.g-ffi 8
o...E!o
\',
o
~,
..
r::
0,
'"
10
~
..
Q.
o
to
~
6
<(
-
~
~
:>
~
I).
Cl
Z
~
o
Q.
~
o
a
Cl
z
~
o
t:
z
o
~
z
o
~
Cl
E
~
/J)/J)
a,!l
~o
1Il"Z
Ol
10
C1
C
o
...
<I>
l
o
\,)
c
o
.",
'"
0.
E
o
<.)
.so>
,ec
/J)'C.
CO
o ~ (0
p.co..
/J)O'
~:E
III
<I>
:i
~
<I>
~
C
o
i
.'gJ
~
~
....l.
<(
t:
g;
o
:r.
a
z
11')9-
c;:>Cl
0'"
N&
ffi4:
dl=5
-:;00
..0 nl
if>
<\i
'"
-s
if>
<\i
'"
's
23
'"
o
c
o
""
!!2
~ '"
~ "t\S
<.) 0
'"
E
~
~"'",
..
~\1') ':l
-c3- 0'-
04) ::J:J,
~c.:8~o
c 0_ c:..tf
,go:::o'"<f
~_ 3- ON
'" "
-s '"
~!I)(Q
E~"C c
0'" '"
~3Eg>E
..... o~-c~
o~~c:.g.
.?7...g a> ro (l)
-60-00:0
(L) iii e-o ~
:Qco~%
2'~~ct e
0. CD ..... !!! 0-
::=:-0(1)0
(Q(Dct:.s
~ 0-0)0 .
\-o.V)o...ga
~.g G)::J:S
~_roOow
._ <0 "-""Cf)'C
E~gU) 0
Q) ,-'p~Ol ~
o.......u([)t'-c
-;::J '0 e. CD ;.-.lU
C :.o~ro;;
5 -:S 03: Q)
~ ~t>>.-;t:"7
% "- E:g .g'~
ro{U'O.....:cc
Q)?..... '-
Q)ooG>~~
f=.co.S5cr.lcG
tD~q:
0'"
,DcG)1Q
oE~
.....-s E3 fh
o~...:o.~
i.'GGa~~G)
_...se.se.s
>:>U)~ ~O)<S)
~tooroo.C<D~
o E. c:..D tn G> .0 ,Q)
~
7:.
~ ",4 ~ ~ ~
.~ fi ~ '" ~ ~ g-"c5;;;! !; ~ ai
_..........>t:;;..o.J ........ ~ ?'"Cl
!!2E ~~~s2~ ~~O~S"'O
""8J!.ol-(/)~"'- ~c:...g~~1-
~",_~!!2a"8~ e.&"""~"c5
~~~~~~!I).."~t- o~~~i~~
>-~""'" ~~ - '" ..~
_~a~~{::.~"Q ~~$~!!2"'~
~_ _ c:c:- ~- -~'"
~,,~~~i""'~ ~~~~~~~
c$.v(J)E' ca>(p.C'"){ cd)-r-'1.UE.(I)
~ '" _ '" _ 0. 0 0 ... '" - ~ ~'" '"
~~~3~g~~~€..s65~-S"~
1'1il~g~ig~9~&i~U
I-
~
~
t)
'"
%"
-
~
~
T"
-
/
..
~
z
""
c:
l %
':::: 8
u.
~ !1J
s
a '"
<0
:::: ..
.. J:;
:I: ~
-
III III
~..
, \11'0
) ti)z
~
l. '"
Cl .. !!! ~ ..
'Z '" ~ :e
~ ~ :E Eo Eo
0 Eo
0 C
D- O
~ .. c g
ell ~
t 0
0 "" +> '"
~ .9! 2- 2-
<D 0. <D 0. <D
0 ~ ~ E E ~ ~ E .$ %
Cl 0 8 '" 8 (lI
'Z (lI' ~ 0 z 0 z
'2 0 0
0 ~,lD(l)
l:: 3' ,s ,s
.'Z '0 g~-
0 <D _,,0
~ '0 "'-:'0<<).......
Q) g'-E~
Q)
'Z c c.3:p-
0 ~ ~ g~ %.
~
Cl
i=
~
\.
,
..
~~
--
Ill""
CO
o ~ \U
o.S::ll.
III 0
&:e
III
..
""
~
~
ell
~
s::
o
~~
'Ol
~
....
'"
l::
~
o
:x:
....
'"
z
, '\I) 9
: 9' C>
\1
~(,)
'.111 U1
>::0
n ill
"'
o
~
i'i.
E
G
o
g>
""
c
"
E
E
o
'0
~
g
0>
C
'0
~
o
~
-'"0
,0>
.c
o
'"
'%
" "
E"
.l! E c
'0 ;,,& oS
;,'''' -a .g-.~
'68.n'B'
'"
....
.s 151! "'i ~~ '& .,;,s'O 15S.s~'O
...- '- _E.$:ICCG)......--lD
'0 l-0~'00020o>Ce.'"
<D _oa",,-"'aE"'$"C
~~ :>o_J..<J).,oNtD"'~
._0 -a~(/)()';=C1l~,.o..d)
_~~o.E<D""'O~"'''' '
1:t\0'" ".g,s"1::,,,i,stD
_ E g.'a 0. Ii; C ~ 8. ~ c..; Ci.
_{\C'<: _c="""':>o
~-5X;"'~~O..:1~,s,s~E
Q)g.rr"" 5-0 u;e a-c ~
~z:,,~:1~~~i~%:~"%~
~ g $ E <D:;: ~ 6,1:: tii 0 ~ - g ~ ~ $
"i(G<D(/)~\!dlQ....-!C c"050cD
~ (;' e.g.::> 0 0.0:: ~'E 15 ~ 0'" <D,s
t~_i..~~'O~~~a~$~~~
oE''''o-~ ,,__'o~~:>"'o~
9<Do="g" ,'Or-",.oi" ",Eo.o
mE~%o.E~Q~~~-~g ~~
:I: ., 0 '" (j) Ul (j) 0 '" l- 0.<0 0. '" '" ~ s>
'"
Z.
1
'f
'Z
"" ~ ~ 5 '"
g~",.-tll ~~'o
~ "i''''~'E .s~'O '<DaiS"'1/.
Q ".o<D'" :>o_",~.e'O"'''S>0
W "'E~~,,~~m'O-q.~_1
~c"'''<DB&~$~t\ir-~8~.ci
t: ~ ~..J Ul-'!2: (1)-.0 e- g s:>:'O cn~..-J'~~:
.. >0-:> .e tll 0.'" - ",'" -Ul:':: ~
G~OZl-'O~..ro"'~2-~.c~Z"~
.S~Oai~iO~Zii'i.'O;gOai'"
~~~!'O",t\,gE~~~~i!'O~
..co_o~~t\'p,,_ot\"'c-"'~
E'"~~r-O"..~J%.c,,,~g..~O
..o>~~t\ ,srot\Ul~9~3'C~~"
E"'O"",,,_,,,,,'Z>O-~-$~<><D.c
w,soo.2-&~C<DO"'''o~~.c--
,,0 ","'
~.... c:.-or-- '-
'0"''' 0> .~_.,m.c g
<D1)0 c",_",,,,:>o9i >0-
.c1il<D0 'ctD,,<DOtii'" ,,-
""o,_'OCiO:>:>Eo.-~ <DO
3'2 e 0 c~'a;.9! 0 e ~.$.s:01O
'0'" 0.0 '" 0>'" ".c 0.C' o.'OE'O
,,<D- ol"" <D'a; '" on '0 <D>< gB ",<'>
~~.l'!& g>.g c '(;p.'!!& e"" '" ",:>0
o-a,c'c'O :>o"'~ g-- o.olE''''.o
"" g, ,_.,: <> _ c:E coG ~:I: .u ., on
o_""""s>~"''''olo:;;:- _.em
~ ~ 2i~-a,:'.s~:O o-c!!!,j ~~ ~
",~o.~m<D'O"'E~'G~~~~-
" .s g \!? c a c .b '" """ '[,.0 c \!? $
~c""",,'O "'~~!~ ol'atll \!'. 0'0
g! ~ \E{;" cl- .,,ss:'O ",.5 c
-
~\
o
o
b:\
o
'%
~
o
0-
&
o
~
o
'%
it
o
t::
'%
o
:a
'%
g
';{
o
E
:a
-
-
IJl III
::SOl
~....
....0
(/)'Z.
.! 1'" \
'"
Cll ""
0 "5
c:
0 \~
~ c
0. 0
E ~
0 0. '"
U E IE
0 ~
<.)
\--
\
I
i
<II
1jg'
U)~
CO
o ~ (0
o.CI1.
III 0
&:is
'"
;;
"
'"
E C
" '"
l- 0>5
~c~
015 ro
~~ g-
<.)<00
Iii
:;,
J C
<p $: 0:>
..0 0 (J) '" <9
==" :;.t!J. Q)
2~~g-G
(I) tU Q) o'~
coB-c."O
0.- III 0:>
~-o$_.c
co IJ)'~ c (/)
~E;':C:3
~::=:,C~ ro
>(0->(;)
5.Eg~:
._-of1)C-o
~ co g~ (U
.c~:o 0."0 C
go;-;:::E~(';)
:2 o.E 8<;;([
III
Ol
...
::s
III
lG
Ol
:is
C
0
i
01
;:
:!E
;l
t::
0-
.</)
0
XI
:i
'%
I()Q
00 'tl
~~ !II
ffict ~ \
illS
~ 0\
~~
.n
Z
-
\
'"
Iii
""
"5
C
.Q
0;
0.
E
<'5
'"
'"
o
'"
E
'"
,2
'OC
~.C 0
c:::roz;;
g _0
OJ~ g' '2.
co.-1j)
-cE-oc
::JQ)~O
0-00>0
\ ~ '"
. 5~'
.c .S~
cQ).co
.g.s -eO
(,.)o~m
::3-....... 0..
,p"O<D--
~$lh'~
8E ~::J
-0==0'2.
c"13'"
\ <<s.D -c.?
C:::;: U) 0
O\"i)t>>([)
.",~ ~ E
== .... .... <S)
~~~..-
0):8'0'0
-0 .c: '"0 .t:"
::=:"0 c.-
<:({'ii~O
<D
Z
.oJ >- C
~"C -e en
............ IV cO (1) 'iJi
t:'OE ~a> <D
1>> <p :>""0
E~.9-<p(O'- (D
Q., o..:::l 0 'B.If!.s
_ -60-:J-$ <P
&..;:;~'Og,-gB
UJ@~eO-~~.E
_ _o.E-;'tO-o
fO.t.!! C-o---w.g)<P
o_cO---c.~-
'E-%5~Q)E~
~E~L"l,g~(I)8..
OO~E'C~~O
(l) 0 Q) 0 0)-- - <.)
_~c9'mg~-~
2l
'"
,""
5:
-
\~
.s
g
""
'"
0.
5 ~
<.) 0
\i
c \
o
~
0.
~ ~
r!:
:05
e:p
o>U
~s
.- '"
~c
:>0
Ou
'OC
,C 0
c:: ro--
.9. _"0
0>== ~2
c 0.- ti
-cE."'Oc.
::J4leO
0'"0 rn t)
'0
g
0>
C
~-~
0'0
O>~
.S to
~C
:>0
Ou
c
o
:E
O-OC
" C 0
Q)(O~
'0 .u
0l~2
.~ Tj 1>>
~"'c
:>~o
o o>u
-,.,
'1,'7::\~{:L->
'"
;;
u
'"
E C
~ o>E
_E-t::
oC'"
~~ g-
ll.O
~
~
(
.
f/) f/) I
::;: :> CD I
~ 10'"
...0
rnZ I
Cl I
0 i
0:: I
I.a. c- I
I
, Cl I I
z CD ,
... I
i= lIS
0:: 0 I
0 C
11. 0
W :p
c::: CD M
a ii. I
z E I
<l:
Cl 0 i
z U ,I
ii: ~i
0 n'l
I- e>>.1
Z .: g I
0 ... CD M
:iE o :>
z 1 ~ g I
0
~
Cl 1_ c
i=
~
I!;;.!:!
lO-
... a.
.~~
CD-
_a:~1
~e>
..cc
I. 0;; ot: >
cot::
o.:!:: nJ
a.cn.
00
CD2
a:
....
<l:
!::
n..,
~
:t:
....
<l:
Z
I() 0
06
II
, ::;: ()
ww
>::;:
,0 w
'Z.....
I
I
I
~
i
I
I
I
I
I
_I
f/)
CD
...
:>
Ul
lIS
CIl
:E
c
o
:p
lIS
e>
E
2
...
o
lIS
a.
E
Ul
(ij
.,
:E
"'
"' '"
" <::
gG)~
co:!:::: 0
cn0=
.~ &..E
_ a."
~o=
0:5:
0. g.~
c (I) >-.
-",'"
E....S;
(l) >. C i::
:5~~:8
Q)..cC>ns
~..Q>c:-s
(ijI-OJ
cE5'E
.2'eoo
00_00
~
Q) C
,coO
~~~
-"''''
:t::~:;:;:
~'EE
~ B 0)."
=~E
-3 1: -s
_.Q>u
:g f!).e
E~2
.Q.~ 0
0..Q!
~:E .~
"
E
'"
z
Ul
"
<::
.!!!
.c::
"'.
:::1'
a>e_
ffi=CJ)
-M<::
E".!!!
:J C:'
....::,E
-O::J
-Th:S+:
~.r: CI) ~
T""~~
1:i T""
<:
"
o
oS
.,
~
"
<::
.!!!
:;::
0)
'i:::
-
.c
UlUl
Q)Q):J
cce
~~:5
E.c'O
.a g' f!?
~eco
.!!=~
(,((,.~
..
"'
"
.c
11.
-0"
C/).ro- >
eLL CD:;:;:
OL..:J!:!
:;:;:0"0:3
ouj-E
Q) O::::J
~U).2to
2:02'-
C...J 0..0
p,m~-g
.~ m-Cii
E:1Qo(ii
0'- J......
-Q).......U)
:E c.. Q) '0'0
0(/)0(0
<D_moD.
~ ~ f. as
.
.
'"
(ij
E
E
c
o
=ai
'i5.
E
o
u
*
o
"
E
'"
z
"0
,s"
OOOlCh
..... C C:t:'
o~.:gE
(t~~ ~
g'
'2
'3
J:J
"0
,s"
0" .,
_c:~
o~E
-'::(/)(0
Q...~ c.
'"
:; -g
g.CJ) co
E~c c
mOm Q)
I-S;Eg'E
'0.9 ~ "c: ai
'-a.C:a.
a,.l2 Q)
a.0
v
~
""
co cO ~ I
I l.....J4l ('0
1C) CI) ~tJ)::C ~ CD .__'"
"'-0.. Q.CI)"5:a: m~ ~'-
SE~ 'SE,-o 0) "'""'-t\1~
.e~5 mm::Jcna: c:2 5:~::J
0> W U .c pl ~ .::; 2 m I 0> ~ a: -~ jg ro'-~
~mcx'~~c~~~~Ol~U~~
>.-:Jro >.-~{(J >-4> >.Q);>.>-<O~ro
ro :2.8 CD :<O:@ 0_ (]) <0 ~ <0 Q: co @ ~ CO.<O
~.c.c~~~J:Ja.~W~~~$.c~a.
~--L~~~~~ ~-~~-~~
~gg~9~~~9~gg'rog~~~
IW0DIWc~IaIooaIW~D
.
.
.
- -j ~
:0 :J Q)
--
<( "'0 I
0: I ii)z
Cl
0 I ,~.
0:
a. r
Cl <I>
Z Q) ro
~ - '"
'" ~
0
0 l:
0- ! 0
w i :;::
0:: Q) c
c a. .2
:z E .,
<( 0 [i '"
Cl E '" E
:z 0 0 iU '"
it u 0 z
~
0 i
~ I D
Z
0
:E
z
0
i=
<(
Cl
E
:E
..J
<(
~,
ii:
(/)
o
:r:
..J
<(
Z
It)Q
00
~~
0:<(
w..J
m::>
::;:0
ww
>:;;:
Ow
z,...
----.-1
,
Ul
!
:J
Ul
'"
Q)
:a:
l:
0'
;
'"
m
E
:liE
U
III
Q.
E
I
.!'! "
" "
"<1>'"
"'-"'-
E~ c C
<DOd) CD
I-3:Eg>~
'O.Q~cro
~:o a. ~ a.
_:J lD_ Q)
ua..oa...o
<I>
't
== >>2.
3:<Droe
<D=~,o.Q)
:J"EmQ)~
","'e5.!!!
t::: CO:;)
Q).9~~E
~~~~g
CC:.c=m"E
g0.g Ill"
a.:.!::: CD.9 ::
~.e :5 J9 .s
_ro-;c:
. . g CD o' E .Q.
'O'SBm'Sm
,-..o->.a+:>
a.:s.!!e:sg
<DC:~o.co.
{3. 8 5..5 8 ~
M
~
~
(l,)1O.s~
""clL <D:P
i = '-::)~
I >.,O"O:J
row....... E
;: ""
"'OC/)~o
aJoe....
2....J a. 0
om CD ~
EQ)-51Q
~f'O~..
......0)-1(1)
S a.<Doti
OU)<Dro
CD_moo..
~ ~ ~ o.E
'0,*
"",
""-
0"
.Q"
:S"
,,"0
c51s
10"
~o
,II)
~~
""0
~.E
"
Ol"
....<(
~..~
:s.f.I)ro
.I: E--
.l2>.,E
:tQ:'.;j
<I> u;
"'>-'"
3: '" ;:
..;: ..
=1::5"0
:J CG :J m
On. 00
cl) 000::
mCOmm
f.... ~t-:C
>- m >.(0
(tl.c ro 0)
3:03:~
.cQ).J:::2:
.Ql!:: .2>_
:raIo
. .
.e'"
Olc
b:JJ!;!
,,0-
:,.,E.J::
o~ 0)
.Q,,'C
~5-g
GO='
:<::.00
101ii~
~",II)
~~~
~~~
5.Q~E
CI):!::l::::::J
"0-
())-oo-
"'<t:U)~
~..::J"t:
~aa.Q)
..c: E cD ~
tJ)QJC-
5:0:122
-
"
o
:E
'5
III
1;;
-
"
'"
'0
0-
n.
ro !2
~ lL ~
go oS
gw;e
f?'C/)::J ~
210",-
c....J- 0
..... ::J"O
0>10 9 CD
.s m:!2<<i
~~:g2!..
--:- Q)- I (I')
:EO-ouo
O(l)Q)(tJ
(1)-0"00-
t: ~ Ci n.S
Q.
'"
...
~1?
"",,c
Oameo
CI).QUJ-
0):50>1:
":JCC>>
::::....oal-c
ro0"E:t=
~ c::J t>>
.s:::Q).......::J
t>>!;! = e
S:~~:5
.0.: "
co (tJ .::t:. (I).
to ~ to C/) ~ ~ [ ~~
AD E ~ 2 ~ e ~ ~ ~~ ~ 10
E~6 ~f!g(/) :an: U5LL
m~u~m~~~mlm~lm(I)OW
~(I)C~~mc~~~~o ~o~o
>.c 5 a:l >.c::J en >.0) >.~ >.. >.0:~...J
m~n(Dro~B(I)robm_a:lro_~1
~.J::..c: a. 3:..c.c a. E:ro ;:..c s: 3:..c: CD
..c55..c..c5t..c~N'~S~..c5>>'
9oo~9oo~9m9om~o~~
ICfJ (1)..0 XCI) CD I a.. IOOa.. ::r:wO>
.
.
.
.
.
'"
~
'~
rJ
.
I.
-'
<(
l-
ii:
<J)
o
:I:
-'
<(
Z
100
105
1-
.. -'
.,jI ::;)
,:;;0
Ww
>:;;
,Ow
21-
:;;
~
Cl
o
0::
c..
Cl
Z
~
o
0-
W
0::
c
z
<(
Cl
z
it:
o
I-
Z
o
:2:
z
o
i=
<(
Cl
E
:2:
U) U)
::J CD
.... ....
III 0
(i)z
I
I
,
1
CD
....
III
o
l:
o
:0::
CD
li
E
o
o
I.!! Cl \
J:ll:
.Ui -i: >
l: 0 t:: I
o ~ co I
g. 511.~'
CD:2;
0::
U)
CD
...
::J
U)
III
CD
:2
l:
o
;;
. III I
I .~ I
ti~ ~, I
. !
, ,
'I
! I
I .
I
I
.
....
U
III
Q.
E
"".;
Q) 2 a.
'0_",
.~ ~~
~'-"'O>
;:a..-oo
Q;I.' c(ij
..c:1:J::Jc:
"tJmocn
",0;8-
!l:ll::.,"
" ",0
'S~ CD!E
"",'010
oOlc'=
Cl)t.,;,,(UE
"'.:11'0"
t"-..:<c+j
:>"~5l:
~!!..o CJ)
"0 ~,s'E: .
en r..,;. :J '0
:c'~g[ij
,
.s:;;
-
"
L....0'O J
::J we to
o Q)CU +-'
,...... ~-cU)
>>:;:; i: ~:;
~<io tOffio
a. :>_.J::cn.J::;:E.J::
. roThm.lll:: ,.....~-~
. =E I u.. ~ ita: ~ m
<<J-Wo..3:i::::D.
e>'00 ..s:;;-i!:.s:;;
Ie (tJ ~...J :2; .2' ~ ro 0.
im :E a::: I (L I UJ n. .0
,
!
~
. .
"'
ro
.,
:E
c:
o
~
a.
E Q)
o 10
o 0
Q)
E
'"
z
.~ 0) C
Ol E: ,_2
c5 0
~"O-2
~ :; ~ Ui
coO'c:
00....0
~oa.o
<D
~
ro "'
~~5
Q)o:;::o
:t::~~
"'0",
1)0..0",:
Q)lDmO
0'0 a. 0
~oU)Q)
0._ Q).!::
coc..cO
.s:;;0-
..... >-o~
cm-....
0:::'00
2 Q) ~3:
c>oo
Q)"'C......_
E"O ~:o
G)(Q<D::J
>lDVa..
0"0"00)
L....;:Jro..c
0.0 0 -
EEa:::'O
"i
I-
U) ro ~
-E'u.. :0;:;
= '- ~
>.OO::J
row~E
3:(J):J B
-gO"O....
2~"5~
0) (0' 9 Q)
.!:;:Q)321O
:::-"50)
oen,---
28.tit>~
OCDlDm
Q) - '0'0 0-
~ ~ a a..s
(/) 1;) .Q 0
lD>,.Q) 0 0
3:ro3: t t:::m
€~:5"O ~~ ~,r;.
::J ttJ :::::J ro .. .. m
O{LOO'OO "'23
(J) ,enD::~; OoC
m~cn1!!a::m 0:::.2>
r-- c r--'l: aJ 0 roI
>om >om _0::: _
mTIm~'i:m i::B
1 Q) ~,~ ~o"'O ~"O~
OlD... en":::: .... t m '- co ::J
__-_aJoomoo
IoIo~a.O:~O:(J)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
,
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-QS-06\PC MEMO 01-OS-06.doc
7
!e
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
Ie
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
,Ie
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso GP.DOC
Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through _
October 8, 2005; and .,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16,
2005, and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of
the Application makes the following findings:
A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the e
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a State highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law _
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). .,
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionai HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso GP.DOC
:.
:.
.
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the State highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the State highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 'I<i
mile from the project site. The project is a conditionally perrnitted use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso GP.DOC
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of _
Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the .,
Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove the eight (8) subject parcels of the
Project from the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for the site
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-
004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "A".
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January
2006.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of
January, 2006 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and ResosIPC Reso GP.DOC
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\RegionaJ Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
:.
I.
i.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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.
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.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospit~l\Hospjtal Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
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 8,
2005.
e
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-_
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-_ , recommending approval of a General
Plan Amendment.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. 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. 06-
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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes
the following findings:
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
i
:.
I.
.
A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a state highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant: impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the Project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than v..
mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permitted use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Raso GP .doc
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
e
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
he'ipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby .
amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove eight subject parcels
from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story
height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South, approximately
700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending
Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A,
Existing General Plan; Exhibit B Proposed General Plan attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.)
Section 4. Severabilitv.. 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.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospita~Hospitai Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
ie
,e
!
,
I
ie
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Susan Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionai Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(EXISTING GENERAL PLAN)
A:\City Council Agenda Manau<;;,"",,;"'vo\11220S\Regional Hospilal\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rese GP.doc
Ie
,
I
I.
.
:4
L
A
N
o
u
S
E
/' ,"/
"
/' Figure LU-4
/ Specific Plan Areas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
sp- 1 Roripaugh Hills
SP- 2 Rancho Hi!tllands
SP. 3 Margarita Village
SP. 4 PalomalPaseo Del Sol
SP- 5 Old Town
SP. 6 Campos Verdes
SP. 7 Temecula Regional Center
SP. 8 WestsldeNillages at Old To.m
SP. 9 Redhawk
SP~10 Vail Ranch
SP-11 Roripaugh Ranch
SP-12 VIotlIfCreek
SP-13 Harveston
POO-4 Temecula Creek Village
PDQ-5 Rancho Pueblo
# 106 Dutch Village
11184 Rancho Bella VIsIa
# 213 V\IInchester PropertieS/Silverhawk
# 265 BoreJ Airpark
. 264 Quinla Do Lago
#286 VIM1chester1800
# 238 Crown Valley Village
#313 MorganHiD
Future Specific Plans
Y Specific Plan Area Y
Z SpecifIC Plan Area Z
y
~
~
~
~
",,5"
oS.."
"cJO.l-EC
~\\
~ "'-
III
~ ,.
Yh ~
~ ""
I
W*EO
S
"
o
-a
'"
"
l;,
~
l
, _...rTp.INES.
V\A.~'"
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence Bouridafy
Plaming Area
Souree:TemaculaGlSandCotlOOo9rldgeslAssociales
250
500
'Feet
~
C
T Y
o F
TEMECULA
1.1I.28
r LAN
3nd Use
xhibit A - Existing
0"
~
~
oU'''O
f'~"
oE
.,
<:
~
'C
g
o
o
""E"'II'I
~ 0
I " >:..
.'{." '"
,"' ."""f'ool\,
~ \ \
i ~ ~
~ ~
~ %. \
\ "
, '\
RO.--
., 1'EMECULA
'V\I>..RlO
lOMAUNOA.RD
G ENE R A L
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa GP.doc
Ie
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!.
I.
At
L
A
N
D
u
S
E
/,'/
'-
/' Figure LU-4
/ Specific Plan Areas
errv OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
sp. 1 Roripaugh 1,,11115
sp. 2 Roocho Hig,lands
SP- 3 Margarita Village
sp- 4 PalomaIPaseo Del Sol
SP.5 OldTown
SP- 6 Campos Verdes
SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center
SP. 8 WestsldeMllages at Old TCNln
SP- 9 Redhawk.
SP-10 Vail Ranch
SP-11 Roripaugh Ranch
SP-12 W:lIfCreek
SP.13 Harvestcn
PD0-4 Temectlla Creek Vmage
P00-5 Rancho Pueblo
",06 OulchVlUage
",84 Rancho Bella Vista
11213 Wnchesler PropertleslSilvemawk
" 265 Borel Airpark.
. 284 Quinta Do lago
"286 V'Mchester 1800
#238 CrcM'n Valley Village
"313 Morgan Hill
Future Specific Plans
Y SpecifIC Plan Area Y
Z SpecifIC Plan Area Z
.,.
"
'i1
~
~
,.,f'!i-S
c;P>l-E\.oS'
'"
o
-a
'"
'"
1;
~-
\
'0
~
'"
<.
,
\l,
~. _...n'''INES
,,\Pi~"
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence BOlXldary
PlaMing Area
Source: T emecula GIS and CotloniBJklgeslAssociales
W*EO
S
250
500
I Feet
r--<
~
C
T Y
o F
lLand Use
$xhibit B - Proposed
"ok
'1"t
,
\
<.
;;
'C
'"
\
\
o
;>
'Z
\
"
\
~
<l.
"
t\
\
LOMA LINDA RD
TEMECULA
I.U.28
r LAN
C; ENE R A L
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
ZONE CHANGE
R\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-05.06\PC MEMO 01-05-06.doc
B
:.
j
!.
i.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
(PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9
(PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH
17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A
SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD'" AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-
0302)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso Zone Ord.DOC
WHEREAS, 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 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16,
2005, and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the
General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land
Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan
Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this
area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic
development goals.
.
B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use
is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of
the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the
diversity of uses desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with
additional public services available to the community.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing
the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), adopt sections 17.22.200
through 17.22.206 including the PDO text and development standards in the form
attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and change the official Zoning Map to show the
boundaries of the proposed PDO-9 in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit B.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rasa Zone Ord.DOC
:.
,
i.
i
ie
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of January, 2006.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
that the PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of
January, 2006, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rese Zone Ord.DOC
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
.
!.
.
!.
-
ORDINANCE NO. 06-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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.
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.
R:\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospitai\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
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 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2005 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 or opposition to this matter; and
H. 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-_ 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. 2005-, recommending that the City Council
approve a Zone Change to amend the land use designation from Professional Office
and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9)
and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and
development standards for property generally located north of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959- .
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006 and , 2006 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. .
K. 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. 06-
, entitled UA 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
i.
I.
e
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use
designation for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The
PDO text, as proposed is also consistent with the General Plan and related General
Plan Amendment
M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Zone Chanpe. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula by changing the zoning
designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) for the property consisting of approximately
35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70
feet west of Margarita Road, and specifically known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending the
official Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A, Existing Zoning; Exhibit B Proposed Zoning
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.).
Section 3. Zone Text Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby adds Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 to read as follows:
"TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
17.22.200 TITLE.
Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital
Planned Overlay District).
17.22.202 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for
design flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects
of this PDO will be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the
land use element of the Temecula general plan.
17.22.204 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE
DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area:
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any
development in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is
deemed complete.
e
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect
at the time the application is deemed complete. .
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the
application is deemed complete.
17.22.206 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the
exception of the following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum
allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the
Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited as follows: No more than 30% of the
total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot building height limit. The
maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area
may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that
portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the
parapet wall that defines the roof area."
Section 4. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby .
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a
court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this
Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts
of this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of , 2006.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
.
i.
'.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 06-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 24th day of January, 2006 and
that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.06-_
EXISTING ZONING
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
-
.~
tolrinl!
_tfPid'ReSillert\a~}
CJWifY1.0'itt:efl$ittReS~~{'A)
_~oef\Sl.tlR~de~\{1.-')
......""""~._....(l.-Z)
c:J lJ:1If Mediufl\ t)en9toJ RtIgde(1li<l:1 ttM)
_~~~9t1p.esldeC'llat~\lA)
."~-"'.w-''''
. """'..."'...,(I<l'l
.",\/,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,_"'0)
_""""'''''..~'CC)
_~_""""""",ml
__CO<""""""SC)
- ..--''''''''''''
.............(1l"l
Q3 """""",,,,,,, ,Ul
~~~tibJlJOnal(?i'j
._5"".(05)
_~f'~&.~J'ltI'R)
. """""'....","""')
--"""""",,.......-.,
---,......,."'....."'"
_~c:p\aJlkiPrrNed
_.....''''.(11)
,
\.
,
Ie
,...."".....nnP.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 06-_
PROPOSED ZONING
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
ie
:e
i.
Zone Change
Exhibit B - Proposed
///
.... "
r
/
/
Zoning
_HlsideResidentiaf{HR)
D Very low Deosdy Residential (Vl)
11II Lcw Density Re$idential (L-1)
_law Density Residenlial(l-2)
o lowMedilm OeIlsily Residential (LM)
_ MediumOensily Residential(M)
_HghDensilyResldelltial(H)
. RurtllResidenlial(RR)
_ NeighbomoodCorrwnercial(NC}
_ Corlmlrlity commert:ial (Ce)
_ HghwayITourist Commerdal (HT)
_ ServieeCQmmen::iaI(SC)
_Professiof1alomce{po)
~ Business ParlI (BP)
E:;]Ughtlndusfrial(LI)
IE[JPubliclnslilutional(Pl)
_ Open Space (OS)
_ PWllicPafk& Recreation (PR)
_ Comervation (OS-C)
r:~PlannedDevelopmentOver1ay
_Specil'icptan{sp)Proposed
~SpecifieptanApproved
_TrilalTlUsl{TT)
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-05-06\PC MEMO 01-Q5-06.doc
9
'.
!.
1.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND
HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0463)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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; and .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regionaf Hospital\Hospltal Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso OP CUP .DOC
WHEREAS, 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 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16,
2005, and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of .
a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the
following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal
Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad,
is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use
standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "A City of diversified
development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with
newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated
regional land use patterns; (Goal 8)." The proposed Project provides a regional use that
is needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of
medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical
care for the general population. The proposed Project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The Project is
situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The Project has been
designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental
assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has
been reviewed the conditioned so the Project can co-exist with the surrounding rural
residential area. The Project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and .
intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso DP CUP.DOC
Ie
..
I.
structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the Project is
consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping,
lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The Project as
conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed
conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than v..
mile from the Project site. The p.roject is a conditionally permitted use as it has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in a manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital
and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The Project has been reviewed and it is determined
that the Project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The Project also provides
amenities such as a multi-use trail between the Project site and the adjacent residences
to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rese DP CUP.DOC
affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features .
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed Project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and
it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and
general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed Project will actually
contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing
additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building
permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD)
as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review
the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of .
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of
the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
Project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the
General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has
been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the Project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Recommendation of Conditional Aooroval. That the City of
Temecula Planning Commission, hereby recommends approval of Planning Application
No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan for the Project, .
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Raso DP CUP .DOC
i.
'I
i
'.
i.
Margarita Road subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit
B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 5th day of January, 2006. .
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of
January, 2006 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospltal\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rasa DP CUP.DOC
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rase DP CUP.doc
ie
,e
,
Ie
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY
AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY
79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010 (P A04-0463)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
iriterested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support 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.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaiIHospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc
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 8,
2005.
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005,
and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-_
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-_, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
.
K. 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. 06-
, 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD;
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospita~Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc
I.
L.
All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
,.
Section 2. Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad,
is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use
standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified
development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with
newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated
regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project provides a regional use that
needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical
treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the
general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary
for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to
residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which
circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the
conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The
project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional
Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses
such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development
standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for
the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
!.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed
conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than V-I
from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been designed
and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the
site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital
and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined
that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides
amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences
to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without
affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and
it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and
general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually
contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing
additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building
permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD)
as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review
the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
o Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP .doc
e
.
.
i.
,
I
Ie
Section 3. Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of
the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General'
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the
General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has
been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Conditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and
a helipad and Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad,
two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer
center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately
566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres, located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in
Application No. PA04-063, subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
~. [SEAL]
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 06- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of January, 2006 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City CounCil Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso DP CUP.doc
e
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION 06-_
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC Q1-05-06\PC MEMO Q1-05-06.doc
10
Ie
,.
I
I
I
,
,
I'
!
,
1.
c
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31
ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0571 )
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and
959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required forthis
Project; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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 8,
2005; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa TPM.DOC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, .
2005, and again on January 5,2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental'mpact Report for the
Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section
16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General .
Plan, and the City of T emecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land
is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on
the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known
fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any fish, wildlife or
habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and
certified prior to action on the Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems;
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso TPM.DOC
.
,
"
!
i.
,
!.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially
equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
H. The subdivision is a commercial/office Project and is not subject to Quimby
fees.
Section 3. Recommendation of ADDroval. Based upon the findings set forth
above, the Planning Commission of the City ofTemecula hereby recommends that the City
Council approve the Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels
totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel subject to the Project specific conditions set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and
all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 5th day of January, 2006.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Raso TPM.DOC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of
January, 2006 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso TPM.DOC
e
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 06-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso TPM.doc
.
I.
I
I.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING
35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND .959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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.
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 8,
2005.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rese TPM.doc
G. The Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16, 2005, .
and again on January 5, 2006 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 or opposition to this matter; and
H. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-_ 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-_ , recommending approval of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 32468.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on January 24,
2006, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment. .
K. 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. 06-
, 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinas.
makes the following findings:
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision ordinance, General
Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965,
or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rase TPM.doc
.
.
.
;
i
I
I.
:.
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown
on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements,
with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and certified prior to action on the Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate e.asements
which are substantially equivalent' to those previously acquired by the public will be
provided.
H. The subdivision is a commercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. Conditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571,
consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1 parcel, for the property generally
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this --,- day of
,2006.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R;\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso TPM.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 06-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2006, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso TPM.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
RESPONSES TO AGENCY AND GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-05-06\PC MEMO 01-0S-06.doc
11
Ie
.
.
9.0 Responses to Comments
on the Draft fiR
This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received during
the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) extending from September 28, 2005 through
October 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines the City of Temecula requested a shortened review
period to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.
The following pages contain the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit letter dated September 26,
2005 that accepted the shortened review period of 30 days and City's Shortened Review Request
Form with an attached letter to agencies.
Revisions and clarifications to the EI R in response to comments and information received on the
Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (~2~ ~:A~ ;'o"i,.a>re9) or underline (text added to the Final EIR).
Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and are not
indicated by stril(es\1t or underline text. Revisions and clarifications are included as Errata pages
within this document.
Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each letter have been
coded as well to facilitate responses. For example, the letter from the Riverside Transportation
Commission is identified as letter 1, with comments noted as 1-1, 1-2, etc.
In this document, the City has also provided written responses to comment letters received after the
end of the formal, published 3D-day public review period, up through publication of this document
prior to the December 7, 2005 Planning 'Commission hearing. These comment letters received after
October 28, 2005 are listed below, and responses to these comments follow Letter 7.
Comments Received that Address Environmental Issues
The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals during the public review
period from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005:
1. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission,
October 4, 2005.
2. Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, October 14, 2005.
3. Stephanie Gordin, Cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luisei'io Indians, October 24, 2005.
4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. October 26, 2005.
5. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 26, 2005.
6. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 28, 2005,
7. Gloria D, Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, October 28, 2005,
erTY OF TEMECUlA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT'
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9.]
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
.
The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals after the close of the
noticed public review period:
8. J.B. "Pete" Olhasso, Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors,
October 31, 2005.
9. Victoria Mata, Trumark Companies, November 3, 2005.
10. Board of Directors, los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, November 14, 2005 (received
November 16, 2005).
11. David Oberbeck, via facsimile transmittal on November 14, 2005 (received November 16,
2005).
12. Roger Ziemer, President, Murrieta Temecula Group, November 15, 2005.
13. Linda Betts, via em ail on November 16, 2005.
14. Jon Silver, President, Covenant Development, via email on November 15, 2005.
15. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, November 16, 2005
16. O.B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, November 16, 2005.
17. Helen Chichester, November 16, 2005.
18. Don l. Rhodes, November 21, 2005.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9.2
I-e
I.
I
I
I
I.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
:Governor's Office of Planping /1.pd Re!l!l~!,!"ch_.
. .. . .
. .
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
AmoJd
S..:;."I......""Ott-.
0cmrlIar
September 26, 2005
Emery J. Papp
City ofTemecula ~
43200 Rosiness P~ Drive
Temooula, CA 92590
RE: Teinecu1a Re$ional Hospital (EJR) SCH#2005031017
Dear Emery J. Papp:
-
~,,~,
Sam WoliII
. DIrcclor
. .
We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that:il is consistent with
the criteria Sel i\lrth in the wrillen guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research ror
shortened reviewS, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code. :
The shortened rciiew period for an EIR shall not be Jess than 30 days. Thi:: review process for
the referenced prdject will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10128/2005.
If yon have any q~~ion5, please conlact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613.
S~inCereIY, ri.' .
. .
:;i;i(
IL<:.....---' .: r-
Jl()J>reny Robeits , .
Director .
00: file
'lioo TENTIl ,.......... P.O.ll()JI: IIQ44 6AC1lAMEIlTO, c.u.oollNlA 96811.8044
. TllL (&16) ~-tl6.UI PAX (916) 323-8018 .......OF.....JlIlY .
Shortened Review Request Form
Form E
.
\
fTo be filled out and si8lled by tho Lead Agency all<! submined with DBIR 01 Neaad'e Docl""'tion 10 SCH)
To: State Clearinghouse
P.O"BolC. 3044
Sacramento, CA 95811-3044
From: CI'lY DP ...J.!-.!....'U..A
U2dApncy:
4'200 Btuli.ft~8A Park Dri"A
........
rrimeeula. CA 92590
Ph_#: (951) 694-6400
SCH # 2005031017
Contact: EIIBIll' J. PAPP. AlCP SDIOIl PLAIiJIllIl.
Projo=Titlcr.
DImCllLIt. UGIOBAL BOSP1TAL
Project Localion:
TI!IIECtlLA
City
IlIVIlIlSIDE
c....1;y
.Explaln "exooptlo...1 olreumslanc.." (CEQA, Sccti~n 1520S(d)) lbr JOquosting. shortened review:
~ initial studv (SCR #2005031017) for this "roieet ...... "reviousl.., released for lJUbl:lc
re-ri.ev llDd cDllllllent: .dt:h the intlOllt of prepuing a Klt:lgatN ..gat:l." Dwarat:1.on. The
e........t period for the pxopoue4 K:l.tipte4 .epd.ve >>eclaraUOD was Hsreh 8, 2005 t:hrough
April 6. 2005. Bo St:at:e Agencie$ ~nt:ed .... the udghal Iaitial Study. 'lbe scope of
.
the project has DOt chaDge4; however. the Cit:y .is nOW rec"-""<l~g that a Focused llIR be
prepared. Tbe at:t:ached lettex """ sent: to ase1lC:l.es request::lng their authorUi\t::l.OD for
a shorl:ensd rev1.sw. the City received no responses 1:0 th1.s let:t:er.
List respo.Qsiblo and trustee: state agencies. as well as any agencies that have commented on the project (Indicate wbctbcr the Respon-
sible and Trus... Ageneias hove granlOd approval for thia sbortened review): .
Bat1.ve Aaer1caa Beri.t:age CcJmission B/ IS/OS Bo CCllIIaeJlt "ouc:arn1D& shortened raquest
B.1varu1da Transit Agency 8/1"05
Pechanp Cnll:ural lla..oureQ 8/29/05.
1110 COllllleDI: coneem1ng shortened reque81:
No e.......... CODCUlI1Da sbort:eniul requllBt
As desigaarod . .., . ~. ..lati.. for the lead agency, [verify, in their bellait', "'nt thOle ill no "statewide, regional. Or mawide
signifil:8Dcc" to this project.
.L<:ngth of review beiog lOqU<:3Ied:
30
days
'?4./u1os
Today'. Date
I!H!/lY J. 'API'
Prinr Nll/lle
..2:/ ~,f>_ J..p.
Signature 0 0 r"
Ravised lanulll' 2004
.
21
Ie
.
i.
City of Temecula
Plannin2 Department
Notice of Completion
8CH # 2005031017
~ . --=---- .---- --_. ----
II l'rOjeet TUJi,;' TemoeuIa Regional Hospilol .
! PA04-0462. Oeneral Plan A....... :...... IlIld Zone Olange; PA04-0463 Development Plan
I 3Dd Condilional U... Permi~ and PA04-0s71 T~~~. _ Pan:el Map
, LeadA&CJlCY: City ofTemecula
S_ AddJess: 43200 BwineIS Park Drive
. ~ Tcmecul!!, CA Zio: 92590
! Project Lecation
. City ofTCIJle<IIla, Rivenldc County
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South.
: sourb of Dc Portola Road IlIld wesr of
, Margarita Road
i Asse..or's Pan:el No.:
, 920-1()()'ooI through 13
Total Ai::rot: 35.3 t
CEQA Doeumml Type
[ lNOP
( JEarly Coosuhation
. Local,lcl\<JD Type
r )Gcaetal PI... Update
. [X)Gcnetal PI... Amendment
I [ ]Ocneral Plan Elcmcnt
. [ ]Commuoity Plan
; L JOibcr
, DenIo_at Type
[ )Rcsidenlial: U""'- Actes_ []Water Faejliti..: Type MOD_
, [X]0flice: Sq.ft.I40.000 At:.tc& 35.31 Ernploy..._ [ ]Transportation Type.
[]Commcrcial: Sq.ft. _ Acres EmployecJ_ []MilliIIg: MIneral
[ ]lnd1l8lriol: Sq.~ Acres_ Employoes_ [ ]power: 'l.'yp<o
[]Bdu<:alional:. [ ]Waste Treatment: Type
" [ )Rllcrcationa1. [ ]Hazardous Waste: Tl'P"
H J.XIOther. H~lllI.~8160 So. Ft: Cancer Cen.... 1O.000So}'~: Fitness Center 8.000 So Ft.
: Projec:t....... Disoussed ID P. "'.. I
, [X]AeslhetielViSllal [ )Flood PlainIFlooding [ ]SchoolslUnivcrsities [ ] Water Quail')'
[ ]AgricuIturaI Land [ )PoIest LalldIFite Hazard [ ]Scptic Systems [XJWatcr supply/groundwater
: [X]Air Quality [ lGcotogiclSeismic [ ]Sewet Capaeity [ ]WotIandlRiparilUl
! [jArcheologicalllIistorical [ )Minera1s { ]Soil ErosionlConipactionlGtad [ ]WiJdlifc
[ ]Coastal Zollll [X]Nolsc [ ]Soli<l Waste r JGrowth Induciag
i []DtainsgelAbaorptiOll [ ]populalioolHousins Balances[ lToxicJHazard0U3 [X]Land Uoe
I [ ]BcollOmicIJobs [ ]Public Sc:viccsIFaeilitics [X]'trafficlCi",uJation [XJCmoulati1le I!ffecls
i l JFiscaJ [ lRccreatiooJParts r lVeRetation I 10tbcr: LiRhI & Glare
, Presenl Land Use: Vacant
(;wrent Zoning; Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
I General PIaII Use: Professional Office
Project Descrfptlon: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDQ-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tenlillive Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
. request to elimInate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of bulldlngs
along HIghway 79 to 2 storiea. The Zone Change is a request 10 change the zoning from Professional Office
and OePortols Road Planned Devalopment Overlay (PD0-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
. Overlay (PD0-9). The proposed PD0-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
i medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Is a request to construct approxtmately j
: 585.260 square feet of hospital, medical office. cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
_ .~: Th_~Te~tive Parcel ,~ is a re,Quest to consolidate elQht 18l klts into one 111 oarcel... . . ..
Mailtlr. Sta1ln_.~...t400T__.........,..,..CA 95814 (gl6)445-l16I3
Co;.i..:t perSOn; BaieiY TpOpp -
Tille: Senior Planner
Phooe: (951) 6!14-6400
W"JtbiD 2 mtIes
State Hwy I/: Intmslale IS, Highway 79 South
AirpoIU:NJA
Waterways: Tcmccula CrceIc
Railways: NOlle
Schools: Sparlonan ElcrnenlMy, Rancllo Community (private school under
consuuctlon)
I
I
I
[ INeptive Declaration []Supplemcnt EIR
fXIDraft EIR [ ISubscQuenr BlR
[ ]ElR (Prior SCH #\
I 10lher_
i
I
"
I ]Specific Plan
I ]Master Plan
[ ]Planncd Unit DevoIopn=t
[X)Sitc PlaDIPIot Plan
[X]Re:zonc
[ ]Prezone
[X)Usc Pctmits
[X]Subdivision of Land
[ IAnoexation
[ ]RetlevelOfllllC'nt
[ ]Co..1oI Pcntlit
[ ICily Development Project
R:1e U NOO4\04-046il r_ltegilml1lospilaN'l0TlCB OPCOMPUl'llJN PP.lR 09.u.o.l.doc
I
.REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
KEY
s..Docwnem sent by lead .seney
X=DocuJDenI sem by SCH
T=Suggested c1istributioll
.
",..'. ,
....
Resources Agency
BoalingIWaterWays
Coastal CQlI11Illssion
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River BoanI
Conaervation
....I Piah and Game
Pomtry
Office of Historic PleServatiOb
Parks and Recreation
Rec1amation
S.P. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
J.. Water RCSOIUteS (DWR)
B1ISbless, Transportation, & Housing
-I. AetooaullCll
...L California Highway Palrol
...:r.. Caltnn. District No. ....L.
-I. Department of Tran..._;";:oo Planning (HeadquartelS)
HOlISing & Community Development
Other
State & Comumer ..,,-,L_
General Services
..:r. OLA (Schools)
11.... ,... ..'... mtIIlAllaln
AirR.~.._...5 Boani
...I. APCD/AQMD
...I. Califomia WUlll Management Boani
SWRCB: Oean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
....I SWRCll: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
..:r. Regional WQCB If 9 (
Youth & Adult Co1'1'eClions
Comction.
Independmt Ct.,. ,.. ,:"",: \, ,) & OfIlalS
Energy Commission
.L Native American Heritage Commission
Pnblic Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Consen-ancy
State Land CommisslOll
Tahoe Regional Plam1ing Age:ocy
Food & Agriculture
HeaJlh & Welfare
..I.. Health Services
.
Pllblle Review Period:
Starting Date: September 28, 2005
SiP,nalure
,
Date
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Seotember 23V 200S
1
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
TemecuJa. CA 92590
H Contact: Emety I. papp. AlCP
Phone (951) 694-6400
For SCH V... Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Ollie to Agencies
Date to SCH
! Oeanmcc Dare
,
Not..:
Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc,
Address 367 South Oulph Rood
King of PrIls&ia, P A 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
I
.:=.-_-_..~--
.
P.;'C U P'aOOI\04-046J TemocaIa IlegKml HoopiIOI\NOTI1:BOP COMPLm1ON PBIR O!I-~.doc
2
:.
~ ,] .
i
Ie
i
.
I
I
:e
City of Temecula
P111111lDg DcpartmeDt
43:100 BuslDeu PorIe Dd.. . Tt:mr:cuI.. CA 92590. MalIiJl& A_: P.O. Box \lO:l3 . TemocuIa, CA ~
(951) 694-6100. PAX (951) 694-6477
Augusl2, 2005
Trustee and Responsible Ag~ncles
Subject:
ReqW8l for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused ElR for the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project .
Dear Agency;
The City of Temecu~ Planning Department will be the lead Ageocy and will prepare a Focused
Environmentallmpacl Report (ElR) for the Temeoula Regional I-Iospital project. The CIty of Temecula
Is requestlng a shortened (30-Day) review of the E;IR for lhis project. The shortened review is belng
requested because al a scoplng session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard publio Input and
testimony, the- City. determined that a Focused EIR anaJyzlng potential Impacts id~.~f..j in 1I1e
alIached NOP should be prepared for Ihls project. Furthennore, an Inillal Study (SCH # 2005031017)
for this project was previously released for public review and comment with ltJe intent of preparing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The .........JIt period for the proposed MlIlgaled Negative Declaration
was March 8, 2005 through April (I, 2005. No Stale Agencies commented on the originallnltlaJ Study.
Commenls from the U.S. Ash and WHElllfe Service have beeO addressed. The scope of the project
has not ohanged; however, the City Is now recommending that a Fooused EIR be prej)arecl.
Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the Callfomla Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the CIIy of Temecula believes that the project Is riot of statewide, regional, or area wide
signlfJcanCEl, 8S J.l...J in c."y::~, 15206 of the ceCA Guidelines. Therefore, the CIty of. Temeoula Is
.requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We
. ....""...Jully request that your agency provide wrtlten approval of the request for a shortened review
period to Emef)' J. Papp, Senior Planner, CIty of Temec1JIa, by Augusl15, 2005. If I may be of any
assistance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emerv.oann@dtl.L...,..llla.orq.
Thank you for your consideration and quick response to this request. .
Sincerely,
Z~/ I.:f
;::e~ J~app,' CP 7f' .
Senior Planner
AttaohmBnls:
Nptioe of Preparation
Initial Study
cc: (Continued on next page)
ft'QU F'\2OM04_ T_ RogillNd L .. . ,"" ~. .._ _ RecjIOI\.Agoodoa<lOC
)
,.
~
CA Ollpattment of FIsh & Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Clearlngho\lse
CA Department 01 Water Resources
F9deraI:
Anny Corps 0" engineers
U,S. Ash '" WlldlNe Service
Bureau 01 Land Management
Raalonal:
South Coast Air Quality Management DlstrIct
Western RIverside Counoll of GoVernments
RIverside CountY:
Airport Land Use Commission
Flood Control and Water Conservation DlstrlOl
J-fealth Department .
Planning Department
. Habitat Conservation Agenoy
Riverside Transit Agency
Transponatlon Department
UtiDties:
Eastern Munlclpal Water District
Inland Valley Cablsvision
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Gas
Southern Caflfomla Edison
Ternecula Valley School District
M,. .r .;',...n Water District 01 Southern California
.ye~n
Other.
Poohanga Indian Reservation
Eastern Infonnation Center
Local Agency Formation Commission
RlversidEl County'Transportation CommIssIon
!\'Cu.... ".. .IllST_I\euIlNIHospIoO~. . __-_
. j
.
~
.
.
.
......":-:.;;:J'!.,...y'
. - c-q a.,;-J (mn,1nt
oflJlJlJ Lno.. .'im<I, Jwl Ft.Iw . Ri..mJe. CJifomi,
M4lIilJf: A4J...." PMl 0.0;.. a...l:NJ08 '1IiINnUl, r..zlijMol.l ~21OZ-22QIj
Pho.u (MI) 787-7"" . &. (9.51) 787-7Y211' ............"J
vq'~~-
October 4, 2005 :
Letter 1
Mr. Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
City of Temecula:
43200 Business I"ark Drive
P.O. Box 9033 :
Temecura, CA 92589-9033
i
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Subject:
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Repon (EIR) for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project {SCH No. 20050310nl
Dear Mr. Papp:
Ie
!
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) received a copy of the Draft
Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the TemecuJa Regional Hospital Project in
the City of Temecula on September 29. 2006 and are providing you with tha fOllowing
comments:
I
Ie
1. RCTC is concerned about any potential impacts to State Route 79 ISR-791 and
Interstate :15 (1-151. Most of the impacts are expected to occur at driveways
entering onto SR-l9 and local streets such as De Ponola Road as well as other
nearby roadway intersections. Several mitigetion measures are listed in Se~tion 4.6
ITransport~tionl pages 4-93 lhrough 4-95 and again on pages 1-15 and 1-16 and 1-1
pages 1-1'8 through 1-20 of the Executive' Summary, which would alleviate
potential impacts. RCTC supports the City's requirement for these mitigation
measures.: Please ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented beth during
and after construction.
2. Will .Preemption' of. locel traffic signals be usee! for emergency vehicles entering
and exiting the hospital, especially ambulances approaching the Emergency Room? 1-2
Will emergency vehicles use the main entrance way at SR-l9 or will they have a
separate designated acces.?
3. Will an Emergency Operation. Plan be prepared that will out~ne procedures to I
cvacu~tc thc facility during a disaster emergency? Would all the evacuation traffic 1-3
be forced 9nto 1-15?
4. The Hosp;i:al is defined as e Regional FacilitY. The new MRI, cancer treatment
facilities and Fitness Center will draw petients from a broad. area. Have the
cumulative impacts of these potential traffic generators been fully evaluated to
determine :that all necessary and appropriate measure. are inCluded before final
project approval?
1-4
Focused Enviro~mentallmpact Report (EIRI for the Temecula Regiqnal Hospital
Project (SCH N~. 2005031017)
Page -2-
5. The Draft' Focused EIR indicates that adequate parking will b~ provided 11.278
spaces on, surface lots). What about employee parking? Is it included in the 1,278
space tot~17 What measures will be put into place to prevent employees from
parking in 'the surrounding neighborhood?
6. In the fUn!re; the hospital surfece lot parking areas could be absorbed by expansion
projects. jWiII the future parking demand be fulfilled by parking [structures and has
any preliminary thought been given as to where these structures :mlght be? Access
and visual'impacts are usually significant impacts associated witH parking structures
and shOUI~ be given early consideration. , ,.
7. There are' many other residential and commercial davelopment projects near the
Hospital Proiect area and RCTC wduld like to see that all of this ongoing effort is
closely c<Xordinated. Coordinate directly with Caltrans concerning SR-79 and 1-15
for this project. Contact John Pagano, Caltrans IGR Coordin~or, at (909) 383-
6327.
This concludes FiCTC's comments. Should you have any questions or require additional
information, plea~e contsct Bechtel Measure -A- Project Coordlnetor, G~stavo Quintero, at
(951) 787-7935.: Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your Draft
Focused EIR. . ,
jjelY, .
l~'~& .
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director ReTC
Riverside County:Transportation Commission
Cc: John Pag$no, Caltrans 08
Bill Hugheis, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel
M:\Enviro,nmefTtal Rev~w1i Nun..PrujW~L\100305DEIRTe~u"HollpiUIJPrnjcc.dGc:
.
1-5
1-6
1-7
.
e
i.
i.
,
e
1. Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission,
October 4, 2005.
Response 1-1
The comment states the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RaC) concern regarding
potential impacts to Highway 79 South and Interstate 15, and RaC's support of the traffic
mitigation measures. After project approval, the mitigation measures in the EIR will be implemented
through a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented and
completed. The comment is acknowledged, and no further response is required.
Response 1-2
Emergency vehicles will use either the main entrance on Highway 79 South or the De Portola
driveway, depending upon the direction from which they return from an emergency call. Pre-
emption of traffic signals will not occur.
Response 1-3
As the hospital is a critical facility in the event of an emergency, evacuation of employees is not
anticipated to occur. Persons may instead be taken to the facility should a disaster occur. If the
need to evacuate arises, such would take place in accordance with City emergency response plans,
which provide for multiple evacuation routes and directions depending upon the location and
scope of a disaster.
Response 1-4
According to the project traffic engineer, the MRI facility, Cancer Treatment Center, and Fitness
Center were all included in the trip generation forecast for the project.
Response 1-5
The 1,278 parking spaces that will be provided on surface lots include parking for employees of the
hospital facility. The 1,278 total parking spaces exceed the City's parking standards, which require
663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest number of additional parking spaces are
those calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires
one space per three beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within
the Development Code because applicant, based of experience at other hospitals owned and
operated by Universal Health Services, believes that the City of Temecula code requirements do not
fully account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services,
and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities
often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason' Providing additional parking guards
against employees parking in surrounding commercial development or residential neighborhoods.
I Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. - Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL L\.1PACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-11
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Response 1-6
.
The applicant has no plans for expansion of the hospital or construction of parking structures.
CEQA guidelines require an EIR to analyze reasonably foreseeable significant effects of a proposed
project. The expansion of the hospital or its facilities is not anticipated in the in future and thus, has
not been analyzed in this HR. Any future development on this site would be subject to CEQA
review at the time proposed.
Response 1-7
The comment states that there are many other residential and commercial development projects
near the proposed project, and efforts regarding impacts to Highway 79 South and Interstate 15
should be coordinated. The City requires a cumulative analysis of all projects in the vicinity of a
proposed development and analyzes all impacts of all projects through the CEQA process. The
traffic generation from 17 cumulative projects was included in the traffic analysis. No additional
analysis is required.
.
e
ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-12
i
Ie
Ie
I
I
I i
I
Ie
e
,\1
-=10
-
-:-
.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
AJan C. Uo,d, "".0.
Agency Se<:r8tllry
CallEPA
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
ArnoId5~,,,,.,;. .,:,~,
0-
October 14, 20Q5
Mr. Emery J. Papp
City of T emecu~
43200 Busines$ Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
NOTICE OF PR.EPARATioN FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT.'.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031 017)
Letter 2
Dear Mr. Papp:;
The Department ofToxic Substances Control (OTSC) has received YOur submitted
Notice of Prep~ration (NOP) for the draft Environmenla/lmpact RepOrt (EIR) for the
above-mention~d project. The following project description is stated In your document:
"A propDsed G~neral Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Dev~lopment Overlay
District), Tentadve Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to
consider a Regional Hospital Facility conSisting of a 320-bed hospitai, approximately
408,000 squar~ feet In size, two medical office buildings approximat~y 140,000 square
feet in size, a 1 i),ooo square fODt cancer center, and an 8,000 squar~ foot fitness
rehabilitation c$nter, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, lOcated on the
north side of Hii/hway 79 South, apprOXimately 700 feet west of MaI'Qarita Road. .
2-1
Based on the r~view of the submitted document OTSC has commentl. as follow:
1) The EIR! should identify and determine whether current or histbric uses at the
project ~ite may have resulted In any release of hazardous wa$tes/substances.
2-2
2)
The EIR! should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should ievaluate whether
conditions at the site milY pose e threat to human health or the environment.
A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the
databasjls of some of the regulatory agencies:
2-3
. .
· . National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
" Printed on Rocydod Paper
Mr. Emery J. PaPP
October 14, 2006
Page 2 :
. Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaiSltes):
A !;latabase primarily used by the California Departmenfof Toxic
Substances Control.
. Resource Conservatiorl and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A !:Jatabase of RCRA facilities that is maintained by u.sl EPA.
. Comprehensive Erlvirorlmental Resporlse CompensatiQtl and Lillbility
Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that rs"'-~"'~
maintained by U.S.EPA. .
. .
. .
. Sqlid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database pr~vided by the
California Integrated Waste Marlagement Board which donslsts of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste dlsposai facilities and
tr.:insfer stations. .
. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) I Spills, Leaks,
Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.
. Ldcal Counties and Cities majrltaln lists for hazardous sObstances cleanup
s.ltes and leaking underground storage tanks.
. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintalns a list of
FQrmerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS),
.
2-3
Cont.
.
3) The E1R should identify the mechanism to initiate any requiredi.investigation
and/or rEjmediatlon for any site that may be contaminated, andlthe government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazard~s materials or
wastes were stored at the site, arl environmental assessment i;hDUld be
. conduclEld to detenriine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should .2-4
be carri~ out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
potentialithreat to public health and/Dr the envlrorlment should:be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce eXisting Qr potential threats to public health or the envi(Onmenl If no
immedia~e threat exists, the final remedy should be implementlld in compliance
with stat~ regulations, policies, and laws.
.
-
!.
e
I
i
,
:e
Proper in~estlgation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be
. . ~
conducted at the site prior to. the new development or any coni/.llUctlon;-and'<-"='''w;,~ ',2-6
overseerj by a regulatory agency. ., . .
If any prclperty adjacent to the project site is contaminated Wit~ hazardous
chemicali;, and if the proposed project Is within 2,000 feet from: a contaminated
site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the
"Border Zone of a Contaminated Property.' Appropriate precailtions should be
taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone
Property; ..
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 200"
Page 3
4)
All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be
conducte(J under a Workplan approved and overseen by a reglilatory agency
that has JUrisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any inveStigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized
In the doCument. All sampling results In which hazardous substances were found
should b~ clearly summarized in a table. .
5)
6)
7)
If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas 'or other structures
are plan~ed to be demolished. an Investigation should be conducted for the
presenCEj.of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbe~tos containing
material~ (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are
identified, PlVper preGautions should be taken during demolition actMties.
Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with
Califomj~ environmental regulations, policies, and laws. .
The project construction may require soil excavation and soil fdling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, propel1y dispose of It rather than p18cing it In another
location.; Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if t~e project proposes to Import soil to backfill the areas ~xGavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported 'soli is free of
contamination.
8)
9)
. .
Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during tlia construction or demolition activities. A study of the ~ite overseen by
the apprppriate govemment agency might have to be conduct~ to determine if
there a~, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
2-5
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
.
Mr. Emery J. P8PP
October 14, 2005
Page 4 '
If it is detimnined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the.
propose~ operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
Callfomf~ Hazardous Waste Control law (California Health a~ Safety Code,
Division 20. chapter 6.5) and the Ha:<:ardous Waste Control Regulations
(CalifomiiiJ Code of Regulations, Titie 22, Division 4.5). .
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stOred In tanks or containers for more than ninety days :(b) treated onsite,
or (c) disposed of onslte, then a permit from DTSC may be re(tbired. 1f'S-o;.t1t9''''''''~ ~~12
facility should contact DISC at (818) 551-2171 to Initiate pre application
discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If it is delermlned that hazardous wastes will be generated. the facility should
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number 2-13
by contacting (800) 618-6942. .
10)
2-11
13) Certain ~azardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from
the 10caLCertifled Unified r'''t1.am Agency (CUPA). InformatiQn about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
2-14
.
. .
14} If tile project plans include discharging wastewater to storm d~in, you may be
required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional 2-15
Water Quality Control Board. .
. .
. ,
15) If during eonstruction/demolitJon of the project, soil and/or gro~ndwater
contamInation is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and appr,opriate health and safety procedures should be impletnented. If it is 2-16
determined that contaminated soil andlor groundwater exist, tlie EIR should
Identify ~ow any required investigation and/or remediation wllilJe conducted,
and the ~pproprlatG govemment agency to provide regulatory oversight.
16) lfthe site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite SPils may contain
pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigalion and
remedia! actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to 2-17
construction of the project. .
DTSC provlde~ guidance for cleanup oversight through the VoluntarY. Cleanup Program
(Yep). For additfonal information on the VCp, please visit DTSC's Web sile at 2-18
www.dtsc.ca.gQv. . .
.
'\
'.
e
.
Mr. Emery J.Papp
OclOber14,Z005
Page 5 .
If you have any questions regarding this letter. please contact Mr. Jos~ph Cully, Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov. .
Sincerely,
~~~
:?~
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief ,
Southem California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
co: Govemoi's Office of Planning and Research
State CIl'iaringhouse
P.O. Boxi3044
Sacramehto, Califomia 95812-3044
Mr. GuenlherW. Moskat, Chief
Planning:and Environmental Analysis Section
CEOA Tr,acking Center
Deparlmflnt of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Boli 806
Sacram~nto, California 95812-0806
ceoA #1179
u
~
'to
..,..........~;,.......~,.'..--:.'::~...:.
2. Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department of
Toxic Substances Control, Odober 14, 2005.
e
Response 2.1
This comment provides an introduction to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required.
Responses 2-2 through 2.7
As the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) indicated, the project site is not included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The
Applicant's consultant searched DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) for
Riverside County, which confirms that conclusion. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was
not required by the City for the application process and is not required under CEQA. Generally,
Phase I reports may be desired by prospective lenders during a property purchase process, but not
as part of a discretionary permit application. This project does not involve any acquisition of
property. Nevertheless, the applicant's consultant performed the Cortese List search and compiled
other information about the site history. The applicant also provided a prior property owner's
undated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Turnbridge Consulting, Inc. that covers
about 25 acres of the current project site. That Phase I report concludes that no evidence exists
that current or historic use of the site may have resulted in any release of hazardous
waste/substances.
The Tumbridge Consulting Phase I report was completed prior to official identification of the two
known leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFTs) located near, but not on the project site. These two
LUFTs are: a Chevron station located at 31669 Highway 79 and an ARca gas station at 44239
Margarita Road. However, as stated the DTSC's comment letter, gas stations are exempt from
IIBorder Zone of a Contaminated Property." Remediation of such facilities is the responsibility of
those site owners, and all such remediation must occur in a timely manner and pursuant to state
and federal regulations. In any event, the existence of the off.site LUFTs does not pose a CEQA.
related impact for this Project. Thus, as concluded in the Initial Study, environmental impact will be
less than significant.
Per the project conditions of approval, and consistent with standard City practices and
requirements, the applicant/operator will be required to submit for review and approval by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department a Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report will be kept on fries, and
should any quantities of hazardous materials used or stored on.site increase or should changes to
operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in such reports, the operator will
be required to update such reports.
e
Response 2-8
The comment is noted. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, standard procedures to
comply with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws will be implemented.
e
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-18
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT-
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Ie
e
.e
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 2-9
The comment is noted. As noted in the Response to Comments 2-2 through 2-7, no known soils
contamination exists. The project applicant will apply standard procedures to comply with
California environmental regulations, policies, and laws regarding contamination of soils being
excavated, imported, and reused.
Response 2-10
Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that the applicant complies with all
applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations.
Response 2-11 through 2-14
The comments are acknowledged. As stated in Response to Comments 2-2 through 2-7, per the
project conditions of approval and consistent with standard City practices and requirements, the
applicant/operator will be required to submit for review and approval by the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department a Hazardous Material Inventory
Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report will be kept on files, and should any
quantities of hazardous materials used or stored on-site increase or should changes to operation
introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in such reports, the operator will be required
to update such reports. Moreover, the proposed project will comply with the California Hazardous
Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the
Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
Response 2-15
Water quality impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with standard City programs
and practices to implement the City's NPDES permit. Construction-phase and post-construction
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and
subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The project
proponent will also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term maintenance of all
structural post-construction BMPs.
Response 2-16
As indicated in the responses above, no known hazardous soils conditions exist on the property.
The Rancho California Water District is responsible for ensuring acceptable groundwater quality. .
Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that the applicant complies with all
applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations.
Response 2-17
Refer to Responses 2-2 through 2-i
Response 2-18
The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to DTSC's comments on the
Draft EIR.
CITY Of TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-19
~'.
....L.-.~)-. : '-.
....~~.
( 'h:lirpenonn:
Uc:nn:1I1lC An:ns..
e
PECHANGA CULWRAL RESOURCES
TI'1IIt'(1J/a 8mld /.If Luis.no Mission Indians
\'tee: (:baupcrtoo:
Mary Il<llr M:Is<<
PosI:()fficc.. Box 21113 .TemMII, C:A92S93
TcI."oo"" ('lS1) 3111l-92'S . ,..(951) Sl)(.~91
Gomnum::e Mcmbc:rJ:
Ibymond KasqUC7, ~'r.
F:vieUc:rhc:r
l)&rIme Miranda
Rridr,ctT Rucclll'l M:u:wdl
Dit'<<t.."
(hI'! 1 nu'Ru...
October 24, 2005
CWrdinulVI:
I'wl M"l1I1CV
Emery J. Papp
City ofTemccula Planning Department
43200 lJusiness Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
C"1I11Ut:J1^A:IIyxI.
Sk.-ph:.lnlC (jtlnllD
Mumlur SUPl:MWr.
AW"eJioMWTl.ltru
Letter 3
Re: Comments on Temecula Regional Hospital Environmentallmpaet Report
Dear Mr. Papp,
This comment letter is sub.mitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians (hereinallcr,
"Pechanga Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Pechanga
Tribe is fonnally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code 921092.2, to be notified and
involved in the entire CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above
referenced project (the "Project").
e
3-1
Pursuant to OUT discussion yesterday, it is the Tribe's understanding that, in addition to
the eondilions lisled as items 5b and 5i in the initial study, the City intends to include as a
condition of approval, to be completed prior to gnlding, the requirement for a Treatment 3-2
Agreement between the developer and the Tribe. A:; discussed, the Tribe has some additional
items which it will be requesting be added as mitigation measures and conditions of 4.....~ "aI.
While the Tn"be appreciates the City's willingness to include conditions of ..""... 'al for
the project which will protect the potenlial cultW'lll resources on the site, it has a concern about 3-3
the City's lack ofinclusion of cultural resources in its CEQA evaluation of the projecl.
( am also requesting that the COunty of Riverside include an additional mitigation
measure that deals specifically with the treatment of remains, if they are found during any
gnlding activity. The mitigation requiremmts should also include information relating to the 3-4
pre-excavation agreement which requires the developer to provide c_..........sation to the monilors
during thc Project.
e
Sar.n>d l. 77'0 DUlY 7l."....d 1InM Our rnw And Willi Hnrmr W. Ri... Tn Th, N.,.d
Ie
I
e
I
,
I
!"
!
e
Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Department
RE: Commenls on Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Page 2
THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH 11JE TRIBE IN ITS
REVIEW PROCESS
It bas been the intent of the Federal Government! and the State ofCaliforniaz that Indian
, tribes be consulted with regard to issues whicb impact cultural and spiritual rcsources, as well as
o!her governmental concerns. The, ............sibility to consuh with Indian tribes 51.ems from the
unique govemment-IO-gov-""'''"'t rclatiollShip between the United States and Indian tribes. This
arises when tnbal interests are affected by !he actions of governmental agencies and departments
such as <0....'...., al of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed tbat !he project lies
. within the Luisei'io tribe's traditional tenitory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and
other applicable Federal and California law, it is i....... ..:lve Ihat the Lead Agency and the Project
applicant consult with the Tribe in order to ~aranlee an adequatc basis of knowledge for an
appropriatc evaluation of the project effects, as well as generating adequale mitigation measures.
3-5
THE CITY INADEOUATELY ADDRESSED Cm.TURAL RESOURCES IN THE DETR
r
While a copy of the cultural resources survey is included in the EIR and the Tribe
understands that a "focused" EIR was intended, there is no section discussing culturnl. "~" _~OS
and no rnitigation measures specifically addressing cultural resources, despite the fact that the
City and cultural resources report acknowledge that the Project is in a culturally sensitive area..
As the City is aware; there is a highly sensitive cultural site in close proximity to this Project site.
While the cultural resources report concludes that therc wcre no resources located OR the project
site, this is not a conclusive evaluation since no subsurface testing was performed. Because of
the t'._~:'_ity to the other significant site, the Tribe believes there is a likelihood for cultural
resources to be encountered during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the Tribe believes that
cultural resources should have bcen included as a topic of evaluation in the focused EIR.
CEQA IIIllkes clear that the main purposes of an EIR is to identify and analyzc the
environmental effects of a project. (California Public Resource Code ~21 002.1 (a); 14 California
Code of Regulations ("Guidelines") ~ 15126). AJl currently drafted, the draft E1R. does not
provide adequate protection for significant archaeological and cultural sites and does not
adequately follow the provisions for CEQA and its Guidelines, including Calif. Pub. Res. Code
~21083.2(b) (avoidance as preferred method of preservation of archaeological resources), CEQA
Guidelines ~ 15 I 26.4(b)(3) (agencies should avoid effects on historical resources of
archaeological nature), and CEQA Guidelines ~ I S020 (lead agency responsible for adequacy of
environmental documents). Inclusion of project conditions of appro va! does not substitule for
the City's obligations 10 adequately mitigate under CEQA.
3-6
1 See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on G." _.._.-1-to-Govemment Relations with Native American
Tribal Govetll1l1tnlS and llxec:\ltive Order of November 6, 2000 on C_u1lation and Coordlnation with Indian TnlJal
Oovernmems.
2 See California Public Resomce Code fS097.9 el scq.
Per:honga c.,lrllral Resourt'C's. Tem,,(.,,(a Band ofLufstrifo Mf.",fon Il1dimr.t
Post Office Box 1183' Temecu'a. CA 91592
Soc,..d I.. The Du(V TruJled Unw Our ell,.. ,4nd WI,h Honor W. RL,e liJ lhe N.ed
Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Department
RE: Comments on Draft Focused ETR for the Tcmeeula Regional Hospital
Page 3
In order to approve an EIR the City is required to malee finding that it has adopted
mitigation measures that have climinated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where feasible. CEQA Guideline ~ 15092. Since there arc currently DO mitigation
measures addressing cultural resources, the focused EIR does not fully address the required
cultural resources protections as it does not propose mitigation measures which would eliminate
or substantially lessen significant effects on cultural resources. Because there is a potential for
the discovery of cultural resources and/or human remains on the Project sile, .........tiate
mitigation must be adopted. Pursuant to Public RllSOurccs Code 21082 and CEQA Guidelines ~~
15064.5; 15 I 26-4 and 15151 a Lead Ageriey should malee provisions for historical or unique
archaeological resources discovered during construction.
At, detailed below, inclusion of mitigation measures addressing culturdl resources are
needed to address the Tn'be's cultural concerns and to. assure that the Project is in full
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing
regulations, Calif. Pub. Res. Code ~21000 ct $cq., and CEQA Guidelines ~ 15000 et seq. It is the
Tribe's position that its proposed mitigation measures will enable the City to make the required
1indings. The CEQA and its Guidelines mandate that avoidance is the preferred method of
preserving archaeological resources, Calif. Pub. Res. Code g21083.2(b). See also CEQA
Guidelines 9 15126.4(b)(3).
PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Pechanga Tribe's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native
American cultural resources. At, was discllSsed above, the potential likelihood of discovering
cultural resources is very high, due to other known l'CSources found in close proximity to this
project. The most well known cultural site within this area is a huge Luiseiio village site, which
has been previously uocumeDtcdand is.known to contain at least fifteen archeological sites
within a one mile radius of this village. Within this village site numerous cultural items have
been found including whole melates as well as fragments, pottery shards and many other
personal and sacred items.
The Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable
cultural resources, such as Luiseiio village sites and archeological items which would be
displaced by ground disturbing work on the project, and on the proper and lawful treatment of
cultural items, Nativ.e American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the
course of the work. The Tribe would also like to point out that a ... ..:..u..J method of;. "..;..,.....;
for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidanCe and that this is in agreement with the
Tribe's practices and policies concerning culturdl resources;
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal
tenitory, as evidenced by the existence of Luis clio place names, rock art pictographs,
pellOglyphs and eXlensive artifact .....ov.J.; found in !he vi~initv of the Proiect. Further, the
Pl!challga Cultural Re.,olln'(!$ . lemec.'ulQ Buncf 01 Luis(Jl;o Missfn" Indians
Pos/Officc Box 1/83 ' Tcmomla. (',4 91591
S",'n:11 Is Thr: DulY Tru.ucd Umo.Ollr (,o1t"A"d 'J-lth/fcmor we Nivt! Ih Th~ N'-rlf
e
3-6
Cant.
e
3-7
.
I
Ie
I
e
I
i
. .
Ie
Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning D~.....;...ent
RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR. for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Page 4
Pechanga Tribe believes that ifhuman remains are discovered, State Jaw would apply and the
mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public
Resources Code, ~ 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native
American Heritage commission must name a "most likely descefldant," who shall be consulted
as to the "t'l',wl'.:ate disposition of the remains. Given thel'roject's location in Pechanga
territory, the PeclUlllga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California Jaw with regard to
any remains or items discovered in the coum: of this project. For this reason, additional
mitigation language is requested prior to the finalized Em. being approved.
REOUlRED MITIGATIOji
GiVCll this Project's close proximity 10 known cultural sites that were not discussed in the
Initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga request the Conditions of
AI'I"w ,..J that were presented in the Initial Study, along with those addresses below, be included
as mitigation measures as well as Conditions of Approval which are required to be met prior to
the issuance of grading pennits. The following conditions listed in the Initial Study are
requested to be included as mitigation:
1. TIle landowner agrees ro relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including archaeological artifa<:is found on !he project site, to the Pechallga
Band ofLuiseiio Ipdians for J"WI'~' treatment and disposition to the extent
authorized by the law.
2.
Moniroring by a professional qualified palcourologist, archaeological and
Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbiflg activities.
The monitor's shall each have the authority to temporarily hall and/or divert
grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The
monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely ro .w...~:..
remains offossil inv",,~~,~les and vertebrates.
The following measures should be included as both mitigation measures and conditions
of approval:
3.
Ifhwnan remains are'encountered, all activity shall stop and the County
Coroner must be notified innnediate1y. All activity must cease until the
County C..w..~. has determined the origin and disposition of said remains.
The C._~..~ shaIl delem1ine if the remains are prehistoric, and shall notify the
State Native American Heritage Commission if applicable. P1,lrtber actions
shall be determined by the desires of the Most Ukely Dcscedent
4.
Prior to issuance of !he grading pennit, the developer shall enter into a
Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address
the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that
may be encountered during constnlction. The Agreement will further contain
P('('lJa11g" Culhu-aJ ReSOllll'tl.y . 7~mec,,"(1 RonJ (Jfl.IIL\'t!l;a Mis.rion Indians
p"", QUiet! BU.T :118J' temfflfia. CA 91591
Snr-rt!,f Lf The Dut." Trw'leJ UlIlu Our Curt" A,ui Wit" Honor We R;~(! 1u The N~f'.d
3-7
Cont.
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
Pechanga conunent leller to the County of Riverside Planning D"I'...~ent
RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for the TemecuJa Regional Hospital
Page 5
provisions of tribal monitors and address c......._.sation for the Native
American monitors being paid by the dcvclopelS.
13-12
Cont.
5.
All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and p:rcscrved,
13-13
The Pcchanga Tribe looks fOIWard to working together with the applicant, the City of
TemecuJa Planning Department and other interested agencies in p... ....:..g the invaluable
Luiscfto culturalll=Source8 fDlmd in the Project area. If you bave any questions, please do not
hesitate to contaCt me at (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676-2768, .Ext. 2137. Thank
you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
~:d_lJsJ~
Stephanie Gordin
Cultural Analyst
P~cha'lgQ Cu/uDYlI Rf!SOUl\'e.f. u>mel:u{a Band ,~rl.uist!IT() Mi.'tdtm Tndlan.or
Post Offic:c Box JJ.Y3 . Temt!l:M/a. ell 9159J
.<;Oem! /, '1"', /luty 'fro"'" Unl" OMr Q,,.. Anti Wilh llono,. w, Hi.. To Tht N,.,/
.
.
e
Ie
e
e
3. Stephanie Gordin, Cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, October 24, 2005.
Response 3-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians' (Pechanga Tribe)
comments on the Draft EIR. The comment is a formal request pursuant to Public Resources Code
921092.2, to the Pechanga Tribe to be noticed throughout the proposed project's CEQA process.
The Pechanga Tribe has been on the distribution list for throughout the entire CEQA process and
will continue to be notified when mailings occur.
Response 3-2
This comment is acknowledged regarding the additional mitigation measures and conditions of
approval. Both the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City Council will review all project
conditions of approval, including those noted in the Initial Study for the proposed project and
incorporated into the conditions of approval documents. The conditions 6f approval include the
requirement of a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio
Indians prior to the issuance of grading permits. Consistent with state law, such plan must set forth
and contain the terms and conditions for the treatment of any discoveries of any previously
unknown subsurface Native American cultural resources or human remains that may occur during
grading activities. Additionally, the City has included the following condition of approval for the
project:
A note on the grading plans shall be provided and shall read as follows:
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any
artifact or other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource is discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City
shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease.
The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of
money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an
independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess
the significance of the find.
Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption
of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director
of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of
Planning.
Response 3:3
This comment indicates a concern about the lack of inclusion of cultural resources in the CEQA
evaluation of the proposed project. The Initial Study, contained in the Draft EIR as Appendix A,
evaluated the proposed project's impact on cultural resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact to archeological
and historical resources. The following two reports, included as references for the Initial Study,
support the conclusion of a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Therefore, no
additional analysis is required per CEQA.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAllNIPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-25
Responses .to Comments on the Draft fiR
e
1. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech.,
September 1 7, 2004.
2. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech.,
September 16, 2004.
As indicated in Response 3-2, the applicant will be required to guard against harm to any previously
unidentified subsurface cultural resources during the project grading process.
Response 3-4
See Response 3-2. The applicant will be required to comply with agreements, as well as Sections
15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations) addressing the
discovery of human remains during the grading or construction process.
Response 3-5
The comment is acknowledged. Maintaining a good working relationship with the Pechanga Tribe
is important to the City. As noted in Responses 3-1 and 3-2, the Pechanga Tribe is included on the
project notification list, and per project conditions of approval, the Tribe will be consulted by the
project applicant and can be present during ground-disturbing activities.
Response 3-6
.
The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses 3-2 and 3-3. If the project is approved by the City
Council, conditions of approval will be adopted by the City, and the conditions will be enforceable
measures that the applicant must comply with prior to proceeding with different phases of the'
project. Additional mitigation is not necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15143 because impact
to cultural resources were identified as less than significant during the Initial Study analysis.
Response 3-7
The comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Responses 3-2 and 3-3. Pursuant to Sections
15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines and the proposed conditions of approval, if human
remains are identified during the grading or excavation phase, state law and standard reporting
practice will be implemented, and the site must be cleared by the appropriate authorities prior to
the restart of construction activities. The Tribe's assertion that it constitutes the most likely
descendant of any human remains that may be found is noted.
Response 3-8 through 3-12
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 3-2. All four conditions of approval cited in the
Initial Study, all of which reflect standard City practices and regulations, will be applied to the
project.
.
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA .
9-26
.
.
!.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 3.13
No known sacred sites were identified as part of the cultural resource investigations cited in
Response 3-3. If, as result of grading and construction monitoring activities, any sacred site is
discovered, such activities will cease until appropriate reconnaissance and treatment can be
completed. Consistent with state law (see Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[b]), treatment
could include redesigning of project components to avoid, protect, and respect such cultural
resources.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-27
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
C-.......'II"'..!l<I"-ChicfEngineer
1995 MARK!:. ".;;"" ,
R1V1'RSIDE, CA !!2SOI
9SI.9S$iI200
9SJ.788.996$]lAX
www.IT....L~"."~lco.rivcnktG.ea.us
e
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 26, 2005
Mr. Emery J. PapP. Senior Planner
City ofTcmecula ,
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Letter 4
Re; Draft Environmental Impact Report
for Temecula Regional Hospital
This letter is writteJj in ...........e to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DElR) for the Temccula '::
Regional Hospital ProjecL The proposed pruject is l<.>caled on the north, side of Highway 79 South, , ,
south of De Portohi Road, and ~rr' ...:._8roly 700 feet west of Margarita Road, within (he city of': 4-1 a
Temecula ' ,...,
Dear Mr. Papp:
The Riverside County Flood Control and WWi:r Conservation District (DistriCl) has thc following,'
comments/concerns that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact RepOrt (ElR):
1. Existingi Dislrict facilities arc located adjacent to the proposed prOjecl area and may he ..:
impacted. The proposed project may impact the District's Temecwa Creek Line V. Any,:
work tl!at involves District rights-of-way, easements, or facilitics will require an ~ '
encroachment permit from the Dislricl. The construction of facilities within road right- ::
-.m' ,,_.., !If-way ~ may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. T~
, obtain fiirther'informatinn on encroachment permita or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz .. i
of the Encroachment Permit Section at 9S 1.955.1266. '
4-2
, ..
2, Page 4-3:3, Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ufthe DEIRincorrectly slates that ;:
the District reviews all JITOPllsed projecLqwithin the planning area :Plea<;/! he advised that::
the District docs not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use ::
cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or ::
provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard tcports for such cases. ':' 4-3
District tomments/recommendalions for such cases are normally limited to items of ': :
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other ': '
regional:flood control and drainage facilities which could be:considered a logical,::
~'''r. ..int or extension of a master plan system, and Area: Drainage Plan fees::
(dcvelopinent mitigation fees). Please refer to the previous leUer dated Augtlllt 25. 2005 ::
that is in<:luded in the NOP Responses section of the DEIR. ' '
.
:1.j
.
.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp :
Re: Draft Environinental Impact Report
for Temecula Regional Hospital
October 26, 2005 :.
-2-
3. It is unclear in the DEIR where the ...........ll storm drain system will outlet. Any impacts:.
that may occur to the, District's existing Linc V Stagc 2 Channel as a result of thc ' .
connectibn should be addressed. Potential :u...~.;. include, but are not limited 10,:: 4-4
biologicid resources. air quality, water quality and potential for inCreased erosion due to"
con..u~;"':on of flows. ' :
Thank you for the opportunity 10 comment on the DElR. Please forward any subsequent'
environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office.' Any further questions '
concerning this letter may be referred to Steven Horn at 951.955.1200 or me at:951.955.1233.
-';'~r'
Very truly yours,
0JJUo~~~~
C
TERESA ruNG
Senior Civil Engineer
c: TLMA '
Alt1J: Oavid Mares
Ed Lotz
SCH;mcv
P8\I02972
:~._~....~......,.~,~..:'"'::'''
4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. October 26, 2005.
.
Response 4-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District's (District) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is necessary.
Response 4-2
The comment is noted. Per standard City practices and regulations, the Public Works Department
has included conditions of approval for the project that require an encroachment permit from the
District for any work within the District's right-of-way. An additional condition of approval requires
that a copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations, be submitted to the District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
Response 4-3
In response to the comment, under the "Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality" subheading on
page 4-33 of the Final EIR, the first sentence of the first paragraph has been revised to read as
follows:
To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all
proposed development projects within the City of T emecula are mav be reviewed by the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,. at the reouest of the Citv,
prior to approval by the City of T emecula.
.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. As noted in Response
4-2, conditions of approval require that grading and improvement plans, along with supporting
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, be submitted to the District for approval prior to the issuance
of any permit.
Response 4-4
As described on page 4-31 of the Draft EIR, currently the eastern watershed on the project site
drains to the drainage channel (the District's existing line V Stage 2 Channel). The project applicant
proposes to construct storm drain outlets into the District's line V Stage 2 Channel directly east of
the project site. Current flows into the channel are anticipated to increase as a result of the, project.
The hydrology and drainage analysis report prepared for the project (November 2004) analyzed the
impact on channel capacity. The report concluded that the slight increase in flows into the channel
will be less than significant; thus, the proposed project will not impact downstream drainage
systems.'
Per standard City practices and regulations, a condition of approval will be applied to the project
requiring that all grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
2 Hunter Assodates, Ltd. (A TRe Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center.
November 2004.
.
9-30
ENVIRONMENTAlltv1PACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
i
'I
I
I.
I
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
calculations, be submitted to the District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit The
applicant will be required to implement any measures imposed by the District
The comment suggests that biological resource impacts should be analyzed in relation to the
channel. The project applicant does not propose construction within the channel and thus, no such
analysis has been conducted or is required. If, subsequent to project approval and through the
review of improvement plans, any construction within the channel is required to comply with
District directives or to address any additional requirements that the City Council may impose as a
result of public hearings, then subsequent environmental review will be required per CEQA for any
such activity.
The comment suggests that air quality and water quality impacts should be analyzed in relation to
the channel. Section 4.1, Air Quality of the Draft EI R analyzed air quality impacts associated with
the construction of the proposed project No additional impact analysis is required for air quality.
Water quality impacts will be less than significant as a result of compliance with standard City
practices and regulations, enforced through conditions of approval, that implement the City's
NPDES permit Construction-phase and post-construction BMPs will be designed and included into
plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
grading permit The project proponent will also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing
long-term maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs, No additional impact analysis is
required with regard to water quality.
All other impacts related to the District channel are considered less then significant because the
proposed project does not include construction within the channel. Therefore, no additional impact
analysis is required.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
9.31
BEST BESf & KRIEGER LLP
e
INDWI.........
f70Dl 5e8-2e. I
. ACAUI"ORtMI.INnmUA8lUn' ,.. INQ.UCPICII--,. _.'. ,~,
LAWYI\Rll
.3750 UNNEmNJY AVINIJE
POST 0f1lCC 80X l028
~ CAUf'OIINA 92502-1028
1'D51J e&e-14PJQ
(ODI> M&-3Oe3 fAX
BBKLAW.QOH
~
(V I 01 32&-4000
IR\IINE
~ ee302eoo
'"'" lltEOO
(OI0)152l!ol~
OKTAAIO
19OQ) og89-85e-4
_CREEl(
<02&) 740-7300
s...vAtlOR M. s.....:w.
5AL.vADOR.~8DKLAW.COM
October 26, 2005
Via Fa"'limile an4 Fil'!lt Class MlIil
Ilmery Papp, Senior Planner
Oty ofTemccula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Letter 5
HE:
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ~R TEMECULA
HOSPITAL EIR FOR PA04-0462, PA04-t463, ,AND PA04-OS71
(UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICF.!lHOSPITAL PROJECT)
.
Dear Mr. Papp:
This l;aw .6nn represents Brad and Nicole Stormon, owners of a single farnil>, residence
located on the nottheast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street
from the northerlY boundary of the proposed Universal Health Services Hospital development
project ("Project").
We have l'IlCeived a copy ofthe Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for
the Project. It is our understanding the public rcview period for the Project DElR will terminate
on Friday OctDbct 28,2005. The public review period for the DEm. is only 30 days. Hw''''''_'
as you know, CEQA reqwres a 45 day review time frame for regionally sigirificant projects like 5-1
this one. Due to ~e Complexity of the Project, we are requesting additional time to review and
comment on the DEIR.. We requcst to be permitted to review and submit comments, if any, by
Thursday November 10, 2005.
We underStand that the City must balance the ability of the p1Iblic to respond within the
time liame agaimit the interest of the applicant. However, the additional time requested will not
interfere with the:scheduted Planning Commission and City Council meetings of November 16,
and November 22, 2005, ....,,__:ively.
.
RVI'UB\!lALV ADOR.SAi.A7.ARI70261~.1
..
.
I.
LAW omcm Of'
BEST BEST IS. KRIEGER LLP
City ofTemecula, 'planning Department
October 26, 2005 ·
, Page 2
Should you have any questions pl_ call me. Thank yeu.
Ce: Debbie ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad &, Nirole StormOD
RVrUH\c;ALVAOOR.SAl...AZ.t\l(\102tiJ6.,
e
5. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 26, 2005.
Response 5-1
The comment is noted. Please refer to the letter (Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning, City of
Temecula. October 31,2005.) on the following page as a response to letter S.
e
e
9-34
ENVIRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
City of Temecula
PlannlngD "." ...,_.
43200 BusinCss Pad: Drive. TemoaJla, CA 92590. MaiIiDg AddIess: P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula, CA 925,89.9033
(951) 694-6400 ~ FAX (951) 69U477
Qc;lober 31, 2005
.'
I
!
Salvador M. Salazar, Esq.
Best, Best & Kreiger
3750 University Avenue
, P:O. Box 1028
Riverside, CA '92502-1028
Re: ' Extension of Public ~eview Period for Temecula Hospital EIR for Planning
Applications PA04-Q462, PA04-1463, and PA04-0571 (Universal Health Services
Hospital Project
Dear Mr. Salazar:
As our City Attorney Peter Thorson'advised you on October 27,2005, your request of October
26, 2005 for an extension of the public review period for the Environmental Impact Report for
PA04-0462, PA04-1463,and PA04-0571 (Universal Health Services Hospital Project) Is denied.
On 'September 26, 2005 the Slate Office of Planning and Research determined that a 3O-day
public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital E1R (SCH#2005030017) for this Project
is consistent with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office' Of Planning and
Research for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of t~e Public ReSources Code.
Very truly yours,
~~~~#,.,
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
I
I
I
i
i
.
!
i
I
I
I
.. "
, A:\C U P\2llo4\o4-0483 TelIlecula AegIonaI ~~~..,;__. of PublIc Aevlow.doc
. - 1
.-
IHDWt lVELLS
(7eOJ S88-281 t
BEST BEST &. KRl~",c.n LlP
A~LPa'I'EI;J\oIABlUf'ff'!llRnllER3"'" ,.~ ". . -,..,,;o.,.~. L__,
l.A~
3750 low' .;.,.~. , AVENUE
POST OFPIC& 8CJ)( IOZB
RNERStDE. CAUfCRN1A 92SO.1 028
I8S I) 880-1460
<<OS I) eee0083 FAX
88KLAW,QOM
wALIII/T CIlEEK
192$) 7..0-7300
. ,
$ACAAM1lNTO
(Q 16) 3-....... "...--
""" lllEOO
.10) "25"1300
I!MI'II:
(0.49) Z~2.eoo
0Nll\RI0
lOCO) ""584
SALVADOR M. SAI.AZAA
SALvACOA,SALAZAR@8SKLAW,COM
OcWber 28, 2005
Via Facsimile and Fl1'9t Class Mail
Emery Papp, Senior Planner '
City,ofTemecula PJann;l1g D~!'__ent
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Letter 6
RE:
COMl\...s.......lo ON DRAFf ENVIRONMENrAL IMPACf REPORT
(DEIR) FOR l' A04-0462, PA04-1463, AND P A04-OS11 (UNIVERSAL
BE.ALm SERVICES HOSPITAL PROJECl')
...
Dear Mr. Papp:
This law firm ,~"MY"'ts Btad. and Nicole Stormon. owners of a single family residence
located on the northeast corner of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, direc;t1y across the street
from the northerly bounduy of the y.~..y.ed Universal Health SerVices Hospital deve1....~,_l
project ("Project"). The Stormons are in receipt of the City of Temecula's Notice of Availability
of the DEIR for the Project The 5;.._....5 have retained us to assist them in reviewing the
potential impacts of this Project 011 the envi.~_......... their residenc::e and their neighborhood.
As previously stated in the comments we submitted on April 6, 2005 to the City, the
Stonnons do not object to the construction of a hospital on the subject site. The Stormons want to
be assured that the Project does not cause """";;;gated adverse environmental. impacts to 1I1cir
residence and neighborhoOd. To that end, the Stonnons have attended most of the neighborhood
meetings held by the City and/or developer of the J'rOject t'orthe purpose of woOOng with the
developer and the City to create mutually acceptable Project They have:' ~..~e quite familiar
with the Project and all of its c .....,.,,,ents. In fact, the Sl..____.5 have several times voiced their
concerns about the J'rOject to City staff, representatives of the hospital, and 1I1e Planning
Commission during 1I1eir hearing on the Project on April 6, 2005. Throughont the consideration
of this Project the StOnnons have been infonned that their concerns would be addressed in the
....",:.......ental documents for the Project Unfortunate1y, ,to date, their concerns have not been
addressed.
RVPUBISAr..v,\OOJ\,SAl.AZARl702643.1
e
e
6-1
.
.
I
I'
I
.
I
I
i
!.
LAW (lI'FlCES OF
BESr BEST & KRIEGER u.P
City ofTemecula, Planning D_.._~.cnt
October 28, 200S
Page 2
In fact, the current Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for tbe Project failS to
anal)'2:c the deficiencies in the environmenta1 documents previously raised. Indeed, their
concerns about spill-over traffic using Pia Pico Road Street is not addressed in the DEIR.
The California L.:".,._.antal Quality Act requires the City, as a lead agency, to
:"~..r.-~te all feasible mitigation mC8$UleS. The StOImons continue to believe tbat their ~ecific
concems about the adverse traffic, noise, and aesthetic impacts from the Project may be
alleviated with; (I) a mitigation measure .", .:.:ng the developer to construct solid fencing along
the Stonnons' r-r.':} frontage (to screen noise, block exhaustand screen light and glare); and
(2) . "..":':'.g the installation of traffic calming devices such as signs (No Access to Hospital) or
structures along Pia Pica Road (to slow ttaflic coming south from Pia Pico Road to =8 the
northerly portion of the Hospital and minimize U-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single
DePoxtola driveway enttance to the I1ospital). Implementation of these mitigation measures
would clearly le5sen the significant impacts of the Project. However, none of these mitigation
, measures were analyzed or discussed in the DEIR. or included in the mitigation monitoring and 6-2
reporting plan prepared for the project despite the te5limony of the Stonnons and other neighbors,
that increase in traffic, especially the increased identified in the DEtR, will also increase the
existing spill over traffie. In fact, the supplemental traffic impact analysis devotes one paragraph
on page 17 of Appendix D to refute that any cars will ever use Pia Pico Road to access the
Hospital. The analysis, however, fails to consider the statement included in the previous
paragraph that Margarita Road wiU_.....~;. at a LOS E on a daily basis. Common sense, and
existing traffic patterns, would dictate that a driver would choose to use a residential street with
less traffic rather a commercial street which where movement of cars requires waiting for more
than one traffic cycle. '
6-1
Cont.
Consequently. the StonnonS continue to believe that the failure to discuSs and include
these feasible mitigation measures renders analysis undet' the DEIR and mitigation monitoring
and reporting plan deficient. We have Set.forth, the Slormons' conclusions in more detail below.
DEFIClENClES.IJ'Il THE DEIR
1. THELcCK OF ANYAN.<<fS1S (;()NCERNJNG TIlA.FFIC IMPACTS lOPIO Pleo ROAD.
The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate
en'~~_......;.J document. (Ocean new Estates Homeuwm:rs Ass'" v. Mo"tecito Water Diat.
.. (2004) 116 CaI.App.4ll1 396.) The supplemental traffic impact analysis contained in the DEIR
(and the original traffic impact analysis prepared as part of the Mitigated Negative Dec1aration) 6-3
again inexplicably fail to assign any vehicle trips to Pio Pico Road. Further the w."."./':oo of
Pio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the supplemental
traffic analysis. (Ca1ifonna Code of Regulations. Tille 14 Section 15063 ["State CEQA
Guidelines'1.) The supple.menlal traffic impact analysis assigns S6% of the vehicle trips to
Highway 79 (South) and 1S% of the trips to DePortola Road. (DElR Appendix D figure 2.1a)
The traffic analysis (original and supplemental traffic analysis) also "evaluated all of the
RVPUBlSALV ADOIlS'>l.AZAR\70;1l;d3.1
LAW _t't'.- OF
BE'Sl' eESr & KRIEGER LLP
City afT ~"......la. Planning Department
October 28, 2005
Page 3
intersections on Highway 79 South b~een: the 1-15 Freeway IDterchange and Butterfield Stage
Road and the intersection ef Margarita Road and DePertoIa Road." (OEm appendix D.)
However, nO' vehicle trips were f5Vet assigned to' Pie Pico Road and the iDtersection of Pia Pice
Read and DePortola Road was not one of tbe intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis (State
, CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.)
We UDderstand that the traffic engineer retained by the Project ....r __emsl belif5VllS that
nO' assignment of b::ips to Pio Pico Road 'is necessary because traffic will not use primarily
residential streets to access the hospital. However, there is already a significant amowt of traffic
that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City af TemecuJa that use Margarita 6-4
Road and then cut south to Pie Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons
coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to' bypass mest of
the traffie accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hespital complex
from the driveway located off DePortoIa Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the
City that a large portion of its population base is located north af the Hospital with easy access to
, Margarita Read as a means to travel south in the City.
6-3
Cont.
Given these street conditions" the Stannous again request that the traffic analysis be
amended to: (1) include a study ef the intersection ef DePortoIa Read and Pie PicO'Road; and (2)
study the reassignment of vehicle tri~ that would travel south beginning at Ihe intersection
Margarita Road to Pio Pica Road. In tHe event the City is unable to conduct an amended Traffic
.Anal~s, the Stormons continue to reqUest that a mitigation measure be added to require that a
sign be placed at the intersection of Pia Pico and Margarita and at the intersection ofPio Pico and
DePortela Road informing motorists that these streets dO' net provide haspital access. This 6-5
recommendation should be included as ~ ntitigation measure beCause there is a significant traffic
impact on the to' adjoining residential properties. Further, tb.e requested mitigation measure is
feasible and within the City's ability and authority to impose it. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21004
and State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15364.) As the City is . ",,":" oj to adopt all feasible mitigation
measures, if the City refuses to inwW',M..!e the suggested mitigation into tho Project, the City
must provide a reasonable explanatidn and . ....:'w..1ate the DElR fur an additional 45 day'
comment period. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 (a)(3).)
2. THE DEIRIDI1......,... SIGNIFICANT IMPAC'm FROM N019E SOVRCES AssOCIATED
1
WITH THE PROJECT, BUT OMITS DISCUSSION ON How THOSE IMPACTS WJu. BE MmGATED To
USS T11A.N SIGNIFICANT LEJ'E1.S.
The DEm notes under page 4-6, that
"Even wiJh mitigation mtlt1SIITe9 to reduce helicopter flight noi.re impacts, these
impacts ctl1I1Wt be mitigated, to be/ow a level of signiflCl./1/ce because of
J Additionally, we no1e lbat wln1e Ibe City may Ini1ize ;'.11.-_:,:"" <'. ,~<_ < J by th. Project proponent, the City Il)1J$t
find tbat the ="u.__u..1 analysis tdlccts !be t:ity's ilIdtpelldent jn"lP""" (See, c.~ State CEQA Gu;n.lm." ,
15074.) , '
6-6
tlVPlJl>\SALVAllOR.SAlAZARI'702643.1
.
e
'~
,.
,
I
I.
I'
I '
,.
LAW ..--.-.-....;. Of"
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
October 28, 200S
Page 4
uncertainly of the exact numb/Jrofflights pu month due to unknown number of
emugtmcies tlwt will occur whhin any given month. H/JliwJ"~ flight noise 6-6
impacts will b/J significant and u'rIavoidoble". Cont.
The property that is the eloaest to the Heliport is to the Stonnons' property. The
Stormons believe that an "t"ym..Jnate use of the Heliport could ~e determined b~ using
w.......~:sons with similar type of facilitibs to calculWi: the average number of helicopter flights to
and from the Hospital. The study of similar facilities should analy.l:e (I) the anticipated
frequency of use of the heliport; (2) the: anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; and
(2) the potential noise impacts to ~_._.....lIing properties. Once this stndy is completed,
mitigation measures could be ideJ11ified and recommended SO that the significant impacts 6-7
identified in the DBIR. are mitigated to 1he extent possible and to allow the decision making body
to make an :..J'v....ed decision and eomj)ly with CBQA (State CBQA Guidelines. ~ 15002(a)(I).
The Stonnons are Iw__..ending that, in tJIe event the City is unable to obtain this information.
the construction of a block wall aldng the southerly portion of their ...v.. "".y should be
inw'l'V,..ted as a mitigation measure toiminiJnize the increased ambient and interior noise levels
cause by the 6 flights per month ....;.:y:..':';_J and described in the DEm.. (See DEIR. page 4-64)
3. FAlLVRE To PlIEPARE ./J., NOISE S'llJDJ' THAT DE7'EllMlNES THE NrlMBER OP
.A.", ..,.......'IED FUGHTS To THE HospITAL
As noted above, the City failed to include or ,.....'" " a noise study that analyzes theuoise
that could be generated by the 1I1lIXim1.\l!ll number of flights aniving at the Hospital. Without this
:(light and noise study the decision miaking bodies (plAnml1g Commission and City Council) ,
!:IlIlIlOt ma1te aninfonned decision, and will not be able to in_.l'VA..:a mitigation measures that
are feasible and capable ofimplementaiion to minimizC noise significant impacts. Additionally,
we :6ndthat the noise conclusions '~6....Cng noise :.....ky:.. ftom the heliport in the DEIR are so
brief and conclusory that it makes the DEm. iJladequate and .w:'wlation is likely l1yy........../.
(See MOlDltiJin Lim! Coalitio" v Fish a1ld Game Comm's (1989) 214 CA3d 1043,263 CR 104 [in
Which an agency analyzed cumulative impacts in a brief and conclusoI)' fashion which rendered
the EIR inadequate and recirculation Wlls necessary].)
6-8
4.
IMPACTS
,
FAILVRE To PREPARE: ADEQUATE MmGATlON MEASrmES FoR AEsrHETlc
The OEIR illites that the projett will include various buildings and a hospital structure
that includes towers of five and six stories (106' in height). It further notes that "[W]hile the 6-9
project will be visible from various resideotiallots, a less than significant impact is anticipated
because views are considered private aad are not considered to be ofpubUe benefit." (DBIR. at p,
4-5.) H. ," _.r, this statement does not absolve tbe City ftom anal~g the aesthetic and visual
impacts on su....~,.:.ing residential ~..~ ..':es of constIuct:ing a six-story building. There can be
no doubt that the visual chaIacter of tIl.e ll{lla will be significantly affected with the COI1Struction
of 106-foot tall stmeture in the inunedlate vicinity of a residential neigbbOIhood. (Ocean Y'18W '
RVJ>UIlISM.VAOOR.SALAZo\R\~.1
LAW 0I'I'lCI!!l or
BEST 6EST & KRIEGER UP
City ofTemCCllIa, Plam1ing Department
October 28, 2005
Page 5
Estates Homeowners ks'n v. Montecito Water Di$t. (2004) 116 Ca1.App.4'b 396 [ccncern of
local residents regarding aesthetic impact8 may establish substantial evidence to .......y.; a fair
axgument that a project has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics]; The Poclret Pro.>_.. ~ V.
City ofSacralMTlto (2004) 2004 Cal.App. LEXIS 2074 [Jay opinion may be substantial evidence
of aesthetic i...........;...].) DisJDissing the ana1ysis simply because the views are not legally
.....;..;.J does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15063;
see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. AltUldor Water Agency (2004) 116
CaI.App.4dl 1 099 [stating that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that can be
made about a possible significant enWoIlDlentaI effect, ~ if the project, already meets
,established thresholds].) The conclusions reached in the DBlR must be based on some evidence
to indicate the basis for the determinatiOns made. (Citizens Alts'nfor 'Senaible JJevelopment v.
County of lnyo (1985) 172 CaI.App. 3d 151, 171.) Failure to base the ccnclusions in the DEIR.
on substantial evid~ rendm the DElR. and the findings and statement of overriding
considerations based on the DEIR. entiIely inadequate.
5. IUEOALDBFERRAL OF MlTlGATrON MJU.SUBES FORAE4TRETlC IilIP.tC'lS
, Mitigation measures DlIlSt be designed to minimize impacts. (pRC Section 21000 and
, 'State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15126.4). In this case the mitigation measures for the Project's
aesthetic ;,''i'.....;.; fail to minimize lighting impacts to the ._."....ding properties, inclnding the
StoTDlons' Iesidence. Defeual of mitigation measures may be penniUed oo1y when a mitigation
measure has been defined, but the extent ofroitigation that may be requited will depend on the
resuIts of a later study. (Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 411l 1428. See also
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents ofUni. of California (1988) 47 C3d 376.) In
this DEIR, mitigation measure A-I proposes to defer the analysis of lighting impacts on
SIIllO\IIIding ......r... ;:es. The mitigation measure states:
"Prior to the issuance of a building permi4 City staff shall veriJY /hot a
photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposedl/gl!ting levels. .
. onto oq;aCent project boundaries including mitigation mlUlSUretl.
Corre.rponding ~ ;;"" i~ for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use . . .
shaU also be J" "jo~' ,,J including means to mitigate ".
This JDitigation measure fails to i.,"""........;., perfonnance criteria that can be reviewed to
determine 'What will be done if the lighting levels adversely impact the surrounding properties
and/or the results are not in compliance with City regu1ations. SubJDittai of a photometric plan
!loes not and CJlnnot initl~te an imoact if there is no established criteria as to what level of
lighting ;.......,:ty is acceptable.
Mitigation Measure A-3 states that;
u. .. Enhanced bzndscaping mtlJ be required along the northern property line
and adjacent residential parcelll ".
RVPt.JmSALV ADOR..SALAZAR\70260.1
e
6-9
Cont.
e
6-10
.
i
I.
I
.!;
,
I
I
I'
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
! I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I '
!.
LAW _-....__.,:.. OF.
BEST BEST ll. KRIEGER UP
-City ofTemecula, PIannin,g Department
, October 28, 2005 '
Page 6
This mitigation measure as well as mitigation measure A.I tails to inelude a y~..i,.~ance
standard describing the level of mitigation needed. A mitigation measure that provides that
"[E]nbanced landscaping may be '~"'M:'J' is not a mitigation measure bi:cause it does not
specify under the conditions under which tho enhancenlenis will be required. (Ri1/erw4lch 1/.
County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 4th 1428. See also Laurel Heights Improvement Association
1/. Regents of Unl. of Q:difornia (1988) 47 C3d 3 76.)
CoNCLUSION
We appreciate the .'rr--'.mity to comment on the DEIR for thiS Project For the reasons
set forth above. the Stormons continue to believe that the DElR does not adequately analyze
impacts to ttaffic, noise and aesthetics, nor does it m.... .._...... feasible mitigation measures that
would 1'()in;"';7,e the impacts identified above. 6-11
6-10
Cont.
The Stonnons believe the City must inw. y.,...1e their suggestEd mitigation measures or
, prepare additional studies (noise and traffic) to dete.nnine what level ,of mitigation is needed to
minimi7e the significant impacts identified. At a minimum, if the City chooses not to inCv'IM~e
the, $Uggested mitigation measures, the City must recirculate the DElR..
S' ........
Cc: Honorable Chairman and Memb fthe PI
- Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad &. Nicole StOnnon
Commission
, '
RVP1JB\SALvAOOll.SAI.A7....RI7026OJ.l
.
6. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 28, 2005.
Response 6-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Best Best & Krieger LLP comments on the Draft EIR;
identifies Brad and Nicole Stormon as owners of a single-family residence located at the northeast
corner of De Portola Road and Pio Pi co Road, across De Portola Road from the project site; and
provides a summary of the Stormons' interests in the proposed project. The comment also
describes the Stormons' participation in past public hearings and scoping meetings, concluding that
the Draft EIR fails to analyze several concerns noted by the Stormons, including spill-over traffic
impacts on Pio Pico Road. The comment is acknowledged. Please refer to Responses 6-3, 6-4, and
6-5 concerning analysis of traffic impacts to Pio Pico Road.
Response 6-2
The comment provides suggested mitigation measures for the project to reduce traffic, noise, and
aesthetic impacts, including solid fencing along the Stormons' property frontage and traffic-calming
devices and signage to reduce potential traffic along Pio Pico Road, noting that these measures
would lessen the significant impacts of the project. The comment also notes that these measures
are supported by past testimony of the Stormons and other neighbors. However, none of these
measures is tied to a specific significant project impact identified in the Draft EIR. The traffic
analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road. As noted in
Response 6-5, a traffic analysis of Pio Pico Road was conducted pursuant to the Stormons'
comments. Traffic impacts to Pio Pico Road were found to be less than significant. Traffic noise
and aesthetic impacts of the project were also found to be less than significant in the Draft EIR.
Therefore, neither of these mitigation measures is required.
e
Responses 6-3 and 6-4
The commentor's opinions are acknowledged. An analysis of the De Portola RoadjPio Pico Road
intersection was not conducted in the traffic study since only a very small amount of project traffic
is expected to utilize Pio Pico Road to reach the hospital. This is because project traffic would need
to travel out-of-direction to use Pio Pico Road to reach the site. While Pio Pico Road is a viable
short cut to utilize westbound De Portola Road, it is not a timely way to head eastbound on De
Portola Road. However, in response to this concern, an analysis of this intersection was conducted,
assuming all traffic which would otherwise use Margarita Road would instead use Pio Pico Road.
Please refer to Response 6-5 regarding the Pio Pi co Road analysis.
Response 6-5
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG), conducted an A.M. and P.M. peak-hour traffic count at
the intersection on Thursday November 3, 2005 during a typical workday. Using these counts, LLG
conducted an A.M, and P.M. unsignalized intersection level of service (LOS) analysis for existing,
existing + cumulative project, and the existing + cumulative projects + total project conditions. In
addition, LLG assumed a worst-case scenario, diverting all Margarita Road traffic (15%) to Pio Pico
Road. The resulting analysis shows that the intersection of Pio Pico Road and De Portola Road is
calculated to operate at LOS B conditions under existing conditions and LOS C conditions under
the existing + cumulative projects + total project conditions. The analysis is shown on the following
pages,
e
9-42
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAQ REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSP1TAL
CITY OF TEMECUlA
I.
.
I
i.
Ex AM
Wed Nov 2, 2005 10,54,09
Page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
............************.*****...*********...**.**..**.*************...*****.*.*
Intersection 17 De Portola Rd/Pio Pica Rd
...**.....*.*****.**...****.....*...*.......*****...**..**.**..........**...**..
Average Delay lsec/veh), 1,3 Worst case Level Of Service, B[ 10,91
...***...********.........**********..**.....**.......................**.**.**..
App:t:'oach: Nox'th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
M~.~.~_t, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
COntrol: Stop sign Stop Sign uncontrolled uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 DOl! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]. 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 0 0 0 2 0 52 25 164 0 0 343 4
Growth Adj, 1.001,00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 i.oo 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 2 0 52 25 164 0 0 343 4
User Adj, 1,001.00 1.00 1,001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0..92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92
PHl'Volume, 0 0 0 2 0 57 2,7 178 0 0 373 4
Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final VoL, 0 0 0 2 0 57 27178 0 0373 4
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Czitical Gap Module,
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6~2 4..1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3~S:xxxx 3~3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 608 xxxx 375 317 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx.
Potent Cap_: xxxx. XXJCt xxxxx 462 xxxx 676 1192 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx; xxxx xxxxx 454 xx:xx 676 1192 xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx xxxxx
volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.. 00 xxxx 0 .. 0 B 0 .02 xxxx xxxx XJCOt xxxx xxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1
Level Of service Module:
Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx.
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx
LOS by Move: .. * '* .. '* *
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - Rr
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 664 xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.9 xxxxx
Shared LOS: '* * * .. B *
AppzoachOel.: 1.0.. 9
ApproachLOS " B
o .. 1 xxxx :xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
8.1 xxxx. xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx. xxxxx
A '* '* * * '*
LT-LTR-RT LT-LTR-RT
xxxx XXXJt xxxxx xxxx.:xxxx xxxxx
0.1 xxxx xxx:xx xxxxx xxxx .xxxxx.
8.1. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx
A '* * .. .. *
.
.
Traffix 7.1.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA
Ex PM
Wed Nov 2, 2005 10:54:18
Page 1-1
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Setvice Computation Report
2000 HCM unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
******************..************************************************************
Intersection #7 De Portola Rei/Pia pica Rd
********.********************************.**********.********************.******
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.1J
**********************************************..***********************.*....***
Approach: Noxth Bound South Bound Bast Bound liest Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled uncontrolled
Rights: . Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 22 61 331 0 0 220 3
Growth Adj: 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 2 0 22 61 331 0 0 220 3
User Adj, 1.001.00 LOa LOa 1,00 LOa 1.00 LaO 1.00 LaO LOa LOa
PHF Adj: 0_920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920,92 0.92 0.920_92 0.92
PHP Volume: 0 0 0 2 0 24 66 360 0 0 239 3
Reduct Vol> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinal VoL: 0 0 0 2 0 24 66 360 0 0 239 3
------------1---------------1 1---------------, 1---------------11---------------1
critical Gap Module;
Critical Gp:xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx. xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx. 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx x:xxx xxxxx
------------,---------------, ,---------------1 1---------------1 ,---------------1
Capacity Module:
cntlict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 733 xxxx 241 242:xxxx JCCCCt xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 391 xxxx 803 1336 x:xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx .xxxx xxxxx 375 xxxx 803 1336 xxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap, xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx 0 . 03 0 . 05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------, 1---------------,
Level Of Service Module,
Queue: :xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: .. * .. * .. ..
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xx:xx xxxxx xxxx 733 xxxxx
SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0 "1 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.1 xxxxx
Shared LOS: * .. 111 * B ..
ApproachDel: ..-............... 10.1
ApproachLOS: * B
-
~.
o . 2 xxxx: xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 8 xxxx. xxxxx. xxxxx x:xxx xxxxx
A .. .. .. * *
LT-LTR-RT LT-LTR-RT
xxxx xxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
0" 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx.
7 _ 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A * * * * *
.
.
Traffix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA
-
I.
.
.
Ex+ctlML - AM
Wed Nov 2, 2005 10:54.30
Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Se%Vice COmputation Report
2000 HCM unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Inte%section #7 De Portola Rd/Pio Pica Rei
********************************************************************************
Ave1:age De1ay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 11.1)
********.*******************..**************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L.,~..o~t: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
contxol: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontlolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 52 25 186 0 0 360 4
Growth Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1,001.00 1.00 1,001.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 2 0 52 25 186 0 0 360 4
User Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.920.92 0,92 0.920.92 0.92
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 2 0 57 21 202 0 0 391 4
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 0 0 2 0 57 27 202 0 0 391 4
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
C:dtica1 Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4:xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollOWUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx.xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---00-----------1
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx. xxxx XXXXX 650 xxxx 393 396 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx.
Potent Cap_: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 437 xxxx 660 1174 xxxx xxxxx xxxx:xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 429 xxxx 660 1174 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx.
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0~01 xxxx 0.09 0.02 xxxx xxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Level Of Service Module:
Queue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: '* '* '* '* '* '*
Movement: LT - LrR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx. xxxx xxxxx xxxx 64 7 xxxxx.
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.3 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xx:xx xxxxx xxxxx 11.1 xxxxx
Shared LOS: '* '* '* '* B w
ApproachDel: 11.1
ApproachLOS: '* B
0.1 xxxx xxxxx ~ xxxx xxxxx
8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A '* '* '* '* '*
.LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
8 . 1 xxxx xxxxx XXXXX XXXX XXXXX
A . '*' . '* '*
xxxxxx
*
*
T%affix 7.7.1115 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc.. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO. CA
Ex+CIlML - 11M
Wed Nov 2, 2005 10:54:39
Page 1-1
-
Level Of service Computation Report
2000 HCM onsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
***********************************************.*************.*.****************
Intersection #7 De Portola Rd/pio pico Rd
**.****************************************************************.****.*******
Average Delay (sec/veh); l.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.3]
.***.**************~*.*******..**....*.*******.**.**.****..****.****************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1
control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled uncontrolled
Rights: Inclucie; Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 2 0 22 61 371 0 0 236 3
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 2 0 22 61 311 0 0 236 3
User Adj: 1,001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1,00 1.001,00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PlIF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Pm Volume: 0 0 0 2 0 24 66 403 0 0 257 3
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pinal Vol.: 0 0 0 2 0 24 66 403 0 0 257 3
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1
Critical Gap MOdule:
Crt tica1 Gp;xxx;xx xxxx JOCOOt 6 _ 4 xxxx 6 . 2 4.1 xxxx XXXXJC xx:xxx xxxx xxxxx
FoIIOWUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 ~5 XXX]( 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Module:
cnfliot Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 794 xxxx. 258 260 xxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxx xxxxx
Potent cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 360 XXX]( 785 1316 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx. xxxx xxxxx 345 xxxx 785 1316 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
vOlume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx O.Ot xxxx 0.03 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------,
Level Of Service Module:
Queue: :xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: ... .. ... * * ...
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
ShaJ:'ed Cap~: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 710 xxxxx xxxx
SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0 "1 xxxxx
ShId StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.3 xxxxx
Shared LOS: ... * * . B .
.:..'i:"C'_......c.hDel: 10.3
J1pproachLOS: * B
-
0_,2 xxxx xxxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxxx
7 ~ 9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxxx
A * * . ... .
LT-LTR-RT LT-LTR-RT
0,2
7,9
A
xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
* * *
*
*
.....~,....,...
*
*
Traffix 7.7.1115 (0) 2004 Dowling Assoc.. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA
--
.
.
.
Rx+CUML+P - AM
~ue Nov 8, 2005 15:03:05
Page 1~1
--------.---.-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Repo~t
2000 HeM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative}
***************************************************************.*.*****.****..**
Intetsection #7 De Portola Rd/pio pico Rd
.*..*.*._.****.*...**.*.****.***...*..**._**..*****...**.**.***.*.****.*..*...**
Avelage Delay (sec/veh): 3.5 Worst Case Level Of service: C[ 19.61
***.*****...***.*.*****..********.***..***.**.*.**.*...*******...*.*....*.**..*-
Apploach: NOI'th Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L I R L T R L 1 R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1,1---------------11---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------) 1---------------11---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol. 0 0 0 98 0 S2 2S 282 0 0 394 38
Growth Adj, 1.00,1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse. 0 0 0 98 0 S2 2S 282 0 0 394 38
User Adj, 1.00100 1.00 1,001.00 1.00 1001.00 1,00 1,001.00 1.00
PHF Adj. 092092 0.92 0,920,92 0.92 0,920.92 0,92 0,920.92 0.92
l?HF Volume: 0 Q 0 107 0 57 27 307 0 0 428 41
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.; 0 0 0 107 0 57 27 307 0 0 428 41
------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 1---------------1
Cr~tical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:X:XXXX xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4_1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUplim:xx:xxx XJOOt xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx. xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Module:
Cnf! ict Vol: .xxxx XXXJt xxxxx 810.xxxx 449 470 xxxx xxxxx :xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 352 xxxx 614 1103 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx XXXXX
Move Cap.: .xxxx xxxx xxxxx 345 xxxx 614 1103 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx .xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx XXXJt XXXX 0.31 XXXJt 0.09 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx XXXX
------------1---------------11---------------,,---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module:
Queue; .xxxxx xxxx XXXXX xxxxx. x;KJOt. xxxxx
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx JOOOt xxxxx
LOS by Move: '" .. '" * '" '"
Movement, LT - L!R - RI LI - LIR - RT
Shared Cap.: JtXXX xxxx. xxxxx xxxx 401 xxxxx
SharedQueue: xxxxx xxxx xxx:xx xxxxx 1. 9 XXXXX
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx XXXl< XXXXX XXXXX 19.6 xxxxx
Shared LOS: .. '" .. .. C ..
ApproachDel, ~_~~ 19.6
ApproachLOS,. C
o . 1 XXXX XJCOOC XXXXX xxxx xxxxx
8 .3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A '" '" '" '* '"
LT - LTR - RT LI - LI'R - RT
xxxx xxxx ~ xxxx xxxx xxxxx
o 1 xxxx xxxxx x:xxxx XXJOt xxxxx
8 ~ 3 XXXJt xxxxx x:xxxx xxxx XXJOOt
A It * *' .. ...
xxxxxx
.
.
Traffix 7.7.111.5 (c) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG1 SAN DIBGO, CA.
e
Ex+CUML+P - PM
rue Nov 8, 2005 15:02:38
page 1-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 ROM unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #7 De PO:t-tola Rd/pio Pice Rd
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (see/veh), 2.1 Worst Case Level Of Service, C [ 20 ,1]
********************************************************************************
Appx-oach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bounq West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L I R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign UncontJ:olled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
---00000000-100000000-______11 00_000000____00 11___0000_00_____11_00000000_0000_1
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 0 0 0 52 0 22 61 421 0 0 325 92
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1,00 1 00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 52 0 22 61 421 0 0 325 92
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1,001.00 1,00 1.001,00 1.00 1.001.00 1_00
PHP Adj, 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0_92
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 57 0 24 66 458 0 0 353 100
Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 '0 0 57 0 24 66 458 0 0 353 100
____________1_______________11_______________11__00___________11_______________I
Critical Gap Module:
critical Gp:xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollOWUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 H 5 xxxx 3 H 3 2 H 2 xxxx .xxxxx x:xxxx xxxx xxxxx
____________1_____00________11 _______________11 __00_00________11__00_00________1
Capacity Module:
cntlict Vol: xxxx. xxxx xxxxx 993 xxxx 403 453 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 274 xxxx 652 1119 xxxx.xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx. xxxx xxxxx 261 xxxx 652 1118 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
VOlume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxx:x; 0.22 xxxx 0.04 0.06 XXX)( xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11______n_______ I
Level Of Service Module,
Queue: xx:xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * ... '* .. 11 '*
Movement: LI - LIR - RI LI - LIR - RI
Shazed Cap,: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 318 xxxxx
SharedQueue : xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1. 0 xxxxx
Shrd StpDel<xxxxx lOCCX xxxxx xxxxx 20.1 xxxxx
Shared LOS: .. '* '* * C 11
ApproachDel ,xxxxxx 20 .1
ApproachLOS:" C
-
o . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
8 . 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A * * ... ... ...
LT - LTR - RT L1 - LrR - RT
lOCCX xxxx xxxxx
o H 2 xxxx xxxxx
9 . 4 xxxx xxxxx
A . .
lOCCX xxxx
xxxxx xxxx
xxxxx xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
.
.
.
.
.
Tz'affix 7 H 7.1115 (e) 2004 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to LLG, SAN DIEGO, CA
.
i.
.
.
,
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
The resulting analysis shows that the intersection of Pio Pico Road and De Portola Road is
calculated to operate at LOS B under existing conditions and LOS C conditions under existing +
cumulative + total project conditions. Since the project does not cause this intersection to operate
at LOS E or LOS F, impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The signage
proposed in the comment as a potential mitigation measure is feasible, but bears no relationship to
any identified significant impact associated with the project. No mitigation measure is required.
Furthermore, since no new significant impact or mitigation measure has been identified,
recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 [a][l])
Response 6-6
This comment restates helicopter noise issues, providing an introduction to comment 6-7. This
comment does not address an environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis or
conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
Response 6-7
This comment requests further analysis of potential helicopter operations and noise impacts
associated with the hospital, and proposes a mitigation measure (construction of a block wall on the
southern portion of the Stormons' property) as a means to minimize the ambient and interior noise
levels caused by helicopter flights.
As stated in the Draft EIR (page 4-58), the project applicant indicates that on average, about one
helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. This assertion is based upon Universal Health
Services' previous experience designing, building, and managing similar facilities. Therefore, the
Draft EIR analyzes a single.event, worst-case, nighttime flight scenario under normal (non-
emergency) operating conditions. Under these conditions, and pursuant to mitigation measure N-3,
helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred approach
and departure heading of 135 degrees southwest. As described on page 4-59 of the Draft EIR, the
60 dB contour associated with this worst-case scenario under normal operating conditions does not
extend to nearby homes, so helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase ambient noise levels by
3 dB or more. Therefore, impacts associated with any single helicopter flight under normal
operating conditions will not be significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
The Draft EIR also considers that up to six helicopter flights per month may occur, pursuant to the
Emergency Medical Services Landing Site permit to be obtained by the applicant from the California
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Furthermore, the Draft EIR notes on page 4-
59 that the preferred flight path might change for any given flight, depending upon weather
conditions and wind speeds and direction. As noted on page 4-59 of the Draft EIR, the City of
T emecula does not have any regulations applicable to point-source noise events, such as helicopter
operations. Furthermore, it is conceivable that emergency conditions, such as the need to evacuate
the hospital or respond to a mass casualty event, might necessitate several helicopters to be within
the vicinity of the helipad at any given time. Operation of more than six helicopters per month is
expressly permitted under these conditions by the Caltrans permit, as described in mitigation
measure N-1,
For these reasons, the Draft EIR states that with operation of up to six helicopters per month, nearby
residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered
annoying (page 4-59). The Draft ErR concludes that the potential annoyance to residents near the
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9.49
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
.
hospital associated with up to six helicopter flights per month constitutes a significant impact. Due
to the unpredictable nature of helicopter flights and uncertainty regarding the frequency of
helicopter operations under normal and emergency conditions, the Draft EIR further concludes that
the impact is significant and unavoidable after mitigation incorporation, and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is required.
Given that the City has no regulations applicable to point source noise events, additional analysis
requested by the commentor would not change the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR, as no
exterior or interior dB(A) significance threshold applies for point source noise in the City of
Temecula. Furthermore, additional study suggested by the commentor regarding the average
number of helicopter flights at a similar facility would not address emergency conditions, which
would certainly exceed average operating conditions. Therefore, no change in impacts would
result. Increased noise levels would remain annoying to nearby property owners, and impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
While feasible, the proposed mitigation measure bears no relationship to impacts identified for a
single worst-case flight (as the noise contours extend to the southwest and the subject property is
located to the northeast), and bears only a tangential relationship to identified significant impacts
associated with operation of up to six flights per month. Lacking a point-source noise standard, it is
not possible to determine if the proposed block wall would result in a less than significant impact,
and the conclusions stated in the EIR remain unchanged. Furthermore, the noise consultant for the
EIR has indicated that a block wall at the southerly end of the Stormon's property, approximately
one thousand feet from the proposed helipad, would be ineffective at mitigating noise during take-
off and landing maneuvers of helicopters.
.
Response 6-8
This comment notes that the City did not analyze the noise that could be generated by the
maximum number of flights arriving at the hospital, and suggests that the Draft EIR be recirculated
due to brief and conclusory treatment of helicopter noise impacts.
As noted in Response 6-7, the City of Temecula has no regulations applicable to point-source noise
events, such as helicopter flights. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine if proposed mitigation
would result in a less than significant impact in the absence of exterior or interior dB(A) significance
thresholds. Therefore, further study of helicopter flight operations and recirculation of the EIR
would not result in any change to impact conclusions or mitigation within the EIR, or the need to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Response 6-9
This comment refers to portions of the Draft EIR addressing aesthetics impacts, asserts that the
aesthetics analysis was dismissed because views are not protected, and opines that conclusions
within the aesthetics section of the Draft EIR are not based on substantial evidence.
Pages 4-5 through 4-13 of the Draft EIR present the analysis of visual character or quality impacts
associated with the proposed hospital. Two photographic renderings were prepared, one
illustrating views from a hillside to the north overlooking the project site (presented in the Draft EI R
as Figures 4-2a and 4-2b), and a second illustrating conditions just north of the intersection of Pio
Pico Road and De Portola Road (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures 4-3a and 4-3b). As noted on
.
ENV\RONMENTAlIMPALI REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPlTAl
CITY OF TEMECUlA -
9-50
I,.
~
j
I
i
i
I
i
I
!
i
i
j
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Page 4-5 of the Draft EIR, the project will be visible from various residential lots north of the project
site. Furthermore, while the project can be seen from the north, views of Palomar Mountain from
areas north of the project site will not be blocked. Furthermore, at the request of the Santiago
Ranchos Property Association, balloons were elevated above the project site on Saturday,
November 12, 2005 to provide residents information regarding the proposed height of the hospital
towers. The renderings and use of balloons to indicate the proposed project's height are standard
and accepted techniques used to analyze the view shed 'impacts of a project under CEQA. The
analysis was not dismissed, The Draft EIR and subsequent activities requested by the public have
adequately disclosed the potential view shed impacts of the project.
The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the potential aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project and describes how project features will reduce impacts (pages 4-5 and 4-12).
However, because the City of Temecula Municipal Code does not contain any view protection
regulations, no significant impact results.
, Response 6-10
The comment asserts that mitigation measures A-I and A-3 defer mitigation of aesthetic impacts,
Pursuant to mitigation measure A-I, the City has included the following condition of approval for
the project:
Final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with Mount
Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting onto adjacent
properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible,
Compliance with this standard project review requirement constitutes compliance with mitigation
measure A-I and will ensure a less than significant impact. This information clarifies how the City
will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 [bl). No new measure is
proposed; therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
Pursuant to mitigation measure A-3, the City has included the following conditions of approval for
the project:
A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or
other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen
off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning,
A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the
residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box) screen trees to screen the
view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans
verifying the buffer area.
Therefore, the amount and conditions under which additional landscaping is required on the
northern boundary of the site have been defined. Compliance with these conditions of approval
constitutes compliance with mitigation measure A-3, and will ensure a less than significant impact.
This information clarifies how the City will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines
Section 1-5088.5 [bl). No new measure is proposed; therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not
required.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-51
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 6-11
This comment reiterates the assertions in the comment letter that the Draft EIR fails to adequately
analyze impacts relative to traffic, noise, and aesthetics; that the Stormons' suggested mitigation
measures should be incorporated in the Draft EIR; and/or that the Draft EIR should be recirculated.
Please refer to Responses 6-2 through 6-10 whi<;:h address these issues.
ENVIRONMENTAlLMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECUlA .
9-52
.
.
.
!
i
Ie
.
.
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
DANIEL L CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
TANYA A. GUlESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
OSHA R. MESERVE
SUMA PEESAPATI
GLORIA O. SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
1225 8th STREET, SUITE 550
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4810
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX; (916) 444-6209
FELLOW
KEVIN S. GOLDEN
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX; (650) 589-5062
gsmith@adamsbroadwell.com
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R. ADAMS
ANN BROADWELL
October 28, 2005
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
AND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Emery Papp
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589
Letter?
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Imoact Reoort for the
TelTl"wla R"cional Hosnital
Dear Mr. Papp:
On behalf of the California Nurses Association ("CNA"), this letter provides
oreliminarv comments on the City of Temecula's focused environmental impact
report ("focused EIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital project ("Project). As
explained below, the City of Temecula's ("City") focused EIR does not comply with 7-1
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'').1
Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project or grant any permits for it until
the City prepares and circulates a full EIR that addresses all of the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed Project.
The City's proposed Project is located within city limits on undeveloped land
near south Highway 79 and Margarita Road. Temecula Creek runs approximately
1000 feet south of the project site. (Focused EIR, at p. 1-1.) The project site consists
of 35.31 acres of vacant land on gently sloping terrain, with a high point between 7-2
two watersheds on the western side of the parcel. (ld., at p. 1-2.) The eastern
boundary of the project contains dense riparian vegetation, presumably along
Temecula Creek.
1 Public Resources Code ~~ 21000 et seq.
1818-003a
Oprinted on rrx:ycJ&d paper
October 28, 2005
Page 2
The proposed Project consists of a 566,160-square-foot medical facility that
will include a two-tower hospital complex with approximately 320 beds. One tower
will be six stories and the other five stories. The hospital will provide in-patient,
out-patient and emergency services. The facility will also include a 10,000-square-
foot cancer center in an adjacent one-story building, and an 8,000 square-foot
fitness rehabilitation center. The Project also includes a 60-foot by 60-foot helipad
and 1,278 parking spaces. (Id., at p. 1-3.)
According to the focused EIR, the Project will have unavoidable and
significant short term, long term and cumulative impacts to air quality. The Project
will also have unavoidable and significant impacts concerning traffic and noise.
The California Nurses Association is one of California's oldest nonprofit social
welfare institutions. Founded in 1901, today CNA represents over 65,000 members
in more than 165 facilities throughout the state. CNA has represented its members
on nursing and public health issues before municipal, county, and state bodies for
over 100 years. Over 100 members of the CNA provide professional care for
patients in medical facilities in the vicinity of Riverside County and Temecula.
CNA's comments are made in its representative capacity of over 100 CNA members
and their families who currently reside in Riverside County, on behalf of its
members and their families throughout California, and on behalf of health care
consumers generally who are directly affected in their health and general welfare
by the availability of, access to, and quality and safety of health care services.
CNA members and their families have a direct and substantial interest in
assuring that scarce health care resources are devoted to the provision of safe and
quality care to all persons, and that new health care facilities are developed,
constructed and operated in manner that will serve the public health priority of
universal access and a single standard of safe and quality care.
In addition, like the public at large, CNA members are concerned about
sustainable land use and development in this county. Similarly, CNA members live
in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental and
poorly planned projects. Ill-conceived development, in turn, may jeopardize human
health and safety. This is particularly true here given that underground hazardous
waste occurs in close proximity to the proposed Project, and the fact that the City
seeks to situate a hospital adjacent to an active earthquake fault zone. Likewise,
environmentally detrimental projects may jeopardize future jobs by making it more
difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and
1818--003a
.
7-2
Cont.
.
7-3
.
I.
,
I
~
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 3
by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. CNA
members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the same
health and safety impacts. The CNA therefore has a strong interest in enforcing
environmental laws such as CEQA to protect its members.
7-3
Cont.
We have prepared these comments with the assistance of three technical
experts: Mr. Tom Brohard, Mr. Matt Hagemann, and Dr. Petra Pless. The
comments of each of these experts along with their curriculum vitae are provided
herein as Attachments 1, 2 and 3. Please note that these experts' comments
supplement the issues addressed below, thus each expert's comments should be
addressed and responded to separately.
7-4
I. INTRODUCTION
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the focused EIR satisfies.
First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the
potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA
Guidelines") ~ 15002(a)(I).) The EIR is the "heart" of this requirement. (No Oil,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) The EIR has been described as
"an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return." (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795.)
7-5
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines ~ 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents
of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400.)
The City failed to satisfy these purposes by not issuing a full EIR but instead
circulated a focused EIR addressing only a small portion of the actual impacts
associated with the Project. In fact, a focused EIR, by design, is a final-stage tiering
document, but the City has not conducting any tiering for this Project. In addition,
the City has not complied with CEQA by: failing to provide sufficient information to
conduct project-level environmental review of the Project; failing to accurately
describe the environmental setting and establish an accurate baseline necessary for
an accurate evaluation of environmental impacts; failing to disclose all potentially
significant environmental impacts; failing to describe inconsistencies with the
applicable general plan and zoning ordinance policies and regulations; failing to
1818.003a
7-6
October 28, 2005
Page 4
provide adequate mitigation measures to avoid impacts; and failing to analyze
cumulative impacts.
Based on the foregoing, the focused Em fails to inform the public or decision
makers about the Project's significant impacts, and fails to avoid or reduce
environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation
measures. The City must correct these shortcomings and recirculate a full EIR for
public review and comment.
II. THE CITY VIOLATED CEQA'S STATUTORY PUBLIC REVIEW
PERIOD
As a preliminary matter, the CNA hereby reserve its right to file
supplemental comments at a later date because the City illegally curtailed its
Project's public review period from the statutorily required 45 days to 30 days.
Specifically, CEQA expressly provides the public with a 45-day review and comment
period for all draft environmental impact reports submitted to the State
Clearinghouse (No. 2005031017). (CEQA, section 21091.) Here the City
impermissibly curtailed the review time by a full two weeks, which precluded the
CNA from providing full and complete comments on the Project.
It appears that, coincident to the City submitting its focused Em to the
State Clearinghouse, the City also requested a shortened public review period.2
(Focused Em, at p. 2-3.) The State Clearinghouse website indicates that it granted
the City's improper request for shortened time, but does not state the date or
justification of the State's decision. (www.ceoanet.ca.!!ov) Appendix K of the CEQA
Guideline describes exceptional and very limited circumstances under which a
lead agency may curtail the public's review period, and it is clear that the City's
focused EIR meets none of the below criteria:
Under exceptional circumstances, and when requested in writing by the lead
agency, the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
may shorten the usual review periods for proposed negative declarations,
mitigated negative declarations and draft EIRs submitted to the
Clearinghouse. A request must be made by the decision-making body of the
2 Note, that the focused EIR simply declares that the City intended to apply for a curtailed review
period, omitting any justification or indication of fmal resolution of this issue. (Focused EIR, at p. 2-
1.)
1818-003a
.
7-6
ConI.
.
7-7
.
i
I
I
'I.
.
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 5
lead agency, or'by a properly authorized representative of the decision-making
body.
A shortened review period may be granted when any of the following
circumstances exist:
(1) The lead agency is operating under an extension of the one-year period for
completion of an EIR and would not otherwise be able to complete the EIR
within the extended period.
(2) The public project applicant is under severe time constraints with regard to
obtaining financing or exercising options which cannot be met without
shortening the review period.
(3) The document is a supplement to a draft EIR or proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration previously submitted to the
State Clearinghouse.
(4) The health and safety of the community would be at risk unless the project
is approved expeditiously.
7-7
Cant.
(5) The document is a revised draft EIR, or proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration, where changes in the document are primarily
the result of comments from agencies and the public.
Shortened review cannot be provided to a draft EIR or proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration which has already begun the
usual review process. Prior to requesting shortened review, the lead agency
should have already issued a notice of preparation and received comments
from applicable State agencies, in the case of an EIR, or consulted with
applicable State agencies, in the case of a proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration.
(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K)
According to State Clearinghouse senior planner, Scott Morgan, the City
relied on section (5), above (Telephone communication, Oct. 24, 2005). However,
that provision only allows shortened time when the lead agency has circulated a
revised DEIR, a proposed negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration,
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 6
none of which applies here. Instead, the City issued a focused EIR, and circulated it
for the first time on September 28, 2005. Thus, Appendix K's section 5 is
inapplicable, as are all of the other limited exceptions to CEQA's 45-day rule.
Therefore, the City submitted a wrongful request which the State granted, likely
assuming the City's request had been made on valid grounds. In any case, the
City's dubious actions have curtailed the public's and decision makers' review of its
CEQA document by a full two weeks.
Because the CNA was illegally denied the full statutory period to review and
comment upon the City's focused EIR, the CNA hereby reserves the right to
supplement these preliminary comments at a later date.
III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT
An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally adequate EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977)
71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192.) Without it, CEQA's objective of fostering public disclosure
and informed environmental decision-making is stymied. As one analyst has noted;
The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy
of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description
is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the
environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and
Zischke, "Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474
(8/99 update).)
The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR.
(County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192.) It is impossible for the public to make
informed comments on a project of unknown or ever-changing proportions. "A
curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting
process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and
public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental
costs. . .." (County of Inyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193.) In County of Inyo, the lead
agency first defined the project to include only the extraction of groundwater from
Owens Valley for export and use on city-owned land in Inyo and Mono Counties.
Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger operation of the Los Angeles
Aqueduct System." And in yet another part of the document, the project included
the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (Id. at 190.) The Court found the
inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because "the inconsistency confused
1818-003.
.
7-7
Cont.
7-8
e
7-9
.
,
i
I
I.
,
.
i
I
I
!
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 7
the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the usefulness of the process". . .
"as a vehicle for intelligent public participation. . . . Acurtailed, enigmatic or
unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input."
(ld. at 197-198.)
A project is "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a
physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately"...including "the activity
which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary
approvals by governmental agencies." (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15378(a), (c); see
McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143.) In McQueen, the
plaintiff challenged the approval of a project that was improperly described in a
CEQA exemption as simply acquiring surplus federal property for public open
space. (202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1140, 1144.) The court concluded that this
description impermissibly "divided the project into segments which evade CEQA
review" because the public entity had plans for the interim use and management of
this property that contained polychlorinated biphenyls. (Id. at pp. 1144-1146.) An
accurate description of the property also demonstrated the project was not exempt
from CEQA review. (Id. at p. 1149.)
7-9
ConI.
As discussed below, the focused EIR fails to describe the Project and its
environmental setting accurately and completely. It omits key project features that
have the potential to result in significant impacts. As a result, potentially
significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or addressed by
the focused EIR. Therefore, the focused EIR is fatally deficient under CEQA.
A. The Focused EIR Failed To Accurately Describe The Project
Construction Schedule And Equipment
The focused EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list
of equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the
hours of operation, the type of fuel used. the length and timing of the individual
construction phases, and so forth. Further, the focused EIR contains no information 7-10
regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as
well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically
provided in an EIR, but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting
from construction cannot be accurately estimated. As discussed below, the focused
EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which may
considerably underestimate emissions.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 8
1. The Focused EIR Contains No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-
Fill Analysis
The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to
geology and soils, relying on a perfunctory geotechnical investigation conducted for
the Project. The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review.
According to the Initial Study, the geotechnical investigation recommends over-
excavation up to 24 inches below existing grade and recompaction for support of
building slabs and pavement. (Appx. A, NOP/Initial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet,
neither the focused EIR nor the Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other
information regarding the amount of cut and fill necessary for development of the
site or the projected amount and location of spoils, if any. Review of the focused
Em's emissions modeling suggests that only some minor amount of material will
have to be imlexported.3 This suggests that the focused EIR largely relies on
balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil on site with no additional import
of fill material or export of excess cut material. Yet neither the Initial Study nor
the focused EIR contains any information demonstrating that cut and fIll can, in
fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived from a grading plan,
which would ordinarily be provided in an Em, but was not. If cut and fill cannot be
balanced on site, material would have to be imported or exported, which causes
additional emissions.
2. The Focused DEIR Failed To Adequately Describe
Mechanical Equipment
The Project requires a variety of mechanical equipment, including heating
and air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None
of this equipment is described with any detail in the focused Em. The focused Em
provides only the following vague statement; "A truck loading area and facilities
plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This
area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock,
cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage
area." (Focused Em, p. 3-4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling
towers, two emergency generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the
3 URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveied (''VMT') for on-road truck travel
during the grading phase, suggesting a minimal imlexport of materials, approximately 2500 cubic
yards based on the program's default values. This small amount of material is most likely export of
existing pavements, utilities and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site.
1818-003a
.
7-11
e
7-12
.
I.
I
.
,e
October 28, 2005
Page 9
mechanical yard. (Focused EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The focused EIR's noise impact
analysis further indicates that the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed
to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard,
will contain pumps, chillers and boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units
and their associated inlet and outlet exhaust systems will be located on the
hospital's rooftop. (Focused EIR, p. 4-63.)
This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the focused EIR,
is entirely inadequate to determine emissions and resulting environmental impacts
from operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project
description must include the fuel, fIring rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for
the two emergency generators; the type and effIciency of the proposed pollution
control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids (''TDS'')
content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information
required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas
flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it
is impossible to determine emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were
not included in the operational emissions estimates for the Project.
7-12
Cont.
Because the City failed to include an adequate project description in its
focused EIR, CEQA requires that it complete and recirculate a full EIR that fully
complies with long-established caselaw on this issue.
IV. THE FOCUSED EIR LACKS SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ANALYZE
THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS
Rather than issue a full EIR, the City circulated an incomplete CEQA
document it deemed a "focused EIR." Irrespective of its title, the EIR fails to meet
CEQA requirements because the document only addresses a fraction of the true
environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. There is no dispute
that CEQA allows agencies to prepare different types of EIRs. Indeed, the different
types of documents serve to promote effIciency and avoid redundancy in the
planning process while still providing the public with full disclosure of the
environmental impacts of a proposed project. The permitted CEQA documents
include; project EIRs; EIRs as part of general plans; master EIRs; program EIRs;
staged EIRs; focused EIRs; subsequent EIRs; and supplemental EIRs. Most of
these EIRs, including a focused EIR, are associated with a process known as
"tiering" by which an agency prepares a series of EIRs or negative declarations,
typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific considerations
1818-003a
7-13
e
October 28, 2005
Page 10
with the preparation of each new document. (CEQA sections 21068.5, 21093, 21094;
CEQA Guidelines sections 15152, 15385.) However, as shown below, the City has 7-13
not engaged in any early planning or tiering which would allow it to issue anything Cont.
but a full EIR.
A. The City Must Prepare A Full EIR
The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a
specific development project. Such project EIRs address all of the changes in the
environment that would result from the development project. Project EIRs must
examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.
(CEQA Guidelines section 15161.) Project EIRs mayor may not be part of a tiering
process because they operate as stand alone documents containing all of the
necessary components of a valid CEQA document. On the other hand, a focused
EIR is only appropriate where an agency has prepared a master EIR ("MEIR") for a
broadly defined planning program. (Remy, Thomas et aI., Guide to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999), p. 275.) In such cases, a
focused EIR may be appropriate for subsequent individual projects expressly
contemplated in the MEIR. (Id.) This allows the lead agency to dispense with
analyses already addressed in the MEIR. (CEQA, sections 21157 et seq.; CEQA
Guidelines, section 15157.) However, importantly, a focused EIR must
incorporate by reference the MEIR on which the lead agency is relying.
(CEQA, sections 21158.)
.
7-14
Here, the City circulated a final-stage tiering document, despite its n()t
providing any indication of prior tiering associated with the proposed Project. As a
result, the City's focused EIR is incomplete and omits important impact analyses
that would normally be discussed in a prior finalized document, and then
incorporated by reference into the focused EIR. Specifically the focused EIR failed
to include analyses for; agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. As shown
below, the City's preparation of a focused EIR for the proposed Project does not
comply with CEQA's legal requirements because a factual analysis of the Project
shows that the City failed to include significant environmental impacts in its CEQA
document.
In sum, given the procedural and factual background of the City's Project, it
is clear that the City was required to prepare a full project EIR since the Project is
1818.003.
e
:.
.
I
I
i
I
.
October 28, 2005
Page 11
not part of a larger CEQA planning process. By this measure alone, it is clear the
City acted improperly by preparing a focused EIR which omits essential impact
analyses for ten CEQA factors without incorporating by reference from an earlier
CEQA document. The City must prepare and circulate for public review a full EIR
that includes analyses for all ofthe required topics.
7-14
Cont.
B. The Fair Argument Standard Requires The City To Prepare A
Full EIR
Here, the "fair argument" standard determines whether the City is required
to prepare either a full EIR or a focused Em. (Remy Thomas, at p. 506.) This
standard obtains because CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can
be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant environmental impact. If an agency is presented with such evidence, it
cannot rely on contrary evidence as a basis for choosing not to prepare an Em.
(Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1316-17.) In this case,
the City prepared only a partial EIR addressing only a fraction of the significant
impacts associated with the proposed Project. Thus the fair argument standard
applies to those resource areas the City omitted from its CEQA analysis.
7-15
More specifically, a full Em is required (as opposed to a negative declaration
or focused EIR) whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair.
argument that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence
supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare a full Em.
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Lost Angeles (1974) 13 Ca.3d 68, 75.) The fair argument
standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. (Citizens
Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) This
standard is founded upon the principle that, because adopting a negative
declaration has a terminal effect on the environmental review process, an EIR is
necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions," and to
"substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation."
(No Oil, Inc. 13 Ca1.3d at p. 85.)
This analysis is fully applicable here because, by choosing to ignore ten of the
sixteen environmental factors in the NOP's Environmental Checklist, the City has
precluded all review of these issues, resulting in the same outcome as if the City
had simply issued a negative declaration for these issues. It is clear from the City's
environmental documents that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment in resource areas the City refused to analyze. For example, the City's
1818-003a
7-16
.
October 28, 2005
Page 12
focused EIR omitted significant analyses covering the existence of hazardous
leaking underground storage tanks within 250 feet of the Project. Therefore,
applying the fair argument standard, there is substantial evidence that the City 7-16
should have prepared a full Em addressing all of the environmental factors Cont.
enumerated in the NOP's Environmental Checklist.
V. THE FOCUSED EIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE OR ANALYZE ALL
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Even if using a focused Em were appropriate in this instance, which it is not,
the document itself is defective and must be revised and recirculated. Under
CEQA, an Em must disclose' all of a project's potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts. (CEQA section 21100(b)(1).) The City's focused Em
patently fails to do so. First, the focused EIR contains only cursory analyses of
impacts associated with aesthetic resources, air quality, hydrology and
groundwater, land use and planning, noise and transportation. Second, the focused
EIR failed to include any analyses whatsoever for; agricultural resources, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral
resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and
service systems. For nearly all of these issues, the record is incomplete because the
City failed to identify significant impacts associated with these resource areas. The
most glaring deficiencies are as follows:
7-17
e
A. The Focused EIR Fails To Identify Hazardous Waste Sites
Since 2001, Riverside County and the City of Temecula have known that the
Project site and local groundwater is contaminated by hazardous waste due to
leaking underground fuel tanks (''LUFTs''). Yet, the City's focused Em fails to
reveal this information, claiming instead tha~ there would be no impacts or less
than significant impacts associated with the proposed Project for geology, soils and 7-18
hazardous waste issues. (Focused EIR, at p. 1-8)
But, in reality, the proposed Project is within 250 feet of two gas stations
where leaking underground fuel tanks have been the subject of ongoing assessment
and cleanup activities. First, there is a Chevron station located at 31669 Hwy. 79
which has been listed as an 'open fIle' according to the California EP A "Geotracker"
1818-003a
.
I.
I
,
October 28, 2005
Page 13
web site.4 This web site specifies that the site's groundwater is contaminated with
gasoline-related hazardous materials, including methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE),
tert-buytl alcohol (TBA) and toluene. There is no evidence that remediation at this
site is close to complete. Nor is there any indication of the size and movement of the
existing contaminant plume.
Second, there is an ARCO gas station at 44239 Margarita Road that is listed
at the Geotracker web site as undergoing assessment and cleanup activities. Here,
as at the Chevron station, there is no evidence that remediation is close to
complete.5 Also, as with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include
gasoline-related compounds. Currently, there is no indication of the size and
movement of the existing contaminant plume.
7-18
Cont.
Significantly, the City is well aware that these facilities pose serious health
risks to workers and patients at the proposed medical facility because the gas
stations are included in the City's General Plan as "open fuel leak cases" and
. specifies;
"any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate
the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable
federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will
be permitted to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar 7-19
determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other
responsible agency."6
Despite this clear directive, the City is proposing to locate the Project, a
hospital containing a cancer center, in-patient, out-patient, emergency services and
a rehabilitation center, adjacent to two hazardous waste sites that are listed as
open and are actively undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials.
Inexplicably, the focused EIR completely omits any discussion of these hazardous
waste sites and the status of their cleanup.
I
I
'lhtto://"eotracker.swrcb.ca."ov/reoortsnuft,aso ?"lobal id=T0606599286&assi"ned name=MAINSIT
E).
5(httn://lleotracker .swrch.CB.Q'Ov/renortRlluft.aSD ?1l1obal id=T0606599255&assillned name=MAINSIT
E).
6htto://www,citvoftemecula.or,,/citvhalllCommDev DivisionlPlannin,,/e:ouodate/Final%20EIR/5 7%20
Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materials. ndf
1818-003a
I.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 14
Similarly, the focused EIR does not address the issue of hazardous waste
exposure to hospital patients and employees through groundwater contamination.
Instead, the City asserts that no mitigation measures are required with respect to
these issues. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-35) This, despite the fact that the City
acknowledges it intends to rely on groundwater on an as needed basis, "if surface
waters are reduced." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-35).
Groundwater is less than 25 feet below the ground surface at the Project
location, and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds via the water or vapor
pathways is possible during construction and within hospital buildings post-
construction. Therefore, the City must prepare a full EIR to identify potentially
significant impacts of contaminant exposure to construction workers, the hospital
staff and patients as a result of these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that
would result in risk to human health must be mitigated prior to construction.
7-20
B.
The Focused EIR Fails To Identify the Location of An Active
Earthquake Fault Zone Near the Project
.
The City failed to disclose and discuss in its focused EIR the fact that the
Project would be located within 2500 feet of an active earthquake fault zone known
as the Elsinore Fault. This particular fault has generated a magnitude 7.0
earthquake along its southern segment in the late 1800s. The fault zone is
recognized in the Temecula General Plan and designated an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), limits the types of construction
and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to prevent
damage associated with ground surface rupture. (See Pub. Res. Code section 2621 7-21
et. seq.)
Significantly. the purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to prohibit the location
of developments, such as hospitals, across the traces of active faults. (Pub. Res.
Code sections 2621.5, 2621.6) The Act prohibits the City from approving the
proposed Project without completing "a geologic report defining and delineating any
hazard of surface fault rupture." (Pub. Res. Code section 2623(a)) Moreover,
Project approval must be in accordance with the policies and criteria established by
the State Mining and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geologist. (Id.)
There is no evidence in the focused EIR that the City has conducted such a report in
consultation with the State.
1818-003a
e
.
.
,
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 15
Additionally, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of
1983 (Hospital Seismic Safety Act) provides further requirements to ensure the
safety of medical facilities sited in earthquake prone areas. (Health and Safety
Code Section 129675 et. seq.) The Legislature passed the Hospital Seismic Safety
Act to require that "hospital buildings. . . shall be designed and constructed to
resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes." (Health and
Safety ~ 129680(a).) To accomplish this goal, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act
requires approval of all projects by the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and
Development ("Office"). (Health and Safety ~ 129770(a).) Approval by the Office
must include an independent review of geological data by an engineering geologist
and independent review of the structural design data by a structural engineer. (Id.)
In addition to independent review by the Office, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act
requires that plans for hospital construction include "an assessment of the nature of
the site and potential earthquake damage, based upon geologic and engineering
investigations and reports by competent personnel of the causes of earthquake
damage." (Id.) Prior to construction of any hospital building, discretionary plan
approval by the Office is required. (Health and Safety Code ~ 129810.) Clearly, the
City has not complied with the Hospital Seismic Safety Act since there is no
evidence in the focused EIR that the City has obtained an approved assessment
from the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development.
7-22
The City must prepare a full EIR that includes a geologic report consistent
with the State Board for Geology and Mining, and must obtain approval by the
Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development. In addition, a full EIR
must include measures to mitigate safety impacts as a result of the Project's
proximity to this particular fault zone. Finally, in accordance with the City's 7-23
General Plan, the full EIR must include a complete geologic investigation by a
State-licensed engineering geologist to ensure that the project will not be
constructed across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. If an active trace fault is found,
a hospital cannot be placed over the trace ofthe fault, but instead must be set back
from the fault in accordance with the California Public Resources Code.
C. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project in a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone
Finally, and in connection with seismic impacts the City failed to disclose in
its focused EIR, the Project area is also especially prone to liquefaction in the event
of an earthquake. According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the
following figure, the area underlying the proposed Project has been mapped as a
1818-003a
7-24
October 28, 2005
Page 16
"liquefaction hazard zone."7 As mentioned above, a geologic report in consultation
with the State Mining and Geology Board and incorporating its policies and criteria,
would likely remedy the focused EIR's deficiencies with respect to the issue of
liquefaction.
7IhttD://WWW _citvoftemecula,or,,/citvhalIlCommDev DivisionIPlannin,,/rouDdate/Final%20EIRJ5 6%20
Geolo!!V%20and%20Soils, Ddf, p. 5.6-4).
ISI8-Q03a
e
7-24
Cont.
.
e
i
:.
';
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 17
F~I.-e fi.li.1
Sltbttlh:~I\l",
lc0Cil'!4
I~I ~~"aillnJWII!II
_,..."W'f"".,.......a."....'"
_._ r~~"J'riJry
~r/lMltllrflQV"~trmI!
_KIMKl9~~1l:f
=J.r~jtll~~
7-24
Cont.
'\
IJ
, ''''
H -j c
Nevertheless, because the City failed to comply with State law, and
completely omitted a geologic report and omitted the actual topic of geology and
soils from its CEQA analysis, the public and decision makers are denied the
181&-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 18
opportunity to review this critical issue. An adequate EIR containing a geologic
report, specifically identifying the Project as within a liquefaction zone, is required
to analyze the issue of liquefaction and to identify specific ways in which these
conditions can be mitigated.
D. The Focused EIR Fails to Identify Particulate Matter Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive
dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size
depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly
emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers ("PM2.5"), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers ("PM10").
Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated
through ambient air quality standards for PM10. However, a substantial amount of
important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at
much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter
than was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S.
EPA 04/96;8 U.S. EPA 03/01.9)
This new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter,
particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including
premature mortality, aggravation ofrespiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath,
wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung
function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense
mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EPA 04/96; 61 FR 65638.10) A recent
article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. Report
EPA/6001P-95-001aF through 001cF. April 1996.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second
External Review Draft, March 2001.
10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Decision, Federal
Register. v. 61, no. 241. December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675.
181S-003a
.
7-24
Cant.
7-25 .
.
I
I.
I
.
I
I
,
,
:
I
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 19
pollution to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.ll Particulate matter is a
non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse
health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking v. EPA: Unjustified
Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.)
This new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S.
EP A") and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5. These standards are not subsets ofthe old PMI0 standards, but new
standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual
PM2.5 standard of 12 Ilg/m3 was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5, 2003, more than two
years before the focused Em was published. (Voting on the proposed 24-hour-
average PM2.5 standard of 25 Ilg/m3 has been deferred by CARB.l2) At the same
time, California lowered its annual PMI0 standard from 30 Ilg/m2 to 20 Ilg/m3.
(CARB 09/0513.) The focused Em also failed to acknowledge this new, lower
standard for PMlO. (Focused EIR, at Table 4-1.) Consequently, the focused Em
failed to accurately characterize the regulatory setting for the Project.
7-25
Cont.
E. The Focused EIR Fails To Analyze PM2.5 Emissions
The focused Em does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on
ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and
inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("So CAB"), where the 7-26
Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality
standards for PM2.5. The focused EIR should be revised to include an analysis of
PM2,5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on
air quality and human health.
11 A.A. Pope et aI., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132.1141.
12 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March
12, 2002.
13 California Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter and Sulfates, httn~lIwww.arb.ca.p.nv/researchJaa(ls1strl-l.!=:/std-rs.htm. accessed
October 26, 2005.
1818-003a
e
October 28, 2005
Page 20
F. The Focused EIR Failed To Include A Health Risk Assessment
The focused EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
Project, including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary
schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project
site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Focused EIR, at p.4-21.)
Yet the focused EIR contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential 7-27
health risks for these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or
operational emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic
air contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such
as emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that
access the loading dock. The focused EIR should be revised to include a health risk
assessment.
G. The Focused EIR Underestimated Construction Emissions
According to the focused EIR, significant impacts will continue after its
implementation of proposed mitigation measures for ROG and NOx. As discussed
below, the focused EIR's air quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions
from construction activities and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air
quality from Project construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO
and PMIO will likely also exceed applicable significance thresholds.
7-28
.
H. The Focused EIR Employed An Incorrect Construction Period
For Emissions Estimates
7-29
The focused EIR indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five
phases as summarized in the Table 1. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8.)
1818-003a
.
I.
.
I
I
Ie
,
October 28, 2005
Page 21
Table 1: Project Construction Phases
I Phase
IA
IB
Activity
Grading
Demolition of existing buildings
Construction of 3-story, 60,OOO-square foot medical office
building
Construction of surface parkin~
Construction of I-story. 162,650-square foot main hospital
structure
Construction of 6-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
Construction of associated parking
Construction of 5-story. 122.755-souare foot bed tower
Construction of 4-story, 80,OOO-square foot medical office
building
Construction of hospital connector
Construction of I-story, 10,000-square foot cancer center
Construction of associated parkin~
Construction of 8.000 square foot fitness center
Construction of iogging trail
12 months
(II-V
concurrent)
Period
10 months
14 months
III
III
IV
Iv
j
Total 36 months
Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the
proposed construction phases (lA, IB, and II'V> are conducted subsequently. In
contrast, the focused EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60-
month construction period, starting in January 2006 and terminating in December
2010. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-24, footnote to Table 4-5, and Appx. B, p. 2.) By
'stretching construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual
proposed 36-month construction period, the focused EIR considerably
underestimates maximum daily emissions and, thus, considerably underestimates
air quality impacts from Project construction. In fact, construction of the Project
could even be shorter than 36 months because nothing in the focused Em's
language restricts the developer to the staggered construction phasing. If more
than the specified construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even
greater emissions would occur.
7-29
Cont.
The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 model in assuming a construction
buildout of 36 months and otherwise accepting all of the focused EIR's assumptions.
Results are included in Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless' comments. Maximum daily ROG
emissions increase considerably from 224 lb/day to 344 lb/day. Therefore, the
focused EIR failed to disclose the magnitude of impacts associated with Project
construction. The focused EIR must be revised to include a construction schedule
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 22
showing the projected start of the various construction phases and their expected
buildout. The focused EIR's air quality analysis must be corrected accordingly
because, as currently drafted, it employs an incorrect construction period.
I. The Focused EIR Assumes Unacceptable Model Default Values
The focused EIR's construction emissions estimates largely assume
URBEMIS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's
real emissions. For example, the focused EIR assumes the default factor for average
fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/acre-month. By accepting the
default value for average conditions, the focused EIR fails to evaluate the potential
worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case
condition is 0.42 ton/acre-month. Therefore, the focused EIR may have
underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the Project by a
factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested when no
other information is available. Typically, for a Project of this size, the amount of
cut/fIll would also be known.
Another example is the assumption of 8 hours of construction per day. This
assumption directly conflicts with the focused EIR's statement that "construction
activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday,
and 7:00 AM. and 6;30 P.M. on Saturday. (Focused EIR, at p.4-53.) Although the
focused EIR makes this assertion, it should be noted that the document contains no
enforceable restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction
may be conducted for more than the assumed 8 hours per day and more than the 12
hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. This would
considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The focused
EIR must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible
hours of construction or it must adjust its emissions estimates accordingly.
J. The Focused EIR Failed to Identify Fugitive Dust Emissions
From Wind Erosion And Trackout
The focused EIR indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur
during Phase lA, exposing those portions of the site which will be developed in later
phases (Phase IB through V), to wind erosion for an extended period of time.
(Focused EIR, at p. 3-7.) The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 emissions
modeling to estimate Project construction emissions which includes fugitive dust
1818-003a
.
7-29
Cont.
7-30 .
7-31
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 23
associated with grading, but does not account for wind erosion.14 Wind erosion can
be a substantial contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in
summer-dry climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMIS2002 emissions
modeling does not account for mud/dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the
focused EIR does not disclose the full impact of fugitive dust PM10 emissions from
Project construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can
be calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (''U.S. EPA"). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.515; EPA 450/3-88-008.16) The City must
prepare a full EIR to include this analysis.
7-31
Cont.
K. The Focused EIR Failed To Properly Estimate Operational
Emissions
The focused EIR's air quality impact analysis underestimates operational
emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses inadequate trip
generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from electricity
generation. The focused EIR finds total operational NOx emissions of 94.5 lb/day,
only 5.5 Ib/day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 100 lb/day. This NOx
significance threshold will likely be exceeded when taking into account the omitted
emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and secondary emissions from the
Project. Similarly, PM10 emissions, currently estimated at 123 lb/day, may exceed
the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 150 lb/day. As a result, the focused EIR
fails to disclose and adequately mitigate significant impacts due to operational
emissions of PMlO and NOx. The focused EIR should be revised to address these
issues and be recirculated for public r~view.
7-32
" The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for
the SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute (''MRf). (Software User's Guide: URBEMIS 2002
for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module. April 2005, p. A-6.) The MRI study specifically
notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do not include
wind erosion or mud/dirt trackout from the site. (MRI, Improvement of Specific Emission Factors,
BACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29,1996, p. 4-1.)
15 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001.
16 C. Cowherd, G.E. Muieski, and J.S. Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EPA 450/3-88-
008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 24
L. The Focused EIR Omitted Important Emission Sources
The focused EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions
calculated with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source
emissions from traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas
usage, hearths, landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and
operational traffic emissions. The model does not include emissions from the
helicopter, the three cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers.
The Initial Study concluded that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air
condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of
emissions." (NOPlInitial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of
the focused EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these
sources were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must
therefore be included in the a full EIR concerning a Project emissions analysis.
7-33
The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators and the
boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold.
For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters17
are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff ("LTO"), bringing total NOx emissions from
the Project within one pound per day of the significance threshold. (OCS 10/0418,
p.6-17.)
e
M. The Focused EIR's Failed To Identify Emissions From Natural
Gas Usage
The URBEMIS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses, 7-34
e.g., residences, industrial, hotel/motel, and office, to calculate area source
emissions from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does
not calculate emissions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project
is intended to operate a number of, presumably natural-gas tired equipment-types,
17 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been
confirmed, but that the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used, The
Bell 222, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transporls, is a commercial light twin-
engine helicopter,
18 R. Billings and D, Wilson. Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas
Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico. Final Reporl, U.S. Department of the
Interior. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, MMS 2004-071, October 2004.
1818-003.
.
.
.
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
:.
October 28, 2005
Page 25
including boilers and heating/air conditioning equipment. Emissions from such
equipment, which are likely considerable, are not included in the focused EIR's area
emissions estimates for Project operations presented in Table 4-6. Because the
focused EIR does not include these types of emissions analyses, the document is
inadequate.
N. The Focused EIR Used Incorrect Target Year Results To
Underestimate Vehicle Emissions
7-34
Cont.
The focused EIR assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic
emissions. Construction is assumed to start in January 2006 with a 36 month
construction period. Therefore, the target year for operational emissions should be
2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are assumed to decrease with every
year, the calculated operational emissions for 2010 underestimate actual emissions 7-35
at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009.
Relying upon URBEMIS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming
all ofthe focused EIR's assumptions, results are included as Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless'
comments. Emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for
target year 2010. This results in NOx emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's
quantitative daily significance threshold. This is a significant impact that was not
disclosed in the focused EIR.
O. The Focused EIR Underestimated Traffic Emissions
The City's URBEMIS2002 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to
estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not
apply to traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional
hospital are typically longer and hence traffic emissions attributable to the Project
are higher. In addition, an independent review of the focused EIR's traffic analysis
found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not
reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard
10/05'9.) Consequently, emissions associated with Project traffic are also
underestimated. The focused Em's emissions estimates for Project traffic must be
modified to reflect the Project's actual traffic characteristics.
19 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria D. Smith. Adams, Broadwell, Joseph &
Cardozo, Re: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused
Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula, October 26. 2005.
1818-003a
7-36
October 28, 2005
Page 26
P. The Focused EIR Failed to Include Secondary Emissions From
Electricity Generation
CEQA requires that an EIR identify direct and indirect significant effects of
the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project
will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or
secondary emissions. The focused EIR mentions that air pollutant emissions will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional
emissions were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. (Focused EIR, p. 4-24.) Yet the focused Em fails to account for
these emissions in its presentation of regional emissions associated with the
operational phase of the Project. (Focused Em, at p. 4-25, Table 4-6.)
A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by
coal-fired power plants, which generate substantial particulate matter and S02
emissions. The focused EIR should be revised to include emissions from electricity
generation.
Q. The Focused EIR Failed To Identify Increased Ozone
Formation Due To Urban Heat Island Effect
The Project would develop 35.31 acres oflargely open grass-covered land.
The focused Em states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent
building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.20 (Focused
Em, at pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots,
roads, and roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black surfaces
absorb about 85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the
hottest surfaces in urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark
roofs quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer
urban "heat islands." On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban
areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter than the surrounding rural area. The elevated
temperature increases cooling energy demand, accelerates the rate of smog
production, and increases evaporative losses of organic compounds from gasoline
tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces.
20 The Site Plan provided in the Draft Em suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and
parking spaces and lower percentage oflandscaped areas. (Draft ErR, p. 3-5, Figure 3.2.)
IB18-003a
.
7-37
e
7-38
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 27
Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase local
ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and
increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island effect would
exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The
SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the
Project would directly contribute to existing excee,dances of the federal and State
ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692) This is a significant impact that was
not discussed in the focused EIR and is absolutely feasible to mitigate.
7-38
Cont.
R. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Water Quality Issues
The Project site lies within the San Diego Basin, which encompasses
Temecula and the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-32.)
Murrieta Creek is a tributary to Temecula Creek and is located downstream of the
Project. Significantly, the focused EIR failed to disclose that a twelve-mile segment
of Murrieta Creek is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board's 303(d) list
(pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act's section 303(d)) as an impaired water
body for phosphorous pollution. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board has listed sources polluting the creek to include urban runoff and storm
sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and unknown point sources.21 The focused EIR
omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to add additional
phosphorous pollution into Murrieta Creek, further impairing the creek's water
quality in violation of the Clean Water Act.
7-39
Additionally, an 18-mile portion of the Santa Margarita River, the primary
drainage course within the Planning Area, is also listed as impaired for
phosphorous from the same sources. The focused EIR states that Murrieta Creek is
one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River: ''The creeks drain the
inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the Santa
Margarita River at Temecula Canyon." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-32.) Again, the
focused EIR omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to add
additional phosphorous pollution into regional water bodies such as the Santa
Margarita River, further impairing its water quality in violation of the Clean Water
Act.
21 (h tto:/Iwww.waterboards.ca.!!ov/tmdl/docs/2002re!!9303dlist. odf).
181S-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 28
The Regional Board's total maximum daily load criteria ("TMDU') classified
Murrieta Creek as ''low,'' nevertheless, the potential for additional phosphorous
contamination from the Project should be evaluated in the,a full DEIR. Urban
runoff typically contains phosphorous as a main pollution component. Since
potential exists for phosphorous contamination to travel downstream into the Santa
Margarita River, further degrading its water quality, it is imperative that
mitigation measures are included as specific best management practices ("BMPs'')
which describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering
Murrieta Creek.
Furthermore, the focused EIR states that flooding of Mumeta Creek banks
has occurred during times of heavy rain;
"Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a
number of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant
damages, and other water-related problems are caused during major
rainstorms, resulting in increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and
traffic disruption. Murrieta Creek has been altered since the late 1800s and
has been channelized for flood control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration
of the natural functions of the creek is planned, including the banks, channel
invert, tributaries and floodplain." (City of Temecula General Plan, at p. 5.8-
3)
It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to
protect water quality of Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the
developed site can contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but
are not limited to debris, oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such
as phosphorous. Water quality omissions of this magnitude in a project level CEQA
document are impermissible, and can only be remedied through circulation of a full
ElR.
S. The EIR Fails to Disclose The Fact That the Project Cannot
Meet NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 Requirements
Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are
required to file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB"), Order No. 99--08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water
Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The proposed
1818.0038
.
7-39
Cont.
7-40
.
7-41
.
I.
1
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
,.
,
October 28, 2005
Page 29
Project is thus subject to the NPDES General Permit requirements. In addition,
the General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must contain:
. a site map which shows the construction site perimeter;
· existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
and discharge points;
· general topography both before and after construction;
. drainage patterns across the project.
In addition, any SWPPP must include BMPs the discharger will implement to
protect storm water runoff.
The focused EIR fails to analyze whether the proposed Project will meet the
NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements. It likewise omits a
discussion of storm water discharge and the adoption of a SWPPP. Finally the
focused EIR does not include specific mitigation BMPs for both of the above-
described requirements.
7-41
Cont.
With respect to post-construction, the focused EIR omits the discussion of
post-construction stormwater BMPs as required in Sections A of any SWPPP in
accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse impacts
on water quality associated with the Project's operation, such as anticipated water
pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typical landscaping upkeep, and
equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post-construction storm water BMPs is
critical to ascertain the effectiveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational
impacts and meet applicable water quality attainment objectives.
Finally, the focused EIR omits the inclusion of water quality monitoring
programs as required in Sections B of any SWPPP. This section of an NPDES
permit requires that a SWPPP also include a sampling and analysis strategy, and
sampling schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact
water bodies listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Section 303(d)
impaired water bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa
Margarita River are listed on the Regional Board's 303(d) list as impaired for
phosphorous, a full EIR should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the
establishment of baseline water quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate
IBIS-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 30
and validate the effectiveness of the BMPs, to measure the effectiveness of the
BMPs and avoid further degradation of the impaired waterways.
17-41
Cont.
T. The EIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment
The focused EIR's water supply and impacts analysis fails to comply with the
requirements of CEQA, California Water Code section 10910, and S.B. 610. In
essence, these legal requirements mandate that a local public water system, here
the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for new development proposals. The City attached a WSA to Appendix G of
the focused EIR. However the assessment must be revised as it is insufficient
under SB 610 because it does not comply with the following S.B. 610 requirements:
Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis
10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the
following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply a
Assessment: ,...,
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of
groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either
is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past 7-42
five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be
supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is
reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of
groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the
city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to
subdivision (b) from any basin from which the proposed project will be.
The City admits that additional water supply will come via local groundwater
sources;
"To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional
Hospital, the RCWD intends to meet supply planning issues through a
combination of the following alternatives: (1) Continued practice of managing
groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater
extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . " (Focused EIR,
at p. 4-34)
1818-003a
.
i
i.
.
I
,
I
I
I.
i
October 28, 2005
Page 31
However, the Project's WSA does not include a "detailed description and
analysis" of the most recent groundwater usage, including source locations and
pumped volumes for the past five years, nor does it provide a detailed description of
projected water usage volumes, as mandated by points (3) and (4), above.
Additionally, according to the WSAregarding groundwater volume; "The
amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to such factors as rainfall,
recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." (yVSA, at p. 7)
With respect to a drought with decreased surface water flows, the WSA states; 7-42
"increased groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and Cont.
other measures" will make up the difference.
This analysis is wholly inadequate because without calculated projected
groundwater volumes, it is impossible for the City or RCWD to guarantee that
groundwater will be an adequate and reliable source. A full Em must quantify the
range of variable groundwater volumes, and then evaluate the most conservative
scenario to demonstrate quantitatively that water demand will still be achieved.
Absent such an analysis, the whole WSA and groundwater discussion is inadequate.
Accordingly, the City must prepare a full EIR that includes a proper WSA.
U. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Traffic Impacts
The focused Em, its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and its Appendix D
provide only a cursory analysis of the actual traffic and circulation impacts that
result from the construction and operation of the City's hospital project. The City's
most glaring traffic analysis deficiencies and omissions are enumerated below.
7-43
First, flaws in the focused EIR's traffic analysis stem in part from the City's
failure to properly calculate the phasing for the Project's construction. Regarding
Project phasing, the focused Em states;
"Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA
consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3
story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction
of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to
last approximately 10 months.
7-44
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 32
Phase IB consists of construction of the one story main hospital structure
comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story tower of
approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the
'structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with
the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet.
Phase III will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB
#1) and the hospital connector.
Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer
center and associated parking spaces.
Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the
jogging trail.
Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and
to last approximately 12 months."
(Focused Em, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8)
Such construction phasing, according to the focused EIR, will take 36 months.
Importantly, however, it is likely that a number of months or years will pass
between construction activities associated with each of the three major construction
phases. Thus, the focused Em does not properly evaluate baseline conditions in
concert with the phasing of construction for the proposed Project. The failure of the
focused EIR to analyze traffic impacts associated with the major construction
phases as well as buildout of the entire Project provides no assurance that
implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts
caused by the phased development of the Project.
Next, the focused EIR's Traffic Impact Analysis and Appendix D contain the
City's traffic analysis for the proposed Project. Unfortunately, these analyses
include significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and
daily trips that will be generated by the proposed Project. Use of average trip rates
per hospital bed, together with the omission of all trips associated with the 10,000
1818-003.
7-44
Cont.
7-45
.
e
e
i
I.
.
i.
October 28, 2005
Page 33
square-foot cancer center and 'the 8,000 square-foot fitness center, significantly
understates the Project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts.
7-45
Cont.
Based on these errors in trip calculations, major revisions to the focused EIR
are required to address the significant impacts that the Project will have on traffic.
The focused EIR must use the higher trip forecasts discussed below to properly
identify the Project traffic impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Until the City conducts a proper traffic analysis, trip forecasts are significantly
below those that should have been calculated for the Project as follows;
7-46
1. The Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On
Site
According to the focused EIR, "...the total parking spaces provided will be
1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires 663 parking
spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the Project, for which the Development
Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the
standards contained in the Development Code because the Code requirements do
not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff
parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common in 7-47
most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking
requirements for this reason." (Focused Em, at p. 3-8 note 2.) Thus, the City's
constructing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over the City
requirements in its Development Code is a strong indication that the Project will
generate more than the average number of vehicle trips, particularly since the site
is not currently served by bus or other public transit.
Likewise, the City's unrealistically low trip rates enumerated in its focused
Em do not provide a proper basis for analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions
associated with the City's intent to construct nearly double the parking spaces
required by the its own Development Code. In addition, the low trip rates clearly do
not provide an evaluation of the "worst case" condition.
2. The City Relied Upon A Low Trip Rate Per Hospital Bed
Analysis
The focused Em relied upon a trip rate of 20 daily trips per hospital bed
published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to develop its
forecasts of daily, AM and PM peak hour trips. (Focused EIR, at section 4.6) For
1818-003a
7-48
October 28, 2005
Page 34
the initial phase with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak
hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. For the buildout of 320 beds,
6,400 daily trips including 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640 trips in the PM
peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably low trip generation forecasts for the
170 bed hospital and the 320 bed hospital were relied upon throughout the focused
EIR.
In addition to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of 25
daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the daily trips in the
AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the PM peak hour. Applying the
SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet indicates the initial phase of the hospital
building with 285,405 square feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips
in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of
408,160 square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate
10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the
PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on site and the absence of
public transit services, the SANDAG trip rates per 1,000 square feet for the hospital
portion of the Project must be used to analyze and mitigate Project traffic impacts.
Without such an analysis, the focused EIR's traffic impacts are artificially low.
3. All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were
Omitted
The focused EIR indicates that the Project will also include a 10,000 square
foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness center. (Focused ErR, at p. 3-4)
The traffic analysis is also misleading because the focused ErR fails to include the
cancer center and fitness center in trip generation at buildout. (Focused EIR, at
Table 4-22 on p. 4-87) Instead, the focused ErR diminishes the trip generation
numbers forecasted for buildout by only considering trips for a hospital containing
320 beds and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. This analysis is misleading and
inaccurate because all trips associated with the cancer center and the fitness center
were omitted from the focused ErR's traffic analysis.
A more reasonable calculation, for example, would include employing
SANDAG data showing that, per 1,000 square-feet of hospital space, the 10,000
square-foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips, including 20 trips in the AM
peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Also based on SANDAG data, per
1,000 square feet of hospital space, indicates the 8,000 square-foot fitness center
will generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20 trips in
1818-003a
e
7-48
Cont.
.
7-49
.
il
ii.
,~
I.
r.
October 28, 2005
Page 35
the PM peak hour. An additional 450 daily trips including, 36 trips in the AM peak
hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour, from the cancer center and fitness center
alone, is critical to an accurate analysis of Project trip generation forecasts, 7-49
distributed to area roadway links and intersections, analyzed, and the resulting Cont.
significant traffic impacts mitigated as necessary. Without this type of analysis, the
focused EIR's traffic analysis is fatally flawed.
4. Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant
Traffic Impacts
Next, with respect to Phase I construction, the focused EIR incorrectly
forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the
PM peak hour for the 170 beds for Phase 1. (Focused EIR, at Table 4-21, p 4-81) A
proper analysis of the Phase I hospital component indicates that the 285,405 square
feet in Phase I will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak
hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips including
298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM peak hour trips that will
be generated by Phase I will significantly impact additional intersections and
segments over and above those identified in the focused EIR. The focused EIR
improperly omits all of these additional trips. These significant Phase I traffic
impacts must be identified and mitigated as necessary to maintain the City's Level
of Service (LOS) D standard.
7-50
5. Additional Buildout Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
Impacts
For buildout, the focused EIR incorrectly forecasts 6,400 daily trips, with 512
trips in the AM peak hour and 640 trips in the PM peak hour for 320 hospital beds.
(Focused EIR, at Table 4-22, p. 4-87) A proper analysis indicates that the 408,160
square feet forecasted for buildout will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820
trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. 7-51
Furthermore, 450 daily trips including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45
trips in the PM peak hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center
and the 8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips including
344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM peak hour trips that will
be generated by the Project will significantly impact additional intersections and
segments over and above those identified in the focused EIR. Clearly, the City
greatly underestimated the actual daily trips that will be generated by the Project.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 36
A full EIR must address these significant traffic impacts for buildout, and must
identify and mitigate these impacts in order to meet the City's LOS D standard.
As the foregoing illustrates, the focused EIR fails to identify numerous
potentially significant impacts. Unquestionably, substantial evidence exists in the
record for this Project supporting a fair argument that significant Project impacts
may occur. Accordingly, the City must complete and recirculate a full EIR in
compliance with CEQA.
VI. THE CITY'S EIR FAILS TO INCORPORATE EFFECTIVE MEASURES
TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
A. The Focused EIR Must Describe Effective Mitigation Measures
for Each Significant Environmental Impact
An Em must propose and describe mitigation measures sufficient to
minimize the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR.
(CEQA sections 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3).) Also, mitigation measures must be
designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to
rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15370.) Where
several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be
discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id.
at section 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA
findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties
regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.
The City's administrative record is clearly deficient with respect to mitigating the
impacts in all of the affected resource areas.
In particular, CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation
measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant
environmental impacts (CEQA sections 21002, 21081(a)) and describe those
mitigation measures in the EIR. (CEQA section 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines
section 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain
efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate
mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was
available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
1818-003.
.
7-51
Cont.
.
7-52
.
Ie
I
.
I
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 37
legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines section 15364.)
Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements or other legally binding instruments. (Id. at section 15126.4(a)(2).)
Here, the focused Em lacks effective mitigation for the following categories of
impacts; air quality, traffic, parking, and circulation, geologic hazards and water
quality. Additional mitigation measures must be included and a full EIR
recirculated for public review.
1. The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation
for Air Quality and Public Health Impacts
The focused EIR improperly defers the development of most of its mitigation
plans into the future without specifying any performance measures, including;
Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-1);
Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2;
Landscape Plan (AQ-4);
Watering Program (AQ-6); and
Fugitive Dust Control Program (AQ-7).
Further, several of the mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping,
clean fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the
focused EIR are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or
"reasonably possible," which renders them unenforceable as a practical matter.
(Focused Em, at p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The focused EIR must specify specific performance
measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or
appropriate.
By the focused EIR's own admission of "significant unavoidable impacts" and
as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation of
the Project remain significant after implementation of the focused Em's proposed
mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The comments below discuss
the specific inadequacies of the focused EIR's proposed mitigation program and
propose mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the
significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation.
1818.003a
7-52
Cont.
7-53
7-54
7-55
7-56
.
October 28, 2005
Page 38
a. Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation
The focused EIR finds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the
Project. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.) As discussed below, construction emissions are
considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROG, 7-57
CO, and PMlO emissions beyond what is reported by the focused EIR. Likewise,
there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel exhaust
mitigation measures contained in the CEQA Guidelines and rules for air districts
and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate its
significant construction impacts.
b. Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures
Several agencies have conducted relevant and comprehensive studies of
fugitive dust control measures to bring their region into compliance with national
ambient air quality standards on PMlO. For example, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g.,
Rule 40322), and published guidelines that identify best management practices for
controlling fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation
Handbook23 contains a comprehensive list of such measures, which should be
incorporated into the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Focused EIR, at p.
4-27, Mitigation Measure AQ-7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored
research, passed regulations (Rule 94), and published best management practices
for controlling fugitive dust from construction activities.24 Clark County's
Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best
7-58 e
22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust and Proposed Rule 1186, PMlO Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads,
and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997.
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, January
1999.
24 P.M. Fransioli, PMlO Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County. Nevada.
Proceedings of the Air &Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition,
Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001.
1818.0030
e
.
I
I
I
.
:.
October 28, 2005
Page 39
management practices.25 Similarly, Arizona has developed guidance to control
fugitive PMlO emissions.26
Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and
therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines 9915126.4,
15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below:
During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will
be operated; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live
perennial vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust
palliative unless immediate construction is to continue; and use water or
dust palliative to form crust on soil immediately following
clearing/grubbing. (CCHD)
Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or
grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to
graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after
grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook)
During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres
or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated)
apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site
if applicable. (BCAQMD)
During cut and fIll activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to
allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to
allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to determine if
soils are moist at depth and continue to prewater if not moist to depth of
cut; use water truck/pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent
cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill
and compaction. (CCHD)
For backfilling during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or
apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when
not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively
handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water
7-58
Cont.
25 Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control
Handbook, March 18, 2003.
26 Arizona Department of Environmentai Quality. Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events
Policy PM10 Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 2001.
IBIS-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 40
truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed;
water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty
loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD)27
For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches,
vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to
5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for
long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or
vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHD)
Barriers with 50 percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to
reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook)
In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surface soils where
support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to
15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHD)
Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from,
the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively
stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ)
For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material
from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material
following stockpile-related activity. (CCHD)
When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered,
effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of
freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
(BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ, SLOCAPCD)
Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403
Handbook)
Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader bucket.
(CCHD)
27 The following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ = Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District; CCHD = Clark County (Nevada)
Health District; MBUAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD =
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
1818-003.
.
7-58
Cont.
.
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 41
Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving
construction site. (CCRD)
Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of
mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD)
Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all
access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect.
(CCRD)
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be completed
as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(SLOCAPCD)
Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD)
To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible;
install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site
access. (CCRD, SLOCAPCD)
While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water
spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use
industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air
to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCRD)
Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ)
Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ)
Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a
separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control
requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building
plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor
the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to
prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 24 hrs. (BCAQMD, CCRD)
7-58
Cont.
While portions of some of these measures are included in the focused EIR's
mitigation measures, the above measures are far more protective and should all be
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 42
required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these measures are
feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required elsewhere to
reduce fugitive PM10 emissions. See, for example, the fugitive dust control program
for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 200028), for the EI Toro Reuse focused Em,29
and for the Padres Ballpark Final Em.30
c. Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures
There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for
construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the
SMAQMD and California Energy Commission ("CEC") decisions), including;
Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the
amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53);
Conversion to cleaner engines;
Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel;
Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers;
Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors;
Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment;
Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum
practical size;
Electrification of construction equipment;
28 A Ka8prak and P.A. Stakutis, A Comprehensive Air Quality Control Program for a Large
Roadway Tunnel Project, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 93rd Annual
Conference, June 18-22. 2000.
29 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse ofMCAS El
Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Mrport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume I, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2-123,
30 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for the Centre City Redevelopment Project and Addressing the Centre
City Community Plan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development
Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. IV. Responses to Comments. September 13, 1999,
pp. IV-254 to IV-256.
1SlS.003.
e
7-58
Cont.
7-59
.
.
I.
.
I
I
I
i.
October 28, 2005
Page 43
Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction
equipment;
Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g.,
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel;
Implementation of activity management techniques including
a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan
designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment
operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction
truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions;
c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d) phasing
of construction activities;
Installation of catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment, if
feasible;
Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and
by providing for lunch onsite;
Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through
October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time;
Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as
they become available and feasible;
Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power
generators; and
Emission offsets ifROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons/quarter.
7-59
Cont.
The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment
certified by GARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative
diesel formulation.
i. CARB-certified Construction Equipment
7-60
Both the U.S. EPA and GARB have established emission limits on new
off-road engines. GARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old
or less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits.
This equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of GARB-
certified equipment should be required for this Project.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 44
For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least
20 percent CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment
operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/or PMI0 emission
reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC'') for the
Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et aZ. 2001.31) The
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") has also recommended
this measure to address the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ
11/9/00, pp. 19-24.)
ii. Post-combustion Controls
Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate fIlters,
are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the
exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are
capable of removing over 90% of the PMI0, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust,
depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post-
combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot fIlters), oxidation
catalysts, and combinations thereof. The many variants of these devices have
recently been identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB32 and
others.33
The City should avail itself of these devices as most are commonly required
as mitigation for construction emissions, which are similar to Project operations.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ("MTA") implemented a voluntary program
in the fall of 1998 which resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment
with oxidation catalysts (Kasprak et al. 200134) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5-
31 S.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesei Engines Retrofit
Programs as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings ofthe Air & Waste Management Association's 94th
Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001.
32 California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Pian to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk
Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel.Fueled Engines, October 2000.
33 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control
Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final
Report, June 1999.
34 A. Kasprak, G. Schattanek, and P,K. Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction
Equipment ofthe Central ArterylTunnel Project. Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management
Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see:
www.ena.lmv/OMS/retrofitJdocumentslbilldillcase01.htm. accessed October 26, 2005.
1818-003a
e
7-60
Cont.
7-61 .
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 45
year, $10 billion-plus Central ArterylTunnel Project in Boston's North End and one
of the largest infrastructure construction projects in the country.
These controls have also been widely required to mitigate construction
emissions in California. The CEC, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in
licensing of new power plants larger than 50 megawatts (''MW'), has required these
devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed
using this equipment.3s No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW
power plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls,
including High Desert36, Elk Hills37, Pastoria38, Western Midway-Sunset39,
Mountain View,40 and Contra Costa,4! among others. (All of the CEC citing
decisions are posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name of the individual
facility.)
7-61
Cont.
Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA
mitigation in EIRs. The El Toro Reuse focused EIR42, page 2-124, AQ-11k and AQ-
111, required the use of particulate traps with a minimum 80% PM10 efficiency and
selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") or comparable technology with a minimum' 70%
NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University
35 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Sunrise Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 120.
36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000,
Condition AQ-3(o), p, 107. '
37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123.
38 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000.
ConditionAQ-C3, p. 108.
39 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project,
March 2001, Condition AQ-C2. p. 114.
40 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Project, March 2001,
Condition AQ-C2, p. 34.
41 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, May
2001. Condition AQC-2, p. 12.
42 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS
El Toro and the Nrport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, April 200l.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 46
General Use Permit Application focused EIR43, page 4.11-10, AQ-1, required a
range of measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, including catalytic converters
and particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final EIR44
required the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others,
oxidation catalysts, particulate filters, and "Blue Sky" low-emission engines.
Similarly, the Port of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion
controls on trucks serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality
mitigation program is now partially in place and has been very successful in
reducing emissions.45
All of these post-combustion controls are feasible for construction of this
Project. Therefore, a proposed EIR should be prepared requiring the use of post-
combustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels.
iii. PuriNOx
Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx
is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31,
200146 as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63% reduction in PM10
compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty
compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing
storage. distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates
little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational
differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke.
(Hagstrand 6/0447.)
43 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR Stanford University Draft
Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000.
44 City of San Diego. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Ballpark and Ancillary
Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent
EIR, May 12, 1999, , page IV-262, I8.A.89.
" Port of Oakland. Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February
2002.
4. Letter from Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol,
Verification ofLubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31,2001,
htto://www.arb.ca3!Ov/fuelsJdiesellaJtdiesellaltdiesel.htm accessed .June 18. 2004.
47 Personal communication, Petra PlesslPhyllis Fox with Hep Hepner, Ramos Oil Co" Dixon, CA,
(916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), March and June 2004.
1818-003a
_
7-61
Cont.
_
7-62
_
I.
i
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 47
This fuel has been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road
equipment, including by the Tri-Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa
County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer
station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction
projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco
and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-road
equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at
the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0048 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have
been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") has also approved PuriNOx
fuel for funding under Texas Senate Bill 5.
7-62
Cont.
PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los
Angeles and is competitively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about
10 cents per gallon.49 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust
emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan focused
Environmental Impact Statement,50 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and
feasible, use alternative diesel fuels." See also construction exhaust mitigation in
the Bickford Ranch Final EIR, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission
reductions to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. ("Includes the
use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines...".)
d. Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation
The focused EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, emissions of CO and ROG from operation of the hospital and
other on-site facilities will remain significant. The focused EIR states that "[e]ven 7-63
with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot
be mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that "[l]ong-term air
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.)
Yet, the focused EIR imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address
operational emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of
"P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOxrM on Exhaust Emissions from Yard Haulers at
the Port of Houston, April 2000.
49 Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), June 21, 2004.
50 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, November 2001.
1818-oo3a
October 28, 2005
Page 48
Transportation Demand Management techniques ("TDM"); AQ-3 incorporation of
energy efficiency standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ-
16 enclosure and cover of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative
transportation. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-26 through 4-28.)
By the focused EIR's own admission, these mitigation measures are
insufficient to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less
than significance for CO and ROG, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts
from Project operational emissions. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.) Further, the focused
EIR considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PMI0 and NOx,
which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance thresholds.
The focused EIR does not contain any discussion why no additional mitigation
measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on air quality.
As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation and should have been required for the Project.
For example, the Initial Study for the Project recommends the following two
mitigation measures for emissions from Project operations that were not
incorporated into the focused EIR:
Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where feasible; and
Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall
submit verification that a ride sharing program for the construction crew
has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via
incentives or other inducements. (NOP/Initial Study, pp. 9-11.)
e. Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures
The following traffic mitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to
mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the
Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PMI0 impacts:
Encourage carpoollvanpool program;
Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within
walking distance;
Provide preferential parking for carpoollvanpool vehicles;
1818-003a
.
7-63
Cont.
e
7-64
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 49
Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes;
Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work;
Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute
trips;
Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network;
Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building
entrances near transit stops, eliminate building setbacks, etc.;
Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches,
shelters, etc.;
Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/commercial areas;
Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers;
Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters;
Implement parking cash-out program for non-driving employees;
Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit
stops and adjacent development;
Implement compressed work week schedule;
Implement home-based telecommuting program;
Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG")
vehicles in vehicle fleets;
Install EV charging facilities;
Install CNG fueling facility;
Provide preferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and
Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles;
The Lent Ranch Final EIR,51 for example, requires most of these measures.
The NASA Ames Development Plan focused Environmental Impact Statement
7-64
Cont.
51 City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, for example
Table 4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 50
("EIS")52 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management
program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanford
University focused Community Plan and General Use Permit focused EIRS3 adopts
all applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR54
requires that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these
measures. The Old Greenwood Planned Development focused EIR55 requires,
among others, paying an air quality mitigation fee to offset PMIO emissions from
vehicle exhaust and re-entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed
measures should be assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by
this Project to reduce traffic emissions to a less than significant level.
7-64
Cont.
f. Operational Area Mitigation Measures
The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation
measures that are not required by the focused EIR;
Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and .
windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling; and
Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting, 7-65
and specific high-efficiency electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8.)
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the focused EIR and
contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be
mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including
exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas
combustion for heating/air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat
island effect, and indirect emissions from electricity generation. In addition, the
CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify numerous other feasible measures
62 NASA Ames Research Center. NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmentai Impact Statement. pp. 0-11 to 0-16, November 200l.
53 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford University Draft Community
Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11-6, June 23, 2000.
54 County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2
and 8.4, November 13. 2000.
55 City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Old Greenwood Planned Development,
pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
1818-003a
.
I.
I
I
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 51
for commercial/industrial operations. Some of these additional measures, which are
routinely required as mitigation in other EIRs56 include:
Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD);
Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment, e.g., utility carts
(BAAQMD);
Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc.
(BAAQMD);
Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
(SLOAPCD57, SCAQMD58);
Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD)
and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCD59,
BCAQMD60);
Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD);
Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer
cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD);
Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning
(SCAQMD, BCAQMD);
Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances
(SLOAPCD);
Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD);
7-65
Cont.
56 For example: City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Table 4,3-5, p. 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, pp, 8-20 to 8-22, November 13, 2000; Sacramento County, East
Franklin Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report. Table ES-1; and Appendix D,
February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Oid Greenwood Planned
Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
57 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, CEQAAir Quality Handbook, August 1997.
56 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
59 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in
Environmental Documents, September 1997.
60 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 52
Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD);
Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect
heat;
Install solar cooling/heating (SBAPCD);
Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area
(BCAQMD);
Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD);
Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop-
systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD);
Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new
production processes (SCAQMD);
Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD);
Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD61);
Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of
asphalt (SBAPCD);
Pay an air quality mitigation fee;
Secure emission offsets;
Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather
than pavement to reduce heat reflection;
Provide electric maintenance equipment;
Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems; and
Reduce standard paving by 20%.
Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully
mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures.
For example;
61 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan,
Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989.
1818-003.
e
7-65
Cont.
e
.
;,','.
I
,
I
i
,
.
,.
October 28, 2005
Page 53
Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved
energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD);
Replace/repower school/transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD);
Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles
(SLOAPCD);
Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD);
Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program
(SLOAPCD); and
Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, diesel
locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD).
7-65
Cont.
g.
Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect
A number of the above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban
heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard
paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following
comments in more detail.
7-66
i. Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20%
The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the
pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement
materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the
formation of ozone, and reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on
and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by
using grass paving or reflective surfaces on un shaded parking lots, driveways, and
fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. This measure is widely used,
technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic.
7-67
There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this
measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt
pavements using light aggregate, to conventional concrete pavements. Some are
comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides
reducing air quality impacts.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 54
ii. Use Of Energy Star Roof Products
Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs
absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and plenum space.
Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space
between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the fmished interior space, this
raises the summertime cooling demand. In addition, heating the roof heats the air
that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes
warmer, increasing the formation of ozone.
As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over
urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The
additional air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible
for 5% to 10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to
higher emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to
20% increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on-
road motor vehicles.62 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective
roofs and pavements.
Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler
and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air
conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A
light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to
70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air
ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than
absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures
may be as high as 90 F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18 F.
This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and
the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the
lifetime of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of
external power that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is
formed in the vicinity of the development from the heat island effect.
62 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, Pt. 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling
the Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp. 1667-1676.
1818-003.
e
7-68
.
e
,
I
'~
.1.
I
!
.
i
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
'.
October 28, 2005
Page 55
Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to
20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing products certified to achieve at
least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions
for 3 years after installation. The program is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the
Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the
program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the
latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") Standards 90.163 and 90.2 on energy-efficient
buildings.
Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be
cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50
to $2.50 per square foot installed.64 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including
reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other
coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to
$1.50 per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets
applied in a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO
(tripolymer olefin), Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00
per square foot. A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of
roof material, including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt.
7-68
Cont.
The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively
documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity
of the roof from 18% to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling
energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At
a one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8% to
68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June
to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.65 In another Sacramento study,
daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office,
museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofs.66
63 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999.
64 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, 21" Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing.
65 H. Akbari, S. Bretz. D. Kurn, and J. Hanford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High-
Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25,1997. pp. 117-126.
66 E.W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building
Energy Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v. 14, no. 2, 1998.
1818.003a
October 28, 2005
Page 56
At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis,
increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat rooffrom 24% to 60% reduced summertime
average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot
Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof
from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by
13%. At a 33,000-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a
foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air
condition by 2%.67
Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other
commercial buildings in California.68 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced
galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was
increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space
cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the
temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior
temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was
$0.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years.69 In nine Florida homes, daily air
conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced
by an average of 22%. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with
the amount of ceiling insulation and duct system location, with the largest savings
in poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and
smaller savings in well-insulated homes.7o A high-reflective coating on an office
building in Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.71 In addition to
field studies, computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling
67 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs:
Results from Three California Demonstration Sites. Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3. no. I, 1998.
68 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer. Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool
Roofs, LBNL Report 40673, 1998.
69 D. Parker, J. Sonne, and J. Sherwin. Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof
Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report
FSEC-CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsec.ucf.eduIBldg/pubsonline.htm.
70 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Pc...;vuuance of Reflective Roofing Systems in
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Proceedings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998;
www.fsec.ucf.eduIBldglpubsonline.htm.
71 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials
Research Project, !\1ississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986.
1818-003a
e
7-68
Cant.
.
e
e
.
i
I
I
i.
I
.r
October 28, 2005
Page 57
energy savings in residential and commercial buildings.72' Cool roofs have been
widely used in California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San
Jose, on control towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,000-
square foot Honda distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000-square foot JC
Penny warehouse in Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley.
Thus, this measure would save a substantial amount of money over the life of
the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce
pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the
heat island effect.
7-68
Cont.
In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be
evaluated and required for this Project. The focused EIR should be revised to
include these additional measures and be recirculated for public review.
2.
The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation
for Significant Traffic Impacts
The City acknowledges that there will be significant traffic impacts
associated with development of Phase I of the proposed project. (Focused EIR, at p.
4-86) For example, the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk
ParkwayIMargarita Road is a particular problem. Yet, the City takes no affIrmative
steps to mitigate this issue. Instead, the focused EIR states, "Mitigation measures
are required to reduce the level of impact" (Focused EIR, at p. 4-86), but the City 7-69
neglected to actually identify real measures to mitigate these traffic impacts. An
adequate EIR requires the City to identify near-term mitigation measures for this
intersection.
Next, the focused EIR points to four primary mitigation measures for project
buildout. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-93 and 4-94) For two of the four, mitigation will be
achieved by paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange
with Highway 79 South, or by paying the Project's fair share of the cost of the
improvements at six other intersections. These are hollow and totally inadequate.
72 See, for exampie: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox. M. Van Geem and D. Parket,
Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1,
1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbari. Modeling the Effects of Reflective
Roofmg, ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124.
1818-003a
October 28, 2005
Page 58
For the other two mitigation measures, the Focused EIR recommends that
Temecula Regional Hospital construct the associated mitigation measures.
All adequate traffic impact mitigation measures must be achieved through
actual implementation of real mitigation measures, not payments or fees. Payment
of fees to Riverside County or payment of the Project's fair share of improvements to
the City does not guarantee that these mitigation measures will ever be
implemented. Until improvements are actually in place, Project traffic impacts
must be considered as "significant" rather than "less than significant." Finally, the
focused EIR must include a mitigation-monitoring program that clearly identifies
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring
to achieve actual mitigation of these significant impacts. A full EIR must include
these measures.
B.
The Focused EIR Does Not Include Ail Feasible Mitigation
Measures Before Concluding That The Impacts Are
Unavoidable, Relying Instead Upon A Statement of Overriding
Considerations
A lead agency may not conclude that an impact is significant and unavoidable
without requiring the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce
the impact to less than significant levels. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15126.4,
15091.) When the agency is unable to provide a specific mitigation measure, CEQA
requires the articulation of performance criteria at the time of project approval.
(Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229
Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029.)
With respect to the focused EIR, CEQA Guidelines specify that a lead agency
must make a "fully informed and publicly disclosed" decision that "specifically
identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or
avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project." (CEQA Guidelines
section 15043(b).) An agency must "state in writing the specific reasons to support
its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record" and must
include the statement of overriding considerations in the record of the project
approval and refer to it in the notice of determination. (CEQA Guidelines sections
15093(b)(c).) A revised and recirculated EIR must show that the City required all
feasible mitigation measures and full articulation of performance criteria before
issuing a statement of overriding considerations.
1818-003a
e
7-69
Cont.
e
7-70
.
i
I
I.
I
,I
I
.
I
.
October 28, 2005
Page 59
1. The City Failed to Provide Specific and Adequate
Measures To Mitigate Significant Traffic Impacts
The focused EIR fails to adequately discuss potentially significant impacts,
and fails to develop mitigation measures associated with the following topics:
First, the focused EIR must analyze and evaluate impacts associated with 7-71
construction including dirt and building material hauling, worker traffic, and
worker parking for each of the three major phases. Measures must be developed
and incorporated into the focused EIR to mitigate construction traffic impacts.
These measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69
and 4-70 of the focused EIR so construction traffic does not degrade the LOS below
the significance threshold used in the focused EIR.
Second, according to the focused EIR, there has been communication between
the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the City indicating that, "...future bus
service is highly likely along SR 79 and that the busses will be stopping at the
proposed hospital. The City has expressed previous support for the concept of a bus
turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be installed by the project sponsors."
Providing public transit to the Project presents significant mitigation to project
impacts. Yet, the focused EIR simply fails to address the request for a bus turnout 7-72
from RTA. Likewise, the focused EIR fails to quantify the demand for new transit
services that the Project will create, and fails to provide any transit mitigation
measures such as financial contributions to help establish new transit service along
Highway 79 South. A full EIR must include public transit as feasible mitigation to
the Project impacts.
Third, the City fails to fully and adequately address parking impacts. For
example, the focused EIR states, "Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be
provided on surface lots." (Focused EIR, at p. 1-4) As previously indicated, the
focused EIR characterizes the proposed parking as being significantly above the 7-73
requirements of the City's Development Code. (Id. at p. 3-8) However, the
document neglected to review and analyze the amount of parking being proposed on
site.
Instructive to this analysis is the publication Parking Generation, 3rd Edition,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This authority
contains parking data for various land uses including hospitals and medical office
buildings. For suburban hospitals like the Project, the average peak parking
1818-003a
7-74
.
October 28, 2005
Page 60
demand is identified at 4.72 vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510
parking spaces would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project.
For medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces per 1,000
square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would be needed for the
140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000 square foot cancer center, and the
8,000 square foot fitness center in the proposed project. Based on the data
published by ITE, at least 2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of
the Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking spaces being proposed.
Clearly, parking proposed for the Project is inadequate. A full EIR must analyze
actual parking needs for the Project.
7-74
Cont.
Finally, with respect to parking, the focused EIR fails to analyze impacts'
associated with providing all parking on site as surface parking. Given that the
Project has an overall parking shortage of 850 spaces, and given that over 30
percent of the Project site will be occupied by surface parking, the City must
consider building a parking structure to reduce environmental impacts in other
areas and to avoid impacts to rock outcrops and trees on the site.
7-75
e
C. The Focused EIR Employs An Incorrect Baseline, Thereby
Skewing The Impact Analysis
The environmental setting establishes the baseline physical conditions
against which a lead agency can determine whether an impact is significant.
(CEQA Guidelines ~ 15125(a).) Under CEQA, an EIR must include a description of
the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at
the time the Notice of Preparation is published, from both a local and regional
perspective.73 (Id.) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of 7-76
environmental impacts. (Id. at ~ 15125(c).)
The importance of having a stable, finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an
environmental analysis was recognized decades ago in the case of County of Inyo v.
City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. The recent case of County of Amador
vs. EI Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App. 4th 931 provides a
comprehensive exegesis concerning baseline water condition and held the EIR must
focus on impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (Id., 76
Cal.App.4th at 954.) The presentation of baseline information must be sufficiently
73 According to the DEIR, page 5, the Notice of Preparation for this Project was published in
February 2002.
1818.003.
e
'I
i
i,.
!
,.
i
.
October 28, 2005
Page 61
detailed to make further analysis possible. (Id.) In short, it must provide not only
raw data but also analysis. (Id., 76 Cal.App.4th at 955; See Environmental Planning
& Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 355
(holding that an EIR should inventory and address the environment as it actually
existed, not as it was proposed to be under the old General Plan).)
"[T]he impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions
on the ground.''' (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Board of Supervisors
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121.) While the absence of information in an EIR does
not per se constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion, "a prejudicial abuse of
discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed
decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory
goals of the EIR process." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of
Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355.) Here, the focused EIR does
not correctly describe the existing physical conditions related to traffic and geologic
setting.
7-76
1. Inadequate Description of the Traffic Setting
According to the focused EIR, "Existing peak hour manual intersection
counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 - 9:00) and PM
(4;00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-72).
Supplementary counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study
Addendum." (Id. at p. 4-76) Also, "The current levels of service for study
intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and
current intersection and roadway configurations." 7-77
The focused EIR indicates the peak hour traffic counts were made on March
23, 2004, for all intersections. Also, the City then made capacity calculations by
using the traffic volumes from these March 2004 traffic counts. This approach
ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid
growth and development within and adjacent to the study area. The values
obtained were then used in the focused EIR to represent baseline conditions at the
time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP).
Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In addition,
traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical Center report.
Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." This data indicates that peak
1818-003a
7-78
October 28, 2005
Page 62
7-78
Cent.
hour traffic counts were made on July 7, 2005 only for the intersection of Margarita
Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004 traffic counts included for the other
two intersections studied in the Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7,
2005, were taken during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday.
These traffic counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the
national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and with schools
closed for the summer months. In short, all of this data grossly underestimates true
traffic capacity.
Next, the City made capacity calculations by directly using the traffic
volumes from the March 2004 traffic counts and the holiday week counts. This
approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with
the rapid growth and development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides
unreliable data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the focused
EIR do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the NOP.
The NOP was released on August 3, 2005. (Focused EIR, at p. 2-2) CEQA
requires evaluation of the existing conditions at the time ofthe NOP because timely
information is essential to an accurate and complete impact analysis. Traffic counts
made in March, 2004 at the eight intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline
conditions in 2005. Traffic counts at Margarita Road and Dartolo Road taken during
the summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable. New
traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all calculations and
subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze traffic impacts ofthe
Temecula Regional Hospital Project.
With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study intersections
reflect traffic conditions, as they existed in 2004. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) To
account for traffic volumes from other development projects and to include
continuing traffic volume increases year after year due to project construCt phasing,
existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to
three percent annually. (Id.) To properly evaluate buildout conditions, traffic
studies must include an appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume
projections from approved near term land development projects.
The focused EIR states, "To assess opening year and buildout traffic
conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a 4
percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative
projects were added." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) The focused EIR's analysis is
1818-003a
e
7-78
Cent.
7-79
.
7-80
7-81
7-82
.
"
I
I
';,.
I
I
.
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 63
flawed because the capacity calculations for project buildout failed to include a
growth factor to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. (Appendix B)
For the analysis of conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4
percent growth was included to account for the traffic volume increases from small
developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor does not
appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the buildout horizon year for
the entire Project. In addition, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour
analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other intersections do not
include any growth factor in the analysis of build out conditions for the Project. This
flawed approach does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth essential to
an accurate buildout baseline for traffic volumes.
7-82
Cont.
The focused EIR neglects to identify the expected timing of completion of each
of the threl;! major Project construction phases, as well as the buildout horizon for
the entire Project. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8) Such an analysis provides no
assurance that implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant
traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the Project. The following two
significant omissions in the focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis,
causing it to be inaccurate and incomplete as follows:
7-83
First, to account for traffic volumes from small development projects and to
include continuing traffic volume increases year after year, existing volumes are
expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually.
Second, to properly evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an
appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved
near term land development projects.
Instead, according to the focused EIR, ''To assess opening year and buildout
traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a
4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17
cumulative projects were added." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) However, near term
capacity calculations in Appendix B indicate that a no growth factor was applied to
the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of near term
conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for annual traffic growth. But, the capacity calculation sheets
for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other
intersections do not include any growth factor in the analysis of near term
conditions for Phase I of the Project. The focused EIR's flawed approach does not
properly reflect annual traffic volume growth. This information is required for
1818.003a
7-84
October 28, 2005
Page 64
accurate near term baseline traffic volumes. A full EIR must be circulated
containing this information.
The focused EIR failed to evaluate the Project traffic impacts at the conclusion of
each Project phase. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine the point in time at
which the multi-phased Project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted
intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing assumptions
in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the focused EIR so mitigation
measures can be implemented in a timely manner to maintain the City's LOS D
standard. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-69 and 4-70) A full EIR must include annual
growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all
intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic impacts and
associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of the three major phases
of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
VII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED
An EIR must discuss significant "cumulative impacts." (CEQA Guidelines
section 15130(a).) This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which
requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if
"the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. . . . 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of
an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects." "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual
effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate
projects." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).)
''The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added
to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time." (Communities for a Better
Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117.) A legally
adequate "cumulative impacts analysis" views a particular project over time and in
conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the
1818.003.
e
7-84
ConI.
7-85
.
7-86
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 65
project at hand. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA
Guidelines section 15355(b).)
As the court recently stated in Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 114 (2002);
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact
of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important
environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage
often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear
insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions
when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
(Citations omitted).
7-86
Cont.
In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718, the
court concluded that an EIR inadequately considered an air pollution (ozone)
cumulative impact. The court said: ''The OEIR concludes the project's contributions
to ozone levels in the area would be immeasurable and, therefore, insignificant
because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts of [ozone]
precursors compared to the total volume of [ozone] precursors emitted in Kings
County. The EIR's analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the
air basin in order to trivialize the project's impact." The court concluded: "The
relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of
precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but
whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered
significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin."74
The Kings County case was recently reaffirmed in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at
116, where the court rejected cases with a narrower construction of "cumulative
74 Los Angeles Unified v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.AppAth at 1024-1026 found an EIR inadequate
for concluding that a project's additional increase in noise level of another 2.8 to 3.3 dBA was
insignificant given that the existing noise level of 72 dBA already exceeded the regulatory
recommended maximum of 70 dBA. The court concluded that this "ratio theory" trivialized the
project's noise impact by focusing on individual inputs rather than their collective significance. The
relevant issue was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared
to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered
significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem.
. 1818.003a
October 28, 2005
Page 66
impacts." (See also, Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal.
App. 4th 859, 869 (2003) (adopting Kings County approach for cumulative impacts
analysis).)
In Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App.
4th 859, the court held that the EIR for a project that would divert water from the
Eel River had to consider the cumulative impacts of the project together with other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that also divert water from
the same river system. The court held that the EIR even had to disclose and
analyze projects that were merely proposed, but not yet approved. The court stated,
CEQA requires "the Agency to consider 'past, present, and probable future projects
producing related or cumulative impacts. . . .' (Guidelines, ~ 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A).)
The Agency must interpret this requirement in such a way as to 'afford the fullest
possible protection of the environment."' (ld. at 867,869.) The court held that the
failure of the Em to analyze the impacts of the project together with other proposed
projects rendered the document invalid. "The absence of this analysis makes the
Em an inadequate informational document." (Id. at 872.)
The court in Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Bd. of Supervisors, 176
Cal.App.3d 421 (1985), held that an EIR prepared to consider the expansion and
modification of an oil refinery was inadequate because it failed to consider the
cumulative air quality impacts of other oil refining and extraction activities
combined with the project. The court held that the EIR's use of an Air District Air
Emissions Inventory did not constitute an adequate cumulative impacts analysis.
The court ordered the agency to prepare a new Em analyzing the combined impacts
of the proposed refinery expansion together with the other oil extraction projects.
A. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Assessment is
Inaccurate and Inconsistent and Not In Accordance With
CEQA
The focused Em's cumulative impact analysis is deficient and legally
unsound for several reasons. First, there is no cumulative impacts analyses
whatsoever for ten of the sixteen environmental factors listed in the NOP's CEQA
Checklist. Given the comments above concerning leaking underground fuel tanks,
seismic hazards, fouling water quality, and traffic problems, it defies credulity that
the Project presents no cumulative impacts for these issues.
1818.003a
e
7-86
Cont.
7-86
Cont.
.
7-87
e
.
.
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 67
1. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For
Hydrology and Water Quality is Inadequate
The focused EIR's cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water
quality merely discusses flooding and storm drainage in vague terms that do not
actually require anything of the facility or other present or future projects: "Typical
measures could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated swales,
detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs." (Focused EIR,
at p. 6-2 (emphasis added).) In this regard, the focused EIR merely discusses 7-88
measures which would normally address the flooding impact without actually
requiring such measures or conducting an assessment of whether the measures
reduce significant impacts. In other words, the DEIR contains no cumulative
impact analysis at all for this issue. Worse, the cumulative impacts analysis for
hydrology fails to address the cumulative impacts associated with water supply
issues for the proposed Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future projects in the planning area.
Significantly, with respect to hydrology and water quality, the City's
cumulative impact analysis fails to mention the issues of cumulative phosphorus
pollution and groundwater contamination. A full EIR must address the cumulative
result of this Project and other area projects' affect on water quality issues in the
project vicinity.
2. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Land
Use and Planning is Inadequate
With respect to land use and planning, the focused EIR is impermissibly
vague; "The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to
existing land uses. Vacant properties will be developed pursuant to recently
updated Temecula General Plan, leading to intensification of housing, commercial,
and industrial development throughout southern Temecula." (Focused EIR, at p.
6.3.) Again, the DEIR contains no cumulative impact analysis at all for this issue,
and fails to identify other past present and future projects in the planning area. At
a minimum, the City must identify and describe specific projects in the planning
area in its cumulative impacts analysis.
7-89
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 68
3. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For
Traffic Is Inadequate
The focused EIR fails to undertake the required evaluation of consistency
with the City's General Plan policies related to cumulative traffic impacts. The
cumulative traffic analysis fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout of the
City's General Plan. Instead, the focused EIR evaluates conditions at buildout
using the faulty methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17
nearby projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the analysis does not include 7-90
trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated
with buildout of the surrounding area. (See TIA, at p. 9) While Appendix B
includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its analysis of five intersections, the
cumulative projects data does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's
entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding area.
Furthermore, the focused EIR fails to properly account for annual growth from
small development projects out to the horizon year of the City's General Plan. .
Accordingly, the focused EIR must analyze traffic conditions at General Plan
buildout without and with Temecula Regional Hospital Project traffic. Absent such
a cumulative analysis, the City's focused EIR is inaccurate and incomplete.
B, The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Air Quality
Is Inadequate
The focused EIR finds significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. The
focused EIR evaluates impacts ''based primarily on 21 related projects identified by
the City of Temecula." For a 'description of 17 of these projects, the focused EIR
relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza. Rather
than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis
section, the focused EIR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis contained
in Appendix D for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain any
information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their
projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is
contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study failed to include this document.
7-91
Further, the focused EIR claims that four additional projects were
supplemented, yet it fails to supply any information on these projects. (Focused
EIR, p. 6-1 and Appx. D, p. 9.) The focused EIR contains no information for any of
these 21 projects. For example, there is no information on these project's time
period over which they will be constructed, their expecte'd buildout, or the air
1818-003.
.
.
.
,.
October 28, 2005
Page 69
quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation. In short, the
information provided in the focused EIR is entirely inadequate to assess the
cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project.
In sum, the cumulative impact analysis must include all past, present and 7-91
reasonably foreseeable future projects, including proposed projects. Instead, the
focused EIR only discusses other projects in the abstract, not once identifying other
applicable projects subject to an adequate cumulative impacts analysis. CEQA
prohibits the City from viewing the Project in a vacuum. The City must prepare a
full EIR for the Project to fully analyze, disclose to the public and consider
mitigation measures to address the important resources in the region.
VIII. THE FOCUSED EIR MUST DISCLOSE ALL GENERAL PLAN
INCONSISTENCIES
CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in reference
to relevant planning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA Guidelines,
App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An EIR must discuss any
inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any applicable general
plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d).) This discussion is 7-92
mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when a lead agency
elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant environmental
impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) The purpose
of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general plan's policies,
objectives and standards - whether a particular project will have a significant
impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if they are
greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416.)
Here, there are a number of inconsistencies between the focused EIR and the
General Plan for the City of Temecula. Specifically, as explained by Dr. Pless in her
attached comments, while the General Plan requires the Project's air quality
impacts to be reduced to the greatest extent feasible, the focused EIR does not
include all feasible mitigation. Dr. Pless provides a list of feasible mitigation for air
quality impacts that are not addressed in the focused EIR.
7-93
Second, according to the General Plan, "public and institutional facilities
should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce other uses and benefit from 7-94
access to alternative modes of transportation." City of Temecula General Plan, LU-
1818.003a
_
October 28, 2005
Page 70
22. This Project is proposed for a vacant piece ofland that is nowhere near any
"activity center" nor does it offer "access to alternative modes oftransportation."
The focused EIR should be revised to discuss this inconsistency with the General
Plan and recirculated for public review and comment.
7-94
Cont.
Third, the General Plan states that Temecula's Municipal Code "mandates
the provision of carpool, bicycle, rideshare, vanpool, transit, child care,
transportation system management, and/or telecommuting facilities for both new
and current development projects within the City where 100 or more persons are
employed." (City of Temecula General Plan, p. AQ-4). The focused EIR does not
provide this requirement in its regulatory setting discussion, nor does it explain
whether or not it applies to the Project. The failure to discuss this requirement in
the General Plan must be cured in a revised EIR that is recirculated for public
review and comment.
7-95
IX. CONCLUSION
The focused EIR fails to satisfy CEQA's fundamental mandates of informing
the public and decision makers of the potentially significant environmental impacts
of a proposed project, and imposing all feasible measures to mitigate those impacts 7-96
to less than significant. This is especially true here given the grave health and
safety issues raised by the proposed Project. The focused EIR should be revised to a
full EIR, addressing the deficiencies described herein and in the attached
documents and re-circulated for public review.
_
Sincerely,
~f06'vv-J
Gloria D. Smith
GDS:bh
Attachments
1818-OO3a
_
.
October 26, 2005
Ms. Gloria D. Smith, Attorney at Law
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080- 7037
SUBJECT: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project Focused Environmental Impact Report in the City
of Temecula
Dear Ms. Smith:
Tom Brohard, PE, has reviewed various documents associated with the
proposed Temecula Regional Hospital in the City of Temecula. These
documents include the September 26, 2005 Focused Environmental Impact
Report (Focused EIR) prepared by P&D Consultants as well as the November
4, 2004 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the September 22, 2005 Traffic
Impact Analysis Addendum (Addendum) prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan Engineers.
7-97
.
My reviews of the Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum indicate that numerous
transportation arid circulation issues associated with the project have not
been properly or adequately addressed. As detailed throughout this report,
the following significant omissions, deficiencies and inadequacies were found:
1) Trio Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Si!!llificantlv
Underestimated
a) Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On Site
b) Low Trip Rate per Bed Was Used
c) All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted
d) Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
Impacts
e) Additional Buildout Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
Impacts 7-98
2) InaoDrooriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existin~ Conditions
3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis Issue\!
a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth
b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth
4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneous
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
5) Mitil!ation Measures Do Not Result in J_,,,,,,, Than 8i!!llificant Impacts
6) Numerous Omissions from the Focused EIR
a) Construction Impacts
b) Transit Impacts
c) Parking Impacts
d) Site Plan Analysis
In summary, the City has not conducted an appropriate traffic and
circulation analysis of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Without 7-98
further study to address the City's inadequate analysis of significant traffic
impacts, it is not possible to conclude that the majority of the project's traffic
impacts have a less than significant effect on the environment with
mitigation.
To rectify the numerous significant deficiencies and inadequacies, the issues
in this report as well as those expressed by others must be carefully studied
and addressed in a revised traffic impact analysis conducted as part of a
thorough project reevaluation in a revised and recirculated EIR.
Education and Exnerience
e
Since receiving a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina in 1969, I have gained over 35 years of professional
engineering experience, all of which has occurred in California. I am licensed
as both a Professional Civil Engineer and as a Professional Traffic Engineer
in California. I formed Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000 and now serve
"on call" as Consulting Transportation Engineer for the City of San Fernando
and as the Interim City Traffic Engineer for the City of Indio.
I have extensive experience in traffic engineering and transportation
planning. During my career in both the public and private sectors, I served as
City Traffic Engineer for the Cities of Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Huntington
Beach, Indio, Lawndale, Los Alamitos, Oceanside, Paramount, Rancho Palos
Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Fernando, San Marcos,
Santa Ana, and Westlake Village. While serving these communities, I
personally conducted hundreds of investigations of citizen requests for the
installation of various traffic control devices. During these assignments, I
successfully presented hundreds of traffic engineering reports at City Council
and Traffic Commission meetings.
7-99
During my career, I have reviewed numerous environmental documents and
traffic studies for various projects. Several recent assignments are
.
2
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
highlighted in the enclosed resume. During these assignments, I worked
successfully with several law firms and local interest groups in the review of
environmental documents and traffic studies, frequently within very limited
time constraints.
7-99
Cont.
Brief Summarv of the Proiect
According to Page 3-4 of the Focused EIR, "The proposed 566,160 square foot
Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of:
.:. An approximately 408,160 square foot, 2-tower hospital complex to
contain approximately 320 beds...
.:. Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories173 feet high and the second
3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of
office space.
.:. A 10,000 square foot cancer center housed in a one story building.
.
.:' An 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one story
building."
Regarding the project phasing, Pages 3-7 and 3.8 of the Focused EIR state:
7-100
"Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA
consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3
story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction
of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to
last approximately 10 months.
I
"
,
I
I
,
I
I
,
i
i
I
i.
Phase IB consists of construction of the one story main hospital structure
comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6 story tower of
approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the
structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with
the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet.
Phase III will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB
#1) and the hospital connector.
3
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer
center and associated parking spaces.
Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the
jogging trail.
Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and
to last approximately 12 months."
From the above description of the project phasing in the focused EIR,
construction of the proposed project will take 36 months. It is likely that a
number of months or perhaps years will pass between construction activities
associated with each of the three major construction phases. As discussed
throughout this report, the focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum do not properly
evaluate baseline conditions in concert with the phasing of construction for
the proposed project. The failure of the focused EIR to analyze traffic impacts
associated with the major construction phases as well as buildout of the
entire project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation
measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased
development of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
J'raffic Related Issues
Section 4.6 of the focused EIR provides a summary of the environmental
setting, project analysis, traffic impacts and mitigation measures for the
project prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers. Based on the
information in the Focused EIR, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and
Addendum, my review indicates the following omissions, deficiencies, and
inadequacies in the traffic analysis for the proposed project:
1) Trin Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Silmificantlv
Underestimated - The TIA and Addendum summarized in the Focused
EIR contain several significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour,
PM peak hour, and daily trips that will be generated by the proposed
project. Use of average trip rates per hospital bed together with the
omission of all trips associated with the 10,000 square foot cancer center,
and the 8,000 square foot fitness center, significantly understates the
project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts. As such, major
revisions to the Focused EIR are required to address the significant
impacts that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have on traffic.
The Focused EIR must use the higher trip forecasts discussed in the
following comments to properly identify the project traffic impacts and
4
.
7-100
Cont.
7-101
e
7-102
e
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
develop appropriate mitigation measures. As detailed below, trips forecast
in the Focused EIR are significantly below those that should have been 7-102
calculated for the proposed project as follows:
.
a) Proiect Will ?,:"ovide Additional Parkin!! So aces On Site - According to
Page 3-8 of the Focused EIR, "...the total parking spaces provided will
be 1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires
663 parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for
which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The
parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained in the
Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately
account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff
parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This
is common in most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed
minimum parking requirements for this reason." Footnote 2 on Page 3-
8 of the Focused EIR attributes the above comments to a personal
communication on September 22, 2005 with Mr. David Prusha, HKS,
Inc., the architects and engineers for the proposed project.
Providing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over
what is required in the City's Development Code is a strong indication
that the proposed project will generate more than the average number
of vehicle trips, particularly since the site is not currently served by
bus or other transit. The unrealistically low trip rates used in the
Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum do not provide a proper basis for
analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions associated with providing
nearly double the parking spaces required by the City's Development
Code, and the low trip rates certainly do not provide an evaluation of
the "worst case" condition.
7-103
b) Low Trio Rate Per Bed Was Used - The Focused EIR, TIA, and
Addendum used the trip rate of 20 daily trips per bed published by
SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, in developing
forecasts of daily, AM, and PM peak hour trips. For the initial phase
with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak
hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. For the buildout
of 320 beds, 6,400 daily trips including 512 trips in the AM peak hour
and 640 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably
low trip generation forecasts for the 170 bed hospital and the 320 bed
hospital developed in the TIA and Addendum were the used
throughout the Focused EIR for the proposed project.
i
:.
In addition to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of
25 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the
5
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
daily trips in the AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the
PM peak hour. Applying the SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet
indicates the initial phase of the hospital building with 285,405 square
feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak
hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of 408,160
square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate
10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020
trips in the PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on
site and the absence of transit service, the SANDAG trip rates per
1,000 square feet for the hospital portion of the project must be used to
analyze and mitigate project traffic impacts.
c) All Trios from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted - Page
3-4 of the Focused EIR indicates the proposed project will include a
10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness
center as components of the Temecula Regional Hospital. Table 4-22 on
Page 4-87 of the Focused EIR for the trip generation for buildout of the
proposed project only forecasts trips for a hospital containing 320 beds
and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. From the description of the
project on Page 3-4 of the Focused EIR, all trips associated with the
cancer center and the fitness center have been omitted from the traffic
analysis.
Using SANDAG data per 1,000 square feet indicates the 10,000 square
foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips including 20 trips in the
AM peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Using SANDAG data
per 1,000 square feet indicates the 8,000 square foot fitness center will
generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20
trips in the PM peak hour. The additional 450 daily trips including 36
trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour from these
two project components must be added to the project trip generation
forecasts, distributed to area roadway links and intersections,
analyzed, and the resulting significant traffic impacts mitigated as
necessary.
d) Additional Phase I Proiect Trios Will Create Si<mificant Traffic
Imoacts - Table 4-21 on Page 4-81 of the Focused EIR incorrectly
forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340
trips in the PM peak hour for the 170 beds in the hospital in Phase I of
the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as
discussed above indicates the 285,405 square feet in Phase I will
generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and
710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips
6
.
7-103
Cont.
e
7-104
7-105
.
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
including 298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM
peak hour trips that will be generated by Phase I will significantly
impact additional intersections and segments over and above those
identified in the Focused EIR. Each of these significant traffic impacts
for Phase I of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as
necessary to maintain the City's Level of Service (LOS) D standard.
I
i
.
e) Additional Buildout Proiect Trios Will Create Significant Traffic
Imoacts - Table 4-22 on Page 4-87 of the Focused EIR incorrectly
forecasts 6,400 daily trips with 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640
trips in the PM peak hour for 320 beds in the hospital at buildout of
the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as
discussed above indicates the 408,160 square feet at buildout will
generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour
and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. Furthermore, 450 daily trips
including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak
hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center and the
8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips
including 344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM
peak hour trips that will be generated by the project will significantly
impact additional intersections and segments over and above those
identified in the Focused EIR. Each of these significant traffic impacts
for buildout of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as
necessary to maintain the City's LOS D standard.
2) Inaonrooriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existinl!" Conditions - Page
4- 72 of the Focused EIR states "Existing peak hour manual intersection
counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 - 9:00)
and PM (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary
counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum."
Page 4-76 of the Focused EIR states ''The current levels of service for
study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon
traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations."
.
Our review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the TIA indicates
the peak hour traffic counts were made on March 23, 2004 for all
intersections included in the TIA. Capacity calculations in Appendix B
were then made by using the traffic volumes from these March 2004
traffic counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume
increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development
within and adjacent to the study area. The values obtained were then
used in the Focused EIR to represent baseline conditions at the time of
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Focused EIR.
7
7-105
Cont.
7-106
7-107
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In
addition, traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical
Center report. Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." Our
review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the Addendum
indicates peak hour traffic counts were made on July 7, 2005 only for the
intersection of Margarita Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004
traffic counts included for the other two intersections studied in the
Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7, 2005 were taken
during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday. These traffic
counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the
national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and
with schools closed for the summer months.
Capacity calculations in Appendix C of the Addendum were then made by
directly using the traffic volumes from the March 2004 traffic counts and
the holiday week counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic
volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and
development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides unreliable
data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the Focused
EIR do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of the Focused EIR.
Page 2-2 of the Focused EIR indicates the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
was released on August 3", 2005. It is my understanding that the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of the
existing conditions at the time of the NOP. The evaluation of existing
conditions at the time of the NOP is essential to an accurate and complete
impact analysis. Traffic counts made in March 2004 at the eight
intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline conditions in 2005.
Traffic counts at Margarita Road and Dartolo Road taken during the
summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable.
New traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all
calculations and subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze
traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project.
3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis Issues - Pages 3-7 and 3-8 of
the Focused EIR provide information regarding the length of construction
of the three phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital. However, the
failure of the Focused EIR to identify the expected timing of completion of
each of these major project phases as well as the buildout horizon for the
entire project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation
8
e
7-107
Cont.
e
7-108
e
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased
development of the project. The following two significant omissions in the
Focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis, causing it to be
inaccurate and incomplete as follows:
a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth -
With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study
intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused EIR,
development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases
over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small
development projects and to include continuing traffic volume
increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual
growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly
evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an
appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from
approved near term land development projects.
.
Page 4-81 of the Focused EIR states "To assess opening year and
buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November
2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing
traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our
review of the near term capacity calculations in Appendix B of the TIA,
we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004 traffic counts
with one exception. For the analysis of near term conditions in the AM
peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for annual traffic growth. However, the capacity
calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz
Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth
factor in the analysis of near term conditions for Phase I of the project.
The flawed approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR
does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must be
included in the near term haseline traffic volumes.
I
i
I.
b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth -
With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study
intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused EIR,
development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases
over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small
development projects and to include continuing traffic volume
increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual
growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly
evaluate buildout conditions, traffic studies must include an
9
7-108
Cont.
7-109
7-110
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from
approved near term land development projects.
Page 4-81 of the Focused EIR states ''To assess opening year and
buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November
2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing
traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our
review of the capacity calculations for project buildout in Appendix B of
the TIA, we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004
traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of conditions in the
AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for the traffic volume increases from small
developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor
does not appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the
buildout horizon year for the entire project. In addition, the capacity
calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz
Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth
factor in the analysis of buildout conditions for the project. The flawed
approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR does not
properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must be included in
the buildout baseline traffic volumes.
Without evaluating the project traffic impacts at the conclusion of each
project phase, it is impossible to determine the point in time at which the
multi phased project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted
intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing
assumptions in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the
Focused EIR so mitigation measures can be implemented in a timely
manner to maintain the City's LOS D standard as defmed on Pages 4-69
and 4-70 of the Focused EIR. The Focused EIR must include annual
growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all
intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic
impacts and associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of
the three major phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneoul1 - The cumulative traffic
analysis in the Focused EIR fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout
of the City's General Plan. Instead, the Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum
evaluate conditions at buildout of the proposed project using the faulty
methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17 nearby
projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the listing beginning on Page
9 of the TIA does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's
entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding
10
.
7-110
Cont.
e
7-111
e
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
area. While the Addendum includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its
analysis of five intersections, the cumulative projects data in Appendix B
of the Addendum does not include trips associated with buildout of the
City's entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the
surrounding area. Furthermore, the TIA and the Addendum fail to
properly account for annual growth from small development projects out
to the horizon year of the City's General Plan. The Focused EIR must
analyze traffic conditions at General Plan buildout without and with
Temecula Regional Hospital project traffic.
7-111
Cont.
5) Miti!!"ation Measures Do Not Result in Less Than Silmificant Impacts -
Page 4-86 of the Focused EIR indicates there will be significant traffic
impacts associated with development of Phase I of the proposed project in
the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk ParkwayIMargarita
Road. While Page 4-86 states "Mitigation measures are required to reduce
the level of impact", no measures are identified to mitigate these traffic
impacts. Near term mitigation measures for this intersection must be
identified.
.
I
Pages 4-93 and 4-94 of the Focused EIR list four primary mitigation
measures for buildout of the proposed project. For two of the mitigation
measures, the Focused EIR indicates mitigation will be achieved by
paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange with
Highway 79 South or by paying the project's fair share of the cost of the
improvements at six other intersections. For the other two mitigation
measures, the Focused EIR recommends that Temecula Regional Hospital
construct the associated mitigation measures.
7-112
Mitigation of project traffic impacts can only be achieved through actual
construction of mitigation measures. Payment of fees to Riverside County
or payment of the project's fair share of improvements to the City does not
guarantee that these mitigation measures will be built. Until
" improvements are actually in place, the traffic impacts of the Temecula
Regional Hospital must be considered as "significant" rather than "less
than significant". The Focused EIR must include a mitigation monitoring
program that clearly identifies financing, scheduling, implementation
responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring.
,
i.
!
6) Numerous Omissions from the Focused EIR - The Focused EIR for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project fails to analyze potentially significant
impacts or to develop mitigation measures associated with the following
topics:
11
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
a) Construction ImDacts - The Focused EIR must analyze and evaluate
impacts associated with construction including dirt and building
material hauling, worker traffic, and worker parking for each of the
three major phases. Measures must be developed and incorporated into
the Focused EIR to mitigate construction traffic impacts. These
measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on
Pages 4-69 and 4-70 of the Focused EIR so construction traffic does not
degrade the LOS below the significance threshold used in the Focused
EIR.
b) Transit ImDacts - Correspondence in response to the NOP dated
August 18, 2005 from Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) in Appendix
A of the Focused EIR indicates "...future bus service is highly likely
along SR 79 and that the busses will be stopping at the proposed
hospital. The City of Temecula has expressed previous support for the
concept of a bus turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be
installed by the project sponsors."
The Focused EIR fails to address the request for a bus turnout from
RTA. The Focused EIR also fails to quantify the demand for new
transit services that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will
create and to provide any transit mitigation measures such as
financial contributions to help establish new transit service along
Highway 79 South.
c) Parkin!!" Imoacts - Page 1-4 of the Focused EIR states "Approximately
1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots." As previously
indicated, Page 3-8 of the Focused EIR characterizes the proposed
parking as being significantly above the requirements of the City's
Development Code. However, the Focused EIR fails to review and
analyze the amount of parking being proposed on site.
Parkin!!" Generation. 3cl Edition published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) contains parking data for various land
uses including hospitals and medical office buildings. For suburban
hospitals, the average peak parking demand is identified at 4.72
vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510 parking spaces
would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project. For
medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would
be needed for the 140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000
square foot cancer center, and the 8,000 square foot fitness center in
the proposed project. Based on the data published by ITE, at least
12
e
7-113
7-114
e
7-115
e
e
Ms. Gloria D; Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Hospital Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking
spaces being proposed.
The Focused EIR also fails to analyze impacts associated with
providing all parking on site as surface parking. With the project
having an overall shortage of 850 parking spaces and with over 30
percent of the project site occupied by surface parking, consideration
must be given to construction of a parking structure to reduce
environmental impacts in other areas and to avoid impacts to rock
outcrops and trees on the site.
7-115
.
d) Site Plan Analvsis - The Focused EIR fails to analyze the proposed site
plan shown in Figure 3-2 on Page 3-5 of the Focused EIR for the
Temecula Regional Hospital. Important traffic considerations that
must be addressed by the Focused EIR include topics such as the
length of driveway throats to adequately accommodate vehicle queuing
and stacking, sight distance at external and internal intersections, on
site vehicle circulation, patient and visitor drop off and pick up areas,
pedestrian facilities, truck loading areas, and accessibility of parking
spaces.
7-116
Without these additional analyses, the Focused EIR fails to address all
reasonably foreseeable adverse construction, transit, parking, and traffic
impacts of the proposed project.
In sum, there are numerous transportation and circulation issues, omissions,
and inadequacies associated with the September 26, 2005 Focused EIR for
Temecula Regional Hospital Project. The items outlined in this letter must be
carefully studied and evaluated before reaching the conclusion that most of 7-117
the project traffic impacts can be reduced to insignificance with mitigation.
The Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum must be revised to respond to our
significant comments as part of the environmental process and recirculated
.
13
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
e
for public review and comment. If you have questions regarding these
comments, please call me at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Brohard and Associates
(/yu O~aL~J~
Tom Brohard, PE
Principal
Enclosure
.
e
14
ie
I
.
.
Licenses:
Education:
Experience:
Memberships:
Expertise:
Tom Brohard, PE
1976/ Professional Engineer / California - Civil, No. 24577
1977 / Professional Engineer / California - Traffic, No. 724
BS / Civil Engineering / Duke University /1969
35 Years
Institute of Transportation Engineers - Member
Orange County Traffic Engineers Council- Chair 1979-1980
American Public Works Association - Member
Tom is a recognized expert in the field of traffic engineering and
transportation planning. His background also includes responsibility for
leading and managing the delivery of various contract services to
numerous cities in Southern California. Since forming Tom Brohard
and Associates in 2000, Tom has reviewed many traffic impact reports
and environmental documents for various projects across the state.
Tom has extensive experience in providing transportation planning and
traffic engineering services across Southern California. From 1972
through 1978, he conducted all traffic engineering investigations in the
Second Supervisorial District in Los Angeles County. He has served as
City Traffic Engineer/Transportation Manager/Engineer as follows:
o Bellflower..................................... 1997 -1998
o Bell Gardens................................ 1982 - 1995
o Huntington Beach........................ 1998 - 2004
o Indio....................................... 2005 - present
o Lawndale..................................... 1973 -1978
o Los Alamitos................................ 1981 - 1982
o Oceanside ................................... 1981 - 1982
o Paramount................................... 1982 - 1988
o Rancho Palos Verdes.................. 1973 - 1978
o Rolling Hills.................................. 1973 -1978,1985 - 1993
o Rolling Hills Estates..................... 1973 -1978,1984 -1991
o San Fernando.......................... 2003 - present
o San Marcos .................................1981
o Santa Ana.................................... 1978 - 1981
o Westlake Village.......................... 1983 - 1994
While serving Huntington Beach, Tom oversaw a staff of 20 including
traffic engineers and transportation planners, traffic signal and street
lighting personnel, and the signing, striping, and marking crews. He
secured $3.5 million in grant funding, managed the initial West Orange
County Rail Feasibility Study, and recently oversaw the consultant
selection for the City's Traffic Model and Circulation Element Update.
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 2
Selected significant accomplishments during the last four years include the following:
.
.:. Conducted Traffic Impact Analyses for the Sacred Heart Church and School Master
Plan in the City of Palm Desert including presentations to community residents and
testimony at Public Hearings before the City Council (3/2005 to 7/2005)
.:+ Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Prewett Ranch
Project in the City of Brentwood for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Traffic Impact Analysis
for the Providence Center Specific Plan in the City of Fullerton for Shute, Mihaly, &
Weinberger (6/2005 to 7/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic and circulation sections of the Draft Subsequent EIR
of the County of Ventura Focused General Plan Update and prepared rebuttal to
responses for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the Community of Somis (12/2004
to 1/2005; 6/2005)
.:. Prepared response to Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for 483
condominiums proposed in three high rise towers in Century City in the City of Los
Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (6/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic and parking impacts identified in the Draft EIR and _
Traffic Impact Analysis for the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Expansion in .
the City of Long Beach for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005 to 5/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Villages at Fairfield Project
in the City of Fairfield for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (4/2005 to 5/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic, circulation, and parking impacts identified in the
Traffic Impact Analysis for Los Angeles Unified School District Valley High School #5
in the City of San Fernando (4/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the transportation, circulation, and parking impacts identified in
the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for the Wood Street Project in the City of Oakland for
the East Bay Community Law Center (3/2005)
.:. Conducted City wide engineering and traffic surveys confirming enforceable speed
limits on 31 street segments for the City of San Fernando (1/2005 to 3/2005)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and in the Revised
Draft EIR for the Central Larkspur Specific Plan in the City of Larkspur and prepared
responses to comments in the Final EIR for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (7/2002 to
8/2002. 12/2003 to 2/2004, and 1/2005 to 3/2005)
e
Tom Brohard and Associates
i.
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 3
.:. Checked plans for traffic signal installations and modifications as well as signing and
striping revisions for various projects for Engineering Resources of Southern
California and the Cities of Hemet and Palm Springs (12/2003 to 3/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and traffic study prepared for the Hidden
Canyon (Greenfield) Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan in Monterey County
for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Los Angeles International
Airport Master Plan Draft EIS/EIR for Alternatives A, B, and C and in the Supplement
Draft EIS/EIR for Alternative D, prepared responses to comments in the Final
EIS/EIR, and reviewed Addendum #3 for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the City
of EI Segundo (212001 to 7/2001, 7/2003 to 10/2003, 11/2004, and 12/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Traffic Study for the 450-460 North Palm Drive Senior
Housing Residential Project in the City of Beverly Hills for Luna & Glushon (11/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study and provided testimony at a
public hearing regarding the West Los Angeles College Facilities Master Plan in Los
Angeles County for Culver Crest Neighborhood Association (10/2004 to 12/2004)
.
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis as well
as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments in the Final EIR for The
Ranch Plan in the County of Orange for the Endangered Habitats League (6/2004 to
7/2004 and 10/2004)
.:. Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Chandler
Ranch Specific Plan Project in the City of Paso Robles for Adams Broadwell Joseph
& Cardozo (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic report associated with the Magnolia
Park Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and
traffic study for the McKean Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute,
Mihaly, & Weinberger (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Assessment for Robie Ranch Reclamation
Project in Calaveras County for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (9/2004)
.:. Provided expert assistance to residents in the City of La Mirada during settlement
negotiations regarding litigation involving the Big T Residential Development Project
in the City of Buena Park (6/2004 to 9/2004)
.
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and
the associated traffic study for the Lake Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San
Diego County for SOFAR and Shute. Mihaly, & Weinberger (8/2004)
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 4 A
.:- Reviewed Traffic Impact Study prepared for the San Fernando Corridors Specific .
Plan for the City of San Fernando (7/2004 to 8/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Negative Declaration for the Brisbane Recycling Project in
the City of Brisbane for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (6/2004)
.:- Reviewed various alternative alignments for the extension of Lexington Drive from
Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, a proposed secondary highway, for the City of
Los Alamitos; provided expert assistance to the City of Los Alamitos during
settlement negotiations regarding litigation of the proposed Cottonwood Christian
Center Project in the City of Cypress (4/2004 to 6/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact study for the
Jaxon Enterprises Mine and Reclamation Expansion Project in the County of Merced
for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (5/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Secondary Study for the Santa Fe Parcel 6
Mixed Use Project in the City of San Diego for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
(4/2004 to 5/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the
for the San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan & Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment in
the City of San Mateo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 5/2004)
e
.:. Reviewed the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan Traffic Analysis for the proposed
redevelopment and intensification of adjacent land uses for the City of Huntington
Beach (12/2003, 4/2004, and 5/2004)
.:. Conducted the Traffic Impact Study of the San Fernando Regional Pool Facility
Project and the associated street improvements for the City of San Fernando
(3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated traffic study for the Pixar Headquarters Expansion in the City of
Emeryville for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the
Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan in the City of Vacaville for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Conducted the Traffic Study of Two Parking Alternatives for the City of San Dimas to
provide on street parking to complement potential retail/residential development on
the east side of San Dimas Avenue north of Arrow Highway (12/2003 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared trip generation calculations for various retail and "Big Box. stores in
conjunction with a March 2004 ballot measure in Contra Costa County for Mark R.
Wolfe & Associates (1/2004 to 2/2004) e
Tom Brohard and Associates
.
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 5.
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated transportation impact analysis for the S&S Farms and Hancock Property
Residential Development Plan in the City of Brentwood for Adams Broadwell Joseph
& Cardozo (2/2004)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declarations as well as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments for the
Bayfront Live Work Project in the City of Hercules for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (4/2003, 10/2003, and 2/2004)
.:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Calming Study of Residential Streets in the City of
San Fernando including development of traffic calming guidelines and specific
recommendations addressing over 70 "Hot Spots" throughout the City including
monthly presentations at Transportation & Safety Commission meetings and a
presentation of the Final Report to the City Council (5/2003 to 1/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated transportation analysis for the Cottonwood Christian Center in the City of
Cypress for the City of Los Alamitos (1/2004)
.
.:. Prepared critique of the Recirculated Draft EIR and the associated transportation
analysis for the Sand Creek Specific Plan in the City of Antioch for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (1/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and the associated traffic impact studies for the
West Dublin Transit Village in the City of Dublin for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (11/2003 to 1/2004)
.:. Prepared critiques of the Initial Study and the Recirculated Initial Study/General Plan
Amendment and Rezoning for the Jack Parker Trucking Site in the City of San Pablo
for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003 and 11/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and rebuttal to
responses to comments in the Final EIR for the proposed Waf-Mart in the City of
Fremont for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (7/2002 to 10/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to
responses in the Final EIR, and testimony at a public hearing regarding the Alpine
Village Shopping Center in San Diego County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger
(6/2002 to 10/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to
responses in the Final EIR, testimony at public hearings, and assistance during
settlement negotiations regarding the 2000 Avenue of the Stars Project in Century
City in the City of Los Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (9/2002 to 10/2003)
.
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 6
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Glen Loma'
Ranch Project in the City of Gilroy for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003)
e
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Ryder Homes Project in the City of Oakley for Adams
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Ravenswood Residential Project in Contra Costa County for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003 to 9/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR for the
proposed Boronda Crossing Commercial Project in the City of Salinas for Mark R.
Wolfe & Associates (8/2002 to 9/2003)
.:. Prepared four grant applications to Caltrans for $1,115,000 of Hazard Elimination
Safety funding to modify traffic signals and to upgrade regulatory, warning, and
street name signs in the City of Santa Ana (3/2003 to 8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Bluerock Business Center Project in the City of Antioch for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Clark Road .
Residential Project in the City of Richmond for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
(8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Sky Ranch Residential Project in the City of Antioch for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003 to 8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cal Poly
Student Housing North Project in the City of San Luis Obispo for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Lake
Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San Diego County for SOFAR and Shute,
Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2003 to 7/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cypress
Grove Residential Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (6/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the McKean
Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger
(5/2003 )
e
Tom Brohard and Associates
i
i.
I
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 7
.:. Prepared grant application to Caltrans for $448,000 of Safe Route to School funding
to upgrade all school signs at 68 public and private schools in the City of Santa Ana
(3/2003 to 5/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the
Blossom Valley Middle School for the Dunbar Lane Task Force in San Diego County
(4/2003 to 5/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Bettencourt .Ranch Aggregate Mining Project in Merced
County for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (4/2003)
.:. Conducted a complete review of the General Plan Circulation Element for the City of
Huntington Beach including comparisons to the Orange County Transportation
Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Streets and drafted a Request for Proposal to
update the City's Circulation Element (8/2002 to 4/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the
proposed Wal-Mart in the City of Gilroy for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (2/2003 to
3/2003)
e
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the
Waterfront/Downtown Mixed Use Project in the City of Vallejo for Adar]1s Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (2/2003)
.:. Provided expert witness evaluation of the traffic impacts caused by simultaneous
construction of various Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority projects for
Sullivan, Workman, & Dee (12/2002 to 2/2003)
.:. Conducted 12 training sessions in Urban Street Design Fundamentals for the
Engineering Department staff in the City of Torrance (4/2001 to 4/2002 and 10/2002
to 12/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Transportation Impact Study
for the Western Research Campus in the City of Richmond in Contra Costa County
for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (11/2002)
.:. Evaluated Conditions of Approval for the proposed intersection of Mulholland
Highway and Hazel Nut Court in Los Angeles County and provided testimony to the
Board of Supervisors for Seminole Springs Mobile Home Park (11/2002)
,
,
i
I
i
I
.
.:. Reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Pacific City Project for the
City of Huntington Beach (9/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for North Yorba
Linda Estates in the City of Yorba Linda for Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (9/2002)
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 8 .
.:. Conducted the Hacienda Road Traffic Calming Study and presented the final report
at locally televised meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City
of La Habra Heights (10/2001 to 9/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in Initial Studies with Traffic Impact
Analyses for three residential subdivisions in the City of Pittsburg for Adams
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2002)
.:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Safety Study and presented the final report at
meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City of Rolling Hills
Estates (4/2001 to 5/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to
responses, and testimony at a public hearing regarding extensions of Corona and
Valley View Avenues in the City of Norco for C. Robert Ferguson (1/2002 to 4/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Initial Study and
Environmental Assessment, rebuttal to responses, and testimony at public hearings
before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors regarding intersection
improvements proposed by Caltrans at State Route 118/State Route 34 in Ventura
County for the Community of Somis (12/2000 to 10/2001)
e
e
Tom Brohard and Associates
e
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
liIIgaIIon stipport for the Environment
SOIUWATERlAIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Fax: (310) 393-4909
Matt Hagemann
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Emai1: mhaQ:emannlW.sw3ne.com
October 26, 2005
Gloria Smith
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900
South San Francisco, California 94080
Dear Ms. Smith:
i
I
I
,
,
I.
We have reviewed the Draft Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report,
as prepared on September 26, 2005 for the City of Temecula. We have the following
comments on the proposed project's potential for impacts on water quality. We have also
noted in our review that the DEIR failed to discuss potentially significant issues related to
hazardous waste and the geologic setting, including proximity to the Elsinore Fault and
the potential for liquefaction.
1. The EIR Fails to Identify Hazardous Waste Sites
The proposed hospital is located within 250 feet of two gas stations where leaking
underground fuel tanks are the subject of ongoing assessment and cleanup activities. A
Chevron station at 31669 Hwy. 79 is listed as open at the CallEPA "Geotracker" web site
(htto :// {!eotracker. swrcb.ca. {!ov Ireoorts/luft.aso? {!lobal id= T0606599286&assi{!ned nam
e=MAlNSITEt Contaminants in groundwater are gasoline-related, including methyl
tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-buytl alcohol, (TBA) and toluene.
An ARCa station at 44239 Margarita Road is listed at the Geotracker web site as
undergoing assessment and cleanup activities
(htto :/1 {!eotracker.swrcb.ca. {!ov/reoorts/luft.aso?!!"lobal id=T0606599255&assi{!ned nam
e=MAINSITE)' As with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include
gasoline-related compounds.
7-118
.
These gas stations are listed by the City ofTemecula in the General Plan as "open fuel
leak cases. In accordance with the City's General Plan:
"any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the
clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal,
State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be permitted
e
to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar determination is
issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency."
htto ://www.citvoftemecula.org/ citvhalllCommDevDivisionlPlanningJ 2:OupdateIFi
l1al%20EIR/5 7%20Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materials.odf
The project is located adjacent to two sites that are listed as open and are actively
undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials. The EIR does not 7-118
acknowledge these sites and their cleanup status. Groundwater is less than 25 feet below
the ground surface at the project location and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds
via the water or vapor pathways is possible during construction and within buildings pot-
construction. Therefore, a full DEIR should be prepared to identify potentially
significant impacts of contaminant exposure to workers and hospital staff and patients to
these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that would result in risk to human health
should be mitigated prior to construction.
2. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project Near an Active
Fault Zone
The EIR does not disclose that the project is located within 2500 feet of the Elsinore
Fault, a fault that has generated a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along its southem segment in
the late l800s. The Temecula General Plan identifies the Elsinore Fault as an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo _
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code, Section 2621 et. seq.) limits the 7-119 .
types of construction and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to
prevent damage associated with ground surface rupture.
A DEIR should be prepared to fully disclose the potential significant impacts on the
project from earthquake shaking and fault rupture. In accordance with the General Plan,
the DEIR should include completion of geologic investigation by a State-licensed
engineering geologist is required to demonstrate that the project will not be constructed
across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. Ifan active fault is found, a structure
for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back
from the fault in accordance with the Califomia Public Resources Code.
3. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project in a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone
According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the following figure, the area 7-120
underlying the proposed project is especially prone to liquefaction and has been mapped
in a "liquefaction hazard zone"
lhtto://www.citvoftemecula.or,,/citvhalllCommDev DivisionIPlanning/ 2:OundateIF inal%20
EIR/5 6%20Geologv%20and%20Soils.ndf, p. 5.6-4).
.
2
.
i
I
,.
.
FJoLPl' 5.r",1
S.,bruit Hu.i.J~
......
1.r"!::r..sI~N"'ltltJJ~
_ r.....wHflIl'....111....
_._ l~aw~i"WS
$rlwCnl rflall''' Ih~
_1'l~~~1ilIlhl1
C:J.,r;' ~
/
~
;=::,
j
'tuo.l"....
......
'b.:-
--",,-
'"
'-.
'\
u
, """
H '-1.
,
i8
i.
,
I J .:.~J~(J.,'
t.,."..,.,. .
. ;.~. . , ~
The EIR fails to discuss the geologic setting of the project and fails to identify the
project's location within a liquefaction zone. A full DEIR should be prepared to identify
that the area under that proposed hospital is prone to liquefaction and to identify specific
ways in which these conditions can be mitigated.
4. The DEIR fails to Discuss 303(d) Impaired Water Body Listing of
Nearby Waters
Twelve miles of Murrieta Creek are listed on the 303(d) list as an impaired water body
for phosphorous pollution. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has
listed sources to include urban runoff and storm sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and
7-120
Cont.
7-121
3
unknown point sources
(htto:/ /www.waterboards.ca.lwv /tmdVdocs/2002rel!93 03dlist.DdO. Additionally, 18
miles of the Santa Margar.ita River, the primary drainage course within the Planning
Area, are also listed as impaired for phosphorous from the same sources. The DEIR
states that Murrieta Creek is one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River:
"The creeks drain the inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the
Santa Margarita River at Temecula Canyon." (pg. 5.8-3)
Although the Regional Board's TMDL priority is classified as "low" for Murrieta Creek,
the potential for additional phosphorous contamination from the development project
should be evaluated in the a revised DEIR. Urban runoff typically contains phosphorous
as a main pollution component. Since potential exists for phosphorous contamination to
travel downstream into the Santa Margarita River, further degrading its water quality, it is
imperative that mitigation measures as specific BMPs be addressed within the DEIR that
describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering the Murrieta
Creek.
Furthermore, the DEIR states that flooding of Murrieta Creek banks has occurred during
times of heavy rain:
"Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a number
of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant damages, and
other water-related problems are caused during major rainstorms, resulting in
increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and traffic disruption. Murrieta
Creek has been altered since the late l800s and has been channelized for flood
control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration of the natural functions of the creek
is planned, including the banks, channel invert, tributaries and floodplain." (pg.
5.8-3)
It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to protect water
quality of Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the developed site can
contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but are not limited to debris,
oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such as phosphorous. Mitigation
measures should be evaluated in the DEIR and implemented upon development.
5. Failure Achieve NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002
Requirements
Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to
file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No.
99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with
Construction Activity (General Pennit). The proposed development is thus subject to the
NPDES permit requirements.
The General Permit also requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain:
.
7-121
Cont.
e
7-122
.
4
I
,
,
!.
,
. a site map which shows the construction site perimeter;
. existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
and discharge points;
. general topography both before and after construction;
I
I
I
I
,
.
. drainage patterns across the project.
The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to
protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. The DEIR fails to meet the
NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements and does not include a SWPPP,
nor discuss specific mitigation BMPs.
Additionally, the DEIR omits the discussion of post-construction stormwater
management best management practices (BMPs) as required by Sections A of the
SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse
impacts on water quality associated with the project's operation, such as anticipated
water pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typical landscaping upkeep, and
equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post -construction stormwater BMPs is critical to
ascertain the effectiveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational impacts and meet
applicable water quality attainment objectives.
7-122
Cont.
The DEIR omits the inclusion of water quality monitoring programs as required by
Sections B of the SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. The NPDES
permit requires that a SWPPP also include a sampling and analysis strategy and sampling
schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact water bodies
listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Section 303(d) impaired water
bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita River are
listed on the Regional Board's 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorous, a revised DEIR
should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the establishment of baseline water
quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate and validate the effectiveness of the
BMPs, to measure the effectiveness of the BMPs and avoid further degradation of the
impaired waterways.
6. The DEIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment
.
The project is subject to the requirements outlined by the California Water Code section
10910, also known as SB 610. This law requires that the public water system, which in
this case is the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply
Assessment (WSA). This assessment is included as Appendix G within the DEIR.
However the assessment is insufficient according to SB 610 and fails to meet the
following requirements as outlined within the bill:
Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis
10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater. the
following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply
Assessment:
7-123
5
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to
comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any
groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The
description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably
available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if
either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b) from any
basin from which the proposed project will be.
The DEIR explains that additional water supply for the project will be available via local
groundwater sources:
"To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital,
the RCWD intents to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the
following alternatives: (1) Continued practice of managing groundwater levels
through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing
and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . " (pg. 4-34)
However, the WSA does not include a "detailed description and analysis" of the most
recent groundwater usage, including source locations and pumped volumes for the past
five years, or provide a detailed description of projected water usage volumes, as
mandated by points (3) and (4).
Additionally, within the WSA (pg. 7) the following is stated regarding groundwater
volume: "The amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to such factors
as rainfall, recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." In the
event of a drought with decreased surface water flows the WSA states that "increased
groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and other measures"
will makeup the difference. Without calculated projected groundwater volumes there is
no way to guarantee that groundwater can be considered an adequate source. The DEIR
needs to quantifY the range of variable groundwater volume and then evaluate the most
conservative scenario to demonstrate quantitatively that water demand will still be
achieved.
.
7-123
e
e
6
\.
Sincerely, .
. 7w~e I t~v<-~-----
Matt 1:lagel1lan1l
Lisa cuellar
I
,
\
\
\
i
\
"
,
\
\
\
\
;
,
\
\
\.
7
_
-:........,...""r'~ ~'4:~
\h~l! il1,\ ;]=3
. Ii p'-"
~.! - . ~.
mr.::Consu~~~and
': . S\Ipp(\lt~.iL!! ".";
Matthew Hagemann
Principal
Regularary and Litigation Support Specialist
Regulatory Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Hydrogeologie Characterization
Litigation Support
Expert Witness
Research
Education:,
M.S. Degree, Geolo!,'Y, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles. CA, ]984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Hwnboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Teaching Certificate, Science, University ofOregnn, Eugene. OR, 1987.
Professional Exnerience:
Matt has over 15 years of experience in key areas of envirorunental assessment and remediation. lie spent teu years
with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisot in the
We.tem Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from percWorate and MTBE. Wlule
with EPA, Malt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in ensuring the rapid assessment of eight major military
facilities undergQing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of RCRA while also
working coopeIatively with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characteriza[ion and water quality monitoring.
_
Malt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and
enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act nod Clean \Vater Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical
staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations,
groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Malt has held include:
. Founding Partner and Senior Regulatory Analyst, SW APE;
. Seniot Environmental Analyst. Komex H20 Science, Inc;
. Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch;
. Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division;
. Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologisl. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
. Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences;
. Instructor, College of Marin, Department ufScience;
. Geologist, U.S. Forest Service; and
. Geologist, Dames & Moore.
Knowledge, Skills aDd Abilities
_
Curriculum Vitae
Matthew Hagemann
;~
,
I
,Ie
i
I
I.
.
i
i.
Senior Reeulatorv and Environmental Analvst:
With SW APE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
. Project manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of
releases of gasoline components to sources drinking water at major refIneries and hundreds, of gas stations
throughout California.
. Lead reviewer of environmental impact reports in identifying significant issues with regard to hazardous "'la5te,
water quality and geologic hazards.
. Liaison to Tn"baI EP A staff in assisting with their response to perchlorate contamination of the Colorado River
and related drinking water supplies.
With Komex H20 Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
. Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former
U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
. Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use,
research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in the deveLy........: of a comprehensive, electronically interactive clrronology of perchlorate
use, research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water
treatment.
. Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that bave been contaminated by MTBE in
California and New York.
e Expert witness testimony for oil production~related contamination in Mississippi.
. Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met
strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
. Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and
regulators.
Executive Director:
Currently, as Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt leads efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In
reporting to a Board of Directors that includes representatives from leading Orange County universities and
businesses, Matt has prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the
discbrge of grease to sewer systems. Matt has actively participated in the development of countywide water. quality
pennits for the control of urban runoff and pennils for the discharge of waslewater. Matt has worked with othor
nonprofits that have been effective in protecting and restoring water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources
Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County
Business Council. Matt also manages the publication of a widely read weekly newsletter, the Orange County Water
Quality News (www.ocwatch.orQ't
Hvdrol!eolo~v:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize
and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure
Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station. Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramenlo Army Depot.
Specific activities were as follows:
Curriculum Vitae
2
Matthew Hagemann
. Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport. ensured adequacy of monitoring networks,
and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and b'foundv,rater.
. Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military
bases.
. Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through
work on four national U.S. EP A workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum.
_
At the request of the State of Hawai~ Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater
to contamination on the islands of MaUl and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of
vulnerability, and the results were adopted and nublished by the State of Hawaii and County ofMaui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and NEPA to preveot drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
. Received an EP A Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national lmidance fOT the orotection
of drinkinQ' water.
. Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two connnunities through
designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and
resp~nded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
. Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large
hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities. mine reclamatio~ and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
_
. Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C
requirements.
. Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal ofhnzardous waste.
. Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections thaI fonned the hasis for
significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel.
. Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent
degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
. Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA. NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to
control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
. Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic
National Park.
. Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park
superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
. Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a
national workgroup.
. Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and
snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the devel'-'t'u....... of nation-wide policy on the use of these
vehicles in National Parks.
. Contributed to the Federal MlIlti-,A.lJenc:, Source Water Aureement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
_
Curriculum Vitae
3
Matthew Hagemann
.
.
.
Policv:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. Activities included the following:
. Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the
gasoline additive MTBE and anunonium perchlorate to contaminare drinking water supplies.
. Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,
including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxwenates in Water: Criticallnronnatinnand
Research N eeels.
. Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff.
. Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the
Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principlcs into the policy-making process.
. Established national protocol for the peer review of scientjfic documents.
Geolo2:v:
With the U.S. Forest Service. Matt led investigations to detennine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber
harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
. Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine
slope stability.
. Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
. Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole somee of drinking water for the city of Medford,
Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore. Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites in the Portland,
Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the fonowing:
. Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
. 'Conducted aquifer tests.
. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teachinp:.
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the conununity college and univcrsity levels:
. At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology,
oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
. Served as a conunitlee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
. Taught courses in enviromnental geology aild oceanography at the College of Marin.
Rennrts. Paoers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination bfthe Colorado River: A Dam Mess. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter.Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited
presentation to the U.S. EP A Region 9.
Curriculum Vitae
4
Matthew Hagemann
e
Hagemann, M.F.. 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
~."__tion to the Califomia Assembly Natural Resources Corrunillee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. PerchIoraie: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the
National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Taok to Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National GlOundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.P., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and
the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground
Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usagc.
Water Resources Division. National Park Service, Tee.hnical Report.
.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, TecInrica] Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks'! The George Wright Society
Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North CalOlina.
Hagemann, M.F., ]997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater
T ecInrical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station,
Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island ofMaui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, MauL
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste
Management Association Publication VIP-61.
.
Curriculum Vitae
5
Matthew Hagemann
I.
,
i
!
i.
I
!
.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.
Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting~
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge
Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. .EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.,
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings. AssoCiation of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Curriculum Vitae
6
Matthew Hagemann
e
Comments
on
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report
.
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Leson & Associates
(415) 492-2131
i
I
i
I
I
I
.r
,
!
,.
October 27,2005
e
Table of Contents
I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN...............2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL Sl'.lllNG ARE
INADEQUATE ....................................................................,..........................,...........3
II.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently
Described..........................................................................................................3
H.B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis ...............................................4
H.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described ..................................4
H.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts......................5
II.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly
Identified ....... ........... ........................ ......... ..... ...... ............................................6
II.F PM2.5 Emissions Not Analyzed ...................................................................7
H.G No Health Risk Assessment Included..........................................................7
III. THE DRAFf EIR IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF
MITIGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE .........................................................................................................8
e
IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED ..........................8
IV.A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates.................8
IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable ......................................................10
IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not
Included..........................................................................................................10
V, OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED............................lI
V.A Emissions Sources Omitted.........................................................................11
V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included ..................................12
V.C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle
Emissions........................................................................................................12
V.D Traffic Emissions Underestimated .............................................................13
V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included .........13
VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND
EFFECT IS NOT ANALYZED...............................................................................14
e
i
!.
I
VII. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION IS FEASIBLE ....................................................14
VIl.A Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation...........................................15
VIl.A.1 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures............................................ 15
VIl.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures.......................................... 19
VlLA.2.a CARB-certified Construction Equipment................ 20
VlLA.2.b Post-combustion Controls.......................................... 21
VlLA.2.c PuriNOx....................................................................... 23
VILB Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation.............................................24
VlLB.1 Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures.................................. 25
VIl.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures..................................... 27
VIl.B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect ...................................29
VlLB.3.a Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20% ...................29
VILB.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products............................ 30
VIII. CONCLUSION ,.........,.............................................................."...."..".....,..............33
,
i
I
I.
!
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Construction Phases................................................................................... 9
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output for 36-month Construction Period and
Vehicle Emissions Target Year 2009
.
ii
e
COMMENTS
The City of Temecula ("City") as the Lead Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Report! ("Draft EIR") for the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital ("Project"). The
proposed Project consists of a General Plan amendment, Zone Change,
Development, Plan, Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"), and a Tentative Parcel Map to
allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula
and surrounding area.
The Project includes construction of a 408,160-square foot, 2-tower hospital
complex containing approximately 320 beds, two medical offices totaling
aYYLuAimately 14,000 square feet, a 10,000-square foot cancer center, an 8,000-square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, and a helipad. Total building area is approximately
566,160 square feet on the 35.51 acre site. Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will
be provided on surface lots. The Project will be constructed in five phases. (Draft EIR
pp. 3-4 through 3-8.) 7-124
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which this Draft EIR satisfies. First, e
CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential,
significant environmental effects of a project before any decisions are made. (14 Cal.
Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15002(a)(1).) A Draft EIR is the "heart" of
this requirement. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 84 [118 Cal.
Rptr. 34].) The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose
purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes
before they have reached ecological points of no return." (County of In yo v. Yorty
(1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 [108 Cal. Rptr. 377].) To achieve this goal, an EIR
must contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions. (See Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 568.)
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines g15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 416]; Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400
[253 Cal. Rptr. 426,436]).) CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible
mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant
1 City of Temecula, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Temecula Regional Hospital,
SCH# 2005031017, September 26, 2005.
e
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub.Res.Code 921081(a);
CEQA Guidelines 915370.) To effectuate this requirement, EIRs must set forth
mitigation measures that decision makers can adopt at the findings stage of the
process. (CEQA Guidelines 915126(c).) For each significant effect, the EIR must
identify specific mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures
are available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one
over the other should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines 915126(c).) Mitigation measures
should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts," 7-124
"rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines 915370.) Public C t
agencies must deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when on .
feasible alternatives and mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.
(Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council, 222 Cal. App. 3d 30, 41 (1990).)
The comments below provide an analysis of the Draft EIR's failure to meet
these requirements of CEQA The Draft EIR should be revised to address these
issues and be recirculated for public review.
I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
.
The Draft EIR finds a number of significant and unavoidable impacts,
necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Sec")
should the City certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed Project. (Draft EIR,
p. 1-7.) The City of Temecula's General Plan requires that" air quality impacts
associated with development projects [be] mitigated to the greatest extent feasible."
(General Plan, p. AQ-10, Policy 2.4, emphasis added.) Specifically, the General Plan
requires that the City "[a]pprove development that could significantly impact air
quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all
reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact." (General
Plan2, p. AQ-13, emphasis added.) As discussed in Comment VII, the Draft EIR fails
to incorporate all mitigation measures recommended by the General Plan to reduce
adverse effects on air quality. In addition, as discussed in Comments VILA and
VILB, numerous other feasible and reasonable mitigation exist that could reduce the
Project's significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, the Draft EIR is inconsistent
with the General Plan.
7-125
.
2 City of Temecula, General Plan, adopted April 2005.
Page 2
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
e
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL Sr.l1JNG ARE
INADEQUATE
An accurate and complete Project description is the heart of an EIR and is
necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a
project. As explained in the discussion following Section 15124 of the CEQA
Guidelines,3 an EIR must describe the proposed project "in a way that will be
meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision-
makers..." The state court of appeal declared that "[a]n accurate, stable and finite
project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally adequate EIR"
(County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 192 [139 Cal. Rptr.
396,401].) In contrast, "[a] curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws
a red herring across the path of public input." (ld., at 197-98; see also, CEQA 915124;
City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 263 Cal. Rptr. 340 (1989).) As one analyst has
noted:
The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy
of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is
inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental
analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and Zischke,
"Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474 (8/99
update).)
7-126
e
As discussed in the following comments, the DEIR fails to describe the Project
and its environmental setting accurately and completely. It omits key project
features that have the potential to result in significant impacts. As a result,
potentially significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or
addressed by the Draft ElR Therefore, the Draft EIR is fatally deficient under
CEQA.
II.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently Described
The Draft EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list of
equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the hours
of operation, the type of fuel used, the length and timing of the individual 7-127
construction phases, and so forth. Further, the Draft EIR contains no information
regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as
well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically
provided in an EIR but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting from
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sees. 15000et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). e
Page 3
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
construction cannot be accurately estimated. As discussed in Comment IV.B, the
Draft EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which
may considerably underestimate emissions.
II,B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis
.
The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to
geology and soils, relying on a geotechnical investigation conducted for the Project.
The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review. According to the Initial
Study, the geotechnical investigation recommends over-excavation up to 24 inches
below existing grade and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavement.
(Appx. A, NOP /Initial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet, neither the Draft ElR nor the
Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other information regarding the amount
of cut and fill necessary for development of the site or the projected amount and
location of spoils, if any. Review of the Draft EIR's emissions modeling suggests that
only some minor amount of material will have to be im/ exported4. This suggests
that the Draft ElR largely relies on balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil
on site with no additional import of fill material or export of excess cut material. Yet
neither the Initial Study nor the Draft EIR contains any information demonstrating
that cut and fill can, in fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived
from a grading plan, which would ordinarily be provided in an EIR but was not. If
cut and fill can not be balanced on site, material would have to be imported or
exported, which causes additional emissions.
II.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described
The Project requires a variety of mechanical equipment including heating and
air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None of
this equipment is described with any detail in the Draft ElK Draft EIR provides only
the following vague statement: "A truck loading area and facilities plant will be
located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides
infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower,
generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area." (Draft EIR,
p. 3-4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling towers, two emergency
generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the mechanical yard. (Draft
EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The Draft EIR's noise impact analysis further indicates that
.
4 URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") for 00 -road truck travel during
the grading phase, suggesting a minimal im/ export of materials, approximately 2500 cubic yards
based on the program's default values. This small amount of material is most likely export of existing
pavements, utilities, and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site.
Page 4
7-127
Cont.
7-128
7-129
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed to be located inside the Phase IB
hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard, will contain pumps, chillers, and
boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and outlet
exhaust systems will be located on the hospital's rooftop. (Draft ErR, p. 4-63.)
This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the Draft ErR, is
entirely inadequate to determine emissions and resulting environmental impacts
from operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project
description must include the fuel, firing rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for
the two emergency generators; the type and efficiency of the proposed pollution
control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids ("IDS")
content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information
required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas
flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it is
impossible to determine emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were not
included in the operational emissions estimates for the Project. (See Comment V.A.)
n.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative
impacts of a project" ... when a project's incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable." The Draft ErR finds significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project on air quality and, thus, also significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts. The Draft ErR evaluates impacts "based primarily on 21 related projects
identified by the City of Temecula." For a description of 17 of these projects, the
Draft EIR relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza.
Rather than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts
analysis section, the Draft EIR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis
contained in Appendix D for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain
any information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their
projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is
contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study failed to include this document.
Further, the Draft ErR claims that four additional projects were supplemented, yet it
fails to supply any information on these projects. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1 and Appx. D,
p. 9.) The Draft EIR contains no information for any of these 21 projects, for example
the time period over which they will be constructed, their expected buildout, or the
air quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation In short, the
information provided in the Draft ErR is entirely inadequate to assess the
cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project.
Page 5
e
7-129
Cont.
.
7-130
e
e
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
n.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly Identified
Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive
dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size
depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly
emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers ("PM2.5"), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers ("PM10").
Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated through
ambient air quality standards for PM10. However, a substantial amount of
important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at
much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter than
was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S. EP A
04/96;5 U.s. EPA 03/01.6)
7-131
.
This new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter,
particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including.
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath,
wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung
function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense
mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EP A 04/96; 61 FR 65638.7) A recent
article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution
to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.s Particulate matter is a
non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse
health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking v. EPA: Unjustified
Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.)
This new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S.
EP A") and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5. These standards are not subsets of the old PMI0 standards, but new
standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual
5 u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report
EPA/600/P-95-Q01aF through 001cF, April 1996.
.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second External
Review Draft, March 2001.
7 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Maller: Proposed Decision, Federal
Register, v. 61, no. 241. December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675.
8 A.A. Pope et al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution, Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132-1141.
Page 6
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
PM2.5 standard of 12 Jlg/ m3was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5, 2003, more than two
years before the Draft EIR was published. (Voting on the proposed 24-hour-average
PM2.5 standard of 25 Jlg/m3 has been deferred by CARB.9) At the same time,
California lowered its annual PM10 standard from 30 Jlg/m2 to 20 Jlg/m3. (CARB
09/0510.) The Draft EIR also failed to acknowledge this new, lower standard for
PM10. (Draft EIR, Table 4-1.) Consequently, the Draft EIR failed to accurately
characterize the regulatory setting for the Project.
II.F PM2.5 Emissions Not Analyzed
The Draft EIR does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on
ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and
inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("SoCAB"), where the
Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality
standards for PM2.5. The Draft EIR should be revised to include an analysis of
PM2.5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on
air quality and human health.
II.G No Health Risk Assessment Included
The Draft EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
Project including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary
schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project
site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-21.) Yet the
Draft EIR contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential health risks for
these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or operational
emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic air
contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such as
emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that
access the loading dock. The Draft EIR should be revised to include a health risk
assessment.
9 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March 12,
2002.
10 California Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Maller and Sulfates, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/std-rs/std-rs.htm. accessed
October 26, 2005.
Page 7
.
7-131
Cont.
7-132
.
7-133
e
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
m. THE DRAFT EIR IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF
MmGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE
CEQA generally requires that all mitigation measures be adopted
simultaneously with, or prior to, project approval (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15192). An agency may defer preparation of a plan for mitigation only when the
agency commits itself to satisfying specified performance standards that will ensure
the avoidance of any significant effect from implementation of its mitigation
measures. Here, the Draft EIR improperly defers the development of most of its
mitigation plans into the future without specifying any performance measures,
including:
.
? Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-1);
? Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2;
? Landscape Plan (AQ-4);
? Watering Program (AQ-6); and
? Fugitive Dust Control Program (AQ-7).
7-134
Further, several of the mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping,
clean-fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the
Draft ErR are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or
"reasonably possible," which renders them unenforceable as a practical matter.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The Draft ErR must specify specific performance
measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or
appropriate.
IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED
The Draft EIR finds significant impacts after implementation of its proposed
mitigation measures for ROG and NOx. As discussed below, the Draft EIR's air
quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions from construction activities
and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air quality from Project
construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO and PM10 will likely
also exceed applicable significance thresholds.
7-135
IV .A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates
.
The Draft EIR indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five
phases as summarized in Table 1. (Draft ErR, pp. 3-7 and 3-8.)
7-136
Page 8
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
Table 1: Project Construction Phases
Phase Activity Period
IA ? Grading
? Demolition of existing buildings
? Construction of 3 -story, 60,000-square foot medical office 10 months
building
? Construction of surface parking
IB ? Construction of l-story, 162,650-square foot main hospital
structure 14 months
? Construction of 6-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
? Construction of associated parking-
II ? Construction of 5 -story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
III ? Construction of 4-story, BO,OOO-square foot medical office
building
? Construction of hospital connector 12 months
IV ? Construction of l-story, lO,OOO-square foot cancer center (II-V concurrent)
? Construction of associated parking
V ? Construction of 8,000 square foot fitness center
? Construction of jogging trail
------- - ~.
Total 36 months
Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the
proposed construction phases (IA, IB, and II-V) are conducted subsequently. In
contrast, the Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60-month
construction period, starting in January 2006 and terminating in December 2010.
(Draft ElR, p. 4-24, Footnote to Table 4-5 and Appx. B, p. 2.) By stretching
construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual proposed
36-month construction period, the Draft EIR considerably underestimates maximum
daily emissions and, thus, considerably underestimates air quality impacts from
Project construction. In fact, construction of the Project could even be shorter than
36 months because nothing in the Draft EIR's language restricts the Applicant to the
staggered constructi"on phasing. (See Comment ILA) If more than the specified
construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even greater emissions
would occur.
I ran the URBEMlS2002 model assuming a construction build out of
36 months and otherwise accepting all of the Draft ElR's assumptions. Results are
included in Exhibit 1. Maximum daily ROG emissions increase considerably from
224lb/ day to 344lb/ day. Therefore, the Draft EIR failed to disclose the magnitude
of impacts associated with Project construction. The Draft EIR should be revised to
include a construction schedule showing the projected start of the various
construction phases and their expected buildout. The Draft EIR's air quality analysis
must be corrected accordingly.
Page 9
e
e
7-136
Cont.
.
i.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable
The Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates largely assume
URBEMIS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's
real emissions. For example, the Draft EIR assumes the default factor for average
fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/ acre-month. By accepting the
default value for average conditions, the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the potential
worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case
condition is 0.42 ton/ acre-month. (URBEMIS 04/0511, p. A-7.) Therefore, the Draft
EIR may have underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the
Project by a factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested
when no other information is available the area and duration of grading are known.
Typically, for a Project of this size, the amount of cut/fill would also be known. (See
Comment II.B.)
.
Another example is the assumption of only 8 hours of construction per day.
This assumption directly conflicts with the Draft EIR's statement that "construction
activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday
and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. (Draft EIR, p.4-53). Although the DEIR
makes this statement, it should be noted that the document contains no enforceable
restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction may be
conducted for more than the 8 hours per day assumed in the air quality section and
more than the 12 hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. An
increase of hours of operation from 8 to 12 hours per day or more would
considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The Draft ElR
must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible
hours of construction to the assumed 8 hours per day or it must adjust its emissions
estimates accordingly.
IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not Included
The Draft EIR indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur
during Phase lA, ~xposing those portions of the site, which will be developed in
later phases (phase IE through V) to wind erosion for an extended period of time.
(Draft EIR, p. 3-7.) The URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling used by the Draft EIR to
estimate Project construction emissions includes fugitive dust emissions associated
i.
11 Software User's Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, April
2005.
Page 10
7-137
7-138
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
with grading but does not account for wind erosiori12, which can be a substantial
contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in summer-dry
climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling does
not account for mudl dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the Draft EIR does
not disclose the full impact of fugitive dust PMIO emissions from Project
construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can be
calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("U.s. EPA"). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.513; EPA 450/3-88-00814.)
V. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED
The Draft ElR's air quality impact analysis considerably underestimates
operational emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses
inadequate trip generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from
electricity generation. The Draft EIR finds total operational NOx emissions of
94.5 lb 1 day, only 5.5lb 1 day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of
100 Ib 1 day. This NOx significance threshold will likely be exceeded when taking
into account the omitted emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and
secondary emissions from the Project. Similarly, PMIO emissions, currently
estimated at 1231bl day, may exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold of
150 Ibl day. As a result, the Draft EIR fails to disclose and adequately mitigate
significant impacts due to operational emissions of PMIO and NOx. The Draft EIR
should be revised to address these issues and be recirculated for public review.
V.A Emissions Sources Omitted
The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions calculated
with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source emissions from
traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas usage, hearths,
landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and operational traffic
12 The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for the
SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute ("MRI"). (URBEMIS 04/05, p. A-6.) The MRI study
specifically notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do
not include wind erosion or mud/ dirt trackout from the site. (MRI, Improvement of Specific Emission
Factors, BACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29, 1996, p. 4-1.)
13 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001.
14 C. Cowherd, G.E. Muleski, and ).5. Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EP A 450/3-88-
008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
Page 11
e
7-138
Cont.
7-139
e
7-140
.
,e
,
i
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
emissions. The model does not include emissions from the helicopter, the three
cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers.
The Initial Study concludes that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air
condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of
emissions." (NOP /Initial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of
the Draft EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these sources
were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must therefore
be included in the Project's emissions analysis.
7-140
Cont.
The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators, and the
boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold.
For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters15
are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff ("L TO"), bringing total NOx emissions from
the Project within one pound per day of the significance threshold. (oes 10/lJ4l6,
p.6-17.)
V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included
.
The URBEMIS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses,
e.g., residences, industrial, hotel! motel, and office, to calculate area source emissions
from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does not calculate 7-141
emissions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project operates a
number of, presumably natural-gas fired, equipment, including the boilers and
heating/ air conditioning equipment. Emissions from this equipment, which are
likely considerable, are not included in the Draft ElR's area emissions estimates for
Project operations presented in Table 4-6.
V,C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle Emissions
The Draft EIR assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic
emissions. As discussed in Comment IV.A, construction is assumed to start in
January 2006 with a 36 month construction period. Therefore, the target year for
7-142
.
15 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been
confirmed butthatlhe Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. The
Bell 222, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transports, is a commercial light twin-
engine helicopter.
16 R. Billings and D. Wilson, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas
Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, MMS 2004-071, October 2004.
Page 12
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
operational emissions should be 2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are
assumed to decrease with every year, the calculated operational emissions for 2010
underestimate actual emissions at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009.
I ran URBEMIS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming all of the
Draft EIR's assumptions. Results are included as Exhibit 1. Emissions of ROC, NOx,
and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for target year 2010. This results in NOx
emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance threshold. This
is a significant impact that was not disclosed in the Draft EIR.
V,D Traffic Emissions Underestimated
The Draft EIR's URBEMIS2002 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to
estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not
apply to traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional
hospital are typically longer and hence traffic emissions attributable to the Project
are higher. In addition, an independent review of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis
found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not
reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard 10/0517.)
Consequently, emissions associated with Project traffic are also underestimated. The
Draft ErR's emissions estimates for Project traffic must be modified to reflect the
Project's actual traffic characteristics.
V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included
CEQA requires that an ErR identify direct and indirect significant effects of
the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project
will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or
secondary emissions. The Draft ErR mentions that air pollutant emissions will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional
emissions were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. (Draft EIR, p. 4-24.) Yet the Draft EIR fails to account for these
emissions in its presentation of regional emissions associated with the operational
phase of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-25, Table 4-6.)
A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by
coal-fired power plants, which generate substantial particulate matter and S02
17 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria Smith, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph &
Cardozo, Re: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused
Environmental Impact Report in the City of TemecuIa, October 26, 2005.
Page 13
e
7-142
Cont.
7-143
e
7-144
.
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
emissions. The Draft ErR should be revised to include emissions from electricity
generation.
17-141
Cont.
VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND
EFFECT IS NOT ANALYZED
The Project would develop 35.31 acres of largely open grass-covered land.
The Draft ErR states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent
building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.18 (Draft EIR,
pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots, roads, and .
roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black surfaces absorb about
85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the hottest surfaces in
urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark roofs quickly warm
the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." On
a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter
than the surrounding rural area. The elevated temperature increases cooling energy
demand, accelerates the rate of smog production, and increases evaporative losses of 7-145
organic compounds from gasoline tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces.
.
Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase
local ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and
increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island affect would
exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The
SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the
Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and State
ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Fann Bureau v. City
of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650].) This is a significant impact
that was not discussed in the Draft ErR and is feasible to mitigate as discussed in
Conunent VILB.3.
VII. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION IS FEASIBLE
CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures
in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse environmental
impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub. Res. Code s21081(a); CEQA Guidelines
S15370.) To implement this requirement, an ErR must set forth mitigation measures
that decisionrnakers can adopt at the findings stage of the process. (CEQA . .
Guidelines S15126(c).) For each significant effect, the ErR must identify specific
7-146
.
18 The Site Plan provided in the Draft EIR suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and
parking spaces and lower percentage of landscaped areas. (Draft EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.)
Page 14
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures are available,
each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one over the other
should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines 915126(c).) Mitigation measures should be
capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts," "rectifying the
impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines 915370.)
By the Draft ErR's own admission of" significant unavoidable impacts" and
as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation
of the Project remain significant after implementation of the Draft EIR's proposed
mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The comments below discuss the
specific inadequacies of the Draft ElR's proposed mitigation program and propose
mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the
significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation.
vn.A Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation
The Draft ErR finds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the
Project. (Draft ElR, p. 4-29.) As discussed in Comment lV, construction emissions are
considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROG,
CO, and PMI0 emissions beyond what is reported by the Draft ErR. As discussed
below, there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel
exhaust mitigation measures contained in the CEQA guidelines and rules of air
districts and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate
its significant construction impacts.
VII.A.1 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures
Several agencies have conducted comprehensive studies of fugitive dust
control measures to bring their region into compliance with national ambient air
quality standards on PMI0. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g., Rule 40319),
and published guidelines that identify best management practices for controlling
fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation Handbook20 contains a
comprehensive list of such measures, which should be incorporated into the
Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Draft ElR, p. 4-27, Mitigation Measure
19 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust aod Proposed Rule 1186, PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads,
and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997.
20 South Coast Air Quality Management. District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, January 1999.
Page 15
.
7-146
Cont.
e
7-147
7-148
.
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
AQ-7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored research, passed regulations
(Rule 94), and published best management practices for controlling fugitive dust
from construction activitles.21 Clark County's Construction Activities Dust Control
Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best management practices.22 Similarly,
Arizona has developed guidance to control fugitive PM10 emissions.23
Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and
therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines
9915126.4, 15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below:
?
During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will
be operated; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live
perennial vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust
palliative unless immediate construction is to continue; and use water or
dust palliative to form crust on soil immediately following
clearing/ grubbing. (CCHD)
Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or
grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to
graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after
grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook)
? During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres
or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated)
apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site if
applicable. (BCAQMD)
7-148
Cont.
?
.
? During cut and fill activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to
allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to
allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to determine if
soils are moist at depth and continue to prewater if not moist to depth of
cut; use water truck/ pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent
cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill
and compaction. (CCHD)
21 P.M. Fransioli, PM10 Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County, Nevada,
Proceedings of the Air &Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition,
Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001.
22 Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control
Handbook, March 18, 2003.
!.
23 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy
PMlO Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 2001.
Page 16
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
? For backfilling during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or
apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when
not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively
handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water
truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed;
water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty
loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD)24
? For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches,
vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to
5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for
long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or
vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHO)
? Barriers with 50 percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to
reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook)
? In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surface soils where
support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to
15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHD)
? Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from,
the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively
stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ)
? For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material
from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material
following stockpile-related activity. (CCHO)
? When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered,
effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of
freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
(BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ SLOCAPCD)
,
? Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403
Handbook)
? Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader
bucket. (CCHD)
24 The following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ = Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
BCAQMD = Bulle County Air Quality Management District; CCHD = Clark County (Nevada) Health
District; MBUAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD = Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
Page 17
e
7-148
Cont.
e
.
e
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
? Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving
construction site. (CCHD)
? Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of
mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD)
? Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all
access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect.
(CCHD)
? All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(SLOCAPCD)
? Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD)
? To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible;
install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site
access. (CCHD, SLOCAPCD)
? While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water
spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use
industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air
to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCHD)
? Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ)
? Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ)
? Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a
separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control
requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building
plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
? The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor
the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to
prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
? Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 24 hrs. (BCAQMD, CCHD)
.
While portions of some of these measures are included in the mitigation
measures imposed by the Draft EIR, the above measures are far more protective and
should all be required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these
measures are feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required
elsewhere to reduce fugitive PMIO emissions. See, for example, the fugitive dust
Page 18
7-148
Cont.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
control program for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 200025), for the El Toro Reuse 17-148
Draft ElR 26, and for the Padres Ballpark Final EIR27. Cont.
VII.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures
There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for
construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the
SMAQMD and California Energy Commission (HCEC") decisions), including:
? Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/ or the
amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53.)
? Conversion to cleaner engines;
? Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel;
? Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers;
? Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors;
? Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment;
? Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum
practical size;
? Electrification of construction equipment;
? Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction
equipment;
? Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g.,
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel;
? Implementation of activity management techniques including
a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan
25 A. Ka5prak and P.A. Stakulis, A Comprehensive Air Quality Control Program for a Large Roadway
Tunnel Project, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 9Jrd Annual Conference,
June 18-22,2000.
26 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS El
Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
Ioteroational Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume 1, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2-123.
27 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master
Environmental Impact Report fo'r the Centre City Redevelopment Project and Addressing the Centre
City Community Plan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development
Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. IV. Responses to Comments, September 13, 1999,
pp. IV-254 to IV-256.
Page 19
7-149
e
.
e
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment
operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction
truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions;
c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and
d) phasing of construction activities;
? Installation of catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment, if
feasible;
? Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and
by providing for lunch onsite;
? Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through
October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time;
? Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as
they become available and feasible;
? Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power
generators; and
? Emission offsets if ROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons/ quarter.
7-149
Cont.
The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment
certified by CARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative
diesel formulation.
VII.A.2.a CARB-certified Canstruction Equipment
Both the U.s. EP A and CARB have established emission limits on new
off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old or
less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits. This
equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of CARB-certified
equipment should be required for this Project. 7-150
For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least
20 percent CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment
operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/ or PM10 emission
reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") for the Dallas/Fort
Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et al. 2001.28) The Arizona Department
.
28 S.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engines RelroIiI Programs
as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual
Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001.
Page 20
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
of Environmental Quality (" ADEQ") has also recommended this measure to address
the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ 11/9/00, pp.19-24.)
VII.A.2.b Post-combustion Controls
Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate filters,
are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the
exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are
capable of removing over 90% of the PM10, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust,
depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post-
combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation catalysts,
and combinations thereof. The many variants of these devices have recently been
identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB29 and others.30
These devices are commonly required as mitigation for construction
emissions, which are similar to Project operations. The Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority ("MTA") implemented a voluntary program in the fall of 1998 which
resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment with oxidation catalysts
(Kasprak et al. 200131) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5-year, $10 billion-plus Central
Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston's North End and one of the largest infrastructure
construction projects in the country.
These controls have also been widely required to mitigate construction
emissions in California. The CEC, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in
licensing of new power plants larger than 50 megawatts ("MW"), has required these
devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed using
this equipment.32 No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW power
plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls,
29 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk Management
Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000.
30 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstratioo of Advanced Emission Control
Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final
Report, June 1999.
31 A. Kasprak, G. Schallanek, and P.K. Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction
Equipment of the Central Artery JTunnel Project, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management
Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see:
www.epa.govjOMSjretrofitjdocumentsjbigdi!\-case_Ol.htm. accessed October 26, 2005.
32 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Sunrise Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 120.
Page 21
e
7-150
Cont.
7-151
e
e
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
including High Deserf.33, Elk Hills34, Pastoria35, Western Midway-Sunsef.36, Mountain
View'l7, and Contra Costa38, among others. (All of the CEC siting decisions are
posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name of the individual facility.)
Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA
mitigation in EIRs. The El Toro Reuse Draft EIR39, page 2-124, AQ-11k and AQ-11I,
required the use of particulate traps with a minimum 80% PMlO efficiency and
selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") or comparable technology with a minimum
70% NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University
General Use Permit Application Draft EIR4o, page 4.11-10, AQ-l, required a range of
measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, including catalytic converters and
particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final EIR41 required
the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others, oxidation
catalysts, particulate filters, and "Blue Sky" low-emission engines. Similarly, the Port
of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion controls on trucks
serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality mitigation program
is now partially in place and has been very successful in reducing emissions.42
7-151
Cont.
.
33 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000,
Condition AQ-3(o), p. 107.
34 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123.
35 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 108.
36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project,
March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 114.
37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Project, March 2001,
Condition AQ-C2, p. 34.
.
38 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project,. May
2001, Condition AQC-2, p. 12.
39 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS
EI Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, April 2001.
40 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR Stanford University Draft
Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000.
41 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Ballpark and Ancillary
Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent
EIR, May 12, 1999" page N-262, I8.A.89.
42 Port of Oakland. Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February 2002.
Page 22
Pless. Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
All of these post-combustion controls are feasible for construction of this
Project. Therefore, the Draft EIR should be revised be prepared requiring the use of
post-combustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels.
VII.A.2.c PuriNOx
Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx
is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 200143
as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63% reduction in PM10 compared to
CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty compression ignition
engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution,
and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates little or no difference
in performance and startup time, no discernable operational differences, no
increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke. (Hagstrand 6/0444.)
This fuel has been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road
equipment, including by the Tri-Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa
County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer
station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction
projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco
and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-road
equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at
the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0Q45 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have
been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") has also approved
PuriNOx fuel for funding under Texas Senate BillS.
PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los
Angeles and is competitively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about
10 cents per gallon.46 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust
emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan Draft
43 Letter from Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol,
Verification of Lubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31, 2001,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/dieseljaltdieseljaltdiesel.htm. accessed June 18, 2004.
44 Personal communication, Petra Pless/Phyllis Fox with H~p Hepner, Ramos Oil Co., Dixon.. CA,
(916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), March and June 2004.
4S P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOx™ on Exhaust Emissions from Yard Haulers at
the Port of Houston, April 2000.
46 Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstrand. Lubrizol (440-347-6592), June 21, 2004.
Page 23
e
7-151
Cont.
7-152
e
e
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
Environmental Impact Statement,47 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and
feasible, use alternative diesel fuels. See also construction exhaust mitigation in the
Bickford Ranch Final EIR, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission
reductions, to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. ("Includes the
use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines..." .)
7-152
Cont.
VII.B Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation
.
The Draft EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, emissions of CO and ROG from operation of the hospital and other
on-site facilities will remain significant. The Draft EIR states that " [e]ven with
measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be
mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that " [l]ong-term air
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Yet, the
Draft EIR imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address operational
emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of Transportation
Demand Management techniques ("TDM"); AQ-3 incorporation of energy efficiency
standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ-16 enclosure and
cover of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative transportation. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4-26 through 4-28.) 7-153
By the Draft EIR's own admission, these mitigation measures are insufficient
to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less than significance'
for CO and ROG, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts from Project
operational emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Further, as discussed in Comment V, the
Draft EIR considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PM10 and
NOx, which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance
thresholds. The Draft ElR does not contain any discussion why no additional
mitigation measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on
air quality. As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are
routinely required as CEQA mitigation and should have been required for the
Project.
For example, the Initial Study for the Project recommends the following two
mitigation measures for emissions from Project operations that were not
incorporated into the Draft EIR:
I.
47 NASA Ames Research Centerl NASA Ames Development Planl Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statementl November 2001.
Page 24
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
? Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where feasible; and
? Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall
submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew
has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via
incentives or other inducements. (NaP/Initial Study, pp. 9-11.)
VII.B,l Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures
The following traffic mitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to
mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the
Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PMIO impacts.
? Encourage carpool/vanpool program;
? Provide on-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria,
bank/ ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc.;
? Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within
walking distance;
? Provide preferential parking for carpool/vanpool vehicles;
? Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
? Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes;
? Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work;
? Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute
trips;
? Provide neighborhood-servicing shops and services within '!2 mile of
residential areas;
? Connect bicycle lanes/ paths to city-wide network;
? Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building
entrances near transit stops, eliminate building setbacks, etc.;
? Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches,
shelters, etc.;
? Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/ commercial areas;
? Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers;
? Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters;
? Implement parking cash-out program for non-driving employees;
Page 25
e
7-153
Cont.
e
.
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
? Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit
stops and adjacent development;
? Implement compressed work week schedule;
? Implement home-based telecommuting program;
? Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG")
vehicles in vehicle fleets;
? Install EV charging facilities;
? Install CNG fueling facility;
? Provide preferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and
? Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles;
7-153
Cont.
.
The Lent Ranch Final EIR48, for example, requires most of these measures.
The NASA Ames Development Plan Draft Environrriental Impact Statement
("EIS")49 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management
program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanf\Jrd
University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Draft ElR 50 adopts all
applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final ErRS! requires
that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these measures. The
Old Greenwood Planned Development Draft EIR52 requires, among others, paying
an air quality mitigation fee to offset PM10 emissions from vehicle exhaust and re-
entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed measures should be
assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by this Project to reduce
traffic emissions to a less than significant level.
48 City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, for example Table
4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000.
49 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 0-11 to 0-16, November 2001.
50 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford University Draft Community
Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11-6, June 23, 2000.
51 County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2
and 8.4, November 13, 2000.
.
52 City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development,
pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
Page 26
Pless. Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
VII.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures
The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation
measures that are not required by the Draft EIR:
? Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and
windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling;
and
? Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting,
and specific high-efficiency electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8.)
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the Draft EIR and
contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be
mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including
exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas
combustion for heating/ air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat
island effect (see Comment VI), and indirect emissions from electricity generation
(see Comment V.E). In addition, the CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify
numerous other feasible measures for commercial/industrial operations. Some of
these additional measures, which are routinely required as mitigation in other EIRs53
include:
? Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD);
? Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment, e.g., utility carts
(BAAQMD);
? Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc.
(BAAQMD);
? Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
(SLOAPCD54, SCAQMD55);
53 For example: City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Table 4.3-5, p. 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8-20 to 8-22, November 13,2000; Sacramento County, East
Franklin Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, Table ES-1; and Appendix D,
February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned
Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
54 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997.
55 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
Page 27
e
7-154
e
e
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
?
?
?
. ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD)
and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCDs6,
BCAQMDs7);
? Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD);
? Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce
summer cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD);
? Use energy-effident and automated controls for air conditioning
(SCAQMD, BCAQMD);
? Use lighting controls and energy-effident interior lighting (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances
(SLOAPCD);
Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD);
Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD);
Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect
heat; (see Comment VILB.3.b)
Install solar cooling/heating (SBAPCD);
Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area
(BCAQMD);
Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD);
Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop-
systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD);
Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new
production processes (SCAQMD);
Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD);
Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCDS8);
Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of
asphalt (SBAPCD);
56 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in
Environmental Documents, September 1997.
57 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.
58 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan,
Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989.
.
Page 28
7-154
Cont.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
? Pay an air quality mitigation fee;
? Secure emission offsets;
? Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather
than pavement to reduce heat reflection;
? Provide electric maintenance equipment;
? Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems; and
? Reduce standard paving by 20%.
Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully
mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures, for
example:
7-154
Cont.
? Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved
energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD);
? Replace/repower school/ transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD);
? Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD);
? Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles
(SLOAPCD);
? Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD);
? Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD);
? Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program
(SLOAPCD); and
? Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment,
diesel locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD).
e
VII,B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect
A number of the above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban
heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard
paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following
comments in more detail. 7-155
VII.B.3.a Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20%
The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the
pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement
materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the
formation of ozone, and reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on
.
Page 29
e
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by
using grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and
fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. This measure is widely used,
technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic.
There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this
measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt
pavements using light aggregate to conventional concrete pavements. Some are
comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides
reducing air quality impacts.
VII.B.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products
.
Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs
absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and plenum space.
Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space
between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the finished interior space, this
raises the sununertime cooling demand. In addition, heating the roof heats the air
that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes
warmer, increasing the formation of ozone.
7-155
Cont.
As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over
urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The additional
air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible for 5% to
10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to higher
emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to 20%
increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on-road
motor vehicles.59 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective roofs
and pavements.
Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler
and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air
conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A
light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to
70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air
ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than
absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures
may be as high as 90 F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18F.
.
59 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v.104, Pt. 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling the
Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp. 1667-1676.
Page 30
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and
the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the lifetime
of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of external power
that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is formed in the
vicinity of the development from the heat island effect.
Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to
20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing products certified to achieve at
least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions
for 3 years after installation The program is sponsored by the U.S. EP A and the
Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers emolled in the
program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the
latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (" ASHRAE") Standards 90.160 and 90.2 on energy-efficient
buildings.
Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be
cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50
to $2.50 per square foot installed.61 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including
reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other
coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to $1.50
per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets applied in
a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO (tripolymer olefin),
Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot.
A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of roof material,
including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt.
The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively
documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity
of the roof from 18 % to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling
energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At a
one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8% to
68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June
to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.62 In another Sacramento study,
60 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy Standard
for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999.
61 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, 21,t Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing.
62 H. Akbari, S. Bretz, D. Kurn, and J. Haoford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High-
Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25, 1997, pp. 117-126.
Page 31
e
7-155
Cont.
e
.
.
Piess, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impael Report, Oelober 27,2005
daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office,
museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofsP
At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis,
increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat roof from 24% to 60% reduced summertime
average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot
Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof
from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by
13%. At a 33,000-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a
foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air
condition by 2%.64
I
,
I.
"
Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other
commercial buildings in California.65 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced
galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was
increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space
cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the
temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior
temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was
$0.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years.66ln nine Florida homes, daily air
conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced
by an average of 22%. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with
the amount of ceiling insulation and duct system location, with the largest savings in
poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and smaller
savings in well-insulated homesP A high-reflective coating on an office building in
Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.68 In addition to field studies,
7-155
Cont.
63 E.W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building Energy
Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v.14, no. 2, 1998.
64 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Ligh~Colored Roofs:
Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1, 1998.
65 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer, Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool
Roofs, LBNL Report 40673, 1998.
.
66 D. Parker, J. Sonne, and J. Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof
Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report
FSEC-CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsec.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htrn.
67 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Proceedings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998;
www.fsec.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htm.
68 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials Research
Project, Mississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986.
Page 32
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling energy savings in
residential and commercial buildings.69 Cool roofs have been widely used in
California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San Jose, on control
towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,000-square foot Honda
distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000-square foot JC Penny warehouse in
Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley.
Thus, this measure would save a substantial amount of money over the life of
the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce
pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the
heat island effect.
7-155
Cont.
In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be evaluated
and required for this Project. The Draft ElR should be revised to include these
additional measures and be recirculated for public review.
VIII, CONCLUSION
As detailed in the comments above, the Draft EIR fails to meet the most basic .-
requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR fails to comply with the goals of the General .
Plan, fails to adequately describe the Project and its environmental setting, and fails
to adequately identify the Project's regulatory setting. The Draft EIR's air quality 7-156
impact analysis for both the construction and operational phases of the Project are
fatally flawed and considerably underestimate Project emissions. As a result, the
Draft EIR fails to disclose all significant impacts and fails to disclose the full
magnitude of all impacts. The Draft EIR did not require all feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts from Project construction and mitigation.
Additional feasible mitigation exists and should be required to reduce these
significant impacts. In sum, the Draft EIR is patently inadequate and should be
revised and recirculated for public review.
69 See, for example: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox, M. Van Geem and D. Parket,
Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Traosactions, v. 104, no. 1,
1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbari, Modeling the Effects of Reflective
Roofing, ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124.
e
Page 33
.
Exhibitl
URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output
for 36-month Construction Period and Vehicle Emissios Target Year 2009
.
.
Page: 1
10/27/2005 10,54 AM
.
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
8.7.0
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
C:\Documents and Settings\Petra Pless\My Documents\PP Environmental Consulting
Temecula Regional Hospital
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PMIO PMIO PMIO
*** 2006 ... ROG NOx CO S02 TOT!,>L EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 41. 95 283.34 338.81 0.03 129.68 11. 96 117.72
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 41. 95 283.34 338.81 0.03 53.81 11. 96 41.85
PMIO PMIO PMIO
... 2007 ... ROG NOx CO 802 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 13.82 89.14 115.14 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 13.82 89.14 115.14 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25
PMIO PMIO PMIO
... 2008 ... ROG NOx CO 802 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO 802 PMIO
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8.39 3.79 4.43 0.00 0.01
_RATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO 802 PM10
TOTALS (1bs/day,unmitigated) 92.78 103.76 1,245.27 0.86 123.35
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO 802 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigatedl 101.17 107.56 1,249.70 0.86 123.36
.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
e
440 Nova Albion Way
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 492-2131 voice
(775) 254--5849 fax
ppless@earthlink.net
Dr. Pless has over 10 years of experience in environmental engineering and science conducting
and managing interdisciplinary environmental research projects and preparing and reviewing
environmental permits and other documents for U.S. and European stakeholder groups. This
broad-based experience includes air quality and air pollution control; water quality, water
supply, and water pollution control; biology; public health and safety; noise studies and
mitigation; National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"), and Oean Air Act ("CAN') review; industrial ecology and risk assessment; and
use of a wide range of environmental software.
EDUCATION
Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering (D.Env.), University of California,
Los Angeles, 2001
M.S, Biology (with focus on botany/ecology/limnology), Technical University of Munich,
Germany, 1991
.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Leson & Associates (previously Leson Environmental Consulting), Kensington, CA,
Environmental Scientist/Project Manager, 1997-present
University of California Los Angeles, Graduate Research Assistant/Teaching Assistant, 1994-96
ECON Research and Development, Environmental Scientist, Ingelheim, Germany, 1992-93
Biocontrol, Environmental Projects Manager, Ingelheim, Germany, 1991-92
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Air Quality and Pollution Control
Projects include CEQA/NEPA review; attainment and non-attainment new source review
("NSR"), prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") and Title V permitting; control
technology analyses (BACT, LAER, RACT, BARCT, MACT); technology evaluations and cost-
effectiveness analyses; criteria and toxic pollutant emission inventories; emission offsets;
ambient and source monitoring; analysis of emissions estimates and ambient air pollutant
concentration modeling. Some typical projects include:
.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on the air quality, biology, noise,
water quality, and public health and safety sections of CEQA/NEP A documents for
numerous commercial, residential, and industrial projects (e.g., power plants, airports,
residential developments, retail developments, hospitals, refineries, quarries, and mines).
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on the air quality and public health
sections of the Los Angeles Airport Master Plan (Draft, Supplement, and Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report) for the City of El Segundo.
Provided technical comments on the Draft and Final General Conformity Determination for
the preferred alternative submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration.
For several California refineries, evaluated compliance of fired sources with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") Rule 9-10. This required evaluation and review
of hundreds of source tests to determine if refinery-wide emission caps and compliance
monitoring provisions were being met.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on Draft Title V permits for several
refineries and other industrial facilities in California.
Evaluated the public health impacts of locating big-box retail developments in densely
populated areas in California and Hawaii. The impacts of diesel exhaust emissions and
noise on surrounding residential communities were measured and evaluated.
In conjunction with the permitting of several residential and commercial developments,
conducted studies to determine baseline concentrations of diesel exhaust particulate matter
using an aethalometer.
For an Indiana steel mill, evaluated technology to control NOx and CO emissions from fired
sources, including electric arc furnaces and reheat furnaces, to establish BACT. This
required a comprehensive review of U.S. and European operating experience. The lowest
emission levels were being achieved by steel miIIs using selective catalytic reduction
("SCR") and selective non-catalytic reduction ("SNCR") in Sweden and The Netherlands.
For a California petroleum coke calciner, evaluated technology to control NOx, CO, VOCs,
and PMlO emissions from the kiln and pyroscrubbers to establish BACT and LAER. This
required a review of state and federal clearinghouses, working with regulatory agencies and
pollution control vendors, and obtaining and reviewing permits and emissions data from
other similar facilities. The best-controlled facilities were located in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District ("SCAQMD").
For a Kentucky coal-fired power plant, identified the lowest NOx levels that had been
permitted and demonstrated in practice to establish BACT._ Reviewed operating experience
of European, Japanese, and U.S. facilities and evaluated continuous emission monitoring
data. The lowest NOx levels had been permitted and achieved in Denmark and in the U.S.
in Texas and New York.
In support of efforts to lower the CO BACT level for power plant emissions, evaluated the
contribution of CO emissions to tropospheric ozone formation and co-authored report on
same.
.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification
(" AFCs") for several natural-gas fired and geothermal power plants in California permitted
.
2
Petra Pless. D.Env.
by the California Energy Commission ("CEC"). The comments addressed construction and
operational emissions inventories and dispersion modeling. BACf for turbines, etc.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on draft PSD permits for several
natural-gas fired power plants in California, Indiana, and Oregon. The comments
addressed emission inventories, BACf, case-by-case MACf, compliance monitoring, cost-
effectiveness analyses, and enforceability of pennit limits.
For a California refinery, evaluated technology to control NOx and CO emissions from CO
Boilers to establish RACT /BARCf to comply with BAAQMD Rule 9-10. This required a
review of BACf/RACf/LAER clearinghouses, working with regulatory agencies across the
U.s., and reviewing federal and state regulations and State Implementation Plans ("SIPs").
The lowest levels were required in a SCAQMD rule and in the Texas SIP.
In support of several federal lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, prepared cost-
effectiveness analyses for SCR and oxidation catalysts for simple cycle gas turbines and
evaluated opacity data.
Provided comprehensive environmental and regulatory services for an industrial laundry
chain. Facilitated pennit process with the SCAQMD. Developed test protocol for VOC
emissions, conducted field tests, and used mass balance methods to estimate emissions.
Reduced disposal costs for solvent-containing waste streams by identifying alternative
disposal options. Performed health risk screening for air toxics emissions. Provided
pennitting support with SCAQMD. Renegotiated sewer surcharges with wastewater
treahnent plant. Identified new customers for shop-towel recycling services.
Designed computer model to predict PC";VUUance of biological air pollution control
(biofilters) as part of a collaborative technology assessment project, co-funded by several
major chemical manufacturers. Experience using a wide range of environmental software,
including air dispersion models, air emission modeling software, database programs, and
geographic information systems ("GIS").
Water Quality and Pollution Control
Experience in all phases of water quality and pollution control, including surface water and
ground water quality and supply studies, evaluating water and wastewater treahnent
technologies, and identifying. evaluating and implementing pollution controls. Some typical
projects include:
For a homeowner's association, reviewed a California Coastal Commission staff report on
the replacement of 12,000 linear feet of wooden bulkhead with PVC sheet pile armor.
Researched and evaluated impact of proposed project on lagoon water quality, including
sediment resuspension, potential leaching of additives and sealants, and long-term stability.
Summarized results in technical report.
For a 500-MW combined-cycle power plant, prepared a study to evaluate the impact of
proposed groundwater pumping on local water quality and supply, including a nearby
stream, springs, and a spring-fed waterfall. The study was docketed with the CEC and
summarized in a journal article.
Evaluated impacts of on-shore oil drilling activities on large-scale coastal erosion in Nigeria.
3
e
e
.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
e
For a 500-MW combined-cycle power plant, identified and evaluated methods to reduce
water use and water quality impacts. These included the uSe of zero-liquid-discharge
systems and alternative cooling technologies, including dry and parallel wet-dry cooling.
Prepared cost analyses and evaluated impact of options on water resourceS. This work led
to a settlement in which parallel wet dry cooling and a crystallizer were selected, replacing
100 percent groundwater pumping and wastewater disposal to evaporation ponds.
.
Applied Ecology, Industrial Ecology and Risk Assessment
Experience in applied ecology, industrial ecology and risk assessment, including human and
ecological risk assessments, life cycle assessment, evaluation and licensing of new chemicals,
and fate and transport studies of contaminants. Experienced in botanical, phytoplankton, and
intertidal species identification and water chemistry analyses. Some typical projects include:
For the California Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Invasive Spartina
Project, evaluated the potential uSe of a neW aquatic pesticide for eradication of non-native,
invasive cordgrass (Spartina spp.) species in the San Francisco Estuary with respect to water
quality, biological resources, and human health and safety. Assisted staff in preparing an
amendment to the Final EIR.
Evaluated likelihood that measured organochlorine pesticide concentrations at a U.S. naval
air station are residuals from past applications of these pesticides consistent with
manufacturers' recommendations. Retained as expert witness in lawsuit.
Prepared human health risk assessments of air emissions from several industrial and
commercial establishments, including power plants, refineries, and commercial laundries.
Managed and conducted studies to license new pesticides. This work included the
evaluation of the adequacy and identification of deficiencies in existing physical/ chemical
and health effects data sets, initiating and supervising studies to fill data gaps, conducting
environmental fate and transport studies, and QA/ QC compliance at subcontractor
laboratories. Prepared licensing applications and coordinated the registration process with
German licensing agencies. This work led to regulatory approval of several pesticide
applications in less than six months.
Designed and implemented database on physical/ chemical properties, environmental fate,
and health impacts of pesticides for a major European pesticide manufacturer.
Designed and managed toxicological study on potential interferenCe of delta-9-tetrahydro-
cannabinol in food products with U.S. employee drug testing; co-authored peer-reviewed
publication.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on AFCs for several natural-gas fired
and geothermal power plants and transmission lines in California permitted by the CEC.
The comments addressed avian collisions and electrocution, construction and operational
noise impacts on wildlife, risks from brine ponds, and impacts on endangered species.
For a 180-MW geothermal power plant, evaluated the impacts of plant construction and
operation on the fragile desert ecosystem in the Salton Sea area. This work included
baseline noise monitoring and assessing the impact of noise, brine handling and disposal,
and air emissions on local biota, public health, and welfare.
.
4
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Designed research proto~ols for a coastal ecological inventory; developed sampling
methodologies, coordinated field sampling, determined species abundance and distribution
in intertidal zone, and analyzed data.
Designed and conducted limnological study on effects of physicalj chemical parameters on
phytoplankton succession; performed water chemistry analyses and identified
phytoplankton species; co-authored two journal articles on results.
Conducted technical, ecological, and economic assessments of product lines from
agricultural fiber crops for European equipment manufacturer; co-authored proprietary
client reports.
Developed life cycle assessment methodology for industrial products, including agricultural
fiber crops and mineral fibers; analyzed technical feasibility and markets for thermal
insulation materials from plant fibers and conducted comparative life cycle assessments.
Conducted and organized underwater surveying and mapping of plant species in several
lakes and rivers in Sweden and Germany as ecological indicators for the health of
limnological ecosystems.
.
PRO BONO ACTIVITIES
Management of "5econdAid," a non-profit organization providing tsunami relief for the
recovery of small family businesses in Sri Lanka. (www.secondaid.org)
Technical consulting for Lakota Village Fund, a non-profit organization for environmental
improvement and economic development projects for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota. (www.1akota-village.de)
e
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Association of Environmental Professionals
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Fox JP and Pless P, Cost-effectiveness of catalytic oxidation for the control of VOCs and CO
from power generation facilities, to be submitted to Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association.
Fox JP and Pless P, Fuel and energy penalties associated with catalytic pollution control systems
used in power generation, to be submitted to Power Engineering.
Fox JP, Rose TP, Sawyer TL, and Pless P, Isotope hydrology of a spring-fed waterfall in
fractured volcanic rock, to be submitted to Journal of Hydrology.
Leson G and Pless P, Hemp seeds and hemp oil, in: Grotenhermen F and Russo E (eds),
Cannabis und Cannabinoids, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential, The
Haworth Integrative Healing Press, New York, 2002.
.
5
.
.
.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Leson G, Pless P, Grotenhermen F, Kalant H, and ElSohly M, Evaluating the impact of
hemp food consumption on workplace drug tests, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, vol. 25
(11/12), pp. 1-8, 2001.
Pless P, Technical and environmental assessment of thermal insulation materials from fiber
crops, doctoral dissertation in Environmental Science and Engineering, University of
California, Los Angeles, 2001.
Leson G and Pless P, Assessing the impact of mc uptake from hemp oil cosmetics on work-
place drug testing, Report to the Agricultural Research and Development Initiative
(" ARDi"), Morris, MB, 2001.
Leson G and Pless P, Hemp Foods and Oils for Health, Your Guide to Cooking, Nutrition and
Body Care, HempTech, Sebastopol, CA, 1999.
Leson G and Pless P, What variety? Hemp cultivars for Canada, CoIiunercial Hemp, Fall 1998,
pp. 7-8.
Leson G and Pless P, Farming and processing: Technology status, Commercial Hemp, Summer
1998, pp. 5-6.
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies in the American Institute'of Chemical Engineers,
Collaborative Biofilter Project, Technical Report, co-author with Leson G of sections
'Compound Database: 'Design ManuaV and 'Literature Database: 1998.
Hantke B, Domany I, Fleischer P; Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, Depth profiles of
the kinetics of phosphatase activity in hardwater lakes of different trophic level, Arch.
Hydrobiologia, vol. 135, pp. 451-471, 1996.
Hantke B, Fleischer P, Domany I, Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, P-release from
DOP by phosphatase activity in comparison to P-excretion by zooplankton: studies in
hardwater lakes of different trophic level; Hydrobiologia, vol. 317, pp. 151-162, 1996.
Pless P, Untersuchungen zur Phytoplanktonentwicklung im Herrensee (investigations on
phytoplankton succession in an oligotrophic hardwater lake), Masters Thesis in biology
with focus on botany/ecology /limoology, Technical University of Munich, Germany, 1991.
6
7. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, October 28, 2005.
.
Response 7-1
This comment provides ao iotroductioo to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo commeots on
the Draft EIR. No response is required.
Response 7-2
The commeot provides the commentor's summary of the proposed project This comment does
not address ao enviroomeotal issue or raise aoy questioo regardiog the aoalysis or cooclusions io
the EIR. No respoose is required. We oote that throughout the letter the commeotor merely
expresses narrative argumeot and unsubstaotiated opinioo, and does oot state facts cootrary to the
analysis or conclusioos in the EIR. CEQA does oot require the City to respood to every narrative
argumeot aod unsubstaotiated opinioo expressed by the commentor.
Response 7-3
This commeot does oot address an environmeotal issue or raise aoy questioo regarding the aoalysis
or cooclusioos io the EIR. No respoose is required.
Response 7-4
The commeot provides a descriptioo of the techoical assistance used io the preparation of the
comment letter. All three attachmeots are included at the end of Letter 7 and are numbered aod
respooded to below. This coinmeot does oot address ao eoviroomeotal issue oor raise aoy
questioo regardiog the analysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. No response is required.
.
Response 7-5
The commeot provides a descriptioo of the purposes of CEQA This comment does oot address an
enviroomental issue or raise aoy questioo regardiog the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. No
respoose is required.
Response 7-6
As stated on page 2-l of the Draft EIR, "This EIR meets the content and analysis requiremeots of a
Project EIR [emphasis added], as defioed in Sectioo l5l6l of the State CEQA Guidelioes. A Project
EIR examioes the eoviroomeotal impacts of a specific developmeot project. This type of EIR
focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development
project. A Project EIR shall examine all phases of the project iocluding plaooiog, constructioo, and
operatioo." Thus, the statement that a Project EIR was oot prepared is iocorrect. Aoy refereoce by
the City to a focused EIR refers to the fact that the Project EIR focuses aoalysis 00 those issues
identified io the loitial Study as poteotially significaot, as permitted by CEQA Guidelioes Sectioo
l5063(c)(3). The EIR has been revised to delete the use of the term "focused", so as oot to cause
any coofusioo with the term "Focused EIR" as used io Public Resource Code sectioo 2ll58,
although this Project EIR would qualify as ao adequate CEQA documeot uoder that sectioo. This
Project EIR was prepared subsequeot to the City's certificatioo of a Program EIR for its Geoeral Plan
Update earlier this year. The EIR for the 2005 Geoeral Plao Update (GPU) aod all supportiog
9-202
ENVIRONMENTAL UvlPACf REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
e
CITY OF TEMECUlA
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
studies are fully iocorporated ioto the EIR for this hospital project. The GPU contemplated a
regiooal hospital like this Project.
Therefore, aoy subsequeot references io the subject comment letter to a "focused EIR" are
iocorrecl. This Project EIR is a "full" EIR io that it fully addresses all applicable areas required by
CEQA.
As required by CEQA Sectioo lS063, the City prepared ao loitial Study in March of 2005 to
determioe whether the project may have a significaot effect 00 the eoviroomeol. Duriog this first
level of review, the City determined that all poteotially sigoificaot impacts could be mitigated aod
prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaratioo dated March 4, 2005. The draft Mitigated
Negative Declaratioo was circulated for public review from March 4, 2005 to April 6, 2005. As a
result of one commeot letter received 00 the draft Mitigated Negative Declaratioo that raised
questions regardiog poteotially significant aesthetics, air quality, aod traffic impacts, the City
prepared a revised loitial Study and determined that the following issues warranted further aoalysis
via ao EIR: aesthetics, air quality, hydrology aod grouodwater, laod use and planoiog, noise, and
transportatioo. Because the prior loitial Study had beeo circulated for review by public ageocies
and the public, with 00 letters raisiog any coocems or questions received from aoy responsible
ageocies, the City requested a shortened 30-day review period from the State C1earioghouse. The
State C1earioghouse graoted the shorteoed review period. Thus, the process for eosuriog adequate
review of the project aod its poteotial impacts has conformed to CEQA requirements. CEQA does
oot defioe the term "full" EIR as used by the commeotor. We presume that by usiog the term "full",
the commeotor desires aoalysis of impact areas fouod as "00 significant impact" in the loitial Study.
The City used the loitial Study process, as encouraged aod permitted by CEQA, to ideotify those
issues requiring analysis in the EIR. All other issues are adequately addressed io the Initial Study (see
Appeodix A of the Draft EIR.) CEQA does oot require that ao EIR provide aoalysis of issues not
identified as significant in the Initial Study. This EIR is procedurally and substantively sufficient, as
explained in the document and supportiog studies.
The balaoce of the commeots made io this paragraph are geoeral io nature regarding the adequacy
of the EIR. Each of these general commeots is addressed io detail where the detailed commeot
arises in the balaoce of the letter.
Response 7-7
The commentor is incorrect about the proper CEQA procedures followed for this EIR. As noted in
Response 7-6, the subject document is a Project EIR, oot a focused EIR. In additioo to formal public
hearings before the Planning Commissioo aod City Council, the public and responsible agencies
have had two opportunities to review the potential enviroomental effects of the project: 1) during
the origioalloitial Study/draft Mitigated Negative Declaration circulatioo period of March 4, 2005 to
April 6, 2005 aod 2) duriog the shorteoed 3O-day review period graoted by the State C1earioghouse.
The State Clearinghouse, in its letter dated September 26, 2005 graotiog the shorteoed review
period, determioed that the circumstances presented by the City warraoted a 3D-day review period
for the Draft EIR.
crrv OF TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
9-203
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 7-8
e
The commeotor is incorrect about the proper CEQA procedures followed for this EIR. See
Respooses 7-6 aod 7-7. The formal written commeot period closed on October 28, 2005. All
persons, orgaoizatioos, aod agencies wishing to comment further on the Draft and Final EIRs may
do so duriog formal public heariogs before the Plaooing Commission aod City Couocil. These
comments and the City's respooses to such oral and writteo commeots will become part of the
project admioistrative record.
Response 7-9
This commeot is a oarrative argumeot, aod does oot present aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or
conclusions in the EIR. The comment provides several citations regarding the importaoce of a
consisteot project description aod states geoerally, that the EIR does not provide such, oor does the
EIR accurately aod completely describe the eoviroomeotal settiog. To the cootrary, pages 3-l
through 3-l0 of the Draft EIR provide an accurate description of the project aod eoviroomental
settiog. Each of these geoeral commeots is addressed io detail where the detailed commeot arises
io the balaoce of the letter.
Response 7-1 0
The commeot states that the EIR fails to ioclude a detailed coostructioo schedule with the list of
equipment that will be used. The commentor is iocorrect. The coostruction schedule, with a list of
constructioo equipmeot aod details of the equipmeot, iocluding horsepower, load factor, aod hours
of use per day are iocluded io the Draft EIR as part of the air quality analysis worksheets io
Appendix B. 10 summary, Appendix B indicates the following schedule: e
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start MoothjY ear for Phase l: jao '06
Phase 1 Duration: 3 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 54000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): l500
Oo-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 84
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day
1 Crushiog/Processing Equip
2 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Rubber TIred Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
1 54 0.780 8.0
352 0.590 8.0
165 0.465 8.0
79 0.465 8.0
Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptioos
Start MonthjYear for Phase 2: Apr '06
Phase 2 Duration: 6 mooths
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 18
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAG REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-204
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
. Off-Road Equipmeot
No. Type Horsepower load Factor Hours/Day
2 Excavators l80 0.580 8.0
1 Graders l74 0.575 8.0
2 Off Highway Tractors 255 0.4l0 8.0
4 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0
2 Other Equipmeot 190 0.620 8.0
1 Rubber Tired loaders l65 0.465 8.0
2 Scrapers 313 0.660 8.0
2 Sigoal Boards l19 0.820 8.0
2 Treochers 82 0.695 8.0
Phase 3 - Buildiog Coostructioo Assumptions
Start Mooth/year for Phase 3: Oct '06
Phase 3 Duration: 5l mooths
Start Mooth/y ear for Sub Phase Building: Oct '06
Sub Phase Buildiog Duratioo: 51 months
Off-Road Equipmeot
No. Type Horsepower load Factor Hours/Day
. 1 Coocrete/lodustrial saws 84 0.730 8.0
2 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0
2 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0
1 Rough T erraio Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0
2 Sigoal Boards l19 0.820 8.0
Start Month/year for Sub Phase Architectural Coatiogs: Jul '10
Sub Phase Architectural Coatiogs Duration: 5.l months
Start Month/y ear for Sub Phase Asphalt: Oct 'l 0
Sub Phase Asphalt Duratioo: 2.6 months
Acres to be Paved: 13
Off-Road Equipmeot
No. Type Horsepower load Factor Hours/Day
1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0
3 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0
5 Paviog Equipmeot III 0.530 8.0
2 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0
2 Sigoal Boards ll9 0.820 8.0
1 Surfacing Equipmeot 437 0.490 8.0
The coostructioo schedule included io the Draft EIR was used to aoalyze the air quality impacts aod
to estimate emissions associate with the proposed project. Accordiog to the project applicaot, the
.
9-205
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAG REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
total constructioo period of 36 mooths is anticipated to occur over a period of six years. The
aoticipated mooths for constructioo for each phase of coostructioo iodicated in Sectioo 3, Project
Descriptioo are correct, but the overall coostructioo period will span approximately six years. No
further detail concerniog the construction schedule is necessary for an EIR.
.
Response 7-11
All of the techoical studies refereoced in the Initial Study are available for public review at the City
of T emecula Plaooiog Departmeot, iocludiog the referenced study. Because poteotial impacts with
regard to geology and soils were fouod to be less than significaot at the loitial Study level, the cut
aod fill aoalysis in the Draft EIR is iocluded in the Air Quality section. A Cooceptual Grading Plao is
available for review at the City of T emecula Planoiog Departmeot The City of T emecula typically
provides a copy of a project's gradiog plao for review at the Plaooiog Couoter, due to the size of
the plans. An actual fioalized "gradiog plan" as submitted prior to coostructioo is oot required at
the EIR stage of a project, because it contains detail unoecessary for CEQA review. Furthermore, a
gradiog plao contaios too much detail aod is too large to shriok dowo to ao II x l7 ioch sheet for
inclusion io,;o loitial Study or EIR. Section 15148 of the CEQA Guidelioes indicates that techoical
reports rnay be cited rather thao included as part of EIR documentatioo.
The proposed project is estimated to result io approximately 2,500 cubic yards of export, as the
commeot ootes. This value was used io the URBEMIS2002 aoalysis in the proposed project's air
quality aoalysis.
Response 7-12
As stated io the Draft EIR, Section 4.5, Noise aod the ooise techoical study (Appendix C of the Draft
EIR), an analysis of the rnechaoical equipment room noise levels is not curreotly possible as the
detailed coostruction desigo of the roomJbuildiog is oot koown aod the product details for all the
equipmeot are oot available. However, based on the fact that the roorn will cootain various
rnechanical equipment, including pumps, chillers, aod boilers, it is aoticipated that it could produce
sigoificaot impacts at the residential properties uoless mitigatioo is iocorporated into the desigo.
Therefore, the impact is poteotially sigoificant Noise mitigatioo measure N-l mitigates for this
poteotially sigoificant noise impact No further aoalysis is oecessary uoder CEQA.
.
All other potential impacts associated with the mechanical equipment will be regulated aod
mitigated through federal, state, and local laws and policies. Please refer to Respoose 7-33
regardiog air emissioos from the mechanical equiprneot
Response 7-13
The cornrnentor is incorrect about the CEQA process for this Project This commeot is a oarrative
argument, aod does not state any facts contrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. Please
refer to Respoose 7-6 regardiog the reasons why the City has prepared this Project EIR examioing
the raoge of potentially significaot project effects.
Response 7-14
This comment is a oarrative argumeot, aod does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or
conclusioos in the EIR. Please refer to Respoose 7-6 regarding the reasons why the City has
.
ENVlRONMENTAlIMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-206
e
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
prepared this Project EIR examioiog the raoge of potentially sigoificaot project effects. The City of
Temecula used the loitial Study process, as eocouraged aod permitted by CEQA, to ideotify thpse
issues requiriog aoalysis io the EIR. All CEQA issues are adequately addressed either in the text of
the EIR or io the loitial Study, which is part of the EIR (see Appeodix A of the Draft EIR).
Response 7-15 through 7-17
These commeots are a narrative argument, aod do oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or
cooclusioos io the EIR. See Respooses 7-6 and 7-l4. The City has complied with the requiremeots
of CEQA regardiog preliminary project aoalysis and review. No respoosible agencies raised aoy
substaotial issue of coocern duriog the origioal loitial Study/draft Mitigated Negative Declaratioo
review period, and only ooe public comrneot letter raised aoy issues of substance. The City has
prepared ao EIR for the project. The so-called "fair argumeot" standard for EIR preparatioo ooly
applies wheo an ageocy elects to prepare a oegative declaration rather than an EIR. 10 additioo to
certaio techoical appeodices, the followiog are page citatioos for the compreheosive eoviroomeotal
impact aoalysis found in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics found 00 pages 4-4 through 4-l4, Air Quality
fouod 00 pages 4-23 through ~26, Hydrology and Grouodwater fouod 00 pages 4-33 through 4-35,
Laod Use and Plaooing fouod on pages 4-39 through 4-4l, Noise fouod 00 pages 4-5l through 4-
65, aod Transportatioo found on pages 4-80 through 4-93. It should be ooted that the cornmeotor's
citation to the Remy Thomas publication cites a "Master EIR" section that is oot relevaot to this
project or the project EI R.
Response 7-18
The City of T emecula ackoowledges, as indicated io the comrneot, that the two koowo leakiog
underground fuel tanks (LUFTs) are located within the proximity of, but oot on the project site.
These two LUFTs are: a Chevron statioo located at 31669 Highway 79 and ao ARCO gas station at
44239 Margarita Road. Additionally, a Shell statioo located at 44260 Redhawk Parkway east of the
Chevroo statioo is knowo to have a LUFT as well. The City has reviewed publicly available records
for the three LUFTs, iocluding the two identified by the commeot. The publicly available records do
oot iodicate or support the cooteotioo that contaminatioo from aoy of these LU FT s has affected the
subject property at all. Documeotatioo submitted by Shell to the State Regiooal Water Quality
Cootrol Board indicates that there is 00 effect 00 drinkiog water wells, aod that the cooceotratioos
of cootamioaots near the offsite LUFT locatioos are actually decreasiog.
As part of the public review process for the lriitial Study aod NOP for the EIR, the State Regional
Water Quality Control Board did oot provide aoy cornmeots and did oot state that groundwater
cootamination is of coocern for this project. Remediatioo of the LUFTs is the respoosibility of the
property owoers 00 which the cootaminatioo origioates. aod all such rernediatioo must occur in a
timely manoer and pursuaot to state aod federal regulatioos.
10 aoy eveot, the existence of the off site LUFTs does oot pose a CEQA-related impact for this
Project. This Project does oot iotroduce aoy LUFTs ioto the eoviroomeot, nor does it ioclude the
environmeotal remediatioo of soil or grouodwater, as 00 such hazards have beeo identified to exist
00 the project site. Thus, as coocluded in the loitial Study, eoviroomeotal irnpact will be less thao
sigoificaot.
CITY Of TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAG REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAJ.
9-207
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 7-19
e
This comment is a oarrative argumeot aod expresses uosubstaotiated opioioo, aod does not state
any facts cootrary to the aoalysis or conclusioos in the EIR. The commeot references the City's
Geoeral Plan EIR with regard to new developmeot 00 cootamioated property, but igoores the fact
that the project site is oot a cootamioated property. The commeot does oot provide aoy facts that
the nearby LUFTs preseot any health risks to workers or patients related in any way to the proposed
Project. At the Chevron station (31669 Highway 79), ooly mooitoring is in place, and no
remediatioo is curreotly implemeoted.' At the Arco statioo (44239 Margarita Road), both
mooitoring and remediatioo io the form of grouodwater extractioo aod treatmeot are curreotly io
place. Moreover, the Arco statioo has a permit to discharge to surface water.' Both of these gas
statioos have a methyl tert.butyl ether (MTBE) threat classification of B - second highest priority,
meaoing that the LUFTs contamioatioo is oot affecting the nearby driokiog wells. The exteot of the
Shell statioo cootamioatioo is curreotly unknowo because exteosive mooitoriog has oot occurred.
While the Shell station currently has a MTBE treat c1assificatioo of A, meaniog a poteotial threat to
drinking wells exists, mooitoring aod remediation in the form of groundwater extractioo aod
treatmeot are io place.' Documeotatioo submitted by Shell to the State Regiooal Water Quality
Control Board indicates that there is 00 effect on drioking water wells, aod that the cooceotratioos
of cootamioaots oear the offsite LUFT locatioos are actually decreasiog. The Raocho California
Water District, as required by state aod federal law, contiouously mooitors grouodwater cooditioos
to ensure state aod federal driokiog water staodards are met. As stated io Respoose 7.l8 and io the
City's Geoeral Plao EIR, remediatioo of cootamioated sites is the respoosibility of the site owoer and
is subject to state and federal regulations.
Response 7-20
.
This comment does not state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. The
proposed project will coooect to the muoicipal water supply via the Raocho California Water
District's conoections. The City's evaluatioo did not determioe and the commentor has not
provided any factual evidence that the nearby LUFfs present any risks to the municipal water
supply. Even so, leaks from offsite LUFTs do not pose CEQA impacts resultiog from this project.
The proposed project will coooect to a muoicipal water system, as ooted above in Respoose 7.19,
RCWD eosures that public water supplies comply with driokiog water standards.
The State Regiooal Water Quality Cootrol Board has been mooitoriog progress of the remediation
of the Shell statioo aod has oot ideotified contamination exteodiog to the Project site. If, as a result
of its oogoiog iovestigatioos, documeotable evideoce arises that a plume exteods beoeath the
Project site to ao exteot that would likely cause the oeed to guard agaiost vapor release during
Project gradiog operatioos, the applicant will undertake precautionary actions consisting of
monitoring and installation of any necessary barriers if oeeded.
3 httO:/~lleotracker.swrcb.ca.llov/rpoorts/llJft risk.aso?~dohal id=T0606S99286&assillned name=MAINSIT. Date accessed:
November 10, 2005.
4 httn:/ /p:potrader.swrc:h.c<I_llOV /renortc;/lllftasn?l!fohal in= TOnOn.S992SS&<lc;sil!ned n<lme=MAI NSIT, Date accessed:
November 10, 2005.
Shtto://lleotracker.swrcb.ca.e'ov/reoortc;/Iuft rislcac;o?e'lobal id=T0606S97082&assillned name=MAINSITE. Date accessed:
November 10, 2005.
e
ENVlRONMENTAlIMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CfTY OF TEMECUlA
9-208
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
The remaioder of this commeot expresses unsubstaotiated opioioo, aod does not state aoy facts
cootrary to the analysis or cooc1usioos in the EIR. The project does oot cootemplate aoy significaot
excavatioo. The commeotor has oot provided aoy evideoce that the oearby lUffs p~eseot aoy risks
of cootaminant exposure to coostructioo workers, the hospital staff, or patieots.
Response 7-21
The commeot is incorrect; the loitial Study aoalyzed seismic and earthquake related issues,
inc1udiog liquefaction. The loitial Study, Appendix A of the Draft EIR, states that the proposed
project is 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the lake Elsioore Fault. The PSI, loc.
Geotechoical Exploratioo Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital (May l4, 2004) referenced io the
Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project. The City of T emecula requires that all
developmeots comply with the staodards of the Uoiform Buildiog Code; thus, the proposed project
will be coostructed according to the Uoiform Buildiog Code's standards with regard to seismic
hazards for the appropriate grouodshakiog zooe. Furthermore, as a hospital, the project will be
coostructed to striogeot seismic staodards. Specifically, the Project's design must be reviewed aod
approved by the California Office of Statewide Health Plaooing and Developmeot (OSHPOD) to
assure compliaoce with the Hospital Seismic Safety Act (Health and Safety Code Sec l29675 et.
seq.).
Response 7-22
As stated on page 3-8 of the Draft EIR, "While the overall project must comply with the
requiremeots of the City Planning Departmeot, the buildiog requiremeots for the hospital buildiogs
are uoder the sole cootrol of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Plaooiog aod
Developmeot. As a result, to the exteot required by law all references in the EIR with respect to
buildiog and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the ooo-hospital facilities."
Furthermore, 00 page 3-9 of the Draft EI R, the City recognizes the fact that the California Office of
Statewide Health Plaooiog aod Developmeot will approve the hospital building and occupaocy
permits. Compliaoce with existiog regulatioos addresses aoy poteotial impact.
Response 7-23
This cornmeot does oot state any facts cootrary to the analysis or conc1usioos in the EIR. 10 the
loitial Study, seismic aod other geology-related impacts are ideotified as less thao significant due to
required compliaoce with a striogeot set of cooditioos of approval stated at pages l6 aod 1 7 of the
Initial Study. Moreover, the project must comply with the Hospital Seismic Safety Act which
requires that the project design be evaluated and approved for seismic safety by OSHPOD. Thus,
per CEQA Section l5063(c)(3), no further aoalysis is required io the EIR.
Response 7-24
The commeot is iocorrect. The PSI, loe. Geotechoical Exploratioo Report, Proposed Temecula
Hospital (May l4, 2004) refereoced io the loitial Study was prepared for the proposed project aod
addressed liquefaction issues. The geotechoical report coofirmed that the project site is located in a
mapped Iiquefactioo zooe aod has a moderate risk poteotial for soil Iiquefactioo. As required by
the City's cooditions of approval for the proposed project, the geotechnical report provides
recommendatioos for the structural desigo to address liquefactioo and standard practices of the
Structural Eogioeers Associatioo of California also will be required by the City. These staodard
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9.209
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
practices to address koowo conditions are ideotitied io the Initial Study, with the cooclusion that
impact will be less thao sigoiticaol. Thus, per CEQA Section l5063( c)(3), 00 further aoalysis is
required in the ~IR.
e
Response 7-25
This commeot is a oarrative argumeot aod expresses uosubstantiated opioion, and does oot state
any facts cootrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. 10 the last two sentences, the commeot
states that the regulatory settiog ioformation .for the California PM,. staodard in the EIR was
ioaccurate. The federal staodard is Aooual Arithmetic Mean (AAM) PMlO > 50 Ilg/m' aod the state
staodard for California is MM PM,. > 20 Ilgfm', which replaced Aooual Geometric Meao (AGM)
PM,. > 30 Ilg/m' effective July 5, 2003. Table 4-l, Air Pollutioo Sources, Effects, aod Staodards, is
hereby revised to correct the i'1accuracy regardiog the California PM,. staodard, as iodicated on the
following page.
Response 7-26
The commeot letter states that the ElR should be revised to include PM,.5 emissioos estimations.
The South Coast Air Quality Maoagement District (SCAQMD) adopted its CEQA Air Quality
Haodbook io 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparatioo of air quality aoalyses. The
SCAQMD recommeods that the lead Ageocy use this Haodbook as guidaoce wheo prepariog air
quality aoalysis. The SCAQMD last revised the CEQA Air Quality Haodbook io November 200l
'(Version 3). The Haodbook does oot ioclude requiremeots for modeliog PM,., emissioos or list
thresholds to be aoalyzed withio CEQA, oor does the URBEMIS2002 program model PM,.,
emissioos. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) does oot curreotly have 24-hour staodards
for PM,.,. The oearest air quality monitoriog statioo to Temecula, the lake Elsioore statioo, does oot
curreotly mooitor for PM,.5' aod thus no information is available regarding baselioe PM,., cooditioos.
Further, the CARB-approved URBEMIS2002 Model used to model air quality for this project does
not model or otherwise consider PM2.5. Therefore, PM,., emissions were not calculated for the
proposed project.
.
Fioally, the commeot does oot provide aoy facts iodicatiog that the project will geoerate PM,.5 io
quaotities sufficieotto represeot a risk to air quality or humao health.
Response 7-27
This commeot does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. The
comment letter states that the EIR should be revised to ioclude a health risk assessmeol. Because
the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) ideotitied particulate matter from diesel-fueled
engines as a toxic air contaminant, the SCAQMD Governing Board Mobile Source Committee
directed SCAQMD staff to assess the health risks from truck stops and warehouse distributioo
centers. Guidaoce for prepariog health risk assessments was prepared by SCAQMD in August
2002, titled Health Risk Assessment Guidaoce for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel
Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Accordiog to this guidance, health risk assessmeots
are recommeoded for projects with diesel-powered mobile sources, including the following
activities; truck idliog aod movemeot (such as, but oot limited to, truck stops,
warehouse/distribution centers or traosit centers), ship hotelliog at ports, aod traio idling. The
proposed project does oot propose major sources of diesel powered mobile sources duriog project
operations. Therefore, a health risk assessmeot is oot warraoted. Furthermore, Table 4-l, the Air
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CfTY OF TEMECULA
9-210
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Pollutioo Sources, Effects, aod Staodards, is hereby revised because the primary effects columo
describes the poteotial health risks from criteria air pollutants.
Table 4-1
Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards
Suffident to reduce
visual range to less
than 10 miles at
relative humidity less
than 700/0, 8-hour
average (9am . 5pm)
lJg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million parts of air, by volume.
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. CfQA Air Quality Handbook. November 2001 (Version 3) update.
Air
Pollutant
Ozone
(0,)
Federal Primary
Standard
0.12 ppm, 1-nour
average; 0.08
ppm, 8-hour
average
9.0 ppm, 8-nour
average; 35 ppm,
l-hour average
State Standard
0.09 ppm, l-hour
average
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
9.0 ppm, 8-hour
average; 20 ppm, 1.
hour average
Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, l-nour 0.053 ppm, annual
Oxides average average
(NO,)
Sulfur 0.25 ppm, l-hour aver- 0.03 ppm, annual
Dioxide age; 0.05 ppm, 24-nour average; 0.14
(SO,) average with ozone> = ppm, 24-hour
'i. 0.10 ppm, 1 nour average
average or TSP > = 100
J.1g/m3, 24-hour average
Respirable ;G 20 ug/m', annual 50ug/m', annual
I Particulate geometric mean; > 50 arithmetic mean;
Matter lJg/m3, 24-hour average 150 ug/m', 24-
(PM,,) hour average
Rne No Separate State 65 ug/m', 24-nour
Particulate Standard average; 15 lJg/m3
Matter annual arithmetic
(PM,,) mean
Lead
1.5 ug/m', 3{}day
average
1.51Jg/m3,
calendar quarter
Visibility
Redudng
Particles
None
.
CITY Of TEMECULA
Sources
Abnospheric reaction of
organic gases with nitrogen
oxides in sunlight.
Incomplete combustion of
fuels and other carbon-
containing substances such
as motor vehicle exhaust;
natural events, such as
decomposition of organic
matter.
Motor vehicle exhaust;
high-temperature stationary
combustion; abnospheric
reactions.
Combustion of sulfur.
containing fossil fuels;
smelting of sulfur-bearing
metal ores; industrial
processes.
Stationary combustion of
solid fuels; construction
activities;-industrial
processes; industrial
processes, abnospheric
chemical reactions.
Combustion sources such as
automobiles, trucks, and
stationary sources;
at!11ospheric chemical
reactions.
Contaminated soil.
9-211
II.:......, :;lIeEtsPotential Health Risks
Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases; irritation of eyes;
impairment of cardiopulmonary function;
planlleaf injury.
Reduced tolerance for exercise;
impairment of mental function;
impairment of fetal development;
death at high levels of exposure;
aggravation of some heart diseases
(angina); reduced visibility.
Aggravation of respiratory illness; reduced
visibility; reduced plant growth; formation
of acid rain.
Aggravation of respiratory diseases
(asthma, emphysema); reduced lung
function; irritatio,n of eyes; reduced
visibility; plant injury; deterioration of
metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings,
etc.
Reduced lung function; aggravation of the
effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation
of respiratory and cardio-respiratory
diseases; increased coughing and chest
discomfort; soiling; reduced visibility
Increased mortality; reduced lung
function; aggravation of the effects of
gaseous pollutants; aggravation of
respiratory and cardio-respiratory
diseases; increased coughing and chest
discomfort.
Increased body burden; impairment of
blood formation and nerve conduction;
behavioral and hearing problems in
cnildren.
Visibility impairment on days when
relative humidity is less than 70 percent
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
e
Response 7-28
This commeot expresses unsubstantiated opioion, and does oot state any facts cootrary to the
aoalysis or cooclusioos in the EIR. The comment speculates that the EIR might have uoderestimated
coostructioo emissioos, particularly PMlO. The commeotor is iocorrect. Refer to Responses 7-29
through 7-3l for responses to more specific commeots associated with coostructioo emissions.
Response 7-29
The commeot is iocorrect cooceroiog the coostructioo schedule. See Response 7-10. The
comment expresses uosubstaotiated opioion that the estimates io the EIR are oot accurate. The
comment further states that the constructioo time is portrayed differently in Section 3.0, Project
Description, thao what was modeled in Sectioo 4.2,Air Quality, of the EIR. Refer to Response 7-10
for a discussion of the constructioo schedule.
Response 7-30
This commeot expresses uosubstantiated opioion that coostructioo emissions estimates "may [be]
substantially underestimate[dJ", and does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or conclusioos
io the EIR. The comment letter states that the air quality emissions modeliog io the EIR did oot
represeot worst-case cooditioos because the modeliog used default values. The default values are
estimates for ao average project with similar land uses. To estimate fugitive dust emissioos,
URBEMIS2002 estimated emissioos in the default level by multiplyiog the default emissions rate by
the maximum acreage disturbed per day, provided io the program as 35.3l acres for the total
project site or 11.77 acres to be disturbed per day. The defaults are programmed ioto the model to
estimate emissioos wheo all informatioo is not available. Sioce more detailed informatioo was oot
available, the defaults were appropriately used to model air quality emissions to be geoerated by
the proposed project. Further, the City is not obligated to analyze a speculative worst case
scenario.
e
URBEMIS2002 estimated eight hours of constructioo activity per day. Sectioo 4.5, Noise, described
a raoge in time provided io the City of Temecula Muoicipal Code (Sectioo 8.32.020) which limits
coostructioo to betweeo the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M.
aod 6:30 P.M. 00 Saturday, aod oever 00 Suoday or holidays. The air emissioos modeling was
conducted for ao eight-hour period within the 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. time range. The City of
Temecula Muoicipal Code only exempts coostructioo activity rather than dictates wheo such
activity will take place. Loostruction activity is aoticipated to result in a maximum of eight hours of
emissions production during each day of grading, which is a standard average for a construction
work day. Moreover, the commentor has not provided any evidence that the model default values
in the URBEMIS2002 Model are incorrect. Therefore, 00 chaoge to the air quality modeling is
warranted.
Response 7-31
This comment expresses uosubstaotiated opinioo that wiod erosion duriog coostruction "cao be a
substantial cootributor to fugitive dust from constructioo sites." This commeot does oot state aoy
facts contrary to the analysis or cooclusions in the EIR. Specifically, the commeot states that the air
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUlA
9212
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
quality model did oot estimate emissioos resultiog from track-out aod wiod erosioo. As stated in the
comment, URBEMIS2002 program does oot calculate emissioos created by wiod erosioo or track-
out. Fugitive dust emissioos are emitted over large surface areas. Modeliog wiod-derived emissioos
makes their quantificatioo ioherently less accurate thao actual tests cooducted on stacks or other
ducts through which efflueots are ejected ioto the air. Track-out is also a source of air pollutioo that
is mooitored 00 site ooly duriog coostructioo activities, rather thao modeled from computer-based
programs aod estimated previous to coostructioo activities. Therefore, the EIR did oot ioclude
modeliog for track-out or wiod erosioo emissioos. However, mitigatioo measures AQ-4, AQ-6, AQ-
7, aod AQ-ll io the EIR minimize emissioos resultiog from wiod erosion or track-out.
Response 7-32
The commeot letter suggests that the EIR uoderestimated operatiooal emissions. The commeot
states unsubstaotiated opinion that "the NOx sigoificaoce threshold will likely be exceeded" aod
PMto emissioos "may exceed. the SCAQMD's significaoce threshold". Refer to Respooses 7-33
through 7-38 for respooses to more specific commeots associated with operatiooal emissioos.
Response 7-33
The commeot expresses uosubstaotiated opioioo that NOx emissioos "may result io exceedaoce of
the NOx sigoificaoce threshold". This commeot does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or
conclusioos io the ElR. The comment letter states that the operatiooal emissioos estimates omitted
emissions from helicopter use, cooliog towers, emergeocy geoerators, aod boilers. Accordiog to the
Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Wiodows with Eohanced Constructioo Module prepared
by Jones and Stokes (April 2005), fuel combustioo emissioos from water and space heatiog is
estimated in the program per SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. Sioce informatioo regarding the
frequency of helicopter use was oot available, it was estimated that the use of a helicopter to
. traosport patieots will most likely be ao infrequeot use (00 average ooce per mooth, although the
Caltraos permit allows up to six occurrences per mooth), aod therefore, the EIR does oot ioclude ao
aoalysis of emissions from helicopters. Also, the loitial Study stated that heaters, air conditioners,
aod other types of similar equipmeot (i.e. cooliog towers, geoerators, and boilers) would not
geoerate a substaotial amouot of emissioos; consequently, they were oot aoalyzed io the EIR. Also,
such equipmeot will be subject to SCAQMD regulatioo for emissioos cootrol. Please refer to
Respoose 7-37 regardiog emissions attributed to use of electricity, such as the cooliog towers,
emergency geoerators, boilers, aod the Heatiog, Veotilatiog, aod Air-Cooditioning system.
Response 7-34
The commeot letter states that the air quality modeliog did oot correctly aoalyze emissioos from
oatural gas usage. The commeot also states that the default values provided io the URBEMIS2002
model do oot calculate emissioos associated with oatural gas usage, specifically for hospital uses.
The URBEMIS2002 program estimated 566, l60 square feet of hospital aod medical uses. The
hospital laod use is described in the Software User's Guide: URBEMIS2002 for Wiodows with
Eohaoced Coostructioo Module (Jooes aod Stokes, April 2005) as aoy "institutioo where medical or
surgical care is giveo to ooo-ambulatory aod ambulatory patients aod overnight accommodatioos
are provided", aod medical office uses are described as medical office buildiogs that "provide
diagooses and outpatieot care." These uses are a correct interpretation of the uses analyzed io the
EIR. These are also the laod uses URBEMIS2002 estimated for oatural gas usage.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-213
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
As shown io Table RTC-l below, oatural gas emissioos were conducted for the project. All area
source emissioos, iocludiog oatural gas emissioos resultiog from the proposed project, are showo
iodividually.
e
Table RTC-l
Operational Phase Regional Emissions for Area Source Emissions (in pounds per day)
Emissions Source
Pollutants (Ibsfday)
NOx CO
3.77 3.l7
0.00 0.00
0.02 1.26
P"1'.
0.00
0.00
0.00
SO.
0.01
0.00
0.00
ROG
Natural Gas 0.27
Hearth-No summer emissions 0.00
Landscapiog 0.18
Consumer Products 0.00
Architectural Coatings 7.93
Total Area Source Emissions 8.39 3.79 4.43 0.00
Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model.
0.01
Response 7-35
The comment letter states that the air quality aoalysis used an iocorrect target year for operational
emissioos. The phasing of the project aod the detailed coostructioo schedule provided by the
project applicant shows a completioo date of December 20l2. However, URBEMIS2002 ooly
allows construction for up to 60 mooths, or through to December 2010. Year 2010 was also
ioserted into the program as the target year used for operatiooal traffic. Both the target year and
the completioo of coostructioo were coosisteot. Therefore, NOx emissioos estimations represeoted
ao accurate constructioo schedule. Refer to Respoose 7-l0 for a discussion of coostructioo
schedule timiog. Additionally, using a 60-month overall constructioo schedule analyzes a "worst-
case scenario" because air emissioos would be more cooservative with a shorter coostructioo
schedule. Therefore, if the URBEMIS2002 allowed for a longer time frame for the constructioo
schedule beyond five years (60 months), then the air emissions would be greater compared to
those calculated in this EIR.
e
Response 7-36
The comment letter states that the EIR underestimated traffic emlSSIOOS by usiog a lower trip
generatioo rate for a regiooal hospital use. The air quality modeliog relied 00 defaults inhereot io
the URBEMIS2002 program. The trip geoeratioo rates used in the air modeling were geoeralized
trip rates from the lostitute of Traosportatioo Eogioeers (ITE) Trip Geoeratioo Rate Manual, Seveoth
Edition, 2003 for hospital and medical office uses. Refer to Respoose 7-48 for a discussion of the
trip rates used in the traffic analysis.
Response 7-37
The comment letter states that the EIR did not fully aoalyze secoodary emissioos from electricity
generatioo. As stated in the EIR, emissioos from electricity generatioo are coosidered to be regiooal
io oature. Emissioos attributed to use of electricity geoerated by iodividual projects are oot easily
quantified due to the variety aod diverse locations of sources that supply electricity. Electricity
provided to the site via regiooal suppliers could be geoerated almost aoywhere io California or even
.
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAG REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEME(ULA
9-214
e
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
out of state. Completiog ao aoalysis as suggested by the commeotor would be purely speculative io
oature. Every power plant io Califomia is required to analyze impacts per CEQA aod is subject to
emissions controls applicable to the air basio in which it is located. Therefore, electrical geoeratioo
emissions associated with the proposed project were oot quantified. No additional analysis is
oecessary:
Response 7-38
The comment letter states that the air quality aoalysis did not ideotify iocreased ozooe formatioo
due to urbao heat islaod effect. The term "heat island" refers to urbao air aod surface temperatures
that are higher thao oearby rural areas (Uoited States Eoviroomeotal Protectioo Agency,
htto://www.eoa.gov/heatislaod/about/index.html. accessed November, 2005). Curreotly the
SCAQMD does oot recogoize ozone formatioo due to urbao heat islaod effect as ao impact that
requires aoalysis io a CEQA documeot. Therefore, no additiooal aoalysis is oecessary.' We further
note that the proposed project would not result io exceedaoces of thresholds for NOx emissions
duriog the operational phase of the project, and includes mitigatioo measure AQ-3 to iocorporate
energy efficieot staodards for hospital and medical uses.
Response 7-39
The Project is subject to regulation uoder the Natiooal Pollution E1imioatioo System (NPDES)
General Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Geoeral Coostructioo
Activity (General Coostructioo Permit) Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ. The Provisioos of the
Geoeral Coostructioo Permit require the implementation of Best Maoagement Practices (BMPs) to
control and abate the discharge of pollutaots in storm water discharges both duriog and after
construction, including measures to prevent phosphorous contamination into waterways. The City
Urban Storm Water discharges are regulated through the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
permit (Order No. R9-2004-00l) (Hereioafter "Muoicipal Permit"). This permit requires that the City
impose cooditions 00 the project to assure that aoy water quality impacts are mioimized to the
Maximum Exteot Possible. Together, these two regulatory schemes will reduce aoy eoviroomeotal
impacts from the Project's storm water discharges to below a level of significaoce.
Water quality impacts will be less thao sigoificaot as a result of compliance with staodard City
practices aod regulatioos, eoforced through cooditioos of approval that implemeot the City's
NPDES permit. Constructioo-phase aod post-coostructioo BMPs will be designed aod iocluded ioto
plaos for submittal to, aod subject to the approval of, the Director of Public Works prior to issuance
of a gradiog permit. The project proponent will also provide proof of a mechaoism to ensure
ongoiog long-term maintenaoce of all structural post-coostructioo BMPs. No additiooal impact
aoalysis is required with regard to water quality.
Response 7-40
This comment does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. The
commeot speculates that flooding "can cootribute urban cootaminates to the creek." To the extent
the commeotor implies that an analysis of creek-bed cootamioaots related to offsite flooding is part
6 Koizumi, James. Air Quality Specialist. Pefs. Comm. on November 17, 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
7 Koizumi, James. Air Quality Specialist. Pers. Comm. on November 17, 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
CITY Of TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
9-215
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
of this project, the commeotor is iocorrect. As indicated io the Initial Study (Appendix A of the
Draft EIR), the proposed project will result in a less thao significant impact with regard to
substaotially altering the existing draioage pattero io the area resulting in substaotial erosioo or
siltatioo 00 or off site, or iocrease the amouot of surface ruooff that would result in f1oodiog on- or
off-site; aod exposing people or structures to a sigoificaot risk of loss, iojury, or death involviog
f1oodiog or iouodatioo. The flooding impacts froro the proposed project are less then sigoificaot;
therefore, 00 additiooal analysis or mitigatioo is required. For a further discussion of water quality
impacts of the project to surface waters, see Respoose 7-39.
e
Response 7-41
The General Coostructioo Storm Water Permit requires that a Storm Water Pollutioo Preveotioo
Plan (SWPPP) aod a Mooitoriog aod Reportiog Plan be prepared prior to the commeocemeot of
"Iaod disturbing activities ". The City will require as a cooditioo of approval that the project
applicant will prepare a SWPPP and file a Notice of loteot to Comply (NOI) with the Geoeral
Coostructioo Permit prior to any laod disturbiog activities.
The Municipal Permit requires the City to require the project applicaot to prepare a post
coostructioo storro water maoagemeot plao. The post constructioo storm water maoagemeot plao
addresses post coostructioo storm water impacts aod mitigates those impacts to a level below
sigoificaoce.
The commeot misstates the testiog requiremeots of the Geoeral Coostruction Permit. The permit
only requires testiog related to 303(d) impaired water bodies when those water bodies are impaired
by silt or sedimeot. Murrieta Creek aod the Saota Margarita River are not impaired by silt or
sedimeot. The project is cooditiooed to coroply with all appropriate mooitoriog aod reportiog
requiremeots of the General Coostructioo Permit.
e
Please refer to Respoose 7-39 regardiog compliance with NPDES requireroeots. The project
proponent, as indicated io the EIR 00 page 4-31 of the Draft EIR, provided a preliminary hydrology
aod drainage analysis ideotifying that iodicated project runoff will drain in two directions. As stated
00 page 4-3l, "New developmeot projects are required to provide oo-site draioage aod to pay area
draioage fees per acre of developmeot. Draioage fee reveoues are used to support capacity
expaosion within the local storm draio system." Additionally, the project proponent will be required
to submit a fioal, eogioeered draioage study, prepared by a registered civil engineer io accordaoce
with City staodards, to ideotify storm water ruooff expected from this site. The study shall ideotify
all existiog or proposed public or private draioage facilities inteoded to discharge this runoff. The
study will ideotify aoy specific improvements required coosisteot with Couoty Area Drainage Plaos
to achieve appropriate storm water cootroJ. Fees will be paid per existiog requiremeots. The
submittal of the detailed drainage study will be enforced through the conditions of approval set
forth by the City.
Response 7-42
This coroment does oot state aoy facts contrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. The
commentor is fuodamentally iocorrect about the Water Supply Assessroent, which was prepared
and provided by the serviog agency, the Rancho Califoroia Water District (RCWD). The comroent
iocorrectly states that the Water Supply Assessmeot (WSA), Appeodix G of the Draft EIR, prepared
by the RCWD fails to comply with the requireroeots of the Califoroia Water Code Sectioo l0910
e
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
~ECUL.A REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9.216
.
.
i.
I
Responses to Comments on the Draft ffR
(also knowo as S.B. 610). Pursuant to Sectioo l09l0(g)(b), the City approved the Water District's
WSA for the Draft EIR. The 2000 Urban Water Managemeot Plan aod the 2005 Water Facilities
Master Plao were referenced in the WSA aod provide a detailed description of the RCWD's
groundwater basio from which the proposed project will be supplied. Furthermore, both plaos
accouot for the water demaod of the proposed developmeot. As stated 00 page 6 of the WSA, the
2005 Water Facilities Master Plan estimates a demaod of l29,545 acre feet per year for 2025 aod
the projected water demand for the proposed project is 42 acre feet per year. The City coocludes
that the WSA provided by the RCWD fully complies with California Water Code Section 109l0.
The City further ackoowledges that the RCWD has relied on grouodwater pumpiog aod rechargiog
for years, aod has addressed the SB 610 requiremeots io that regard. The RCWD has appropriately
determined that the WSA has sufficient water supply for the project. See, RCWa 58610 Water
Supply Assessment in Support of the Temecula Medical Center, City of Temecula, dated August 29,
2005, at EIR Appeodix ".
Responses 7-43
This comment expresses uosubstantiated opioioo, aod does oot state aoy facts cootrary to the
aoalysis or cooclusioos in the ErR. No response is required.
Response 7-44
This commeot expresses unsubstaotiated opioion, aod does oot state any facts cootrary to the
analysis or cooclusioos io the EIR. The baselioe cooditioo to which project traffic is added includes
traffic from 1 7 cumulative projects which will be built over the next several years. The traffic study
assumes the project will be built io two broad phases rather thao incremeotally (described 00 page
3.7 of the EIR and indicated on the site plan as five phases). This approach to the analysis allows for
mitigation to be defined and required early on for the secood broad phase, which results io a
conditioo whereby the full impact of project traffic occurs sooner thao assuming the project would
be coostructed iocremeotally in five phases. Phase I, coosistiog of Phases IA and IB described on
page 3-7, coosists of related project buildiogs: the first medical office buildiog aod hospital tower.
The secood broad phase iocludes the second hospital tower, the secood medical office buildiog,
aod the caocer ceoter aod rehabilitation facility, all of which are related facilities. Full project
mitigatioo will be required earlier with this phasiog.
Response 7-45
Basiog the trip geoeration for a hospital on the oumber of beds is the standard of practice in
preparing traffic studies. Beds is listed as an independent variable in the Institute of T ransportatioo
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the 5ANDAG "5ao Diego Traffic Generators"
publicatioo (April 2002). Some of the hospitals that were surveyed to determioe the trip rate ioclude
maoy other facilities in additioo to the hospital itself, such as fitoess centers, caocer ceoters aod
cafeterias. The traffic generated by these other facilities are iocluded io the overall hospital trip rate
sioce the rate is established by placing road tubes at project driveways aod these tubes capture all
traffic eveo if the destioatioo is not the hospital itself.
In additioo, although the ITE trip rate for hospitals is ooly l1.8l Average Daily Trips (ADT) per bed,
a rate of 20 per bed (based 00 the SANDAG publicatioo) was utilized to be very conservative. The
SANDAG rate is based 00 a survey of ooly ooe hospital while the ITE rate is based 00 surveys at 20
hospitals. Therefore, even though the ITE rate (l1.8l) was considered more credible than the
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
9.217
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
SANDAG rate (20.0) based on the larger sample size, the very cooservative SANDAG rate was
utilized. The hospital trip geoeratioo that was utilized results in 2,620 ADT more ADT thao if the ITE
rate was used. The trip geoeration io the study overstatl's the amouot of traffic the site will generate.
e
Finally, the Caocer Ceoter aod Fitness Ceoter geoerate only a oomioal amouot of traffic (less than
500 ADT) due to the day-to-day operatioos of these facilities. So even if 500 ADT was added, since
the hospital trip geoeration is already 2,600 ADT overstated, the actual amount of overall traffic
would still be less than the amount aoalyzed io the traffic study.
Response 7-46
This commeot expresses argument aod uosubstaotiated oplOlon, aod does oot state aoy facts
contrary to the analysis or canclusioos io the EIR. No respoose is required
Response 7-47
The commeot iocorrectly correlates parkiog supply to trip generatioo. As explained io the Draft EIR
00 page 3-8, hospitals facilities typically exceed mioimum parkiog requiremeots. Visitors to hospital
facilities teod to remain at the facility looger than typical commercial or professional uses like retail
establishments. No credit was takeo for staff usiog public traosit to reach the facilities. The
commeot letter provides 00 evidence that the City parking code for hospitals does oot accouot for
staff. City code requiremeots include parkiog for all types of users of a parkiog facility.
The secood paragraph of this camment expresses argument and unsubstaotiated opioion, and does
not state aoy facts cootrary to the aoalysis or cooclusioos io the EIR.
Response 7-48
e
The commeot reflects miscooceptioos about trip geoeration rates for hospitals as it relates to
number of beds and square footage. As California hospital service providers continue to remodel
and build facilities to accommodate future service demands, there are four trends affecting the
relatiooship amaog space, beds, and traffic.
Space, Beds and Privacy
Hospitals built io the 1950s, '60s and '705 were primarily built for double occupaocy rooms; 10
additioo, maoy also had "wards" or rooms that would hold six of more beds. Wards were afteo
used for peak demand days or to isolate a potentially contagious disease.
Double occupancy rooms were accepted by the market aod coosidered to be the norm by most
insurance providers. Yet any patient would tell you that a single occupancy room provided the
privacy that families preferred. 10 1980s, hospital architecture oatioo-wide begao to respood to this
market prefereoce. Today, siogle occupancy rooms are the design .of choice for all new hospitals.
The'dauble occupancy room is a rare exception.
The space implicatioo of this treod is iocreased square footage per bed. 10 additi.oo to increasiog
circulatioo space 00 a per bed basis, each room requires a bathroom. Whereas a double-occupancy
room shared a bathroom betweeo two patieots, siogle-occupancy rooms dedicate a bathroom to
each patieot.
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-218
'Ie
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Space, Beds and Infection Control
Providiog a separate bathroom for each patieot is also ao importaot improvement io iofectioo
cootrol. A separate bathroom elimioates aoy poteotial for iofectioo transmissioo betweeo patieots
usiog the same bathroom.
Space, Beds, Acuity, and Equipment
Duriog the last 20 years of health care reform io America, the maoaged care system has successfully
worked to decrease both the oumber of days a patieot would stay io a hospital aod the kiods of
cases that might warraot ao over-oight stay. Ao iocreasing number of low-acuity cases have been
transitiooed out of the hospital eoviroomeot aod ioto ao outpatieot c1ioic eoviroomeot.
The result is thattoday's hospital bed serves a much sicker patient. A high-acuity patieot oeeds more
support techoology at the bedside. The list of additiooal equipmeot begios with a respiratory
mooitor with pumps, IV poles, specialty medical gas support, aod other mobile equipmeot rolled in
00 a case-by-case basis. The space implicatioo of this trend is iocreased square footage per bed.
Space, Beds, and Staffing
Accordiog to the project applicaot, for over 20 years there has beeo a decline io nursing staff io
America. The response to this skilled labor shortage has iocluded:
. Steps to increase the desirability of oursiog as a career, iocludiog increasiog salaries, benefits
aod tuitioo support;
. Redesigoiog the job of the Registered Nurse to shift certain lower skilled tasks to lower
skilled employees; aod
. Replaciog maoual tasks with automated processes in order to reduce labor demands per
bed, examples include more automated records, charts and billing systems.
Betweeo the economics of health care reimbursemeots aod the shortage of nursing staff, the eod
result is that staffiog levels do oot iocrease simply because square footage iocreases.
Ao iocrease io square footage is oot the correct iodicator to use to evaluate an increase in ADT for
the reasoos stated above. The correct iodicator to use is the iocrease in the oumber of beds. 10
addition, please see Response 7-45/7-46 for a discussioo regardiog the use of a trip rate of 20 ADT
per bed as opposed to the ITE rate of ll.8l ADT per bed.
Response 7-49
Please refer to Response 7-45.
Response 7-50
The best iodicator of traffic generatioo for a hospital is the number of beds. Please refer to
Respooses 7-45 and 7-48.
Response 7-51
This commeot is similar to 7-50 except that it discusses project build out, oot Phase I. Please refer
to Respoose 7-50.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-219
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 7-52
e
The comment provides the commentor's definitioo of CEQA mitigatioo measures. This commeot
does oot address ao eovironmental issue or raise aoy questioo regardiog the aoalysis or cooclusioos
in the EIR. No respoose is required.
Response 7-53
This commeot expresses argumeot aod uosubstaotiated OpiniOn, and does not state aoy facts
contrary to the analysis or conclusions io the EIR. As stated io CEQA guidelioe 15l26.4 (a) (2),
"mitigation measures must be fully eoforceable through permit cooditioos, agreemeots, or other
legally binding iostrumeots." All of the mitigatioo measures cootaioed io the EIR are fully
enforceable aod will require future legal actioo or compliance and proof will be shown in the
Mitigatioo Mooitoring and Reportiog Program (MMRP). Mitigatioo measures are oot required for
water quality, geology aod soils, or parking, as determioed io the Initial Study aod Draft EIR. Also,
the project permittee will be required to comply with all existing and applicable federal, state, and
City of T emecula laws aod regulatioos enforced through the project cooditioos of approval. The
uoavoidable sigoificaot impacts are addressed io the proposed Statemeot of Overridiog
Coosideratioos.
Response 7-54
The commentor is iocorrect. The comment letter suggests that the EIR did oot provide adequate
and feasible mitigatioo measures to reduce air quality and public health impacts. These mitigatioo
measures refereoced io the commeot as measures AQ-l, AQ-2, AQ-4, AQ-6, aod AQ-7 io Sectioo
4.2, Air Quality require that the project developer provide, for example, a detailed coostructioo
traffic plan aod wateriog plao. These plans typically are prepared ooce a project coocept is
approved aod detailed project plans are prepared. Typical performaoce measures ioclude
compliaoce with SCAQMD regulations for dust cootrol aod City standards for coostruction traffic
management. These plans when reviewed and approved by the City and other responsible
agencies, and when implemeoted will reduce environmental impact. Completion of these plans will
be reviewed by the City, with coordioatioo with other jurisdictions and compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 403 required. Additiooally, compliaoce with these measures aod the completion of the plans
must be verified io the Mitigatioo Mooitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), per CEQA
requirements. As stated io CEQA Guidelioes Sectioo l5l26.4(a)(2), "mitigatioo measures must be
fully enforceable through permit cooditions, agreemeots, or other legally binding instrumeots." The
above-refereoced mitigatioo measures are fully eoforceable aod will require future legal actioo or
compliance aod proof will be showo in the MMRP. Therefore, the mitigation measures listed io the
commeot are adequate to mitigation air quality impacts, as stated io the measures.
e
Response 7-55
The mitigation measures do provide further guidaoce for staodards of compliaoce. For example,
AQ-5 indicates "Coostructioo equipmeot should be selected aod deployed considering the lowest
emissioo factors aod highest eoergy efficiency reasooably possible." The City, io coosultation with
SCAQMD, will monitor constructioo activity to eosure compliance with air quality mitigatioo
measures.
Response 7-56
e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9220
,i.
i.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
This comment speculates on the feasibility of additional mitigation measures to reduce air quality
impacts. This comment expresses argument and unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any
facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The more specific comments are addressed
below. The City notes in general that mitigation measures have been applied to the project
consistent with SCAQMD requirements and standards. SCAQMD is the agency responsible for
providing direction for the best means to achieve air quality improvements within the South Coast
Air Basin.
Response 7-57
The comment leller states that additional feasible construction mitigation is needed to address
significant and unavoidable NOx emissions resulting from the project. Refer to Responses 7-58
through 7-59 for responses to more specific comments associated with construction emissions. The
comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that mitigation measures applied by other air quality
agencies in different locations for different projects should be applied to mitigate speculative air
quality impacts of this project. The City disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this
project <l;re reasonable and adequate.
Response 7-58
The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that mitigation measures applied by a variety of
other air quality agencies in different jurisdictions for different projects should be applied to mitigate
air quality impacts of this project. The City disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for
this project are reasonable and adequate and mitigate PM" impacts to less than significant levels.
Specifically, the comment suggests the use of construction mitigation measures to mitigate fugitive
dust emissions deemed feasible by SCAQMD and other air quality districts. The project developer
will be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 403 by preparing a Fugitive Dust Control Plan,
per project mitigation measure AQ-7 and Rule 403 in the Fugitive Dust Implementation Handbook.
The comment lists other potential mitigation measures approved by other air districts. However,
other districts, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Clark County Heath
District, for example, manage air emissions from different areas of the United States. These districts
manage areas that have different air quality conditions and thereby require a different set of
measures. The project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan will require measures approved by SCAQMD
for construction projects within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Because the impacts are already
mitigated to less than significant levels, there is no need to add further mitigation measures.
Response 7-59
like with Comment 7-58, the comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that mitigation measures
applied by a variety of other air quality agencies in different jurisdictions for different projects should
be applied to mitigate air quality impacts of this project, specifically diesel exhaust. The City
disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate. As
stated in Response 7-58, these districts manage areas that have different air quality conditions and
thereby require a different set of measures. Additionally, project measure AQ-5 requires the use of
cleaner fuels and processes that utilize energy efficiency. No additional mitigation measures are
warranted. Mitigation measures AQ-2 and AQ-5 have been hereby revised to the following to
include additional examples for reducing vehicle trips during construction and operations and
include PuriNOx fuel use as a suggested alternative clean-fuel for the applicant to use:
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-221
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
AQ-2 The applicantjpermillee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as
well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall
include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and van pooling,
providinl! nrf~ferential narkine for car and vannoolinll. installim! electrir: vehicle fEV),
c:han~ine: stations. orovidinl'l nreferential narkine for EVs and comr:>r~~~eQ.. n::a,~I..r~,~ ~
vehicles. and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation
of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction
activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of
the medical offices.
.
AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction
activities, the applicantjpermillee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department)
that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to
reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles. such ~5 PuriNOx
fuel or a similar tvoe of fuel.. shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment
should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and
highest energy efficiency reasonably possible.
Response 7-60
like with Comments 7-58 and 7-59, the comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that mitigation
measures applied by a variety of other air quality agencies in different jurisdictions for different
projects should be applied to mitigate air quality impacts of this project. The City disagrees. The
mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate. The comment
leller recommends the use of California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified off-road engines that
are three years old or less. The SCAQMD has not yet required all construction projects within the
SCAB to use a certain percentage of newer vehicles. Additionally, project measure AQ-5
recommends the use of clean-fueled vehicles, which may include the use of newer engines that are
less than three years old or less. Please refer to Response 7-59 for the augmented mitigation
measures, AQ-2 and AQ-5. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
.
Response 7-61
like with Comments 7-58, 7-59 and 7-60, the comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that
mitigation measures applied by a variety of other air quality agencies in different jurisdictions for
different projects should be applied to mitigate air quality impacts of this project. The City
disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate.
The comment presents unsubstantiated opinion about the effectiveness of alternative post.
combustion controls and argues that these speculative alternatives should be required for the
project. The SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality and planning, implementing, and
enforcing programs designed to allain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards
in the district. The air quality analysis and mitigation measures in this EIR are consistent with the
SCAQMD recommendations, rules, and policies. The comment specifically suggests the use of
particulate traps and oxidation catalysts, among other controls. The use of zero volatile organic
compounds (VOC) paints will reduce ROG emissions by 95 percent (see mitigation measure AQ-14
and htto://www.aomd.gov/ordas/brochures/Suoer-Comoliant AIM.odf from SCAQMD). However,
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-222
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
NOx emissions will exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions. Therefore, a statement
of overriding considerations will be prepared for the project.
Response 7-62
Like with Comments 7-58, 7-59, 7-60 and 7-61, the comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion
that mitigation measures applied by a variety of other air quality agencies in different jurisdictions
for different projects should be applied to mitigate air quality impacts of this project. The City
disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate.
The comment offers unsubstantiated opinion that PM" and NOx emissions could be reduced for
this project with the requirement of PuriNOx fuel use. The SCAQMD has not yet required all
construction projects within the SCAB to use PuriNOx fuels. Please refer to Response 7-59 for the
augmented mitigation measures, AQ-2 and AQ-5. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Response 7-63
The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion and argument that additional mitigation measures
should be required for the operation of the project, and that that the Project operating emissions of
NOx and PM10s are "considerably underestimate[dJ". The City disagrees. The mitigation measures
recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate. The commentor has not provided any
facts about this project to indicate that additional mitigation measures are necessary or would be
effective. The comment also suggests the incorporation of mitigation measures listed in the
project's Initial Study. In the Initial Study, the use of electric-powered equipment and encouraging
construction employee ride-sharing are mentioned. With regard to electric-powered equipment,
mitigation measure AQ-5 includes this requirement: "In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles
shall be used where feasible." With regard to reducing construction traffic, mitigation measure AQ-
2 states in part: "The applicantjpermittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the
daily operations of the hospital facility." No additional mitigation is necessary.
Response 7-64
The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that additional mitigation measures should be
required for the operation of the project, and that that the Project operating emissions of NOx and
PMlOs are "considerably underestimate[dJ". The City disagrees. The mitigation measures
recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate. The comment offers unsubstantiated
opinion that a shopping list of other operational traffic mitigation measures should be implemented
but fails to offer any facts or analysis to explain why. The project includes mitigation measures AQ-
1, AQ-2, and AQ-17 to reduce traffic-related air pollutant emissions. These measures would require
coordination with the Riverside Transit Authority, the incorporation of Transportation Demand
Management techniques, and the promotion of alternative transportation with the goal of reducing
transportation-related air quality emissions. No additional operational traffic mitigation measures
are required because the measures identified in the EIR mitigate impacts to less than significant
levels.
Response 7-65
The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that mitigation measures applied by a variety of
other agencies in different jurisdictions for different projects should be applied to mitigate impacts
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-223
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
of this project. The City disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are
reasonable and adequate. The comment offers unsubstantiated opinion that a shopping list of
additional operational area mitigation measures be included for the proposed project. According to
the EIR, area source emissions would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD thresholds for
criteria pollutants. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3), "mitigation measures are
not required for effects which are not found to be significant." Therefore, area source mitigation
measures are not required for the proposed project.
.
Response 7-66
The comment states that mitigation for "urban heat island effect" should be included in the project.
The City disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and
adequate. The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that such an effect would or could
occur. Refer to Responses 7-67 and 7-68 for a discussion of potential mitigation for urban heat
island effect.
Response 7-67
This comment is a narrative argument, and does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or
conclusions in the EIR. The comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion that the project would
create an "urban heat island effect", suggesting that additional mitigation is needed. The City
disagrees. The mitigation measures recommended for this project are reasonable and adequate.
The comment appears to suggest that the project require 20 percent less paving to reduce the
impacts resulting from urban heat island effect. Extensive landscaping required in the parking areas
per City Municipal Code standards will reduce heat effects associated with parking lot paving to less
than significant levels.
.
Response 7-68
This comment is a lengthy narrative discussion about Energy Star roof products for different
projects, and does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR for this
Project. To the extent that the comment recommends the use of Energy Star roof products to
reduce the impacts resulting from urban heat island effect, the comment is noted. Project measure
AQ-3 recommends the use of energy-€fficient building standards, which may include the use of
Energy Star roof products. The goal of this measure is to reduce energy needs, including cooling
needs, resulting from heat caused by paved areas and roofs. Please refer to Response 7-38 for
additional discussion about urban heat island effect.
Response 7-69
The comment expresses argument and unsubstantiated opinion that the mitigation measures
proposed by the City are "hollow and totally inadequate" The City disagrees. The payment of "fair
share" traffic fees is an adequate mitigation if the traffic impacts are cumulative in nature. The
impacts to the 1-15/Highway 79 South interchange and the other intersections along Highway 79
South were correctly termed to be cumulative since the intersections either already operate below
City standards or were also impacted by many other cumulative projects. Since the impacts are
cumulative, the payment of fees is an adequate mitigation. Please also note that the project
applicant, in addition to paying fees, will be required to make physical improvements to directly
address project needs and impacts. Further, constitutional limits on exactions necessitate fee
.
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-224
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
programs rather than requiring full improvements from projects with only limited impacts on a given
facility.
Response 7-70
This comment is a narrative argument, and does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or
conclusions in the EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in record of
project approval. Recirculation is not a prerequisite to adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Cumulative traffic impacts at intersections already experiencing poor operating conditions (the l-
IS/Highway 79 South interchange) will be significant and unavoidable. As part of its long-range
planning, the City has identified all feasible measures in the City of T emecula General Plan to
address anticipated conditions at this location, including use of alternative transit modes over the
long term. To encourage transit use, the following additional mitigation measure will be required:
T-5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City will consult with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) regarding RTA's possible interest in establishing a bus turn-out or similar transit
accommodation at the project site. The applicant/permittee will be required to incorporate
any such plans and facilities into revised site plans and other plans prepared for the project,
and shall further be required to fund a fair-share apportion of the facilities requested by RTA.
Such facilities must be in place prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I of the
project.
Even with this additional measure, project cumulative traffic impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable since the possible trip reduction effects associated with this measure cannot be
assessed. Per CEQA, the City will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to
cumulative traffic impacts.
Response 7-71
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. URBEMIS2002 estimates emissions resulting from construction
equipment and duration of use. The program does not estimate the amount of trips to be
generated during the construction phase. As the comment indicates, the program generates an
average daily trip amount for the project during the operational phase only. Additionally, the
URBEMIS2002 model includes assumptions regarding worker commutes, but the program does not
allow for input of worker trips plus the amount of construction vehicles to be used per day as a
combined amount. It is all inherent in the program with the goal of estimating construction
emissions, rather than determining construction daily trips. The construction traffic amounts are
much less than the day-to-day traffic generation forecast which the mitigation measures are based
upon. Therefore, the construction impacts would not be in excess of the impacts already identified.
Response 7-72
The traffic study conservatively assumes that transit is not utilized to access the site. Providing a bus
turnout on Highway 79 South could help reduce trips, but facilitating use of transit does not provide
sufficient mitigation to avoid project impacts. See Response 7-70.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9225
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 7-73
.
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The project parking study indicates that the project forecasted
demand based on standards contained in the City of T emecula Municipal Code; thus, it is accurate
to term the parking impacts not significant.
Response 7-74
This comment and does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The
proper reference document for identifying minimum parking standards is the City of T emecula
Municipal Code, as this is the relevant regulatory document. As concluded in the Initial Study
(Appendix A of the EIR), parking provided for the project exceeds the Municipal Code requirement
and no significant environmental impacts will result.
Response 7-75
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. There is no parking deficiency, as demonstrated by the EIR
analysis (Draft EIR, page 3-8). There is no need to construct a parking structure for this project.
Response 7-76
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The comment describes the commentor's view of the CEQA
requirement for identifying baseline conditions accurately and fully, and incorrectly asserts generally
that the Draft EIR does not do so with regard to traffic and geologic setting. The EIR provides an
adequate baseline for traffic setting. The traffic environmental setting is found on pages 4-70
through 4-79 of the Draft EIR. Geologic impacts were found to be less than significant during the
Initial Study analysis; therefore, the geologic setting is not necessary to include in the EIR. Detailed
responses are provided below in response to the more specific comments in this regard.
.
Response 7-77
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The baseline condition used in the traffic analysis was developed
by adding traffic associated with 1 7 cumulative projects (identified as new projects after March
2004) to the March 2004 traffic counts (Draft EIR, pages 4-72 and 4-81). Supplemental counts for
intersections in the immediate project vicinity were taken in July of 2005, with the intersection of
Pio Pico/DePortola counted in November of 2005.
Response 7-78
The study area includes the analysis of over 20 intersections and street segments (Draft EIR, pages
4-73 and 4-77 through 4-79). Only one intersection was counted on July 7, 2005 since this
intersection was added to the analysis later in the process (Draft EIR, page 4-72). This date is three
days after July 4~, and despite the EIR analysis, the commentor has not provided any evidence that
indicate that traffic is significantly less on July 7~ as compared to other times of the year. Even if
.
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-226
i.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
baseline traffic at this intersection was increased by 20%, the conclusions of the traffic study would
not change.
Response 7-79
The comment is incorrect. Traffic counts from 17 cumulative projects were added to the existing
counts to form the baseline condition to which project traffic was added (Draft EIR, page 4-81).
Response 7-80
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The City first circulated a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
for public review in March of 2005. The original traffic study (dated November 2004) was prepared
for this study effort and time frame. Subsequently, with the decision to prepare an EIR, the City
directed the project traffic engineer to conduct a supplemental analysis. As noted on page 4-67 of
the EIR: "Also, updated traffic counts were obtained at selected locations for focused analysis of the
changed conditions, and the background future traffic growth was adjusted to account for
cumulative projects and time that had passed since preparation of the November 4, 2004 study."
Thus, the traffic analysis in the project EI R adequately represents baseline conditions at the time the
Notice of Preparation was released and the Draft EIR prepared. No additional counts, calculations
or analysis are necessary.
Response 7-81
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR
assumption that 1 7 cumulative projects are all completed prior to the subject project results in a
very conservative baseline analysis. Adding a growth factor in addition to the cumulative projects
makes the analysis more conservative. A 4% growth factor was included for this project, resulting in
an even more conservative baseline analysis (Draft EIR, page 4-81).
Response 7-82
The comment is incorrect. The background without project (baseline) condition to which project
traffic was added included a 4% growth factor in addition to traffic from 17 cumulative projects.
This baseline condition provides a very conservative approach to assessing project impacts.
Response 7-83
Mitigation measures are not linked to years since the timing of construction can never be assured.
Instead, the mitigation is correctly linked to the number of hospital beds and the square footage of
the medical office, meaning the direct impact created by project components. A two-phased
analysis was conducted in the EIR to provide an analysis that reflects accelerated impacts, which a
multi-phase analysis would not do. This is because once the first phase of development is
exceeded, all mitigation measures will need to be implemented.
Response 7-84
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-227
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
The traffic study prepared in November of 2004 assumed the near-term construction of 17
cumulative projects, some of which may never be built or will not be built for a very long time.
Information for four additional cumulative projects, which have begun processing since the start of
the proposed project cumulative impact analysis was completed, were obtained from City of
Temecula staff and included in the Draft EIR analysis. Additionally, traffic counts from two
additional intersections were analyzed and included in the September 22, 2005 Traffic Impact
Analysis Addendum that was include as Appendix D of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR provides a
comprehensive analysis of annual traffic volume growth. Also, please see Response #7-82 regarding
the 4% growth factor. No additional traffic analysis is required.
.
Response 7-85
Once the first phase of development is exceeded, all mitigation measures will need to be
implemented. Please refer to Responses 7-77 through 7-84.
Response 7-86
This comment is a lengthy narrative expressing the commentor's generalized interpretation of
CEQA requirements, but does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR.
To the extent the comment implies that the project E1R cumulative impact analysis is flawed, it does
so by citing examples regarding how cumulative impact analysis might be performed for different
projects. The cumulative impact analysis for this project is adequate (Section 6 of the Draft EIR).
No specific comment is made as to how the subject project cumulative impact analysis fails.
Specific responses to specific comments are presented below.
Response 7-87
.
The comment states that no cumulative impact analysis was conducted for ten of the CEQA
checklist environmental issues. As provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), "An EIR
should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR." The
EIR extensively examines those issues identified in the Initial Study as potentially significant (Section
4 of the Draft EIR). For those areas determined in the Initial Study to be either less than significant
or of no potential impact, the project is not considered to result in impacts of concern (Draft EIR,
pages 1-7 and 1-8). Thus, the cumulative impact analysis, as allowed by CEQA, properly does not
consider these issue areas.
Response 7-88
Existing plans have been prepared to address regional, cumulative storm water runoff impacts, and
requirements imposed on all projects in the vicinity adequately address storm water and water
quality concerns. Specifically, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
has prepared master drainage plans to address cumulative drainage concerns, and all projects must
provide drainage improvements consistent with such plans and/or pay Area Drainage Plan fees.
This comprehensive approach to storm water management avoids cumulative impact.
With regard to cumulative water quality issues, the EIR states:
Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis by
adherence to requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
.
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-228
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Typical measures to implement the NPDES program could include covering all outside storage
facilities, vegetated swales, detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs.
The NPDES system has been put in place to address cumulative, regional impacts. Continued
implementation of the NPDES permitting requirements will reduce cumulative impacts to a
less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2)
As discussed in the EIR, the NPDES system adequately addresses cumulative water quality impacts.
Moreover, the project is also subject to the City's storm water ordinances, which have been
developed to assure compliance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Municipal Permit. The purpose of the Municipal Permit. is to ensure that new development in the
City does not cause or contribute to the exceedance of a water quality objective.
Concerning water supply, the project was reviewed by the Rancho California Water District. The
District has issued a WSA in which it concludes that the District has adequate supplies of potable
. water to supply the project and all reasonably foreseeable future projects (Draft EIR, pages 4-33
through 4-35).
Finally, the comment reiterates the commentor's unsubstantiated opinion related to offsite LUFTs or
LUSTs. The comment speculates that offsite LUFTs may have a cumulative environmental impact
on the project. Any groundwater contamination posed by the offsite LUFTs are not part of or
related to this project. Such contamination is not a direct or indirect significant impact posed by
this project, so a cumulative impact analysis is not appropriate.
Response 7-89
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. A list of projects in the vicinity is included in the traffic study in
Appendix D. As discussed on page 6-3 of the EIR: "All other proposed projects must either be
consistent with the General Plan, which has been formulated to achieve compatible land use
patterns, or deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Commission and/or City Council in actions to
approve projects." Because these cumulative projects do not propose wholesale changes to the
General Plan, no cumulative land use impact will result.
Response 7-90
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The City's accepted approach to traffic impact analyses - and
one used by jurisdictions throughout California - is to assess project impacts at the time a proposed
project is completed, not in the distant General Plan build-out future. This approach provides a
better picture of project impacts, as to analyze the longer time frame would dilute the impact of the
project (with a larger volume of future background traffic).
Response 7-91
As noted in Response 7-82, a 4% growth factor was' added to the background traffic volumes to
account for the time elapsed since counts were conducted. The EIR's cumulative impact analysis
for Air Quality is adequate (Draft EIR, page 6-2). The four additional projects included in the
cumulative traffic analysis include the: 1. Butterfield Ranch Shopping Center, 2. Bullerfield Ranch
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9229
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Self Storage, 3. Creekside Plaza, and 4. Silver Oaks Senior Condos (Appendix D of the Draft EIR). .
Additionally, the Apis Plaza Traffic Study is included in this Final EIR as an Appendix, and, although
not attached to the Initial Study, it was available to the public throughout the public review period.
Response 7-92
This comment is a narrative expressing the commentor's interpretation of CEQA requirements, but
does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
Response 7-93
The EIR adequately addresses consistency with the General Plan to the extent necessary for CEQA.
See EIR pages 4-37 to 4-42. The EIR fully addresses all impacts determined by the Initial Study to be
potentially significant. Air Quality impacts are addressed in the EIR at pages 4-17 to 4-29, and are
reduced to the greatest extent feasible by mitigation measures AQ-l through AQ-17. Refer to
Responses 7-58 through 7-68 for more discussion on the air quality mitigation measures.
Response 7-94
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The comment refers to language for Public/Institutional Facilities
land use designation in the City's General Plan. The project is not a public institutional facility.
Under the Professional Office (PO) designation, which applies to the project site, medical office
buildings are permitted uses and hospitals are conditionally permitted uses. The EIR fully addresses
all impacts determined by the Initial Study to be potentially significant for the project.
As part of its long-range planning, the City has identified all feasible measures in the City of .
T emecula General Plan to address anticipated conditions at this location, including use of
alternative transit modes over the long term. To encourage transit use, the following additional
mitigation measure will be required:
T-5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City will consult with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) regarding RTA's possible interest in establishing a bus turn-out or similar transit
accommodation at the project site. The applicant/permittee will be required to incorporate
any such plans and facilities into revised site plans and other plans prepared for the project,
and shall further be required to fund a fair-share apportion of the facilities requested by RTA.
Such facilities must be in place prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I of the
project.
The proposed project is not inconsistent with the City's General Plan; no further environmental
analysis is required.
Response 7-95
The project proponent will be required to comply with the RTA letter dated July 21, 2004 that was
included in the Draft EIR in Appendix A. Compliance will be enforced by a condition of approval
from the City. The letter recommends improvements for a bus turnout and shelter on Highway 79
South that would serve the hospitals transit needs. Compliance with this condition of approval,
mitigation measure T-5, and Title 8, Chapter 8.08, Section 8.08.070 D (Trip Reduction Plan Option)
of the Municipal Code, will ensure the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9~230
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Drah ElR
City's Municipal Code mandating trip reduction measures for new developments. No further
environmental analysis is required.
Response 7-96
This comment expresses argument and unsubstantiated opinion. This comment provides a closing
statement to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo comments on the Draft EIR. The Project EIR is
adequate for the project. No significant revisions are necessary; and recirculation is unwarranted.
Response 7-97, 7-99, and 7-100
The comments provide an introduction to Tom Brohard's letter (Exhibit 1 to Letter 7), including a
summary of Mr. Brohard's analysis, a project summary, and Mr. .Brohard's education and
experience. No response is necessary for these comments.
Response 7-98
The comment provides a summary of Mr. Brohard's comments, regarding traffic analysis in the Draft
EIR. All of the comments are addressed in the previous responses. Please refer to Responses 7-47
through 7-51, Responses 7-77 through 7-85, Response 7-90, and Responses 7-71 through 7-74,
regarding Mr. Brohard's list summary of comments.
Response 7-101
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the ElR. See Response 7-83.
Response 7-102
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Response 7-45.
Response 7-103
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Responses 7-47 and 7-48.
Response 7-104
See Responses 7-45 and 7-46.
Response 7-105
See Response 7-50.
Response 7-106
See Response 7-51.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-231
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 7-107
e
See Responses 7-77, 7-78, 7-79, and 7-80.
Response 7-108
See Response 7-83.
Response 7-109
See Response 7-84.
Response 7-110
See Responses 7-81, 7-82, 7-83,7-84, and 7-85.
Response 7-111
A traffic study has already been completed, and reviewed by the City, which addresses the build out
of the City General Plan. It is not the responsibility of individual development projects to evaluate
traffic conditions at build out of the City's General Plan. Examining impacts at the time a project is
to be completed provides a more conservative analysis, as General Plan buildout traffic volumes
would further dilute the contributions made by the project.
Response 7-112
.
See Response 7-69.
Response 7-113
See Response 7-71.
Response 7-114
See Response 7-72.
Response 7-115
See Responses 7-73, 7-74, and 7-75.
Response 7-116
An analysis of the site plan was conducted which. resulted in mitigation number T-l and several
changes to the site plan. Meetings were held with City staff to specifically discuss the access and on-
site circulation. The current site plan provides for the anticipated queues and meets City sight
distance standards. The on-site circulation was reviewed extensively with the project architects who
specialize in hospital campus development.
Response 7-117
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-232
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to Mr. Brohard's comments on
the Draft EIR.
Response 7-118
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Responses 2-2, 2-7, 2-16, 7-17 through 7-20. There are no "open fuel leak" cases on the project
site. An EIR has been prepared for the project.
Response 7-119
See Responses 7-21 through 7-24
Response 7-120
See response 7-24
Response 7-121
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Responses 2-15, 4-4, 7-39, 7-40, 7-41, and 7-88.
Response 7-122
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Responses 2-15, 4-4, 7-39, 7-41, 7-42 and 7-88
Response 7-123
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. See
Responses 2-16, 7-20, 7-42, 7-88.
Response 7-124
This comment is a narrative expressing the commentor's interpretation of CEQA requirements, but
does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Refer to Responses 7-5
and 7-6 for a discussion of CEQA requirements.
Response 7-125
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Mitigation measures for the project are adequate. Refer to
Responses 6-9, 7-19, 7-70, 7-89, 7-93, 7-94, 7-95 and 7-111 for a discussion of General Plan
consistency.
Response 7-126
erN OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-233
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Refer to Response 7-9 and 7-10 for a discussion of the project
description and environmental setting.
e
Response 7-127
The comment is incorrect. Refer to Response 7-10 for a discussion of the project construction
schedule.
Response 7-128
Refer to Response 7-11 for a discussion of a grading plan or cut-and-fill analysis.
Response 7-129
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Refer to Response 7-12 for a discussion of mechanical
equipment.
Response 7-130
This comment does not present any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Refer to
Response 7-91 for an evaluation of cumulative impacts.
Response 7-131
.
This comment is a narrative argument and expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state
any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Refer to Response 7-25 for a discussion
of ambient air quality standards.
Response 7-132
Refer to Response 7-26 for a discussion of PM,., emissions.
Response 7-133
Refer to Response 7-27 for a discussion of heath risk assessments. No health risk assessments are
necessary for this project.
Response 7-134
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not present any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The project does not "improperly" defer mitigation. Refer to
Responses 7-54 and 7-55 for a discussion of feasibility of mitigation measures.
Response 7-135
Refer to Response 7-28 for a discussion of construction emissions.
.
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-234
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 7-136
Refer to Response 7-29 for a discussion of the construction schedule.
Response 7-137
Refer to Response 7-30 for a discussion of model default values.
Response 7-138
Refer to Response 7-31 for an evaluation of fugitive dust emissions from track-out and wind erosion.
Response 7-139
Refer to Response 7-32 for a discussion of operational emissions.
Response 7-140
Refer to Response 7-33 for a discussion of operational emissions sources.
Response 7-141
Refer to Response 7-34 for an evaluation of natural gas emissions.
Response 7-142
Refer to Response 7-35 for a discussion of target year results during operations.
Response 7-143
Refer to Response 7-36 for a discussion of traffic emissions.
Response 7-144
Refer to Response 7-37 for a discussion of secondary emissions from electricity.
Response 7-145
Refer to Response 7-38 for a discussion of so-called urban heat island effect.
Response 7-146
Refer to Responses 7-54 and 7-56 for a discussion of additional feasible mitigation measures.
Response 7-147
Refer to Response 7-57 for a discussion of construction emissions.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-235
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 7-148
.
Refer to Response 7-58 for a discussion of fugitive dust mitigation measures.
Response 7-149
Refer to Response 7-59 for a discussion of diesel exhaust mitigation measures.
Response 7-150
Refer to Response 7-60 for a discussion of construction equipment.
Response 7-151
Refer to Response 7-61 for a discussion of post-construction controls.
Response 7-152
Refer to Response 7-62 for a discussion of PuriNOx fuel.
Response 7-153
Refer to Responses 7-63 and 7-64 for a discussion of additional feasible operational mitigation.
Response 7-154
.
Refer to Response 7-65 for a discussion of operational area mitigation measures.
Response 7-155
Refer to Responses 7-66, 7-67, and 7-68 for a discussion of mitigation for urban heat island effect.
Response 7-156
Refer to Response 7-96 for an overall conclusion of comments.
.
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-236
.
.
.
9.1 Responses to Comments
on the Draft fiR Received after
Close of Public Comment Period
This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received after
the close of the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) on October 28, 2005 through
publication of this document prior to the December 7, 2005 Planning Commission hearing.
Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines the City of Temecula requested a shortened review period to the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.
Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to comments and information received on the
Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (GQR-I~::l ;'~;";.3"e4) or underline (text added tn the Final FIR).
Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and are not
indicated by stril(e8~t or underline text. Revisions and clarifications are included as Errata pages
within this document.
Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each leller have been
coded as well to facilitate responses. The coding system continues using the format established in
Section 9.0 of the Final EIR.
Comments Received that Address Environmental Issues
The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals after the close of the
noticed public review period:
8. J.B. "Pete" Olhasso, Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors,
October 31,2005.
9. Victoria Mata, Trumark Companies, November 3,2005.
10. Board of Directors, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, November 14, 2005 (received
November 16, 2005).
11. David Oberbeck, via facsimile transmittal on November 14, 2005 (received November 16,
2005).
12. Roger Ziemer, President, Murrieta Temecula Group, November 15, 2005.
13. Linda Betts, via email on November 16, 2005.
14. Jon Silver, President, Covenant Development, via email on November 15, 2005.
15. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, November 16, 2005
16. 0.8. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, November 16, 2005.
17. Helen Chichester, November 16, 2005.
18. Don L. Rhodes, November 21,2005.
CflY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL \1v\PACT REPO.u-
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-238
ASSOClA1ION
MANIIGU.iENT
~!
11
;;;
Equity Ii
~'l
MANAGF.Ml!:NT . ; i
';1
4'l4:lO 1MN(.'HESJEIl'IlO.
ICMl:CUIA. CA 92s9o
'PH: (961)~
FAX: ('101) 296-55:/4
u ~ aii1l~ ~
NO'J 0 3 201)5
---
October 31, 200~
~ie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Oty ofTemecula :
43200 BusIness PIIrk Drive
Temecula CA 92589-9033
Letter 8
Subject:
Santiago Ranchos r. _..~ ~f Owners AssocIatlon
PrQposed Zone Olange
_._- --"-~"
Re:
Dear Ms. ubnoskEi:
. ~'i
The Santiago Ranchos f,v",", ~I Owners Assodatlon Board of DIrectors, on :behalf of the entire .n
membership, stro~ believes designation of the ~. o\,o"ad zone change to a~ an AD (six) stoIy .;1
structure Is misIea~lng to an except those In the aJIlStruction trade. We feel a~ urgent need to see ;!
something placed onsile at the ..,v..u~..J hei9ht, showing eveJyOnl!, including the Planning j!
c....... .:"';011, the iinpact such a structure would impose. , i
,.,
We u",L~.d th!s concept was brought up In a planning meeting and'~;~-1.~ by the applicant.,
PIeese.respoI1d in !writing as'lXl:why :tl:1e. """';;_.~ declined this request. It wOuld be as simple as .
flying balloons at the indicated height. The Board of D~......~ sees no reason this matter cannot be . i:i
resolved in a tlmely manner before the November 16, 2005 Planning 0........;.;..;.... Meeting. If the . _",t..!.!
applicant declines ito provide the COmmission and neighbors a structure (i.e.: balloons) indicating
. the height oftheir:..,o,..~.J building, we feel the applk:atlon for ..,,":Lratrori by the Comml$ionj:!
should be puUed ~m the November 16, 2005 agenda.
Should you have ahy questions or concerns, please feel free IXl contact me at (951) 296-5640.
Sincerely,
~
....,~;-.
.
"~>
lBO/jib
CC: NM
CorrsICity i
Planning COmmissioners
COAASlcm~~~2.QN~OW<<iESRH
:...;.
, ',: ;!.u ',_ ". ,', . ~ . ._....... :. 1', .~:'.
.;,
:Jl.
.:n_
H
.
H
~'I
11
:;l
~ i
~ !
.Ii
~,i
;:i
,Ii
:;.!
~ I
,.
.
8-1
~'l
~.
i
'..
~ !
~ ~
~ !
~ :
~ !
.H
~.!
::-!
.
.
.
i.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
8. J.B. "Pete" Olhasso, Santiago Ranchos Properly Owners Association Board of Directors,
Ocober 31, 2005.
Response 8-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. A common and
accepted method of analysis for aesthetics impacts in a CEQA document are visual simulations. The
analysis provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR provides two visual simulations that
show the proposed project in the built environment. The City of T emecula accepts this method of
analysis to demonstrate aesthetics impacts of the proposed project. Additionally, the applicant did
not "reject" a request to float balloons on the site to demonstrate the proposed building height as
suggested by the comment. To the contrary, in order to demonstrate the proposed maximum
hospital tower height on the site and to allow people to visually experience that height, the project
applicant floated tethered balloons on the project site on November 12, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAllMPAG REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUlA
9-240
I
rn'l1mark
Companies
NovembO!\' 3, ~OO5
.
Ms. Debbie ublloskc
PllWling Oil'e~l\Ir
City of Temeeula
Plllllning ~ent
4nOO Bll$jn~ 1'.arIc D.tivu
Temecvla. C~Jjtbmia 92589
Letter 9
RE.: ComT'itcnts on Of aft E!nvinmmCl1tallmpact Report tot lcrnccula Rcgionl\l
Ilo.~pital (SCHIt 20(5031017)
Dear Ms. U~oslco;
Trumart Companies is YAY~..;ng tb." culitIemcIlt of an approximately 7.3-;scrO project
~ite dir~.cl!y Ii> lite ca.~t Ilf1he pl'.\po,cd Temecula Regionoll HIl"p;t.1 {~(,,!,ji~l) for the
PWPUSI:$ of 4evefopinll a smior l'Cllidential develllpmcnt. The B{Illlicetiou tor the
proposed sen.lor ~iclentiuJ development WIlS filed with tbe Cily of'I'\llllccUta (City) on
Augu.~t 9, 20pS SlId the ~'IltitJcmcnl for development is anticipllted to he coinl'leted by
January 20()(S. '{'ite requested entitlcmentlllll>w8 for the development of llJ>VnlxiI...;e'Y
112 attached;two-.;tory residential units. a commOlJ recrelllional facility lIIld open space,
and pedestrian and vehicular aecess.
'rrumarlc Cojnpan;es submits the fol1owina comments related to land \Lqe oompatibility
witb. ~tito three oftb.e project chara~1:t:ristics of the hospital that are loculed diJ-e<:tly
to tb.o: WC$f o'f the proposed senior residential development. These Wee JIIOjcct
r:hancteristies, which are d=ibed on pap 1-3 and 3-1 of the Draft Em; are: lbe 60-
100t by 60-1"001 hclillad proposed near the ncmheast OOIllet of the hoSpital; the trUck
loading areailocated at tbe ClISWn edge of tile hospital. to the south ofthe/JeJipad; and
facilities pla/1tloCllted at the eastern edge of lb." hospital, to lb.e soulb. oftlie helipad. The
COlmnents ale fiS follows:
AesthetiCS:' The Ilnalysis of visual character or quality provided n" p~ 4-5 through 4-
14 in SCQti.m 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR t'ailed to analyze pOtential View/aesthetic
imoaets md light IlJld glaze impacts on the proposed senior residential deVIelopment silt
loClltcd tl1lllicdialely to the e&.~t oflbe propost:d hospital site. Please cevisiol the discussion 9-2
in the Draft'EIR. to include Iln analysis of the poteotlal view/aesthetic im'piacts and !igld
and glare ~acts DO the S<:lIior l'C!lidential development due to the dllVeloPment ",filiI:
proposed h~spital This oeed$ to specifically address the potential 1mp1Wl. to the
It).,J..J:'7 RANC:Ht) l'^RKWAV S01.n'ti . lAKE. FI,)'\,F.ST. \.A 92"(o.\n
.
9-1
.
.
.
. .
,,'";y .~ed scni<ir residential devo:Iopmcnt from the construction and operation of tho
heUpad, the t:nick loading area, lIDO the plan!.
Air Quality: ~ analyuis oflong.-tenn impacts to lli1' quality provided on ~agC8 4-24
throush 4-26 iQ Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. tailed to adequately analyze the
long-tenn ~ of tho proposed hoSllital on feponai and local air qIlality; PlI<llSC
revise the disc:bs$jon in the Draft erR to inQIude an lIII4Iysls of the impal'ts oilbo OJlBOlng 9-3
operation oft1ie proposed hospital. This needs to sjleCifieally addtcls tbe ~tiaI
impac:lll to "'aPonaI and loc:aJ air quality due to operatiOll of the belipad. tho iruclc loading
area, and tho plant (including the maintenance and testing of cm_._. ",. powtr
generators).
9-2
Cont.
Land Use ad PlaDDiDI: The analysis oHand use compatibility with ..... ~_..l!ing land
uses provided:on page 4-41 in Section 4.4, Land Use and planning, of the Dralt EIR
failed to onaIJi'.te the potcntialllll!d use compatibility im.pact5 on the .' .I'.~;;.: SI:Iliur
tc3idcntial dllirelopment site located immediately to Ihe _1 of the propm;ed hospital s;te. 9-4
Pleas<l revise the di..,u..ion In tbe OraftEIR to mclUde an llJllIlysis oflhe pOtential land
use compatibility impacts on the senior wsidcntial dcvc;lopmCllt due to the development
oftha hospitaL This Deeds to specifically address thepotcntial impact. to the proposed
senior l'8Sidential dovelopment from the oporation ,,1' the helipad, the truck loading 1I1"'"
and the plont8nd the -ooated aesthetic, air quality, and no;... impact5 from the
"_ _";':on of tiIese project characteristics. :
.
. .
Noise: Tho ahalysis of'operalio~lated 1lDis~ provided on pages 4-58 ~u8h 4-63 in
Seetiou4.S,l'!oise, of the Dn1ft BIR failtd to analyr.e potential noise impac!B on tile
proposed sct$r resident/a! development site located immediately to the cait of the
...."1' .~_J Terilecula Hospital site. Please twise the diSCllSliiotl In the DrattelR to include 9-5
an analysiS ot the potential noise impacts on the senior residential developriJent due to the
devclopmcnl ~fthe hospital. This needs to specifically address the potClltilll impadS to
the ... ".."~..J ~enior residential development from the operation of the helipad, the truck
loading uea, 'and the plant (inc1udillgtha maintenance lIIId tc:sting of em _~._.._' power
generators). :
. .
Trumark Coljtpanies requestS that, prior to takins aotion on the propo$"d 'l'emecula
Hospital proj~ please provide the written res!lOD'8S and the revised analj$es indicated
above. ThC$~ wrillell respIlIlSeS and revised analyses shOuld be transmitted to tromark
Companies aitentlon Victoria Mala at the address inmoated 00 the IcltCIhead.
While Trom8rlc C. ..,..':es strongly Sl...~..~ tho development of the Temi:cwa Regional
Hospital on 1I1e site where it is proposed to be located, we need the ~is of the
potential imP,al;U of the proposed hospital to be reflec;ted in the cnviromru:i1tal
documcntati<m in ordct to protect the pending entitlcmCllt lOr the proposei/ senior
residential d~opmC\llt and lh~ future health and safety of its residents. We have every
c:ontidence ~ the City will require that the issues indicated be ad<quatGly addressed in
the Response to COllllllentsIFinaJ EJR and any eh;mses to the de$i8l2 of th.. projeot
9-6
.
. .
characteristics :will be reflected in the final CIItillc:ll1ent approved for tile proPosed
hospital. . .
~~'.- mt~
J.~~~
Ce: Emery,apps, City QfTemccula Scuior Planner
9-6
Cont.
.
.
.
I.
.
i.
9.
Victoria Mata, Trumark Companies, November 3, 2005.
Response 9-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Trumark Companies comments on the Draft EIR. No response is
required. Specific responses are provided below to adc!ress specific comments in the body of the
letter.
Response 9-2
The application for the referenced senior housing development was submitted to the City of
T emecula approximately one year after the City accepted the application for the proposed hospital
project as complete, after circulation of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration in March of
2005, and after the initial public hearing scheduled for the hospital in April of 2005. The proposed
hospital project has not changed since the application was released for public review and comment.
The Trumark Companies has not previously presented any letter or public comment regarding the
subject hospital project until this letter.
Features of the hospital project have been known and available for public review for some time.
The Draft EIR for the subject project was nearly complete at the time Trumark first submilled its
application to the City on August 9, 2005. As such, it becomes incumbent upon any person or
entity (i.e. Trumark) submilling a development application subsequent to the hospital application
and its public review period to assess that subsequent project's relationship to the earlier and
reasonably foreseeable project (i.e. the hospital).
The aesthetics analysis beginning on page 4-3 of the EIR recognizes the adjacent referenced
property as zoned Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO), and
analyzes potential impact based on these zones and the uses generally permitted; the proposed
senior housing development requires a conditional use permit. As noted on page 4-5 of the E1R, the
project will provide for buildings to be centered on the site and will include extensive perimeter
landscaping. These project features will avoid adverse aesthetic impacts relative to surrounding
development. Also, the three mitigation measures stated on page 4-15 will avoid potential light and
glare impacts on adjacent uses, including Trumark's proposed project.
Response 9-3
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The
comment does not indicate as to how the air quality analysis is deficient, other than suggesting a
need to examine truck emissions, emissions from the generators, and helicopter operations. The air
quality analysis beginning on page 4-17 of the EIR fully analyzes short-term (construction related)
and long-term (operational) impacts of the project. Truck operations are analyzed as part of the
mobile source emissions. Generator equipment is regulated separately by the SCAQMD and must
comply with strict point-source emissions regulations. Helicopter activities are anticipated to be
infrequent (average of one operation per month, with no more than six); helicopters are regulated
by federal, not local, air pollution control agencies. The EIR includes 17 mitigation measures to
reduce project construction and operational air pollutant emissions. The EIR fully discloses the
potential air quality impacts and incorporates feasible mitigation. Nonetheless, the air quality
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMfCULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9.244
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
analysis concludes that short-term and long-term impacts will be significant and unavoidable,
requiring adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Draft EIR, page 4-29).
.
Response 9-4
See Response 9-2. The proposed hospital project and site plan were public information and the
DEIR preparation was underway many months prior to when the Trumark Companies submitted its
application. Since the Trumark Companies' project application was submitted many months
following that of the proposed hospital project, it is incumbent upon that applicant (Trumark) to
consider known land uses and land use applications deemed by the City to be complete, and to
examine how such known and proposed or reasonably foreseeable uses may affect that subsequent
land use application.
The land use analysis in the EIR (pages 4-38 and 4-39) recognizes the adjacent referenced property
as zoned for commercial and office uses, and the EIR analyzes potential impact based on this zone
and the uses generally permilled; the proposed senior housing development requires a conditional
use permit. On page 4-41 of the Draft EIR, the analysis concludes that the proposed hospital
project is consistent with existing and planned surrounding. land uses, and that the site design
respects surrounding uses. The E1R concludes that impact will be less than significant.
Response 9-5
See Response 9-2. The proposed hospital project and site plan was public information and the
DEIR preparation was underway many months prior to when the Trumark Companies submitted its
application. Since the T rum ark Companies' project application was submitted many months
following that of the proposed hospital project, it is incumbent upon that applicant (Trumark) to
consider known land uses and land use applications deemed by the City to be complete, to
consider all planned activities associated with such uses, and to examine how such known and
proposed or reasonably foreseeable uses may affect that subsequent land use application.
.
Project noise impacts were assessed based upon the Professional Office zone on the adjacent
property and the office and commercial uses generally permitted; the proposed senior housing
development requires a conditional use permit. The EIR concludes that noise from on-site activity
will not exceed City noisejland use compatibility standards (page 4-65). Restrictions will be placed
on loading dock operations (see mitigation measure N-4 on page 4-65). While noise associated
with mechanical equipment also is not anticipated to exceed these standards, mitigation measure N-
1 on page 4-66 is included .to ensure compliance over the long term. Helicopter noise associated
with a maximum possible six events is concluded to be significant and unavoidable due to the
annoyance factor (EIR page 4-66).
Response 9~
This comment provides a closing statement to the Trumark Companies' comments on the Draft EIR
and presents no further specific comment on the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
9-245
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
.
CrTY Of TEMECULA
.
.
.
.'.'::", ,i,i..:.-....... '
--":-".':""...
NOVl 62005
l4I Rancbitcs Hameawners A-ia1icm
P.o. Bax 471, Temet1tIa, CA 92593
Phaae (951) 2964J030, E-lW1: Irhoallilhotmail.com, Website: hbaa.cam
0Iftcer8 ..., ".,~.. ,.;.
1'1_'" NealZIlI
VIce PnlsIdenl, Don Stowe
~=.MarianGuy Letter 10
[I; ...., '. 2005-2006
JeffT... ,..-... ...~J
Dee MessIng Itfsh
Kathleen Stowe
linda Doucetl
Chuc:kGo ..,...
November 14, 2005
David Mathewson
Ron Guerriero
Dennis Chiniaeff
John Telesio
Stanley Harter
Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92592
Dea.r Mr. Papp:
The City of Ternecula issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft' EIR) for the Temecula
Regional Hospital Project. The proposed project is located on
about 35 acres located north of Highway 79 South, South of De
portola Road and west of Margarita Road in the City of Temecula.
The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHOA) previously
submitted comments on the original Initial Study. because the
proposed hospital project is located effectively in the front
yard of our neighborhood, and actually includes parcels that are
within the boundaries of the Los Ranchitos Homeowers
Association. We have assembled the following corrunents, which
include a review of the Draft EIR by a qualified expert and
concerns expressed by numerous residents of the Los Ranchitos
community. We present our comments for the City's consideration
as it begins the hearing process on the certification of the
Draft EIR and the decision on whether .to approve or deny this
project. Our position regarding the proposed Hospital remains
the same. as stated in our April 3, 2005 letter: the proposed
location is not an acceptable location for this facility, the
environmental documentation remains inadequate and the Planning
C;ommission and City Council should deny any approvals for the
project based on the record before them. The rationale for this
10-1
.
conclusion and LRHOA's detailed comments on the
follow.
Draft
EIR 110-1
Cont.
However, before we begin our specific comments on the Draft EIR,
there are two general issues where the City has totally failed
to understand and present this project to the conununity. The
Draft EIR evaluates the proposed hospital as just another
professional office use which can be compatible with the
adjacent Los Ranchitos residential neighborhood. Have the
members of the Planning Commission or City Council ever lived
adjacent to a large hospital with a functioning emergency room?
This approach is fatally flawed because installing and operating
the proposed hospital at this location would be entirely
different than approving the construction of a professional
office building at this site. Of necessity, a hospital. must
operate 24-hours a day, and would be more closely compared to a
large conunercial/industrial enterprise operating 24 hours per
day, with the resulting activity and traffic at all hours of the
day and night. In contrast, a professional office complex
functions primarily during daylight hours and thus, the activity
patterns are similar to the activity pattern in a residential
area. A hospital's activities include employees and emergency
patients arriving and leaving at all hours of the day and night,
including late-night and very early mornings. Further, each
time an emergency vehicle delivers patients to the hospital at
two o'clQck in the morning, the noise and related intrusion into
our rural residential neighborhood. would constitute an extreme
and highly unacceptable nuisance.
10-2
.
Frankly, this level of intrusion by hospital activity is
essentially ignored in the Draft EIR. We believe it is ignored
because the City totally failed to define the hospital
operations. There is no discussion in the Chapter 3 of how the
hospital will operate, and therefore, the analysis in the Draft
EIR is fatally flawed because there is insufficient information
about the project to conduct an adequate evaluati~n. In our
April 3, 2005 letter, the LRHOA identified specific operational 10-3
aspects that needed to be defined. For example, how many people
will be employed at the hospital? We could not find this
defined in the Draft EIR. How many people will arrive for each
shift and when will shift changes occur? At night in our
neighborhood we may get a few vehicles after 9 pm but with the
hospital we may have hundreds of people passing through our
neighborhood.
.
'.
.
.
This level of intrusion into our high quality rural neighborhood
. represents a major change in the quality of our neighborhood.
This issue is never examined or the information on the degree of
intrusion portrayed for use to review and for the Council to
consider before it makes a decision on the proposed project.
One specific example will suffice to illustrate this point. We.
requested a description of how many emergency vehicles would
arrive at the hospital each day and some description of when
they would arrive. The primary concern is the intrusion into
the nElighborhood of sirens, particularly in the evening, night 10-4
and early morning hours. This issue was totally ignored. The
only data regarding siren noise is provided on page 4-58 and it
states: "Although these levels may cause some annoyance at
nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles
is considered to have a less than significant impact because it
will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and
because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. H
This text does not constitute analysis of the siren issue; it is
nothing more than rationalization of an impact which does not
presently occur in our neighborhood, except on the rarest of
occasions. Sirens have a- noise level of 105 dB(Al at 25 feet
and they will occur regularly throughout the day and night
hours, no longer rarely, and all of these events during the
night will awaken or dii3turb the neighborhood residents. This
is not annoyance, it is the intrusion -of a very significant
incompatible land use activity into .our existing rural
neighborhood.
What other operational activities have been ignored in the Draft
EIR. There will be some level of routine transport of hazardous
materials into and hazardous wastes out of our neighborhood.
The Draft EIR effectively ignores this issue. How many of these
materials and wastes can be considered extremely hazardous
and/or acutely hazardous? No real discussion of this issue is
provided in the Draft EIR_ We asked whether the hospital would
have ,an incinerator to burn any wastes. No answer was given
regarding this issue and if an incinerator will be installed,
what emissions will result and are such emissions hazardous to
humans? Without information and evaluation of these operational
issues, the LRHOA has concluded that the Draft EIR is terribly
deficient in meeting its informational purpose at this time and
it needs to be revised and re-circulated with adequate and
accurate information about the whole of the project.
10-5
.
Conunents on specific issues in the Draft EIR follow ,md are
submitted in the order discussed in the Draft EIR.
Page 2-2: The scope of EIR is incorrectly identified under this
section. Two issues, Land Use and Planning and Air
Quality, were not mentioned. Also, the LRHOA believes that
the Initial -Study inappropriately fails to address several
issues in the Draft EIR that may be significant, including 10-6
Hazards, Population & Housing, primarily because no data
were compiled regarding the use of hazardous materials- and
generation of hazardous waste during operations and because
no discussion of the total number of hospital employees or
induced growth related to the presence of a major hospital
was provided in the Draft EIR.
Page 3-1: First two bullets on page, the project is described as
revising the present two story height limitation by
allowing a 'naximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of
the roof area of the hospital." In fact, other height 10-7
limitation must -also be revised by the City for this
project because it includes two other structures that are
four and three stories respectively. Please revise the
project description to correct for this oversight.
.
Page 3-3: Third and fifth bullets on page, the lack of an adequate
project description results in a failure to adequately
analyze several of the compatibility issues listed in these
two project objectives. The result is that it is not 10-8
possible to properly evaluate whether the proposed project
can be compatible with the adjacent Los Ranchitos
residential neighborhood.
Page 3-7: Top of page, there is no rationale stated in the Draft EIR
for the buildings being constructed at up to seven stories
(llS') in height_ The 35.31 acre site would easily support
two story buildings, even a single story hospital complex.
Ata Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of _40 this site would allow up
to 615,000 square feet of floor area, which is greater than
the 566,160 square feet of proposed buildings. The LRHOA
does not see the justification for a seven story hospital
structure, nor the requirement for the three and four story
office complex.
10-9
Page 3-7: Under Parking and Access, to avoid imposing traffic on De
Portola, a local neighborhood residential street, it would
seem more appropriate to extend the secondary access to
Margarita which is a major street. Failure to do this
10-10
.
.
.
.
results in the conflicts associated with heavier traffic on
De Portola, which could have been avoided by redesigning
the site access.
10-10
Cont.
Page 3-8:
This page summarizes the seven new structures, but does not
provide any data about the number of people that will be
employed at any of the facilities or their ~hours of
operation, and the type of activities that might be
included in each facility. This is a major flaw and
oversight in this document.
10-11
Pages 3-9
3-10:
and
There is no discussion of wastewater and solid waste
management requirements under the project actions and
approvals. Typically a hospital will require pretreatment
of wastewater and special management requirements for
several solid waste st.reams, such as blood contaminated
waste. without this information the potential hazards and
solid waste and wastewater management requirements, and
potential impacts, cannot be adequately evaluated.
10-12
Page 4-4: Top of page, the discussion on General Plan policies does
not provide any discussion of policies related to visual or
aesthetic values and resources in the General Plan. Please 10-13
provide a list of all applicable policies and their
relevance to the aesthetic analysis presented in this
subchapter.
At the bottom of the page, the text references documents
and the area ~is not known for its visual character". Yet
the open space and pastoral low density residential area
that comprises Los Ranchitos is one of the highest quality
residential areas in the City of Temecula from an aesthetic
standpoint. It serves as the background view for all
travelers along State 79 South in the project area. The 10-14 ~
State Highway may not be designated as a Scenic Highway
along this portion of its alignment, ~ but we believe that
concluding the views from the highway across the project
site to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood contain no scenic
resource is in error. This is a one of the high quality
views within the City and the finding of "less than
significant impact" is not justified by the actual visual
conditions of the project site area.
Page 4-5: At the bottom of the page, the analysis in the' Draft EIR
concludes that "because the views. are considered private,
are. not considered to be of public benefit, and are not 10-15
protected by any City regulatory or policy, impact will be
less than significant." Since when are private views that
are destroyed by changes related to development of a
project not 'considered as potential significant impacts?
The thresholds identified on page 4-4 do not qualify
potential significant impacts to private views, only to
USubstantially degrade scenic resources" or USubstantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings". As the visual simulations
(which are very poor in quality in the published document)
demonstrate, particularly from Location B (Figures 4-3a and
4-3b), the proposed structures will eliminate long-distance
views, change the visual setting and these changes are
certainly not positive, they are substantially adverse.
Moreover, the view from Pio Pico Road (where the worst
visual impacts will occur) is a public location providing
visual scenes that are presently of high quality and to the
public's benefit. We believe that the analysis and
conclusions in this section of the Draft EIR text are in
error and that the challge in views will be significant.
Further, there is no analysis of the change in views to the
Los Ranchitos neighborhood from State Highway 79 South,
which should have been included in the Draft EIR.
.
10-15
Cont.
Page 4-13: The analysis of visual impact in the third paragraph on the .
page concludes that the landscaping and architectural
"blending" of the. colors and styles used on nearby
buildings mlnlmizes the significant visual effect and
ensures Ucompatibilityn with surrounding uses. Please take
another look at the visual simulation for Location B. This
building will be five and six stories in height. The
landscaping cannot hide this buildings height. It will 10-16
intrude on the surroundings like a sore thumb. It cannot
look like the other buildings because it is not like the
surrounding buildings. Therefore, it cannot be hidden,
cannot look like the surrounding professional buildings and
its visual effect is neither compatible with its
surroundings nor minimized. The rhetoric used in the text
ignores the reality that the project as proposed will be
significantly incompatible with the surrounding developed
land uses.
Page 4-14: The analysis of lighting on the hospital site fails to
provide adequate and enforceable mitigation and ignores the
fact that for safety purposes the structure and parking
areas must by lighted to the point that it cannot avoid
becoming a source of night glare in the neighborhood. The
undeniable fact is that lighted 6 to 7 story structures
10-17
.
.
.
.
Page 4-18:
Page 4-21:
extending to a height of 115 feet will literally stand out
as a beacon in an otherwise dark sky. Regarding the
mitigation, the City must establish specific performance
standards for light spillover from the hospital structures
and the surrounding three and four story office complexes.
Without a performance standard, there is no assurance that
lighting on the site will not intrude into the surrounding
neighborhood, in other words light spillover is likely to
intrude into the local neighborhood. Further, without
knowing the specific lighting performance standards, it is
not possible to assess what "whole" effect of night sky
illumination will be on this project site and the adjacent
residential area. For a facility as large as proposed and
as tall as proposed, the cumulative night sky illumination
on the site will be considerable, not necessarily related
to Mt. Palomar, but to creating a lighted envirornnent that
is likely to spillover into the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Thus, the analysis in the Draft EIR does not
really address the potential incompatibility due to
lighting of the site based on the cumulative effect of all
night sky illumination on the project site after
development is completed. Until this issue is fully
analyzed, the potential light-glare impacts have not
accurately been portrayed for either our cOllll1lunity or for
the City Council to understand the consequences of
approving the total project.
The last sentence on this page is gratuitous because it
implies air quality in Temecula is better than in Perris or
Lake Elsinore. This may be a good guess, but it is just
that, a guess, unless the EIR preparer has some recent
comparative quantitative data (reflecting the phenomenal
regional growth over the past several years) to validate
this statement.
Toxic Air Pollutants, what is the potential range of toxic
air pollutant emissions from an operating hospital
comparable to the proposed facility? We have previously
requested these data in our April 2005 letter, but no
information on such potential emissions have been
identified.
10-17
Cont.
10-18
10-19
Page 4-23: A review of the Draft EIR text and the data in Appendix B
indicate that most of. the assumptions used in making the
air quality impact model forecast are not provided for 10-20
public review. For example, what is the assumed mix of
equipment that was used to develop the emission inventory
.
for each phase of construction? What type of fuels were
used in the emission forecast: what duration of
construction activity: what hours of operation, etc_?
Please provide these data for independent review.
10-20
Cont.
Page 4-25: Operational carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot impacts are
inappropriately dismissed in the third paragraph on this
page. The evaluation dismisses the potential for hotspots
nominally because the project will not worsen traffic at
any intersections. Actually this project and cumulative
projects will substantially worsen traffic at several
intersections, most notably the I-lS/State Highway 79 South
interchange. 8y identifying potential mitigation and
contributing fair share, . the proposed project and
cumulative projects do not immediately eliminate the actual
significant LOS at the interchange intersections, primarily
because the required improvements are not guaranteed to be
in place prior to operation of the hospital_ Because the
severe traffic congestion at these intersections will occur
for an indefinable period (until the major circulation
system improvements are actually installed), a detailed
hotspot model should be exercised for at least the worst
intersection affected by the proposed project. Without
such analysis, it is false to conclude that there a finding
of no significant CO hotspot can be substantiated.
10-21
.
Page 4-26: The proposed hospital project will use a large variety of
hazardous materials and may generate emissions fram an
onsite incinerator to handle biohazardous. waste. The Draft
EIR does not discuss the possible chemicals that will be
used or stored onsite: their potential for release during
routine and accidental operations: and the generation of
hazardous or. toxic emissions from general hospital
activities. If no such materials will be used on the site,
then simply state so and our neighborhood can breathe a
sigh of relief. However, for each hazardous or toxic
substance that will be brought to the site and used, a
detailed discussion of the fate of such substances must be 10-22
examined. For those hazardous substances that will be
emitted into the atmosphere at any measurable quantities
(that above detection limits), the risk to our families
must be evaluated, again for both routine and accidental
release conditions. We do not believe that this hospital
can be operated without such materials as chlorine, oxygen,
acids, and other hazardous materials (such as bacteria and
virus), so the failure to analyze the effect of bringing
these materials to the project site and possibly. exposing
our neighborhood to such hazards must be fully explored and
.
.
.
.
potential health risks clearly stated in language that the
layman can understand.
10-22
Cent.
Page 4-31: Top paragraph, as previously noted a lot of hazardous
materials and wastes will be produced by hospital
operations. We raised the potential for contamination of
wastewater by hospital operations in our April 2005 comment
letter_ After examining both the Draft EIR and the
NOP/Initial Study, we find that. this issue has not been
adequately addressed. Therefore, the content of this Draft
EIR is fatally flawed with regard to defining and,
evaluating the wastewater may be generated. by hospital
operations; any required pre-treatment systems; and the
environmental effects of managing any residual byproducts,
hazardous or nonhazardous.
10-23
Page 4-33: The analysis of storm water drainage and water quality
impacts has fallen into the trap of deferral of analysis
and failure to analyze impacts of required mitigation
measures. The Draft EIR correctly notes that a SWPPP and
WQMP must be compiled for this project_ However, it fails
to analyze the impacts to the environment from implementing
these two plans and establishing a performance standard
that will assure the City and water quality agencies that
water quality will meet established requirements, primarily
downstream beneficial uses and water quality objectives in
the Basin Plan. What best management practices will be 10-24
installed by the project to meet SWPPP and WQMP
requirements, once they are defined? What are the effects
of installing and operating the BMPs? Such facilities do
not operate in a vacuum with no adverse effects on their
own. For example, if a detention basin is installed and a
certain quantity of surface runoff treated, what are the
anticipated residual wastes that must be managed and how
long will surface runoff be stored? Will surface water be
accessible to mosquitos. There is a whole series of issues
that must be addressed from compliance with the standards
that have not been identified or discussed in the Draft
EIR. Until they are, this section of the Draft EIR does
not adequately discuss water quality and hydrology issues_
Page 4-34: Middle of second paragraph on the page, the rate of water
use on the site is 1,500 gallons per day per acre, not 10-25
Ul500 gallons per day". Please correct in the Final EIR.
Page 4-35: Based on the comments above, LRHOA does not agree with the I
conclusion presented on this page_ 10-26
.
Page 4-37: Second paragraph, the text indicates that habitat
conservation planning issues are not addressed in the EIR.
H_..~.~r, a review of the Initial Study indicates that the
project may require a 404 Permit (Corps of Engineers), a
401 Certification (San Diego Regional Board) and a 1600
Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Department of
Fish and Game). If such permits are required, the City and
applicant cannot defer evaluation and identification of
mitigation to offset any potential adverse impacts
associated with such permits. Deferral of such issues is
no longer permitted by either the Department of Fish and
Game or the Regional Board_ The potential impact must be
detailed and the specific mitigation acceptable to the City
must be identified. Further, it is not clear whether the
riparian and riverine policies of the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) have been properly
evaluated to determine project's consistency with the
MSHCP. Based on the data available in the Draft EIR and
NOP/Initial Study, it would appear that this issue needs to
be brought forward into the Draft EIR and properly
addressed before a conclusion of nonsignificant impact can
be reached.
10-27
Page 4-39: LRHOA disagrees with the analysis of General Plan policies
beginning on this page. Imposing a hospital on property
directly adjacent to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood with
its distinctly different use activity patterns (all night
operations, lighting, noise, etc.) is not maintaining a
"land use pattern that protects and enhances residential
neighborhoods _" It is impossible to conclude that this
hospital development will enhance our residential
neighborhood. This proposed use is an imposition of 10-28
conflicting uses of the highest order,. unavoidably
significant, and therefore the proposed hospital project is
clearly inconsistent with this General Plan goal, Goal 5.
.
Further, it is ridiculous to assmne that landscaping at
ground level can establish a visual buffer (Policy 3.1).
As the visual simulation for Location B shows, the hulk of
this six story structure will intrude on every view to the
project site and totally alter the skyline of the local
area.
Page 4-40: The potential effect of this project on growth and growth
inducement hinges on the number of employees envisioned at
the hospital. The total number of employees, part and full 10-29
time, within the project site for the seven proposed
buildings is not defined anywhere in the Draft EIR or the
.
.
NOP!Initial Study. Second, this document fails to examine
the induced growth from other support activities that will
be developed around this hospital. Third, the document
claims that there are sufficient housing resources to meet
the forecast growth and demand. Yet, not one fact is
provided to support this conclusion. Equally important,
without knowing what the salary structure will be for the
future employees that would be supported by this project,
it is not clear whether and how many of the future
employees will be able to afford to purchase a home in
Temecula or the surrounding area because the price of homes
in this community is too high. The potential growth
inducement issue is. totally ignored in this document and
based on the large number of employees, this issue may
result in significant indirect effects on the environment.
10-29
ConI.
.
Page 4-41: The potential land use conflict issue is addressed at the
beginning of this letter. Suffice it to say that LRHOA has
demonstrated that the compatibility issues have been
inadequately addressed and it is our strong opinion that
the hospital proposed cannot be approved and be consistent
with the City's adopted General Plan. As a general rule of
thumb, consistency is required with the General Plan, but
consistency does not need be to demonstrated with every
policy. However, consistency analyses must demonstrate that
a project will be in "harmony or agreement" with the Plan.
LRHOA's previous comments indicate where we disagree with
the EIR's findings of consistency between the Plan and
proposed project. For several of the fundamental issues
where agreement or harmony is required between the Plan and 10-30
the proposed project, the project is inconsistent with the
General Plan.
As a final issue, the Draft EIR is fatally flawed because
it fails to examine the impacts on regional policies, both
those of the Western Riverside Council of Governments and
the Southern California Association of Government. This
type of policy and consistency analysis is required because
this project qualifies as a project of statewide, regional
or areawide significance. Specifically, projects of
regional significance (defined in the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15206 (b) (2) (C) a proposed commercial office
building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space) are required
to evaluate consistency with such regional plans. The
Draft EIR contains no discussion of such impacts and is
there inadequate with regard to this issue.
.
.
Page 4-53: It is not clear from the text whether construction noise
impacts can stay within the parameters (daylight hours)
identified in the Draft EIR. For example, there is no
information regarding the possible use of pile driving
equipment or other extremely noisy and vibratory
construction methods. Similarly, it is not clear that this
project can avoid carrying out evening concrete pours due
to mandatory construction techniques. Please address the 10-31
potential for these construction methods to be used on the
project site at any time. If these methods will be used,
then the construction noise evaluation needs to be modified
to adequately address this issue. This includes potential
ground borne vibration associated with pile, driving or
equivalent construction techniques. Also, note that when
construction equipment is moving, such as with several
scrapers, the noise attenuation factor may only be 3 dB per
doubling of distance, hot 6 dB. Please factor this into
the additional evaluation.
Page 4-56: The first bullet on the page identifies 3 dB as a threshold
for change in noise level. However, 3 dB is not an
appropriate threshold when the background sound levels
already exceed the referenced noise standard, typically 65 10-32
dB (A) . A more appropriate threshold would be either any
increase where' background noi'se levels exceed thresholds" .
or a 1 dB increase which must be justified when sensitive
uses are already exposed to significant noise.
Page 4-58: We have already demonstrated that the analysis of emergency
vehicle sirens is totally inadequate. This document
presents no data on what single noise events at 105
decibels in the middle of the night will do to our
residential neighborhood. we believe that each member of
the Planning Commission and City Council must imagine what
it would be like to have an emergency vehicle siren disturb
their sleep at night and then conclude that this could
happen night after night. A hospital adjacent to
residential use is a severe imposition on the existing
quiet that our neighborhood experiences during most of the 10-33
day and certainly at night.
The analysis of the helicopter operations is similarly
flawed. The CNEL value of noise from the helicopter is not
the major concern, as is disingenuously portrayed on pages
4-58 and 4-59. It is the single event intrusion at night
that creates the incompatibility. We have no helicopter
flights into or out of our neighborhood at this time. If
approved, we may have six per month, at all times of the
.
.
.
.
day or night. This change in the noise activity pattern of
our neighborhood is a significant intrusion into our lives,
regardless of how the Draft EIR downplays the impact.
10-33
Cont.
An additional consideration is the fact that Los Ranchitos
is a rural, equestrian oriented community with equestrian
trails which add to the value of our neighborhood and are
used consistently by many of our residents. These trails'
run throughout our community, including areas contiguous
to the proposed hospital project. iihat happens when a
helicopter takes off or lands while horses are being ridden
on. the trails along the perimeter of the hospital property?
Will the flight pattern ultimately approved for helicopter
traffic create a significant safety hazard for residents
riding horses on this portion of our equestrian trails?
10-34
Page 4-61: We have a question. If more than six emergency helicopter
trips are required during a month, does the hospital turn
them away? If not, what are the controlling variables that
would limit helicopter landings?
Of possibly greater consequence, as we have discussed at
previous city meetings on this project, we believe that 10-35
based on the size and significant emergency and critical
care services initially provided by the proposed hospital,
it is reasonable to expect that the hospital will
eventually expand its services to include a full blown
trauma center. When this occurs, the number of helicopter
trips in and out of the facility during the day and night
hours will iflcrease dramatically, and could occur several
times in the same day.
Can the hospital accept mitigation measure N-4? There may"
be a need to provide for ail exception during emergencies.
Please indicate if revision in measure N-4 are required.
10-36
In the last paragraph on the page, there appears to be some
confusion. There is reference to a daytime stationary
noise source standard of 65 dB. If this is accurate,
clarification is required for the nighttime standard.
Page 4-64: First paragraph, this paragraph contains analysis that is
typical of the rationalizing analysis in this document. No
data are provided and the Draft EIR concludes that "Such
activities will typically be shielded from some of the
noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings
themselves.". In reality, much of the landscaping, perhaps
most of it, is located on the north side of .the hospital.
10-37
.
.The analysis is flawed,
properly evaluated. As
analysis and findings
significant.
non-substantive, and needs to be
presented in the Draft EIR, the
in the document are less than
The third paragraph contains a discussion of the 70 dB CNEL
standard for the exterior of the hospital. The standard
does not contain qualifications for useable or habitable
spaces; it is simply a standard. As a result, this impact
should be considered significant regardless of exterior
activities_
10-37
Cont.
The fourth paragraph discusses the interior standard, and
concludes that the noise attenuation will be ~at least 21
dB." Provide the data to verify this unsupported
conclusion.
Page 4-65: Measure N - 3 is not proscriptive. It allows deviation of
helicopter approaches, therefore, the analysis must be 10-38
revised to address all feasible approaches or restrict
approaches to the southeast corridor only.
Page 4-86: It does not make sense to ignore the traffic volumes for
Margarita Road between De Portola Road and Highway 79
South. Pleas~ explain why and how it does not affect the
overall circulation system impact analysis.
10-39
.
Page 4-93: Mitigation Measures, the implementation of fair share is
allowed by CEQA to address contribution.s to cumulatively
considerable impact to the circulation system. The problem
. is that this project, by itself contributes to significant
impacts to the circulation system_ As a result, the 10-40
adverse impacts at intersections that will result from
project implementation may be mitigated at some time in the
future, but the only way to ensure that the measures
identified in the Draft EIR are in place prior to the
project's impacts on the road are to require the project to
fund arid install all of the required improvements, and then
be reimbursed by the City. Otherwise, the project's
contributing to fair share will not reduce ~real"
circulation system impacts to a less than significant
level.
Page 5-6: The alternate site selected is a ~strawman" with greater
potential impacts than the proposed project. A logical
site, such as property adjacent to I-IS where there appears 10-41
to be space for a hospital facility, would make much more
sense from the perspective of conflict with adjacent uses
.
i.
.
.
and access to emergency care.
10-41
Cont.
Page 5-14: The Dartolo Road alternative may have different effects on
traffic and biology than the proposed project, but the
effects are mitigable. This is in contrast to the
introduction of increased traffic into a residential area
and the possible use of De Portola Road as an emergency
access road. As shown in previous comments in this letter;
the land use incompatibility impacts for this project are
significant and any means of reducing these impacts,
including redirecting traffic in a less than significant
impact alternative_
10-42
Page 6-4: OUr previous comments clearly indicate that the analysis of
growth inducing impacts presented in the Draft EIR is based
on conjecture and rhetoric, not any quantitative analysis
of growth effects of implementing the proposed project.
This section is flawed and based on no substantiation.
Based on the size of this project and future support
activities that will gravitate to the general area, growth
inducing impacts have a high probability of being
significant and adverse to the City of Temecula.
1 0-43
conclusion
We began this letter by stating our position regarding the
hospital being proposed adjacent to our neighborhood, Los
Ranchitos. Based on the data available and the inadequacy of
the Draft EIR in characterizing the changes in the environment
associated with this project, the LRHOA concludes that the
proposed location is not' an acceptable location for this
facility, the environmental documentation remains inadequate and
the City Council. should deny any approvals for the project based
on the record before it. We are opposed to approval of this
project as designed. At a minimum, we believe that if the City
chooses to proceed with this project at the proposed location,
they must resolve the serious environmental concerns raised in 10-44
this and other documents, and take. actions which include the
following:
-First, the hospital must be re-designed with low
structures that would be consistent with the existing
Plan {maximum height of structures should be two stories;
profile
General
-Second, the emergency room must be relocated to the south side
of the structure. Placing it on the north side locates the
emergency room activity closer to the Los Ranchitos neighborhood
,
and does not take advantage of the noise attenuation that can be
provided by the hospital structures;
-Third, remove the secondary access from De Portola Road and
relocate the access to Dartolo Road and Margarita Road, where
traffic and noise effects would not intrude into our residential
neighborhood;
-Fourth, abandon Pio Pico south of De Portola in .order to
eliminate the concern that this route will eventually be opened
to provide additional access to the hospital;
-Fifth, resolve concerns regarding helicopter ~perations by
. restricting flight patterns in such a manner that the residents
of our community are not subjected to the extreme disturbance and
danger that would result from helicopters taking off and landing
in close proximity to adjacent homes and equestrian trails; and
-Last, maintain the vegetative and distance buffer between the
hospital facilities and the Los Ranchitos neighborhood_
The LRHOA does not want this hospital next to our neighborhood
because we believe that it is totally incompatible with our
beautiful, rural, equestrian oriented neighborhood. If the City
will not relocate the facility to a more suitable location, then
the above changes must be implemented or the City would leave us
no alternative but to oppose this project with all means
available. We look forward to continued dialogue regarding this
matter and the opportunity to further discuss the considerations
involved in approving this hospital project adjacent to our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
~oard of Directors
Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
.
10-44
Cont.
.
.
1.1.
!
.
r.
10.
Board of Directors, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, November 14, 2005.
Response 10-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Los Ranchitos .Homeowners Association comments on the Draft EIR.
No response is required.
Response 10-2
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated
on page 3-1 and pages 3-3 through 3-8 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project analyzed in the Draft
EIR is the construction and operation of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical
offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an
8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. The hospital includes an emergency room. As noted
in the comment, the hospital will of necessity operate around the clock. However, night-time
operations will be limited primarily to those associated with the emergency room.
Response 10-3
The comment is incorrect. The indirect or secondary effects associated with long-term operation of
the hospital complex are assessed in the Draft EIR in the Air Quality, Hydrology and Groundwater,
Noise, and Transportation sections. With regard to operational aspects of the hospital, shift changes
have been addressed as part of the traffic analysis, which assumes peak-hour impacts based upon
typical operating characteristics (e.g., shift changes) at a hospital. The applicant estimates that
between 1,000 and 1,200 persons will be employed on the site. The traffic analysis takes
employees into account in trip generation totals and peaks.
Response 10-4
Universal Health Services (UHS), the project applicant, currently operates two hospitals in the
region: Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs. Both of these facilities have emergency
rooms that currently operate beyond capacity. There are approximately 110 ambulance trips per
month to the two existing hospitals combined. With the emergency room at the proposed
T emecula Regional Hospital, those ambulance trips will be distributed among all three facilities.
Based on current ambulance service to the two existing facilities, UHS projects that approximately
one to two ambulance trips could arrive at the proposed T emecula hospital daily. While the
preferred route will be via Highway 79 South (east or west), some trips could originate from the
north via Margarita Road.
As a matter of practice, the ambulance drivers use sirens only when necessary to clear traffic. UHS
generally does not allow sirens to be used once an ambulance arrives on the hospital grounds.
Sirens generally would not be used during night-time hours when traffic volumes are minimal. Siren
noise is part of the current noise environment. Thus, siren noise is not considered a significant
impact.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-262
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-5
.
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As
indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR), the proposed project will result in a less
than significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
or waste. Per the project conditions of approval, and consistent with standard City practices and
requirements, the applicant/operator will be required to submit for review and approval by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department a Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report will be kept on file with
these agencies, and should any quantities of hazardous materials used or stored on site increase or
should changes to operations introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in such reports,
the operator will be required to update such reports. All other potential impacts associated with the
hazardous materials will be regulated and mitigated through federal, state, and local laws and
policies. No incinerator is proposed as part of this project. No additional analysis is required.
Response 10-6
In response to the comment, under the "Scope of the Environmental Analysis" subheading on page
2-2 of the Final EIR, the bullet points under the second sentence of the first paragraph have been
revised to read as follows:
The Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan
might have a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following:
. Aesthetics
. Air Quality
. land Use and Planning
. Hydrology and Water Quality
. Noise
. Transportation
.
The revision does not affect any of the facts, analyses, or impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
The City of Temecula used the Initial Study process, as encouraged and permitted by CEQA, to
identify those issues requiring analysis in the EIR. All CEQA issues are adequately addressed either
in the text of the EIR or in the Initial Study, which is part of the EIR (see Appendix A of the Draft
EIR).
Please refer to response 10-5 for a discussion of hazardous materials. Development of the hospital
is consistent with adopted General Plan and zoning designations for surrounding sites, is consistent
with General Plan policies to expand medical and other high-technology employment opportunities,
and would not induce further growth in these sectors beyond that anticipated by the City's General
Plan. The proposed hospital is responding to medical care needs associated with past and current
growth, and is not a mechanism to spur additional growth within the City and region. No further
analysis is required.
Response 10-7
The first two bullet points on page 3-1 of the Draft EIR are correct. As stated in the first bullet point,
the General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan,
which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The medical
9-263
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
CITY Of TEMECUtA
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
office buildings would be allowed to be developed as three- and four-story buildings with removal
of the Z2 overlay.
Response 10-8
The comment is incorrect. The comment asserts that the "lack of an adequate project description"
results in a failure to analyze land use compatibility issues. The Draft EIR of pages 3-1 through 3-10
provides an accurate and thorough description of the project and environmental setting.
Furthermore, on page 4-41 the Draft EIR provides an analysis of .the proposed project's
compatibility with surrounding land uses, including residential properties and horse-keeping
properties. The analysis concludes that impact will be less than significant because of project design
features and the nature of surrounding uses.
Response 10-9
The comment incorrectly states that there is no rationale for the height of the proposed buildings.
The project is proposed to include two bed towers of 5 and 6 stories. On pages 1-29, 2-2, 4-13,
and 5-2, the Qraft EIR references discussion in Appendix F regarding a technical explanation for the
necessary project design. In Appendix F is a description of the functional reasons for the proposed
tower heights and an explanation as to why a reduced building height alternative was rejected.
Response 10-10
The comment suggests opposition to a secondary project access to De Portola Road. The traffic
analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road with the
proposed restricted driveway (i.e., no permilled exiting left turns). The roadway will continue to
experience operating conditions consistent with the City's LOS D standard. Also, the General Plan
Circulation Element designates De Portola Road as a Modified Secondary Arterial. This
classification consists of a four-lane undivided roadway with a cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet
of right-of-way, which allows for a trail alongside the roadway.
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road on pages 5-11 through 5-14 of the Draft EIR provides an
analysis of a secondary access east of the project site via and extension of Dartolo Road in lieu of
the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. The analysis concluded that traffic and
biological resource impacts of Alternative 4 could be greater than those associated with the
proposed project. Therefore, secondary access via De Portola Road is the preferred access
compared to Dartolo Road. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-11
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The City
concludes that the Project Description contained in Section 2 of the Draft E1R adequately describes
the proposed project for evaluation and review of all environmental impacts addressed in the Draft
EIR. Per CEQA Guidelines section 15124, the project description contained in the Draft EIR meets
all of the requirements to adequately describe the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CrTY OF TEMECULA
9.264
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-12
.
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated
in the Initial Study, project wastewater and solid waste impacts will be less than significant. Also,
the project permittee will be required to comply with all existing and applicable federal, state, and
City of T emecula laws and regulations enforced through the project conditions of approval.
Response 10-13
Goals and policies related to visual or aesthetics are presented on pages 4-37 and 4-38 of the Draft
EIR in the land Use and Planning section.
Response 10-14
As stated on page 4-4, "The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special
visual significance in the project vicinity." This statement is correct from the standpoint of the
General Plan. The project site is a vacant, fallow piece of land covered with non-native grasses and
weeds. The project site is not designated as open space, and General Plan policy anticipates
development on this site. Further, the City's General Plan contains no policies establishing the
project vicinity as an aesthetically important sensitive area.
Response 10-15
The Draft EIR on pages 4-5 through 4-13 presents the analysis of visual character and quality
impacts associated with the proposed hospital project. Two photographic renderings were
prepared, one illustrating views from a hillside to the north overlooking the project site (presented in
the Draft EIR as Figures 4-2a and 4-2b), and a second illustrating conditions just north of the
intersection of Pio Pico Road and De Portola Road (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures 4-3a and 4-
3b). As noted on Page 4-5 of the Draft EIR, the project will be visible from various residential lots
north of the project site. While the project site can be seen from the north, distant views of
Palomar Mountain from areas north of the project site will not be blocked. At the request of the
Santiago Ranchos Property Association, the project applicant floated tethered balloons on the
project site on Saturday, November 12, 2005 to provide residents information regarding the
proposed height of the hospital towers. The renderings and use of balloons to indicate the
proposed project's height are standard and accepted techniques used to analyze the aesthetic
impacts of a project pursuant to CEQA. The analysis was not dismissed. The Draft EIR and
subsequent activities requested by the public have adequately disclosed the potential aesthetic and
viewshed impacts of the project. Nonetheless, the last sentence on page 4-5 of the Draft EIR is
revised as follows:
.
However, because the views are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by
any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant.
The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the potential aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project and describes how project features will reduce impacts (pages 4-5 and 4-12). No
significant impact will result.
9.265
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received Aft,ef Close of Public Comment Period
. Response 10-16
Building design will feature the use of earth-toned stucco and terra colla tile roof. As seen in Figure
4-2b on page 4-9 of the Draft EIR, the proposed building colors will match the surrounding
commercial development. While the proposed buildings will be noticeably taller than the
surrounding uses, the aesthetic impact from the proposed project remains less than significant, as
analyzed in the EIR and restated in Response 10-15.
Response 10-17
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As discussed on pages 4-13 and 4-14, all outdoor lighting must
comply with Ordinance 655 to avoid impact to Palomar Observatory. See Response 6-10 for a full
discussion of lighting impacts and mitigation. Pursuant to mitigation measure A-I, the City has
included the following condition of approval for the project:
Final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with Mount
Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting onto adjacent
properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
Compliance with this standard project review requirement constitutes compliance with mitigation
measure A-I and will ensure a less than significant impact. This information clarifies how the City
will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 [b]). No new measure is
proposed; therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
. Response 10-18
The comment is incorrect. The last sentence on page 4-18 states that the air quality conditions are
not reflected by the closest air quality monitoring stations due to the stations' distances from the
project site.
Response 10-19
Air Quality impacts are addressed beginning at EIR page 4-17. The project will comply with all
federal, state, and local regulations related to air quality and air emissions. The applicant, Universal
Health Services (UHSj, has indicated that their other hospital projects in the South Coast Air Basin
operated by UHS do not emit toxic air pollutants; thus, SCAQMD would not require the proposed
project to obtain a permit for toxic air pollutants. As shown in Table 4-6 (page 4-25 of the Draft
EIR), regional emissions from the operation of the proposed project are estimated to produce air
pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO and ROG. As such,
regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the project will result in a significant air
quality impact related to ROG and CO. See EIR pages 4-26 through 4-29 for discussion of
mitigation measures.
Response 10-20
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR
analysis utilized the URBEMIS2002 air modeling program, which is an accepted model. The
URBEMIS2002 summary report and analysis were made available for public review at the same time
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECUL.A REGIONAL HOSPiTAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-266
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Per;od
as the Draft EIR, and are incorporated as part of the EIR. Please refer to Response 7-10 regarding
the statement of assumptions for construction emissions, as reported in Appendix B.
.
Response 10-21
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The E1R air quality analysis identifies the end state of intersection
conditions since the project requires these improvements over the long term. The analysis correctly
concludes that because intersections will continue to operate at LOS D, SCAQMD methodology
does not require CO hot spot analysis. Also, as stated on page 4-25 of the EIR, CO concentrations
in the area fall far below air quality impact thresholds.
Response 10-22
Please refer to Response 10-5 and 10-19 regarding hazardous materials, waste, or air emissions
during operations of the proposed hospital. As stated in Response 10-5, no incinerator is proposed
as part of this project and the project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or waste. Hazardous materials impacts
will be regulated and mitigated through federal, state, and local laws and policies. At the local level
the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and Fire Department will regulate the
transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project. A health
risk assessment of the fate and transport of hazardous materials is not required for the project and
no additional analysis is required.
Response 10-23
.
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, an(l does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 10-12.
Response 10-24
This comment does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please
refer to Responses 7-39 and 7-41 for a discussion of water quality impacts.
Response 10-25
In response to the comment, under the "Rancho California Water District Urban Water
Management Plan" subheading on page 4-34 of the Final EIR, the third sentence of the second
paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
The Master Plan projected demands for the project site are based on use of the site as 30 acres
of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day oer ar:r~) and 6 acres of Estate Residential
(0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the project area.
The revision does not affect any of the facts, analyses or impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
9-267
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAQ REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
. Response 10-26
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The conclusion on page 4-35 is summarized from the Water
Supply Assessment (WSA), which was prepared and provided by the serving agency, the Rancho
California Water District (RCWD). As stated on page 6 of the WSA, the 2005 Water Facilities
Master Plan estimates a demand of 129,545 acre feet per year for 2025 and the projected water
demand for the proposed project is 42 acre feet per year. The City concludes that the WSA
provided by the RCWD fully complies with California Water Code Section 10910. The RCWD has
appropriately determined that the District has sufficient water supply for the project. See RCWD
S8610 Water Supply Assessment in Support of the Temecula Medical Center, City of Temecula, dated
August 29, 2005, at EIR Appendix C\.
Response 10-27
As stated on page 4-37 of the Draft EIR, to address habitat conservation plans that apply to the
project site, a comprehensive biological resource survey and fo<:;used surveys for the BlI'rowing
Owl were conducted, pursuant to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) guidelines.
The surveys concluded that no protected species or habitats and no Burrowing Owls occur on the
project site (see Appendix E of this EIR).
-
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and ~ame jurisdiction may apply
under Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road (page 5-14 of the Draft E1R) and Alternative 5,
Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road (page 5-19 of the Draft EI R). Because this is
evaluated as a project alternative, rather than as the proposed project, no additional surveys or
mitigation are required per CEQA at this time. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-28
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpIniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 5.2, which
supports C\oal 5 of the land Use Element in the City's General Plan. As written in the C\eneral Plan:
Goals are broad statements of community desires, purpose or direction. Policies serve as guides
to the City Council, Planning Commission, other City commissions and boards, and City staff in
reviewing development proposals and making other decisions that affect the future growth and
development of Temecu/a.
General Plan goals are wrillen as broad statements describing the cumulative outcome of
implementing individual policies. The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the
potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project and describes how project features will reduce
impacts (pages 4-5 and 4-12). However, because the City of Temecula Municipal Code does not
contain any view protection regulations, no significant impact results.
Pursuant to mitigation measure A-3, the City has included the following conditions of approval for
the project:
.
ENV1RONMENTAlIMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-268
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or
other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen
off-site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning.
.
A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the
residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box) screen trees to screen the
view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans
verifying the buffer area.
Therefore, the amount and conditions under which additional landscaping is required on the
northern boundary of the site have been defined. Compliance with these conditions of approval
constitutes compliance with mitigation measure A-3, and will ensure a less than significant impact.
This information clarifies how the City will implement the mitigation measure (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.5 [b]).
Response 10-29
c
This comment does not state any facts con'trary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please
refer to Responses 10-3 regarding operations and number of employees. Growth inducing impacts
are discussed on page 6-4 and 6-5 of the Draft EIR. As stated on page 6-5, the proposed project is
not anticipated to induce population or jobs growth beyond that which is already planned for and
anticipated by adopted land use policies. As stated on Pages 6-4 and 6-5 of the Draft EIR, the
additional commercial, professional and medical-office support development that may result from
development of the hospital is consistent with adopted General Plan and zoning designations for
surrounding sites, is consistent with General Plan policies to expand medical and other high-
technology employment opportunities, and would not induce further growth in these sectors
beyond that anticipated by the City's General Plan. The proposed hospital is responding to medical
care needs associated with past and current growth, and is not a mechanism to spur additional
growth within the City and region. No further analysis is required.
.
Response 10-30
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 10-8. As described in Section 4.4 Land
Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, the proposed project upon amendment of the General Plan as
proposed by the project is considered to be consistent with the City's General Plan, which was
found to be consisient with all Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan, and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and Growth Visioning policies
within the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR at 5.9-14 through 5.9-23). No further analysis is
required.
Response 10-31
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Section 4.5, Noise, described a range in time provided in the City
of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 8.32.020) which limits construction to between the hours of
6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday, and never on
Sunday or holidays. No "pile drivers" are anticipated. As stated in the EIR, the primary source of
9269
ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
CITY Of TEMECUlA
:.
,
.
:.
Responses to Comments on the Draft E1R Received After Close of Public Comment Period
vibration noise will be large bulldozers, which for this project is below the noise impact criteria. See
EIR page 4-55. No additional analysis is required.
Response 10-32
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 6-7 regarding the noise analysis and a
noise threshold. The commentors opinion regarding the appropriate threshold for ambient noise
levels is noted. However, as noted on page 4-51 of the Draft EIR, a significant impact will occur
only if project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible
amount of 3dB or more. This is a commonly accepted threshold of significance for ambient noise
because the average human cannot distinguish between sounds that are only 1 dB louder or quieter
than each other. No further analysis is required.
Responses 10-33 and 10-34
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 6-7 and 6-8 regarding the helicopter
noise analysis and Response 10-4 regarding siren noise. The commentor's opinions regarding the
impact of helicopter noise on horses is acknowledged. However, CEQA does not require the
unique analysis of impacts of noise on horses or other domestic animals. CEQA noise thresholds
are designed to analyze the impact of noise on persons, particularly persons at sensitive receptors.
No further analysis is required.
Response 10-35
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 6-7 and 6-8 regarding the helicopter
noise analysis. There is no plan to "expand" or designate the hospital as a "trauma center" as
suggested by the comment.
Response 10-36
As stated in CEQA gUideline 15126.4 (a) (2), "mitigation measures must be fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." All of.the mitigation
measures contained in the E1R are fully enforceable and will require future legal action or
compliance and proof will be shown in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Therefore, truck deliveries will be limited to daytime hours and no nighttime standard is necessary.
The applicant is aware of the mitigation requirement.
Response 10-37
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpiniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or. conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Response 6-7 regarding the noise analysis and a
noise threshold.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-270
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
Response 10-38
.
Pursuant to mitigation measure N-3, the City has included the following condition of approval for
the project:
The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be limited to
the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined unsafe due to
weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
If the project is approved by the City Council, conditions of approval will be adopted by the City,
and the conditions will be enforceable measures that the applicant must comply with prior to
proceeding with different phases of the project.
Response 10-39
The roadway link analysis for traffic volumes for Margarita Road between De Portola Road and
Highway 79 South were analyzed during project build out as shown in Table 4-24b on page 4-92 of
the Draft EIR.
The segment of Margarita Road between De Portola Road and Highway 79 South is a short
segment on which the flow and operations are directly dictated by the operations of three
signalized intersections along this section of Margarita Road (at De Portola Road, Dartolo Road, and
Highway 79 South). An intersection analysis is a better predictor of actual arterial operations than a
link analysis. These three intersections are all fully analyzed in the Draft EIR and therefore a link
analysis of Margarita Road is not necessary. No further analysis is required.
Response 10-40
.
Please refer to Response 7-69.
Response 10-41
This comment expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As identified in public testimony at the November 16 Planning
Commission public hearing, the applicant completed a thorough search of sites located within
Temecula, including sites within the immediate 1-15 corridor, to identify sites that meet appropriate
size and access criteria. Only the proposed project site meets the applicant's needs in terms of size
and access. No further analysis of alternative sites is required.
Response 10-42
This comment expresses unsubstantiated OpIniOn, and does not state any facts contrary to the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. Please refer to Responses 10-8 and 10-10.
Response 10-43
The comment is incorrect, expresses unsubstantiated opinion, and does not state any facts contrary
to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. As stated on Page 6-4 of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project is located within an area of T emecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure systems.
9-271
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
.
I
I.
I
I.
,
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
I
I
Please refer to Response 10-29, for a discussion of gro~h inducing impacts. No further analysis is
. d I
reqUire . !
I
I
a closing statement to the jLos Ranchitos Homeowners Association
EIR. No new comments are included in this closing statement. No
I
Response 10-44
This comment provides
comments on the Draft
response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
l'EMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
9-272
CITY OF TEMECULA .
DAVID B. OBERBECK CPA
44300 LA PAZ RD
TEMECULA. CA 92592
Tel: (951) 587-8758 Fax: (951) 587-8732
e-mail: davld.oberbeck@verlzon.net
Letter 11
Fax Transmission Cover Sheet
Number Faxed To: C9511694-64n
Date: 11/1412005
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: DAVID OBERBECK
Company: CITY OF TEMECULA
Tel:
Regarding: PROPOSED HOSPITAL
_ Urgent
_ Response Required JL.. For Your RevIew _ Please Comment
Number of Pages Faxed - Including cover sheet:
1
Comments:
PlEASE NOTE MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED HOSPITAL AND THE PROPOSED
LOCATlON_ TOO MilCH TRAFFIC. NOISE AND CONGESTION. HOSPITAL SHOULD LOCATE
ON A MORE REMOTE' IcOCATION CAS MURRIETA AND INLAND VALj,.EY LOCATIONS
HAVEl. THEY ARE NOT RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN. BUT ARE QUITE
CONVENIENT: FOR THAT MATTER WHEY DO WE NEED ANOTHER HOSPITAL ANYWAY.
WE HAVE THE AFOREMENTIONED TWO PLUS SCRIPPS AND UCSD TO THE SOUTH AND
LOMA LINDA AND OTHERS TO THE NORTH. AND THESE ARE AlL VERY GOOD
HOSPITALS'"
Confldootlallty Notice
This transmission Is Intended only for the use of the Individual or entity to which It is eddressed and may
contain information that Is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this messaga Is noltha inlended
reclplen~ you are hereby notined thai any disclosure, dlsbibullon. or c:opy~g of ~Is infonnatlon Is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error. please notify us ImmedIately by lelephone or fax.
.
.
11-1
.
i.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
I
I
11. David Oberbeck, via facsimile transmittal on Novenlber 14, 2005.
Response 11-1
I
This written comment was received after the close of thk noticed comment period. The comment
expresses opposition to the proposed project due to noi~e and traffic congestion and the proposed
location. This comment expresses unsubstantiated opini6n, and does not state any facts contrary to
the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The EIR analysis c6ncludes that project traffic impacts will be
less than significant with mitigation, and that except for I helicopter noise impacts, noise issues will
either be less than significant or can be addressed through mitigation. No further response is
required. I
EN'v'lRONMENTAl IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-274
'1
=",~~Caqlony
VIet Pnoldonl, Gill MorrIson
Ebl1<lIIV""'~W""DIsIlfcl
2" Vlcel'lloldn, Doug....
T_CnleflIm
=l'=-LlP~
T_......O'NoII
..... L O'NeoIand A.-
_C._,E3q.,_&SoIar.LLP
'Ron 1lIadley. T_ V.IIoySank
llllnrIs_~
~-_.,
Sl:ollCln,___
lDIis llIemamo ,Tbo CaslIll Ball
_-. Tho" ".,.., nTel1l8C1Jla
Chlyllom8nlgonl,." . ~,..PIqIeltios
Bol>OojIo,_Cculty_
BenR.Droke,DroI8!.,.., ~,,_.Inc.
'Oerr1b FIlIIIr, 1IC RMlI>Ide T_ CenIllr
Dr. RIc:hanl GI8sa
MI. San _ ConrnunitI CoIege
'81 GIIon, RSF ConsuItlg
81_(_)
0.8._
W_J. ,....d8lllkllng..1nc.
NIck Janes, MiIor.Jones Morblry
A.G. KodIv. A.G.K Group, UC
Josoph~ _. CPA
_.Prudlunmo&Caqlony
CImolIRh:Iln~, Tho~~
=.~ EdIsonCoqlony
='=AklSolvlce
__Jr., Moo1l8RS1anIoyDeenWiller
~~ofluiseilolndlans
0avkI L"""""O. L Phores&Assodales
GIeg:' .... .._.Pnd1onmo&Co.
CIllud8 W. Rl*Ike, Tbo CaIiItladon
0avkIE._
EIedroric '" ." ,:,_
Roland -. RcmoIandSd1ool DIsIlfcl
'Jll8IIF.8paJkmon, T_V.",,_
Dan. ". '''' . R8ncxIn _ CorpcxaIIon
Lod SlInI
~AssistantIo&Jll8fVisorJellSD>e
Alee SUtiIII
T_ VoIIoyC/lamberol Ccmnerco
'Ron -.. SuiIvan & 8uIIian u.c
_ Vol, VoIlofanogemerd
Gal)' VollpIa, MissIofl Oaks NalknlIBalk
Kill< Wr\lhl. Tbo GamlII Group
MarkWl\Jlll.r.blIOtoPollcel.,...."... .
Won Sau Yoo
~ fuJTRIlOl'8clfIc ConsUIlIIIs
*Posl_
.
CJ7
.umeta te.eml. poup
November 15.2005
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CA 92591-2984 /~.,
// )'
(951) 719-3640 (MAIN) /,.; :? /:'~'"
(951) 719-3650 (FAX) /<" , : . /" ,.,:-
///'. I ,'"
~;.- ~ ';';',.'""
,,"P~,;:<~
./'//
. { " 7
"-." ::..'
.. ...."
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Dept.
City ofTemecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Letter 12
Dear Ms Ubnoske,
The Board ofDi......;.,... and members of the Murrieta Temecula Group (MTG)
fully support the efforts to establish the q1iality full-service hospital facility
".vl'v..ed for construction on Hwy 79 South in the City ofTemecula
.
The cmrent and future growth of Southwest California and the Temecula
Valley requires that a state of the art hospital be a key c..~.."_ent in our
community. The health and well being of our citizens depends greatly on our
ability to pave tIi.e way for such facilities to be built Considering that the
projected population growth of the combined cities ofTemecula and Murrieta
will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years requires immediate action and
approval of this hospital facility.
12-1
The community and business leaders that make up the MTG stand firm in their
opposition of outside interveners promoting their personal agendas. Any delay
in "t'}>. v ..ing this important project will have profound far reaching personal
and economic impacts on our region's ability to grow, prosper and meet the
health care needs of our community for years to come.
The MTG ......~vJll1ly requests that the Temecula Planning Commission and
City Council give serious consideration and support for the much needed
Southwest Heahhcare System hospital planned for Temecula.
(::6 ~~
ROg~~
President, Murrieta Temecula Group
---
.
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
I
,
I
12. Roger Ziemer, President, Murrieta Temecula Group,: November 15, 2005.
,
Response 12-1
This written comment was received after the close of the1noticed comment period. The comment is
noted. The Murrieta Temecula Group notes its support!of the proposed hospital and emphasizes
the need for additional hospital facilities in the area. This comment does not address an
environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No
response is required. I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-276
Page 1 of!
~
Debbie Ubnoske
Letter 13
From: Aaron Adams
Sent Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Debbie Ubnoske; Gary ThomhUI; Don Hazen
Cc: Barbara Osbome; Michaela BaJlrelch; Susan Jones; Norma Childs; Peter Thorson
Subject: FW: Plannlnghomepage
Fyi- for the record for Planning Commission tonighl This came through the website today.
Aaron
From: Unda Betts [mailto:i1nda.betls@verlzon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:57 AM
To: Department - Planning
SUbject: Plannlnghomepage .
Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's meeting regarding the DePortola Access and building height. I have
lived in Los Ranchllos for over 10 years. I moved here for horse property and a safe place to raise my
developmentally disabled daughtBf. It used to be easy to cross DePortola Road on horseback or on fOol Now I
have tei teke my life in my hands because people go flying down the road with no regard to it being a residential
area. Now you are golng back on your commitment to us home owners that you are going to give access to the
hospital from DePorIola. You wUl be ruining one Of the nicest residential areas in Temecula if you do ailow access
and increase in the height of the hospital. .
PlEASE STOP THE CONTINUED BROKEN PROMISES AND PRESERVE ONE OF THE BEST AREAS IN
TEMECULA. If you do not stop now you Will completely destroy the charm and beauty of what was Temecula.
Linda Betts
29630 Vallejo Avenue
Temecula, CA 92592
951-695-1924
951-695-3277 (fax)
11/16/2005
.
13-1
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
. 13. Linda Betts, via email on November 16, 2005.
Response 13-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment
asserts opposition to the proposed De Portola Road access and building height. As stated on page
3-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed De Portola Road driveway at the northeast corner of the project
site will serve as secondary access, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and
in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. The traffic
analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road. Also, as
noted in Response 10-10, the City's General Plan Circulation Element designates De Portola Road
as a four~ane roadway, with the ultimate cross section to include horse trails consistent with the
character of the area. Any future widening of De Portola Road will take into account traffic safety
issues.
The Draft EIR at pages 4-5 through 4-13, presents the analysis of visual character and quality impacts
associated with the proposed hospital. Two photographic renderings are presented, one illustrating
views from a hillside to the north overlooking the project site (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures
4-2a and 4-2b), and a second illustrating conditions just north of the intersection of Pio Pico Road
and De Portola Road (presented in the Draft EIR as Figures 4-3a and 4-3b). As noted on page 4-5 of
the Draft E1R, the project will be visible from several residential lots north of the project site.
However, while the project can be seen from the north, views of Palomar Mountain from areas
north of the project site will not be blocked.
.
At the request of the Santiago Ranchos Property Association, the applicant placed tethered balloons
on the project site on Saturday, November 12, 2005 to provide residents information regarding the
proposed height of the hospital towers. The renderings and use of balloons to indicate the
proposed project's height are standard and accepted techniques used to analyze the aesthetic
impacts of a project under CEQA.
The Draft EIR presents substantial evidence regarding the potential aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project and describes how project features will reduce impacts to less than significant
(pages 4-5 and 4-12 of the Draft EIR). The comment is acknowledged, and no further CEQA
analysis is required.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL lMPAa REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUlA
9-278
Page 1 of!
. ,
"
Debbie Ubnoske
Letter 14
From: Susan Jones
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7;45 AM
To: Debbie Ubnoske
Subject: FW; Public Hearing Case No; PA044162; PA05-0302; PA044J63; PA04-0571 - re; Hospital
.
FYI. Thought you may need this for tonighrs meeting.
From: Shawn Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 200S 7:25 AM
To: Mike Naggar; Susan Jones
Cc: Jeff Comerchero; Debbie Ubnoske; Gary Thomhlll
SUbject: RE: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462; PA05-0302; PA04-0463; PAO+0571 N re: Hospital
No problem. Susan will make a copy and have it ready for the City Council meeting, which will be probably on
Dec. 13th. I'll also have Susan get copies for tonighfs Planning Commission.
Shawn
From: Mike Nagger
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:37 PM
To: Shawn Nelson; Susan Jones
Cc: Jeff Comerchero
Subject: FW: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-{1462; PA05-o302; PA04-0463; PA04-0571 N re: Hospital
.
I want this read into the record please.
From: Jon Silver [mallto:JSllve. ~........HOMES.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:32 PM
To: Jeff Comerchero; Ron Roberts; Maryann Edwards; Oluck Washington; Mike Naggar
Cc: Skip HUbby; Dave Hubby; Undsy Hubby
SUbject: Public Hearing Case No: PA04-0462; PA05-o302; pA04-0463; PA04-0571 N re: Hospital
Honorable Mayor and Distinguished Members of the City CouncU:
In consideration of Subject Application as noticed for your further consideration and public hearing on November
22nd, please be advised that, as the adjacent owner of property to the west of the proposed hospital project, 14-1
Covenant Development is In favor of the appllcanrs proposal as .0uUlned and we encourage your approval of the
pertinent Cases as aforementioned. .
Thank you for your diligent efforts.
Jon. Silver
President, Covenant Development
29995 Technology Drive, Suite 201
Murrieta, CA 92563
Office: (951)634-9040 x 102
Fax#: (951)834-9046.
.
11/16/2005
I.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
14. Jon Silver, President, Covenant Development, via email on November 15, 2005.
Response 14-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment is
acknowledged. The comment states that Covenant Development supports the proposed hospital.
This comment does not address an environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis
or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
9280
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
DANIEL L CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
OSHA R. MESERVE
SUMA PEESAPAT1
GLORIA D. SMITH
A PROFESSIONAl CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
1225 BUt STREET. SUITE 550
SACRAMENTO. CA 9.5814-41110
TEL: (8111) .4404.6201
FAX: (5116) 444.lI2OD
.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BOt GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080.7037
FEu.oW
KEVIN-S. GOLDEN
TEL: (650) 589-1680
FAX: (SSO) 589.50152
gamlth 0 .d.~.b'O.dW.II.~Om
-,
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R. ADAMS
ANN BROADWELL.
Novembez: 16, 2005
Letter 15
Hand Delivered
Mr. Emery Papp
Planning Department
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Imnact Renort for the
Temecula Remonal Hosnital
.
Dear Mr. Papp:
On behalf of the California Nurses Association, the attached letter provides
supplemental comments on the City of Temecula's focused environmental impact 15-1
report for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. Mr. Matt Hagemann prepared
the supplemental comments. His curriculum vita is also attached.
Sincerely,
C/A'05Vv-.J
Gloria D. Smith
GDS:bh
Attachment
1818-006.
.
QptltlJlWClnlflCyCltldfNJIMf
,
.
T"""nlcal Consullatlon, DataAnalysls and
LitIgation Support for lhe E . " 1
SOIIJWATERlAIR.PROTECTJON "1&.I!dU.a.a.,),C!,.
201 Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Fax: (310) 393-3898
Matt Hagomann
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Email: mhasremann@9wane.crnn
November 14, 2005 .
Gloria D. Smith
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
Dear Ms. Smith:
.
Please consider these comments as a supplement to the letter written to you on
October 26, 2005 regilrding the Temecula Regional Hospital Focused Environmental
Impact Report ("focused EIR"). We have t'<"t'",,,d these supplemental comments
concerning the issue of leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFfs) under three existing gas 15-2
stations within a quarter-mile of the proposed project. The City did not acknowledge
contaminants from these LUFfS in its focused EIR, but we believe, for reasons below,
that a full evaluation of the extent of the contamination, and potential human health and
environmental impacts is warranted prior to project approval.
ARCO, Shell Oil and Chevron have discovered three separate plumes of
Cu.......Jnated groundwater stemming from gasoline releases at three service stations near
the eastern and southern boundaries of the proposed hospital site (Figure I). Both Shell
Oil and Chevron have actively monitored groundwater in the vicinity of the stations since
2001. Shell Oil has documented groundwater contamination in monitoring wells on the
north side of State Highway 79, along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site
(Figure 2). Specifically, in an October 28, 2005 monitoring report, Shell Oil reported
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) at a concentration of 23 ugIL in groundwater at a depth 15-3
of 19.90 feet along the southern boundary and directly adjacent to the proposed hospital
site (monitoring well No. 24A).l This concentration is nearly twice that of the California
drinking water standard of 13 ugIL.
Shell Oil also reported tert-buytl alcohol (TBA) at 33 ugIL at a depth of 19.92 feet
along the southern boundary of the t'wt'uoed hospital site (see Figure 2, monitoring well
No. 24B), nearly three times the California safe drinking water level of 12 ugIL. In its
monitoring program. Chevron found MI'BE-contaminated groundwater at the Chevron
.
I Ihtll,.,/JeRi.waL'>..., J.s.ca.20v/l!eO reDOrtI3029416739/f0606597082.PDFl.
---__ ------..---or-
. ....._------. . .~._._--
I
gas station located just 250 feet from the proposed hospital site which is just across
Highway 79.
As recently as April 2003, Chevron detected MTBE at 1,400 ugIL at a depth of
approximately 20 feet, roughly 500 feet from the y.vyv.ed hospital site. (See Table 2,
monitoring well No. 6i In Chevron's most recent monitoring report, it documented
MIBE at the same site at 14 uglL, which is in excess of the California drinking water
standard (Figure 2).
This cuu..,..,..;nation is particularly important because Shell Oil has found
contaminated groundwater flowing directly towards the proposed hospital site (Figures 1
and 2), i.e., the MTBE plume is flowing in a northwesterly direction beneath and across
Highway 79 directly towards the proposed hospital site (Figure 5A).3 The Shell Oil
'''tM ~ shows the movement of the plume on the north side of Highway 79 with question
marks, indicating that the plume has likely extended beneath the proposed hospital site.
Accordingly, Shell has sought to test groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site in
order to detennine the extent of the plume. Unfortunately, however, the y.wy""; owner,
Universal Health Services, has refused Shell access to the y.'vy...~y. According to a Shell
report:
"[Shell Oil will] C"., J".. e to pursUe 8ccess a,.,.. ,,__"~nt with Universal Health Service,
Inc., in order to conduct additional downgradient site ass.....~...'v.t activities.
Regional Board assistance may be required."
Shell Oil Monitoring Report, Octo~ 28, 2005.4
Shell's __.....~ certainly underscores the i~y_.;""ce of gaining access to the
proposed hospital site in order to track groundwater wu.......;nation. Access may also
ultimately be needed to hydraulically contain and treat the plume which may jeopardize
Well 120, a public water well located just east of the proposed hospital site (Figure 1).
The report also indicates that regulatory action from the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board may be necessary so that Shell can gain access to the hospital site
and conduct essential monitoring and remediation work.
As noted in our October 26, 2005 letter to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo,
the focused EIR has failed to acknowledge the presence of the gasoline related
contaminants in shallow groundwater. We noted, in fact, that the focused EIR did not
include any evaluation of hazardous materials. In large development projects, such as
this hospital, DEIRs typically reference American Society of Testing and Materials
International (ASTM) Phase I and Phase n Environmental Site AsSl;SSIDenls, standard
tools for deteImining if hazardous conditions exist beneath or near a t" ut'u..ed
development.s
2 Ihttns:/Ie.<ri. wa~ :'~~j.ca.'!!U'i""" renortl9~ 1 R4QJ 44IVT0606599286.PDFl.
3 . ,- ~ - . - - .- - .... -
h,tms:lle..... ^-_""_, ..s.""..ov/.eo reoort173IQ~3~'P082_PDl:).
'1hItD'!:l/estw~,ca.vov/.eo renprt/302Q416739(m(~16Sg.7082,PDF"p.c6) . -'.~_'
S (see for example httn:llwww.cln-in.or.fdownIoadImisclroadman4.ndf).
.
15-3
Cont.
.
.
2
.
These documented exceedances of drinking water standards along the southern boundary
of the project area means that the project has potentially significant impacts. The focused
EIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts as follows:
1. Hospital workers and patients may be exposed to gasoline related contaminants
from vapors in soil beneath the hospital. Through a process known as vapor intrusion,
gasoline-related compounds. may collect in soil under proposed buildings in
concentrations sufficient to cuu.......:nate the air inside the hospital. If conc......".;ons
exceed guidelines published by U.S. EP A 6 or CaJ EP A 7 public health may be at risk. The
potential for vapor intrusion of gasoline related compounds should be evaluated in a
technical report to be incoIpOrated within a revised DEIR. .
2. Construction workers may be exposed to gasoline related compounds in shallow
groundwater upon excavation for the hospital. If the excavation extends to depths greater
than 20 feet, the water table would be intercepted. Standing water containing M'lBE and
TBA could constitute a hazard to construction workers along with potential exposure to
other gasoline contaminants. The potential for exposure of construction workers to
gasoline related w~t'uJDds should be evaluated in a revised DEIR.
.
3 Sampling of groundwater and soil vapor should be conducted to evaluate potential 15-4
health risks for construction workers, hospital workers and patients. Results of the
sampling should be used for comparison against U.S. EP A and Cal EP A standards and
guidelines in the assessment of potential human health risks and included in a revised
DEIR. 8 .
4. Sampling of groundwater and soil vapor should be conducted in the area of the
t'>ut'u.ed hospital to define the rlowngradient extent of the gasoline w..;....Jnants and the
potential impact to the public well as shown in Figure 1. AE. noted, Shell has requested
access for sampling from Universal Health without success and access is essential to
ensure that the pl\llIle does not progress undetected toward the public well.
5. If groundwater cuu.......:nation beneath the proposed hospital site is confirmed, a
revised DEIR should outline any necessary steps to contain and treat the plume of
contamination to protect the health of construction workers, hospital patients and staff.
The DEIR should also discuss any necessary remedial measures that may be required on
the proposed ho'spital site to ensure protection of Well 120, the public water supply well.
.
: ChllD:l/www.en;unv/reoinn09/Wl\..te/iftrldJor~lindex.html\
. (hllDj/www.""len..c8.vovlBrnwnfieldsldncument<l2OO5'~LSGuide.ndf).
· (see for example hllD:l/www.ep8.~ov/correctiveactinnlei"v.pnrlcolll'?lete.n<\f and
http://www_dtsc.c8.llOvf&;enceTechnoln..,,IHERD POL Eval Subsurface V.nor Intrusion interim final
d!!!t).
3
6.
Following additional investigation to define the extent of groWldwater
contaminants at the t''''t'u"oo hospital site, a revised DEm should include an
assessment of the potential effects of construction-related dewatering on the
plume migration and measures that will be implemented to prevent spreading of
cootam;n.tion toward building areas and Well 120.
Sincerely,
.1tut~.I(~~
Matt Hagemann
Rob C. Hesse, R.G., REA
-. ..--....,...,---------...
".."..-------"'- .
15-4
Cant.
4
.
.
.
.
.
Leaend
-1JTIIE,.....(\Il/U
_lD\JIIUDfI(lGt)
lEI RIpojtd Onlllldner flcMr onctIOn
. PutlIIc,...~w.n120
d-...--
0--"'"
A
ill!: Tlmecull Regional Holpilel
T.~.C"umia
rDil: GROUtl)WlJER CONTN.CIN.IJ1ON
twmev: RCH F* 11/14i!5 jF9AMiJ.: 1
_8tiI '. ,-
~--
o SllI 1'11)
_.l
_.--.:;;.:..,;;;;::~,:,-
.
5
.
.
LlHIRnd
- MT8E pklr1ws(ug1J
-l1II...,..CLIlIlJ
11III3 RIpoltIlll 0ru1ltdinl8r F\aw' ondlpn
. SlIlIOnllllllMl8rllllll1lalrGWllIIls
.' a.mn~....CIlItOrIIGWI"
c:J1I__
0_"'_""
-
T.rnKUt. RlI9ion. Hotpbl
Tlmtt1lII, CdomIe
b
.
""
lIE
MTBEN.lOTBAGOUND'WIiTER PWMES
0rIwl1ty: RCH r- 11t14.()5 r""No.: 2
-~~_..
.!IlO
---=,\' It
.
6
.
.
, =.;::;..:
:.
,:"."':C'. ;'~-~ .,.~: ."'."~'IIlIi'
~rJllm-1(~~f
.. -' - - - ..
~~i~~ ~~,::~.: ~~ :,_~
<:::::.:; -- .. - -,~" -.............
Matthew Hagemann
Principal
Regulatory and Litigation Support SpecUl/is!
Regulatory CompHanee
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Hydrogeologic Ch_ _.:_ :"'lIon
LitigationS, . u .. .
Expert Witoess
Resean:h
~dJH:atlon:
M.S. Degree, Geology, CaIifomia State L"":" __.:., Lo. Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Teaching Certificate, Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 1987.
Professional Emerience:
Matt bas over 15 years of experience in key areas of __,:,___..! assessment and remediation. He .pent ten years
with the U.S. EPA in 1he RCRA and Superlimd ...~...~ and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the
Western Regional Office where he identified __..:-.. tIoeats to ".._~.,ater from perchlorate and MmE. While
with EP A, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in ensuring the rapid assessment of eight major military
facilities undergoing base closure. He led ___._ enforcement actions 1IDder provisions of RCRA while also
working ___.._.~,..Jy with ponoit holders to :".." ." hydrogeologic characterization and water quality m..:...;..g.
Matt bas worked closely with U.S. EP A legal counsel and the technical .taff of several states in the application and
enIi..._~"; of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Mall bas trained the technical
staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the TenitDry of Guam in the conduct of investigations,
groundWater J;md._1s, and sampling tec1miques.
Positions Matt bas held include:
. Founding Partner and Senior Regulatory Ana1yst, SW APE;
. Senior::"'", .:..'~:...~;~ Analyst, K.omex H2O Sciencel Inc;
. Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch;
. Hi ':"'b-.logist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division;
. Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologis~ U.S. Envi....._..lal Protection Agency;
. Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences;
. Ins1ructor, CoHege of Mario, Dep__...... of Science;
. Geologist, U.S. Forest Service; and
. Geologist, Dames & Moore,
Knowledge,~kllls and Abiliti_es. ..
-".-.-.----
.-..---"'."'..-
Curriculum Vitae
Matthew Hagemann
Senior Retmlatorv and Environmental Analvst:
With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities bave included:
. Project IIl3IIlIglll and designated expert for litigation .....r... under provisions ofP..r..;':on 65 in the review of
releases of ......L.. __...........mts to soun:es drinking water at major __=-_;.s and =--'':''..J of gas s1ations
.:...,~.out Califomia.
. Lead teViewer of _,:.. . '. I impact reports in identifying sigoificant issues with regard to hazardous waste,
water quality and geologic hazards.
. Liaison to TnDal EP A staff in assisting with their response to perchlorate .._......:.-.:... of the Colorado River
and related drinking water supplies.
.
With Komex H2O Science Inc, Matt's duties included the following:
. Senior author of a report on the exteDt of percblorate c_~.......:...mon that was used in t....:....__. by the former
U.S. EP A Administra1DI and Gem::ral Couuse1.
. Senior _~_d..tt in the deve:'L~~: of a comprehensive, c1....":...JIy iIIteractive chronology ofM1BE use,
research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in the development of a c_......L......ive, el..~...:...uy interactive chronology of perchlorate
use, research, and regulation.
. Senior researcher in a study that estimates oationwide costs for M1BE remediation and drinking water
w......_.....:.
. Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that bave been ~_......:mted by MTBE in
Clilifomia and New Yorlc.
. Expert, witness ;"'':'''''''J' for oil production-related contamination in Mississippi.
. Lead author for a mul1i-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met .
strictregnlatory ..~...:..__ and rigorous deadlines.
. Development of strategic. approaches for ckanup of ,,-_......:.....ted sites in consultation with clients and
regu1ators.
Exeeutive Direr:tor:
e-......:,. as Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt leads effons to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from IIIII1tiple sources of c.._.......:....mon including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In
-.r...:...g to a Boaxd of r.:........ that includes repreo._:";:,_ from leading Orange County universities and
lP',",,"$~, Matt has r"r~.l issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wa.._., ..~ and control of the
dischrge of grease to sewer systems. Matt has actively participated in the devel.,... _.. of countywide water quality
permits for the control of urban runoff and pennits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt has worked with other
~_...._.:ita that bave been effective in 1".,.,':"'" and restoring water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources
Defense Cotmcil and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County
Business Council. Matt also manages the publication of a widely read weekly newsletter, the Orange County Water
QiIality News (www.ocwatciJ&rg).
Rvdrm'eGlofllVl
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. ::"',,:"._..;..J Protection Agency, Malt led investigations to characteri2e
and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Treasure
Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot
Specific activities were as follows:
.
Curriculum Vitae
2
Matthew Hagemann
.
.
.
. Lcd efforls to model groundwater flow and contaminant ;'-r-'~ eIlSmed adequacy of monitoring netWOrks.
and assessed cleanup alternatives for c.__..:..ated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
. Initiated a regional r'w&,- for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and lal..."_., analysis at military
baseS.
. Identified emerging issues, wrote t.<:!m;r.al guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation develvr~ through
wmlcon four national U.S. EPA ....1...._...... incIt1dn,g tho Superfund (1..._1" .:__ Tecbnica1 Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to d.._"':-' the w1nerability of groundwater
to c."....:.." tion on the is1ands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of
vulnerability, and the results were adopted and nuhli<hell by tho State of Hawaii and County ofMaui.
No a hydrogeologist with the EP A Groundwater Protection Section, Matt wmlced with provisions of the Safe
Drinking Water Act and NEPA to r'" ~ drinking water c.-..:..-::m.. Specific activities included the following:
. Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the devel.r___ ofnationall!llidance for the n' -"....~ll!!
of drinkinll water.
. Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and r..:_.:"l the drinking water of two .._..~::.:.s through
designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He <..<~.J geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and
responded to public c.._:. from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
. Reviewed a numher of En,:' .~___:.ll Impact :.~___ for planned major devel'r__~' including large
hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA H-J.... Waste ,......._ Duties were as follows:
. Supervised the 1r,.hw&..logic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C
re....:..~.
. Reviewed and wrote "part B" r''''':;' for the disposal of hazardous waste.
. Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for
significant enf..___. actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EP A legal counsel
. Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.
Wi1h tho National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of conL...:......~ souri:es to prevent
degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
. Applied pedinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to
control military, mining, and 1andfiD c ....~,...:.."...~.
. Conducted watershed-scale investigations of ___.. . """ at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic
National Park.
. Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park
superintendent on .......wt'.:ate response actions under CERCLA.
. Developed a program to conduct Onvi. ._._...J compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a
national... ..L.....lp.
. Co-.,,_':'.,__j two papers on the potential for water w . .- . 'llll from the -r-.:':-- of personal watercraft and
SIlOWDlOhiles, these papers serving as the basis for the deveLr~ of nation-wide policy on the use of these
vehicles in National Parks.
. Contributed to the ~ ;Multi-A2encv Source Water A~ under the Clean Water Action Plan.
___~ _.".'__'_n_____
..-"----- ,.......-
Curriculum Vitae
3
Matthew Hagemann
,
PoUev:
Served senior man....~~; as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. L, :...~~:..J Protection Agency,
Region 9. Activities included the following:
. Advised the Regional Administrator and semor management on __,;....., issues such as the potential for the
gasoline additive MTBE and "~_"':JIII perchlorate to c. . '. i.....:.:... '" water supplies.
. Shaped EPA's national -~r''''' to these threats by serving on v...;""~.JP8 and by contributing to guidance,
including the Office of Research and Development publication, Qxxgenates in Wat.., Critical Infonnation and
Research Need.,
. J.......".J the technical tIaining ofEPA's scientific and """:-.._:..g staiL
. Earned an EPA Bronze MedaIfor _..._~._.:..g the ",gion's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the
Administrator and semor management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making r'..-'
. Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
GeoIOPV'
With the U.S. Forest Service, Malt led investigations to d..._...:.... hillsIope stability of areas proposed for timber
harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific sctiviti.. were as follows:
. Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial P:...:....._rllic inteIpretation and mathematical models to detennine
slope stability.
. Coordinated his .__.h with community _--1_.. who were concerned with natnraI resource protection.
. Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking wster for the city of Medford,
Oregon.
As'a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two c. . . ,tM sites in the Portland,
Oregon, area and a large bazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
. Supervised year-long effort for soil and "'" ..,,:,. Iter sampling.
. C __:..:.J aquifer tests.
. Investigated active faults beneath sites r--r._.J for hazardous waste disposal.
Te.Rr:hin~:
From 1990 to 1998, Malt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
. At San F._:-. State University, held an adjunct IilcuIty position and tanght courses in eO'.:' .__.~la1 geology,
o.._........h" (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater _ .". '. ':'ll1L
. Served as a ._......:.;... ~.....:. _ for graduate and undergraduate stndents.
. Taught courses in_.;'._..u geology and oc...............h; st the College of Mario.
BenortL Panen SlId Prgenutions:,
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate c....-...:.....:.oo of the Colorado River: A Dam Mess. Invited presentation to s
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact ofPercblorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies.
Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting. Tmres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F. 2003. The Emergence ofPercblmate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited
..-----pICSCIIla~iS. EPARegion 9.
Curriculum Vitae
Matthew Hagemann
4
.
.
.
, .
.
.
".
I
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach 10 the Al..._.~~. ofPen:hlorate C..........:....~on. Invited
r"~----':"_IO the California Assembly Natural Resources C.......:_._.
HagemaDD, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold Wax Legacy in DrinkiDg Water. Presentation to a meeting of the
National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank 10 Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. F .~~~~on to a meeting of
the National G,. ....:, ater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost 10 Address MTBE c.._-.:..ation in Groundwater
(and Who WiD Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National C.._d"._._ Association.
J:....--um. M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs 10 Address MTBE Re1easc:s from Und-....-lI Storage Tanks and
the Resulting Impact to 1:":..:.:,,, Water Weo.. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Un:._... ...:
Stomge Tank Program _.._s.
H '. .,."..., M.F, 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology ofMTBE in Groundwater. Unpub1ishedreport.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as DrinkiDg Water.
Unpub1ished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Und.......-lI Storage Tanks.
Unpnhl;.hM report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to L. ",~.tJe Usage.
W ater:Resources Division, National Paxk Service, Teclmical Report
VanMouwerik, M and HagellllUlD, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.
Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society
Biannual Meeting, AsheviDe, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F, 1997, The Potential for MTBE to c..
TeclmicalForumAnnua! Meeting, Las Vegas:Nevada.
. ..e Groundwater. U.S. EP A Superfund Groundwater
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, r......,. .Jh..._;. to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station,
u....-... ._.... on Intrinsic Remediation of ChL:......J H} .h.~L_, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to AnL.. _,,~:c
c.. . .. ntS on the Island ofMaui, Hawaii Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
HagemaDD, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in EJr.:.__--J! Resources Management, Air and Waste
Mana."........: Association Publication VIP-61.
- - -------------
----.------..
.. Cumculum Vitae
5
Matthew Hagemann
.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Cbara.~.:"";;on and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.
Proceedings, California C. ._;. ,~ter Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge
D ~.~'~,tionl.u...~ Pnw-......tn.g.. SixthBicnnial Symposimnon the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
HagOlllllllll, M.F., 1993. U.S. .EPA Policy on the Technical L...,.._':"bility of the Cleanup of DNAPL-
.' . ',.A G_.-..I.._.. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid C...-..:....tion of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annua1 Meeting, v. 35.
..----------.
--_.~-- -
Curriculum Vitae.
Matthew Hagemann
6
.
.
.
.
I
I.
,
,
I
:.
15. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, November 16, 2005
Response 15-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. This comment
provides an introduction to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo comments on the Draft EIR.
No response is required. This letter represents a second comment letter from the same party,
reiterating and expanding upon some of the comments made in the October 28, 2005 letter (see
Response to Comment to Leller #7).
Response 15-2
The comment provides an introduction to supplemental comments, from SW APE, consultants to
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, on the leaking underground fuel tanks (LUFTs). The City
acknowledges the LUFTs in the vicinity of the project site. Refer to Responses 2-2 through 2-7 and
Response 7-18.
Response 15-3
Please refer to Responses 7-18 and 7-19.
Response 15-4
Please refer to Response 7-18, 7-19, and 7-20.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAllt.1PACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9-294
Eunltl., CoIIIM;ltu
0.8. JObDlOA
Chairman of the Board
Westmzr Commercial Brokerage
Naaq StepbCDIOA
Chair Elect
NSL I......... Suvica
Scott c.....
Fim Vicc Chair
Soumwcn Healthcare System
Roo HoU1clay
Treuurer
LPL Financial
Murrieta
Chamber of
Commerce
RECSIVEI::
NI]" 1 r: ~""1:
.. (UUJ
CITY MANAG
OFFIC,lR'S
.
November 16, 2005
Shawn Nelson
City Manager
City ofTemecuIa
P.O. Box 9033
T ..~....Ja CA, 92589=9033
Letter 16
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The Board ofDi.~~;~.~ oflhe Murrieta Chamber of Commerce whole
heartedly ~-r..-.'" the deveLr,....,.: oflhe ...._.._~~J hospital facility on
SR-79 South in Temecula.
Shan. Laonkr
5<=,,,,y W . M' fi ugh ba hasp.tal 'thin
Temeeub. Valky Communications, Ioe. e m wneta are Ortunate eno to:ve a 1 ~'''-'> WI
our city limits and another _..8 just outside our city in Wlldomar.
This is an 4 __;.,..., quality of life issue that is not currently available
to the citizens of the City ofTemecuIa.
n. Frusc
Past Chairman of me Board
Mission Oaks National Bank
DUnton
Vldde Ashmore
w.u. Fqo Bonk
Ala. BnlcoTicb
Wute Management
Job Campbell
Coyote Rentals 8c Sales. Ine.
Pat Kemball
SCGA Golf Course
Tlmothr C. Kuzelka
Law Offices ofTunothy C. Kuzellca
Ellubctb N"tj;ro
Nigro, Nigro & White, LLP
Rick Schoea/'dd
KIA World ofTcmccwa
Joa Sparkmaa
Temecula VaDey Bank
Jack ftA Huster
Jack F. V2D. Huster CPA. Inc.
Roger Ziemer
Southern California G:u Co.
The population ofTemecu1a is "'r ".;d to grow to 1 02,000 people by
the year 2013. The surrounding areas of Anza, Aguanga, French
Valley and lhe Temecula Wme Country will also increase su:.~;....;;atly
over the next 10 yean;. The current level of service is at full capacity
now and cannot possibly handle these increases in population.
16-1
.
The need for this facility is now, and current efforts to delay this
project will only serve to exacerbate the problem.
Therefore we strongly recommend that the Temecula Planning
Commio.<<ion and the City Council proceed with this project as quickly
as possible.
Sincerely,
?h-
I, tC).l....$',..-u
O.i'Johnson
Chairman of the Board
Rex Oliver
President/CEO
M~A~
mv J;",,)f ."
FRlGGYf23 ~tI.. -rC:":
.
........1I..IJ.w:........I.._
26396 Beeknun <Au<<. Ste.C Murrieta, CA 92562 (951)677.7916
fu (95l)677~9976 www.murrietadwnber.org
.
.
.
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
16. O.B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, November 16, 2005.
Response 16-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment is
acknowledged. The comment states that the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce supports the
proposed hospital, and highlights the importance of additional hospital facilities in the area. This
comment does not address an environmental issue or raise any question regarding the analysis or
conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
ENVlRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAl
CITY OF TEMECULA
9-296
Letter 17
"
....
"
:i.:
~.!
.
f
I"" -'"I.r::-'
...l) . . . . J. .
C-:/U).o<. q~' .... : . .
rRh~.-..ttii;e ",~~I1~:n.~rJ:~(l:-' ""
s~~~./7'~~- ".
~~ ~E:X7~JiZ~~~~~u .
~J:;if~'i:;;'~;~
J- I'I:J.:' .fvr:. /::>,,,,- ;:.,J...ry~~.' '., .' .
nS _ Q ~--. . .' .
. ;1 -:..PIs ~ ~. wR6^,6-~' '. .
"3;#.-"; g&;C'~~::W'"~.:~" .'
. M-.. tl t?-:.tAu- ~~ ..,;iI4t'~ :: ....
. eA. #I/n y&t ~. .. ... 'i.' . ·
~. :S~~,<JI,~J+.4:Lt.~/J<.
~ .L~'~ -h:.-Ki:,;.;, :.~ _P4:-j::i.,..:e. t:iuL- 17-1
...~ .' . .'. ,p' .'"..9" - J. .' - L. - .
"': .,;~~~.o'?~":~'~ ..
.' d~'~"~~"c...~.'."'-
-..:to ~jJ4;;#c'i:~ ~ ~"_. .'-
"'*nrw; ~~~i~4; A/';~~
: .~M:4.r~1~~~~".
.~.~~_~C';:
. -Uh;;;;'-tif;J'~ ~ ..~,. -
.~~.h.:~i;~jr:JJi~'Iiir",,~;:<:;i;}'.frli~~
. .~~..-,.--.... ..~~~-
: .' .> .~~:';:'~~~;~~<: "~:~$;,J;;ii;
. ,.'. ':.' .-:.... :"0: '~.:~..)~ -' ~-~"';:~- ? -:,'~ ~~~~~'~:"j~:~~:~;;~--
.
.
!
:.
.
.
I
..(u. 'LH7- ,.U<1 ~ ~ 0, /<,. ~
11 V' p.R~
OhulTat/on ",
C2lk+~
. Nlla Leger Casey
~~{h~~Jr .
1:- A.e.:r.d...-n?.;;::z.:: CA/cluo~.
; 43'f"95 Ahr'th 'o";';IJ!'.&.~
L... ftfr~-483q. . u/l.1uu..l..... tf~~'2 .
17-1
Cont.
17. Heh;n Chichester, November 16, 2005.
Response 17-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period.. The comment
states opposition to the proposed project location, size, and impact on the Los Ranchitos
neighborhood. Please refer to Responses 11-1 and 13-1. This comment expresses unsubstantiated
opinion, and does not state any facts contrary to the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No further
response is required.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAllMPAO REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSP1TAl
9-299
.
.
.
.
.
.
November 21, 2005
City ofTemcc$1a
Planning Depaj1ment
Attn: Emery PltpP. Senior Planner
43200 Busincs~ Park Drive
Temecula, CA; 92590
Dear Mr. Pappi
""--"'_'H
rt"~!~ (:", :.
r ;,~! -~~V2 1 2~05 ! Ii
l:.h ~ .
;
....1
Letter 18
j
;:":;;
,
..-.j
I have two mahi concerns. The first is the Hospital's ingress and egress. I 'object to the
........;.~ on.DePortola ROildbeing.plal';d.on.the east side of the proposed bespital
1',..."...;. My.chief w"..""" is that my property at 31625 DePortola Road (setting next to
their lot on the:east) and the other two parcels ea.<t of my ,....l...~; all will j,e Wlder
development i~ the near future. Our necessary. access to DePortola Road Iieeds to be
preserved and given considel'alion as future development occurs keeping aP eye on the
big picture. If ihe November 14, 2005.. Press Enterprise plot design is acelmrte. their 18-1
proposed ac~ is to the mOSL easL end of their De.Portola Road Lot paraIld to the
drainagll cu~. All drawings Lhat I have seen during my sixteen years in Temecula show
Pio Pico Road having access on and through the lots now under proposed development. I
think if there i~ to be an entry or eltit onto DePortola Road that is the p1a~ that it should
remain.. Also. 'Daltola Road to the east ofT of Margarita Road dead ends iirto the
drainage co~. It seems to me that Dartola Road facilitates a perfect ~ss onto the
proposed hospital development I think it should be used.
Ibis is an invitation to enhance communication wilh absent property owneISldevelopers.
Sincerely,
~.
. .-...r
. - --.," .. "1
Don L. Rhodes'
31625 DePortoia Road
Temecula, CA ; 92592
(951)501-9687(0011)
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR Received After Close of Public Comment Period
18. Don L. Rhodes, November 21,2005.
Response 18-1
This written comment was received after the close of the noticed comment period. The comment
asserts opposition to the proposed De Portola Road access and supports access from Dartolo Road.
As stated on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR, the De Portola Road driveway at the northeast corner of the
project site will serve as secondary access, with turning movements restricted to in and out right
turns and in only left turns. left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. The
traffic analysis conducted for the project identified no significant impact to De Portola Road.
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road on pages 5-11 through 5-14 of the Draft EIR presents an
analysis of a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the
proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. The analysis concluded that traffic and
biological resource impacts of Alternative 4 could be greater than those associated with the
proposed project. Therefore, secondary access via De Portola Road is the preferred access
compared to Dartolo Road. No further analysis is required.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
9.301
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.7
NOVEMBER 16,2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01-oS.06\PC MEMO 01-QS-Q6.doc
12
i.
.
::.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on
Wednesday,. November 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Per requirements of the Fire Marshal, Chairman Mathewson announced that additional seating
will be available in the Main Conference Room.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaelf, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005.
2 Director's Hearino Case Uodate.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaelf moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval.
R:IMinulesPCI 111605
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
New Items
.
3 Plan nino ADDlication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned
Development Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Develooment Plan. PA04-
0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan
Amendment. Zone Chanqe. Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan and a Tentative
Parcel MaD to construct a .566.160 souare foot hosi;lital. includino medical office buildinos on
35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiohway 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and
aODroximatelv 700 feet west of Maroarita Road
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp presented the Planning Commission
with a staff report (of written record), advising that subsequent to the preparation of the agenda
report and packet of this meeting, two additional letters and three emails were received
concerning the proposed project.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that all street
improvements along 79 South, the intersection at 79 South, and the driveway on De Portola will
be in the first phase, except for the Dartolo Road connection.
With regard to helicopter flights, Mr. Papp noted that the type of license that the applicant will be
applying for would allow an average of one flight to six flights a month and that the perimeter
landscaping will have 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees installed.
By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson, representing P&D Consultants,
presented the Environmental Impact Report (of record), highlighting the following:
.
. Impacts considered but found to be less than significant
o Aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality
o Air Quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies
o Hydrology and water quality
o Land Use Planning
o Noise - construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading
dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exteriorlinterior
noise environment
. Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated
o Aesthetics - Light and glare
o Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators,
mechanical equipment, rooftop equipment)
o Transportation - Project impacts
. Unavoidable Significant Impacts
o Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
o Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
helicopters flights
o Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
.
R:\MinutesPCI 111605
2
.
.
.
Ms. Stetson stated that given all the information, and as part of the approval process, if the
Planning Commission were to recommend and the City Council were to approve the project with
these significant unavoidable impacts, a finding must be made that the project benefits out-way
the unavoidable significant affects (as noted below) associated with construction and operation
of the hospital.
. That the proposed hospital will provide ne~essary medical services to the local
community including Emergency Acute/Outpatient and Cancer Medical care and
rehabilitation
. That the proposed hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for
highly trained medical staff and medical service workers
. That the proposed hospital will support diversification of Temecula's Economic and
Employment base including and not limited to the biomedical research and office
facilities that would be on site
. That the Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located wittl access from a major
roadway to best serve the medical service needs of local residence as well as the
region.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the applicant how the noise concern of sirens at night will be
addressed.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson stated that because staff does not have all
the responses to the numerous comments that were received from private parties, the Planning
Commission will be asked to continue this item to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting; at that time, staff will be addressing concerns of the Planning Commission as well as
concerns from speakers.
For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that all questions and
comments will be addressed at the December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Scott Crane, Director of Business Development for Riverside County for Universal Health
Services and Ms. Linda Bradley, CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Health Care System
(consisting of Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center) spoke in favor
of the proposed project, offering the following:
. That in light of the size of the City and considering its anticipated growth, this City should
have a high-quality, state-of-the-art hospital
. That a hospital would be a key facility in providing health care services to citizens of
Temecula
. That Temecula Valley is currently served by two Universal Health Service Hospitals,
Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, both part of
Southwest Health Care System; that Rancho Springs Medical Center (closest
emergency room to the proposed site) is approxirnately eight miles north of the hospital
project for Temecula
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
3
. That both current hospitals regularly operate at above 90% capacity for its average daily
census; that the health care team desires and needs the proposed hospital; and that .
currently patients are treated in hallways because the community and demand for
medical services has exceeded the design capacity of the current facilities
. That Universal Health Services will be investing more than $50 million in expanding the
two existing hospitals to add beds and rooms, an open heart and cardiac unit at Inland
Valley Medical Center, O.B. Department at Rancho Springs, including a neo-natal
intensive care unit, and doubling and tripling the size of the current emergency room
. That expansions of Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs will not
be able to accommodate the current demand
. That in the event of a natural disaster, the community will not have the facilities to
adequately handle a natural disaster or national security event
. That although other properties were considered, it was determined that the 79 South
corridor is properly configured with appropriate access
. That for years Southwest Health Care Systems has proven to be a good corporate
citizen for the community
. That if the proposed project were approved, the hospital will be providing high-quality
services easily accessible to Temecula residents who will no longer have to travel long
distances to receive such care
. That the hospital design will be based on clinical needs and patient-care concerns; that
departments that need to be close to each other for optimum critical patient care are the
emergency departments, x-ray, and surgery; that out-patient services tend to flow
horizontally within a hospital and in-patient services tend to flow 'vertically; that
additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, and other support services
are all areas that have primary relationships to the first-floor functions; and that
departments such as administration, Human Resources, and Education are also located
on the first level, to enable access from the public while maintaining secured areas on
the non-public side of the hospital, including patient care towers
.
. That patient rooms will be designed in stacking order, similar to a hotel; that typical bed
floors operate most efficiently at 34 to 38 patient rooms per floor; for initial construction
of the 170 beds; that the project will dictate five floors of patient rooms above the first
floor of the whole facility; thereby, defining the project as a 6-story bed tower
. That the State limits the, distance hospital staff may travel from a nurse station to the
patient room to 90 feet which, in turn, has an affect on how large a bed floor may be
designed in order to maintain practical efficiency; that State code requires that all patient
rooms have an exterior window; that with 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed
to ensure that code requirements are met will dictate multiple levels of patient floors
.
R:\Min~lesPC\ 111605
4
,
I
.'.
"
:i
i
I.
I
,
i
i.
. That after establishing a need for a multilevel tower, the location of the hospital tower will
be determined by how the tower will relate to internal functions; and that the key criteria
for locating the bed tower will be dictated by the proximity of the critical core
departments, ER, Imaging, and surgery
. That in the design of the Temecula Hospital, the core elevators are located centrally
among the core departments and central to the first-level floor plan; that optimum patient
transfer efficiency will be achieved with the central core; that if you were an in-patient in
the hospital, one would desire to be closer to the elevators so that one could get to the
needed services faster
. That mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are more efficiently designed with the
central tower which lead to faster construction and help provide quality health care
sooner
. That if the proposed hospital were designed with shorter bed towers, patients would
have a longer distance to access needed critical services and, therefore, taking longer to
get life-saving services to patients '
. That the hospital project will bring between 1,000 and 1,200 new local jobs and will
eliminate long commutes; and that the hospital will also bring two medical office
buildings, one that will be built prior to the hospital, providing outpatient hospital services
such as outpatient care, x-ray and lab, physical therapy as well as physician offices
. That the hospital will bring medical and surgical services, an intensive care unit, eight
operating rooms, lab and x-ray, and an emergency department that will be able to assist
more than 40 patients at one time
. That the hospital will not be designated as a trauma center
. That when the hospital will be built, it will be one of the top three employers and tax
payers in the City of Temecula
. That the applicant is aware of the concerns of the helipad but that the helipad would only
be used to transport critically injured or ill patients to a specialty hospital
. That the patient care tower will allow for a future planned expansion if necessary, with no
need to expand infrastructure; therefore, expansion may occur rapidly to meet the needs
of the community
. That the proposal including a complete plan for the hospital with no hidden parts and/or
no changes contemplated down the road for the hospital
. That with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the
City Council's approval, Universal Health System will deliver a hospital.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
5
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern regarding the sound of sirens at night, Mr.
Crane stated the construction of a hospital would not create more ambulance runs; that .
ambulance runs are currently based on population, that ambulance needs occur whether there
is a hospital or not; and that it would be the destination of the ambulance that would cause the
siren.
Referencing Chairman Mathewson's question regarding doubling up on nurses station to reduce
the height of the towers, Ms. Stetson advised that doubling nurses station to have broader
patient towers and less stories would result in a longer distance to get a patient to emergency
services; that it is very important to have patient care floors be the perimeter in order to provide
shorter distance times from the furthest patients out to the central core down to the emergency
services; and that higher towers, with less square footage, would be best for patient care.
For the Planning Commission, Mr. Crane stated that a designation for a trauma center would be
designated by the County, not Universal Health Systems.
Ms. Stetson informed the Commission that because sudden and unanticipated changes in
patient's conditions occur, it would be difficult to determine how patients are placed in a hospital.
It was also stated for the Commission that the State and County regulate the disposal of
hazardous materials.
Mr. Crane advised that Universal Health Systems explored other construction sites but that the
sites were not adequately designed to meet the needs of the hospital.
In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. Crane stated that typically the number of .
helicopter flights would relate to emergency room visits; that there will be occasions when
conditions will change with a patient which would require relocation and that if the hospital were
to exceed the maximum number of helicopter flights allowed, a viable alternative would be to
ground transport patients to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (Trauma Center) from a
critical care ambulance transfer and helicopter transport the patient from there.
Chairman Mathewson thanked Mr. Crane and Ms. Stetson for their report.
At 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a 15-minute break. At 8:15 the Planning
Commission resumed with the meeting.
At this time the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed hospital project:
. Dr. Russ Hatt
. Dr. Kevin Flaig, Murrieta
. Dr. Edward Pillar, Murrieta
. Ms. Linda Maxwell, Temecula
. Mr. Charles V. Bahr, Corona
. Ms. Joan Sparkman
. Mr. Rick Meyer
. Ms. Leah Patterson, Murrieta
. Ms. Tomi Arbogast,Temecula .
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
6
.
. Ms. Vanessa Ruelas
. Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula
. Ms. Alice Sullivan, Temecula
. Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula
. Mr. Michael Murphy, Canyon Lake
. Ms. Rene Aberle, Murrieta
. Ms. Debbie Parker, Temecula
. Janis Rustard, Temecula
. Mr. Mark Nelson, Temecula
. Dr. Brett Ginther, Fallbrook
. Dr. Reza Vaezazizi, Temecula
. Ms. Debbie Moss, Temecula
. Ms. Barbara Lasko-Hoellinger, Temecula
. Ms. Chesi Levy, Temecula
. Ms. Susan Wildgoose, Temecula
. Ms. Linda Barr, Murrieta
. Mr. Norm Everett, Temecula
MOTION:' Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m.
Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval.
. Ms. Trisha Heide, Temecula
. Ms. Justine Castro, Temecula
. Mr. David Moorhead, Temecula
. The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following
reasons:
. That Universal Health System is committed to quality patient care
. That there are not enough beds at the current hospitals to provide the health care needs
of the community
. That the expansion efforts of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional
Medical Center will only help with the current over crowding issues
. That true adequate future health care coverage could only be obtained with building the
proposed hospital project
. That in terms of an emergency, minutes are critical
. That to avoid a local health care crisis, the proposed project must be built
. That if the proposed project were not approved, the health of the public will be in
jeopardy
.
. That the combined yearly volume of patient visits at Rancho Springs Medical Center and
Inland Valley Regional Medical Center would be over 60,000 patients a year
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
7
. That the City of Temecula needs and deserves a state-of-the-art hospital
. That the diversity and accessibility of the helicopters would make medical operations
more capable
.
. That good emergency care is needed in the Temecula Valley
. That the current and future growth of Southwest California and Temecula Valley requires
that a state of the art hospital be a key component in the community
. That the health and well being of Temecula citizens depend greatly on the ability for
pave the way for such facilities to be built
. That considering the projected population growth of the combined cities of Temecula
and Murrieta will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years, it will require immediate
action and approval of this hospital facility
. That any delay in approving the proposed project will have profound impacts on the
region's ability to groW, prosper, and meet future health care needs of the community
. That while Temecula's population has tripled since incorporation, the City of Temecula
and its outlined region cannot rely on medical facilities at its immediate service areas
. That in the event of a major catastrophe access to Murrieta or Wildomar may not be
available
.
. That Southwest Healthcare System will be committed to developing a state-of-the-art
facility to serve the need of the community
. That although the services at Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho
Springs Medical Center are excellent, the facilities are inadequate to deal with the
current growth as well as the future growth
. That Universal Health System is a great organization to work for and will provide high-
quality cost-effective, coordinated health care services to the Temecula Valley.
The following individuals spoke in oooosition of the proposed hospital project:
. Mr. Brad Storman, Temecula
. Ms. Gloria Smith, Murrieta
. Mr. Matt Hagemann, San Marcos
. Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula
. Mr. Jerry Toliver, Temecula
. Mr. Richard Anderson, Temecula
. Mr. Kenneth Ray,Temecula
. Mr. Don Brown, Temecula
. Mr. Raymond Bennett, Temecula
. Mr. George Di Leo, Temecula
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
8
.
.
:.
The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not completely addressed the noise
traffic impacts that the proposed project will bring
. That a block wall installed between the proposed project and nearby residents would
significantly reduce the noise impacts that will be created by the proposed hospital
. That the EIR should include estimated number of helicopter flights and its associated
noise
. That the EIR does not describe the project
. That the EIR does not analyze the reasonable/feasible impacts
. That the residents surrounding the proposed site are of the opinion that the City could
mitigate the noise impacts to the homes by installing a brick wall along DePortola Road
and Pio Pico Road, advising that this would be a simple, inexpensive, and affective
opportunity to reduce the noise impacts
. That the surrounding residents are concerned with the additional impacts that the
hospital will have on Pio Pico Road
. That the EIR does not address leaking underground fuel tanks from nearby gas stations
that are contaminating ground water and moving toward the hospital site; and that the
EIR must address all issues regarding leaking underground fuel is warranted under the
law and requires the preparation of an EIR
. That the EIR only addresses a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the
proposed project
. That the EIR has failed to address hazardous waste materials and geology
. That in review of documentation obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's website, there are gas stations leaking plumes to the area of the proposed
project; and that a Methyl Tertyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) gasoline additive has been detected
in the drinking water along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site
. That further evaluation of the proposed site and a revised EIR would be necessary to
ensure hospital water and patient safety; that sampling of ground water should be
granted in the vicinity of the proposed hospital to ensure that the water supply well will
be protected; and that any necessary clean-up should be conducted prior to construction
. That the proposed hospital is located in a liquefaction hazard zone; that the Riverside
County Geologist has designated this area as very high potential for liquefaction; and
that maps indicate that a study will be required prior to a public hearing for the project
entitlement
. That although residents agree with the need for a hospital in the community, it will have
a negative impact on the surrounding residences
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
9
. That surrounding residents of the proposed project are concerned with traffic problems
as a result of the DePortola Road access; and that a No access on DePortola Road .
would be preferred
. That noise from sirens would be a safety issue for equestrian-type activities that occur
around the area
· That the proposed project will lower property values and destroy the rural setting of the
community
· That visual tranquility will be destroyed with the lights and tower height of the proposed
hospital
. That Los Ranchitos and Santiago Rancho Estates represent equestrian areas within the
City of Temecula; that the streets in the area are narrow rural residential streets without
cement curbs, sidewalks, and stre~t lights; and that the streets cannot handle the daily
cut-through traffic that will be generated by a DePortola entrance
. That the proposed height of the hospital site will be unacceptable
. That the applicant of the proposed hospital must make reasonable modifications to
better conform to the City's height limits.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item No. 3 to the December 7, 2005,
Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous aDDroval.
.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the doctors and nurses' who spoke on behalf of the hospital.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised the Commission that he will not be in attendance of the
December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting due to him being out of the Country.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Referencing the selection process and reappointments of Commissioners, Deputy City Manager
Thornhill, advised the Planning Commission that at some point in the future, staff will ask the .
Commission for their thoughts with regard to the selection and reappointment process.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Planning Commission meetings for the month of
December 2005 will be December 7 and December 14, 2005, advising that that December 21,
2005, will be cancelled.
.
R:\MinutesPC\ 111605
10
.
,
i'
.
.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:21 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next repular
meetina to be held on December 7. 2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\111605
11
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.8
NOVEMBER 16,2005 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\C U P\2004\04"()463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 01'{)5~06\PC MEMO 01.OS-D6.doc
13
.
!.
'i.
I'
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECUlA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
November 16. 2005
Prepared by:
Emery J. Papp. AICP
Title: Senior Planner
File Number:
Application Type: General Plan Amendment
Planned Development Overlay District
Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (3246B)
P A04-0462
P A05-0302
PA04-0463
PA04-0571
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment to remove the project area from the "Z"
Overlay District of the land Use Element of the General Plan which
will permit new construction to exceed two-stories in height; a Zone
Change from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-8 (De Portola Road
Planned Development Overlay District) to PDO-9 (Planned
De"elopment Overlay District~9) and adoption of a PDO text document
to create height standards which would allow a maximum building
height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit to establish a hospital
facility and private helipad; a Development Plan for the design and
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet; a 10,000 square
foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation
center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative Parcel Map to
consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres, also
known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and
PA04-0571)
Recommendation:
~ Recommend City Council Approval with Conditions
CECA:
~ EIR with Statement of Overriding Considerations
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Universal Health Services of Rancho SprinQs. Inc.
General Plan Designation:
Professional Office (PO)
Current Zoning Designation:
Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay
District a (DePortola Road PDO-a)
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital
PDO-9)
Site/Surrounding land Use:
Site:
North:
Vacant
Very low Density Residential (Vl)
R:\C U. P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11 + 16-05\pc.ST AFFREPORTtI + 16-05 v2.doc
1
South:
East:
West:
Hiqhwav 79 South, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CCl
Professional Office (POl" HiqhwavfTourist Commercial !HT), PDO-8 .
PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay)
Lot Area:
35.31 Acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio:
.36
Hospital:
Medical Office Building NO.1:
Medical Office Building No.2:
Cancer Center:
Fitness Rehabilitation Center:
408,160 square feet
80,000 square feet
60,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
8,000 square feet
TOTAL:
566,160 square feet
Landscape Area/Coverage:
33.3%
Parking Required/Provided:
633/1 ,278
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of rancho Springs, Inc. submitted applications for a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. On
November 4, 2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate eight lots,
including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (south of DePortola Road) into one lot. Staff .
originally prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2005031017) and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project. The original Initial Study was circulated for
a 30-day public review period from March 4, 2005 to April 6, 2005.
A City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was formed to meet
with neighborhood groups to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with
the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago
Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on
December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding homeowners
within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in
attendance.
The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the
public include the following:
. Traffic and circulation (access points)
. Building height and views
. Compatibility with residences
. Noise
. Helipad (location and number of flights)
.
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTt 1-16-05 v2.doc
2
. On April 4, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for this project. Staff
received comment letters (Attachment 16) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration. In addition, citizens attending the Planning Commission hearing provided additional
oral comments. The following is a summary of the written and oral comments provided to the
Planning Commission:
California Environmental Qualitv Act (CEQAl Issues
. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project
. There are analytical gaps in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
. A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared
. Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain
. Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico
. Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area
. Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed
. Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts
. Mitigation is required for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction
(Phase II Dartolo Road access)
. Additional Burrowing Owl studies will be required
Traffic/Circulation Issues
.
. Increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
. DePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide
. Access from DePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be gated
for emergency access only
. Access from Dartola should be in Phase I of the project
. All of Pio Pico south of DePortola should be vacated
. Emergency room should be relocated
Noise Issues
. Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels
. Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
. Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise
Aesthetics
. The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area; views will be lost
. Windows will reflect too much light and create glare
Hvdroloov and Groundwater
. Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be prepared
. Contamination from existing underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if
the contamination plume moves. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track.
,.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
3
The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these comments and recommended that a Focused
Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was
held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in a
Focused EIR for the hospital project. It was determined that the Focused EIR should evaluate
impacts related to Traffic and Circulation Issues,' Noise, Aesthetics, and Hydrology and
Groundwater. Staff met with the Applicant's consultant to confirm the scope of the EIR, and the City
oversaw the preparation of the document. The Draft EIR (SCH # 2005031017 - the same number
as originally given to the MND) was circulated for public agency review and comment from
September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005. The State Clearinghouse granted a shortened review
period of 30 days instead of 45 days, because the City had previously circulated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for this project and the project scope had not changed.
.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
1. Focused EnvironmentallmDact ReDort
Processing History:
An Initial Study was prepared for this project, which concluded that, the approval and
implementation of the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment with
respect to Aesthetics, Hydrology and Groundwater, Noise, and Transportation. A Notice of
Preparation for this Focused EIR was issued on August 3, 2005, indicating that an EIR was being
prepared and invited comments from public agencies and the general public. Comments were
received from four agencies. Copies of these letters are included in Appendix A of the EIR.
A Notice of Completion was prepared on September 26, 2005 and was forwarded to the State .
Clearinghouse along with fifteen copies of the Draft EIR for distribution to Responsible and Trustee
agencies for review and comment. The City requested a shortened, 30-day, review under CEQA,
which was granted by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005 because the City had
previously circulated a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the scope of the project
had not changed. A Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was posted in the Californian
newspaper on September 28, 2005. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was
from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. At the time this report was prepared, four
public comment letters had been received and four Agency comments were received. A summary of
these letters is included at the end of this section of the staff report. Copies of the comment letters
and responses to the comments are included in the Technical Appendices of the EIR.
A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed
Temecula Regional Hospital. The EIR conclusions are as follow:
I Unavoidable Significant Impacts
I Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of
emergency helicopter flights
I Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc
4
.
.
:.
1.....i....."P9ti!l1(ially;~i~rific~n!..lmp.~~.ts:~~~t:5.~h}'j~~I~ig~t.!d.~i:.;):C.
I Aesthetics - Light and glare
Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency
generators, mechanical equipment room, rooftop equipment)
I Transportation - Project impacts
'Impa~tS'.CCl.~.~.i'~~~El~...~~t.:F3rr~'~~:~El..~~~.~.,~n~B~.~~jif~:~~S~'1';.1
Aesthetics - Scenic highways and visual character or quality
Air Quality - Construction odors and consistency with adopted
plans and policies
I Hydrology and water quality
I Land use and planning
Noise (construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise,
sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape
maintenance, future exterior/interior noise environment)
.'Issues Deemed by the Initial Study to have'a Less than
. ..... . ... .;,.SignifiCa?~jm.pactor No.li1Jp~~i: '.,.' ." ;....:,. ..'
"d"" ,
I Agriculture resources
I Biological resources
I Cultural resources
I Geology/soils
I Hazards/fire safety
I Mineral resources
I Population and housing
I Public services
I Recreation
I Utilities and service systems
The EIR included discussions concerning environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the
following impact areas; Aesthetics, Air Quality, Hydrology and Groundwater, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, and Transportation. The EIR also discusses the Cumulative and Long-Term
Effects of the project, and six Project Alternatives. These sections of the EIR are briefly summarized
below.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
5
A. Transportation
.
The EIR indicates that the total average number of vehicle trips that will be generated by this
project per day will be approximately 11,458 at project build-out. The proposed project
includes 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour and 334 inbound/595
outbound trips during the PM peak hours. Six alternatives have been proposed for this
project. Three of these Alternatives generate the same number of vehicle trips, two
Alternatives will generate less traffic, and one Alternative will generate more traffic. The
transportation impacts associated with each of the Alternatives are summarized in the
following Table:
Project Alternative Traffic Analysis
I Alternative 1: No Project - No Build
Alternative 2: No Project - Development
Pursuant to General Plan
Alternative 3: Alternate Site - Corona
Family Properties
No additional vehicle trips
Utilizing the Target Floor Area Ratio,
vehicle trips are expected to be 33,000 -
causing an increase of 21,542 ADr
Total number of vehicle trips equal to
proposed project (11,458) - some vehicle
trips would be expected to utilize
Butterfield Stage Road as alternate route
Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Total ADT same as for Project (11,458) .
but will result in 550 fewer ADT on
DePortola Road - creates delays at 79
S/Margarita and at Dartolo/Margarita
Alternative 5: Access from OePortola
Road and Dartolo Road
Total AOT same as for Project (11,458)
but will result in 1,140 more vehicle trips
on OePortola Road (570 right turns in, 570
right turns out) - reduces vehicle trips on
Margarita Road by 1 ,340 AOT
Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Total number of vehicle trips reduced by
Only 2,890 due to absence of medical offices
. Maximum Floor Area Ratio would result in greater impacts
Per the Table above, in terms of the total number of Average Daily Trips (ADT), Alternatives
1 and 6 would generate less traffic, but do not meet the City's or the Applicant's objectives
for the project, and are therefore not considered viable Alternatives.
Alternatives 3 and 5 would create traffic impacts similar to the proposed Project. Alternative 4
would generate the same number of vehicle trips as the proposed Project, but impacts would
be greater at the intersection of Oartolo and Margarita Roads due to the lack of adequate
stacking distance between intersections.
.
R:\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI1-16-05 v2.doc
6
.
.
..
Alternative 2 would generate more traffic than the proposed project. Under the current
proposal, a total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.36 is proposed, which translates to 566,160
square feet of combined hospitaVmedical office space. Under Alternative 2 (No Project), the
site would ultimately be built out under current General Plan land use designations and
zoning. Future buildings would be limited to two-stories in height, but the Target FAR is 0.5,
which could allow the site to be built at up to 769,051 square feet of commercial and office
uses, and have a greater trip generation impact than the proposed hospital. Furthermore,
intensity bonuses exist under current conditions that could allow the site to build up to an
FAR of 1.0, or more than 1,500,000 square feet of commercial/office space. In terms of
traffic generation, the Hospital project as proposed, is superior to the No Project Alternative.
With the proposed Hospital project, projected traffic volumes on DePortola Road have been
a concern for neighboring residents because of the proposed driveway access to/from
DePortola Road. The traffic study that was prepared for this project indicates that with or
without a driveway access on DePortola Road, the LOS will be "0" or better. DePortola
Road, which is a collector roadway, can easily handle the total projected volumes of 8,650
AOT of which only 1,700 ADT are related to the hospital. By eliminating the driveway on
DePortola Road, less than one-third of the hospital trips would be removed from DePortola
Road. Those diverted trips (approximately 550 fewer vehicle trips per day along OePortola
Road) are insignificant. This results in approximately 50 fewer vehicle trips during the peak
hours, or a saving of less than one vehicle trip per minute. Table 5-2 on page 5-13 of the
Draft EIR shows that the resulting Level of Service (LOS) on DePortola Road with existing
traffic, plus the Cumulative Projects, plus the proposed hospital project will be maintained at
LOS "0". The total number of ADT will be 8,650. Up to 14,000 vehicle trips per day can be
handled on the existing DePortola Road before exceeding LOS "D." As a result, project
impacts on the LOS for DePortola Road are less than significant.
Four mitigation measures are proposed to reduce traffic related impacts of this project and
are as follows:
T -1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen
Way with the following configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide)
T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to. the Highway 79 South intersection
at 1-15.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC~STAFFREPORTl1-16-05 v2.doc
7
T-3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the
following roadway improvements to address the project's contribution toward cumulative .
impacts:
Highway 79 South/l-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-turn lane
Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert
westbound right lane to free right turn
Highway 79 South/La paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and
one shared through/right lane
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway. Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound
and northbound free right-turn lanes
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way. Signalize and provide dual
eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn
lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide southbound and eastbound
dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road
developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director.
B.
Land Use and Planning
.
The proposed project, due to its proposed height, is not consistent with the existing General
Plan Land Use Element. To make the project consistent with the General Plan, an
Amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed. If approved, the General Plan
Amendment will remove eight parcels from an existing Specific Plan Overlay District, which
currently limits the height of buildings to two-stories. The proposed hospital bed-towers are
five- and six-stories.
All of the proposed uses for the project are permitted in the Professional Office Land Use
designation, and are permitted or conditionally permitted in the Professional Office Zone.
Therefore, there is no conflict with the underlying General Plan or Development Code related
to use. In fact, Land Use Policy 1.8 supports the development of a hospital. Land Use
policies 3.1 and 5.2 require that the proposed project incorporate suitable buffers to mitigate
impacts on surrounding residential properties. The residential properties to the north will be
buffered from the main hospital structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including
a horse trail and jogging path, as well as 350 feet of open parking area. A landscaped area,
approximately 228 feet deep is proposed immediately south of the jogging path and west of
the parking area on the north side of the hospital. As a result of the site layout, staff can
make the findings that this project is consistent with the General Plan. Impacts related to use
are less than significant.
The issue of height has been contested and continues to be an issue for surrounding
property owners. A Project Alternative with a two-story hospital was evaluated but rejected
because it would not have met either the City's or the Applicant's objectives for the project. A .
key objective for the City is to facilitate the construction of a regional hospital facility designed
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional HospitaJ\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI1-16-05 v2.doc
8
.
I
I
I.
.
to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits.
Further objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible with the surrounding
uses in terms of size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the
location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions.
Staff can make the findings to support the height of the proposed structures given the
distances between the hospital structures and the nearest residentially zoned parcel. The
buffers are adequate to protect residentially zoned properties and the project is consistent
with existing and proposed Professional Office development along Highway 79 South and
Margarita Road. As proposed and conditioned, the project is compatible with the existing
built environment and the proposed development standards are not considered to have any
significant impact.
C. Aesthetics
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated State scenic highway.
According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not contain any scenic
resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources.
The proposed project will be visible from residential parcels to the north, and the five- and
six-story hospital bed-towers will partially obstruct views from nearby locations. However,
the views of the local mountains are not protected by any City regulation or policy.
The proposed changes in land use regulations for this project will result in a height standard
for the site that is not allowed under current conditions. The proposed height of the bed-
towers will impact the visual character of the site. However, the hospital bed-towers will be
set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and
approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road.
The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light and glare. The proposed hospital
bed-towers do have the potential to emit light and glare from the upper floors.
Three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the aesthetic impacts to a level of
insignificance. The following three mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the project
related impacts to a less than significant level:
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric
plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project
site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to
mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use
and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light
impacts.
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office
buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows)
to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors.
A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as
necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around
the perimeter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the
northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
9
D. Noise
Utilizing the discussion of thresholds for noise identified in the EIR, the following is a .
summary of the noise impacts for the Temecula Regional Hospital project.
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8.32.020 of the Municipal Code, which limits the hours of grading activities.
The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels. Ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing
and grading phase of construction when this.activity occurs near property lines. This is not
considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity.
The application for a private helipad, if approved by the State, will allow up to six helicopter
landings per month. Up to six flights per month may be considered by some residents near
the hospital to be a significant impact and annoyance. The EIR has determined that this is
an unavoidable significant impact that will require findings for a Statement of Overriding
Consideration (see Environmental Determination Section for Statement of Overriding
Consideration).
Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment may expose persons to noise levels in
excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards established in the General Plan Noise
Element. Therefore, these impacts are potentially significant and will require mitigation.
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than
significant.
.
Eight mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the operational noise impacts, with the
exception of helicopter noise, to a level of insignificance. The following eight mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce the project related impacts to a less than significant level:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational
upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous,
24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a
certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility
threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria
that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to
achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be
limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed
appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented,
the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance.
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient
transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an
Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over
any 12-month period, for no more than an average of6 landings per month with a patient or
patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty
event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a .
preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16 05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc
10
.
.
.
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between
the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site
to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan.
N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other
restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
N-? All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise.
N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicanVpermittee shall stage all
stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential
properties.
E. Air Quality
The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant air quality impacts during
the project's construction and operational phases. During construction, compliance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations will reduce Reactive
Organic Gas (ROG) emissions to levels below SCAQMD thresholds. However, Oxides of
Nitrogen (NO,) emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will exceed daily thresholds set
by the SCAQMD, resulting in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact, for
which the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration to approve the
project. The following seventeen mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the short-term
and long-term air quality impacts:
Pre-aradina
AQ-1. The applicanVpermittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) for
a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site.
Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department.
AQ-2. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TOM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as
during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TOM techniques shall include but not be
limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex
schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading
permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the operation of the medical offices.
AQ-3. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for
medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California
regulations.
AQ-4. The applicanVpermittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site
incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box
and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and
R\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
II
beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce
the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be
installed at the applicant/permittee's expense.
.
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction
activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all
earth-moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions.
In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction
equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and
highest energy efficiency reasonably possible.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to
the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include
control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works
Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the
circumstances that present themselves during the project construction.
AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust
Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 -
Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include
applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403
during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below:
.
Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials
shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. .
Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion.
Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the
morning and at least once in the afternoon.
Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open
storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install
temporary coverings.
Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the
commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City
Gradina and Construction
AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee
shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15
miles per hour or less.
AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging
areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved
parcel.
AQ-1 O. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and .
R:\C U NQ04\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTlI-16.05 v2.doc
12
.
I
I
:e
.
facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related
odors during construction and subsequent use.
AQ-11.AII trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to
fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in
trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with
special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended.
Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water,
which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the
trucks before they leave the construction area.
AQ-12.During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicanVpermittee
shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or
accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as
necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or
construction.
AQ-13.During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to
impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged
over an hour), the applicanVpermittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and
excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard,
either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion.
AQ-14. The applicanVpermittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content
architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum
extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over
convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of
zero VOC content coatings:
http://www .aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-ComplianCAIM.pdf
http://www.delta~institute.org/publications/paints.pdf
AQ-15.The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the'
morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce
dust.
Ooerations
AQ-16.AII refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to
the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed
structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
AQ-17. The applicanVpermittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including
directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to
promote alternative transportation.
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, the estimated long-term daily
emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and RaG will exceed the operational thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. Even with the proposed Mitigation Measures, long-term air
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl1-16-05 v2.doc
13
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable and, therefore, findings and a Statement
of Overriding Consideration must me made for this impact as well (see Environmental .
Determination Section for Statement of Overriding Consideration).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
The California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare
a Storm Water and Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts
during storm events that occur during construction. The project will be conditioned to
prepare and comply with the SWPPP. In addition, the project is conditioned to prepare a
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), outlining how the project will minimize water
quality impacts during operation of the project. Compliance with these conditions will ensure
a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has prepared a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for this project, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910-10915. According
to the results of the WSA, the RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan, and the RCWD Urban
Water Management Plan, sufficient water siJpply exists to support the Temecula Regional
Hospital project. Impacts related to water supply are less than significant. As a result, no
Mitigation Measures are required or proposed for this project.
G. Cumulative and Long-Term Effects
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the Draft EIR discuss the cumulative
impacts, growth-inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes
resulting from the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project and 21 related projects
identified by the City and included in the Draft EIR. The following is a discussion of the .
cumulative environmental impacts:
Aesthetics. The primary concerns are the potential for artificial lighting sources to interfere
with operations of the Mount Palomar Observatory. Standard Conditions of Approval are
expected to require projects to conform to Ordinance No. 655 to reduce the impacts of "sky
glow" to a level that is less than significant.
Air Qualitv. Short-term and long-term air quality impacts of the project alone will be
significant and unavoidable despite the mitigation proposed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR.
As a result, the cumulative impacts will also be significant and unavoidable.
Hvdroloov and Groundwater. Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a
project-by-project basis due to required adherence to the requirements of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, and project
specific Water Quality Management Plans. Continued implementation of these requirements
will reduce cumulative impacts to a level that is less than significant. Potential cumulative
impacts related to flooding will be minimized to a level that is less than significant through the
design and implementation of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District's Master Drainage Plan.
Land Use and Plannina. The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes
to existing land uses. However, the approval of these projects requires that the City and
County analyze the projects for conformance with Land Use designations and Zoning, and
both jurisdictions have determined that the uses are consistent with the General Plan and .
R\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
14
.
appropriate for the area. Therefore, cumulative land use and planning impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
Noise. As noted in Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the project's contribution to cumulative traffic
noise will not be significant. Helicopter noise impacts have the potential to be significant and
unavoidable. With regard to stationary noise sources, the City will continue to ensure that
new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore,
implementation of Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding compatibility
conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level.
TransDortation. The number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) projected for the proposed
hospital and 21 other cumulative projects is approximately 160,500. Adverse impacts to the
circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures were
not implemented. Mitigation Measures, discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, identifies
roadway improvements that will be pursued to alleviate the anticipated future traffic volumes.
The City will also continue to require development to pay traffic impact fees to fund
signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation improvements necessary to
maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. As summarized in Section 4.6,
the proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the
following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity:
. Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road from DePortola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
.
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and
unavoidable. Some intersections near Interstate 15 will continue to experience LOS E and F
conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, will be
significant and unavoidable.
H. Growth-Inducing Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines require the Draft EIR to discuss ''ways in which the project could foster
economic or population growth . . . in the surrounding environment" including the project's
potential to remove obstacles to population growth. The proposed project is located within
an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure and is considered an infill
development site. Thus, the project does not have any components or features that could
induce further growth.
The proposed hospital project will provide new jobs and these new jobs could potentially
induce support development in the surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly
built-out or entitled for residential uses, and surrounding land uses are zoned for commercial
and professional office use. The proposed project, therefore, is not anticipated to induce
population or job growth beyond that which is already planned for and anticipated by adopted
land use policies.
.
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes: Construction and day-to-day operation of
the proposed hospital project will consume nonrenewable resources. Building materials
(such as aggregate, sand, cement, steel and glass) and energy resources (gasoline, diesel
fuel and electricity) will be irretrievable.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
15
During the operational life span of the facility, employees and visitors will drive vehicles that
will consume fossil fuels, however, these activities are not considered wasteful. Water will be
consumed by the project, but the use of low-flow fixtures and other features will be applied to
the project to reduce consumption. Considering the long life span of the project, the non-
renewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual
resources used regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts
on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project.
.
I. Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines require that a jurisdiction evaluate project alternatives capable of
either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing
them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives.
Alternative 1, No Project - No Build: This project alternative would leave the subject site
vacant in perpetuity. This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts
associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise
sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project - No Build
Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this
alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the
project objectives identified by the City and the Applicant. As a result, staff does not support
this alternative.
Alternative 2, No Project: This project alternative would not permit the proposed hospital and
eventual development would occur following the underlying Land Use and Zoning criteria.
Development pursuant to the current General Plan and Zoning for the site could result in .
potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Aesthetic impacts related to land use and
planning (height) would be reduced compared to the proposed project, however, the total
amount of constructed floor space could be greatly expanded under this scenario. Noise
impacts associated with helicopter flights would be avoided. All other impacts would be
comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would
not attain the City's objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital, or the
Applicant's objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
the surrounding communities. As a result, staff does not support this alternative.
Alternative 3, Alternate Site - Corona Family Properties: This alternative has the potential to
result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and noise impacts.
This alternative would also require that a portion of the site be annexed into the City of
Temecula, which would delay the proposed timing for the project while annexation
proceedings take place. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to longer
helicopter flights over residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain,
as site-specific surveys have not been performed. All other impacts are comparable to the
proposed project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's objectives, but
cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic, agricultural resource, land use compatibility and
noise impacts could be greater at this location. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative. .
Alternate 4 - Access from Dartoio Road (no DePortola Road access): This alternative is
likely to result in greater traffic and biological resource impacts than the proposed Hospital
project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact traffic flow at the intersection of .
Highway 79 South and Margarita Road and would increase the delay for traffic on Margarita
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11~16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl1-16-05 v2.doc
16
!.
,
,.
I
,
.
,
,
I.
Road because there will be no access to/from DePortola. The possible removal of the
signalized intersection at Dartolo Road and Margarita Road would help to improve the
queuing condition, but would also result in the removal of left-turn movements at this
intersection. To make the connection to Dartolo Road from the project site, a bridge would
need to be constructed over an existing drainage course, which has the potential to create
biological impacts on site. Also, the time required to obtain the necessary permits would
create a substantial project delay. All other impacts are comparable to the proposed project.
This alternative would meet the City's but not all of the Applicant's objectives, and the
cumulative impacts with respect to traffic and biology for this alternative could be greater
than those of the proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative.
Alternate 5 - Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road: This alternative would not
avoid the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Hospital project. The extension of
Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from neither the
proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the DePortola Road secondary
entrance. Biological resource impacts (bridge across drainage channel to connect site to
Dartolo Road) associated with this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed
hospital project (bridge crossing in Phase II if Phase II constructed). This alternative would
not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with the construction
and operation of the project. This alternative would meet the City's and the Applicant's
objectives, but the cumulative impacts of this Alternative could be greater than those of the
proposed hospital project. As a result, staff does not support this alternative.
Alternate 6 - Construction of Hospital Only: Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts
relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the
total footprint of the development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the
project, and short-term and long-term air qU!!lity impacts would be less than those associated
with the proposed hospital project. Noise impacts associated with the mechanical equipment
could also be reduced, but noise related to the helicopter use would remain the same.
This alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future development of a regional
hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. However,
Alternative 6 fails to meet the City's objective to support development of biomedical,
research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base.
Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet the Applicant's objective to provide a regional
hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, outpatient care, rehabilitation, and
medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital. This alternative has
fewer environmental impacts associated with the proposed uses, however it fails to meet the
City's and the Applicant's goals and objectives. As a result, staff does not support this
alternative.
Environmentally Superior Alternative: Section 15626.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines
requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis
contained in the Draft EIR, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, has been identified
as the environmentally superior Alternative.
J. Statement of Overriding Consideration
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines reguires the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) to
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these
R:\C U P\20Q4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
17
impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of
Temecula approves the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project, the City Council, after .
certifying the Final EIR, must adopt an SOC for the following unavoidable significant impacts
of the proposed project:
. Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
. Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
helicopter flights
. Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
Staff has determined that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may
occur as a result of .the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the implementation Qf the
mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a less than
significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts cited above.
To the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated,
such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the
Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social,
and other benefits, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Temecula Regional
Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Temecula Regional .
Hospital, and having weighed the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its
unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council determine that the following social, economic,
and environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical services to
the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute, outpatient, and cancer
medical care and physical rehabilitation services.
2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new
employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services workers.
3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of
Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to biomedical,
research, and office facilities.
4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a major
roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the region.
Staff believes that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval of the
Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental
impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council further finds that each
.
R:\C U P\2004\04--0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc
18
l.
.
.
of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the
City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
K. EIR Comment Letters
The following is a list of comment letters received on the Draft Focused EIR and a brief
description of the issues discussed in each letter. The public review and comment period
was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. The letters are grouped into two
categories; letters received prior to the close of the public review and comment period, and
letters received after the close of the public review and comment period. Copies of the
comment letters and responses to the comment letters can be found in the Technical
Appendix of the EIR.
Letters received prior to October 28, 2005:
a. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is concerned about the
implementation of mitigation measures to alleviate traffic concerns along Highway 79
South and 1-15, and the potential for preemption of signals for emergency vehicle
access. The RCTC is also concerned with traffic generated by the "draw" area for the
services provided, and impacts due to evacuation plans. The RCTC has expressed
concerns over parking, and the coordination with other development in the area
(dated October 4, 2005 and received October 13, 2005).
b. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is concerned about the
possibility of discovering contaminated soil on-site, and the possibility of uncovering
contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. Demolition of structures
should also be investigated to determine if asbestos, lead-based paint, or mercury
exists within the structures (dated October 14, 2005 and received October 20,2005).
c. Pechanga Cultural Resources is concerned about the potential for the discovery of
human remains and/or artifacts of cultural significance during grading and excavation
activities. They are requesting additional mitigation measures and Conditions of
Approval that will provide protection, proper disposition, and/or avoidance of any
culturally significant finds on the subject property (dated October 24, 2005 and
received via facsimile October 25, 2005).
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District responded that they
do not normally comment on projects within incorporated cities. However, there are
District facilities adjacent to the project, and if any work is proposed within the
District's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. If the project
connects to the District's Temecula Creek Line V Stage 2 Channel, impacts will need
to be identified (dated October 26, 2005 and received via facsimile October 26,
2005).
e. The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP requested an extension of the public review
period for the EIR on October 26, 2005 (received October 27, 2005). This request
was denied.
f.
The law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP submitted a second letter on October 28,
2005 expressing the following concerns: A lack of analysis concerning traffic impacts
to Pia Pica Road; there is no discussion of how noise impacts will be mitigated to less
than significant levels; the noise study does not determine the number of anticipated
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temccula Regional Hospilal\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI J -16-05 v2.doc
19
helicopter flights to the hospital; adequate mitigation measures have not been
prepared for aesthetic impacts; deferral of mitigation measures for aesthetic impact is
illegal (dated October 28,2005, received via facsimile on October 28,2005).
g. The law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a letter, with
testimony from expert witnesses, expressing the following concerns: the City violated
CEQA's statutory public review period; The EIR fails to accurately describe the
project; the EIR lacks sufficient detail to analyze the Project's impacts; the EIR fails to
disclose or analyze all potentially significant impacts; the EIR fails to incorporate
effective measures to mitigate environmental impacts to less than significant;
Cumulative impacts are significant and unmitigated; the EIR must disclose all General
Plan inconsistencies (Dated October 28, 2005, received via electronic mail October
28, 2005, received hard copy November 1, 2005).
Letters received after October 28, 2005:
h. Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association is concerned that the height impacts
of the project have not been demonstrated on-site, and request that balloons or some
other object is placed to show the height of the of the proposed structures (dated
October 31; 2005, received November 3, 2005).
i. Trumark Companies is concerned over how the construction and operation of the
hospital project will impact aesthetics, air quality, land use and planning, and noise in
the vicinity of its proposed 112-unit senior residential development project adjacent to
and east of the proposed hospital project (dated November 3, 2005, received
November 7,2005).
.
2. General Plan Amendment
.
The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the subject properties from the Future
Specific Plan Z overlay (previously shown as Future Specific Plan Z2 Overlay in the City's original
General Plan Land Use Element). The description and objectives of the Future Specific Plan Z
Overlay contains language that requires projects adjacent to single-family residents to be limited in
height to one or two stories. In order to accommodate the hospital, it is necessary to remove the
height restriction. Functionally, the hospital needs the two five- and six-story bed-towers. By
removing the properties from this Overlay, the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of
Professional Office will guide the development of these properties. The description of Professional
Office in the General Plan is as follows:
"Primarily single or multi-tenant offices, including legal, design, engineering, medical,
corporate, government, and community facilities."
The proposed hospital and associated medical offices are consistent with this General Plan
designation. Further, the proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General Plan Land Use
Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8
under the Land Use Element Goal 1 encourages '1uture development of a community hospital and
related services, as well as a community college, major college or university."
3. Zone Change
Planned Development Overlays (PDO) are mechanisms by which an applicant can create special
standards for the development of their property (i.e. setbacks, landscape requirements, height .
restrictions, etc.). The Temecula Hospital PDO-9 (Attachment 4) was filed to allow flexibility with
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl1-16-05 v2.doc
20
:.
.
:.
respect to the height of the hospital. All other development standards for these properties will revert
back to the Development Code standards contained in the Professional Office Zone.
The Official Zoning Map for the City will also be amended to show the location and boundaries of
the proposed PDO-9.
4. Conditional Use Permit
The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and helipads.
The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven days a week.
Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient surgical services,
inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and cardiac care services
(ICU/CCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/imaging, cardiology, laboratory
and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will not include a trauma center. The
helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant
has stated that the helipad will be used to transport patients to other facilities requiring specialized
treatment. The applicant expects there will be only one flight per month on average, but the permit to
be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six
landings per month. As discussed on page 4-58 of the Draft Focused EIR, in the event of a mass
casualty event, these limits will not apply. (Section 3527, Title 21, California Code of Regulations.)
With the findings for a Statement of Overriding Consideration, EIR Mitigation Measures and
Conditions of Approval, the CUP will be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan and
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
5. Development Plan
The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot
fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres.
The Development Plan will be constructed in five phases. Phase IA will consist of site grading,
demolition of any remaining existing structures on site, construction of a three-story (60-foot high),
60,000 square foot medical office building, Highway 79 South access points and surface parking.
Phase IA is expected to take 10 months to complete.
Phase IB will consist of construction of the one-story main hospital building comprising
approximately 162,650 square feet, a six-story (106-foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately
122,755 square feet, DePortola Road access point and additional surface parking. Phase IB is
expected to take 14 months to complete.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of
a five-story (83.5 foot high) bed-tower comprising approximately 122,755 square feet, and construct
the access to Dartolo Road. Phase III will add a four-story (73-foot high), 80,000 square foot
medical office building. Phase IV will add a one-story (27-foot high), 10,000 square foot cancer
center and additional surface parking. Phase V will add a one-story (27-foot high), 8,000 square foot
physical therapy and fitness center. Phases II through V are expected to be constructed
concurrently and take approximately 12 months to complete.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC I 1-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16~05 v2.doc
2\
t.ccess/Circulation
.
There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The
primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require the
modification of the traffic signal to allow full turning movements (DP Condition No. 88a.) The other
access point along Highway 79 South is located further west and will be a right-in, right-out only
access point. A secondary driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site
connecting to DePortola Road and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right-
out only). The project site will also have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to
the west.
The original project proposal did not include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the
applicant to provide a secondary driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff believes that
alternative access points are necessary due to the potential for unforeseen closures along Highway
79 South, which have historically and may again in the future close down Highway 79 South.
Additional access points that are not located along Highway 79 South will allow the ingress and
egress of emergency vehicles to remain highly functional at all times. This DePortola access point is
a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left hand turns exiting the project
site. This will require all traffic leaving the project site onto DePortola Road to travel east towards
Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also included a Condition of Approval
requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of
the site (DP Condition No 138). The bridge will allow the future connection to Margarita Road.
The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The
following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior to occupancy of any
building in Phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way, .
including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes and
turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements;
Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right turn
signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict movements to
right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy for any building in
Phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo Road.
Based on the Development Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a minimum of
633 parking spaces and 1,278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be constructed in
phases to coincide with the development of each building. The project is consistent with the parking
standards as set forth in the Development Code for hospital and office facilities.
Site DesionlArchitecture
The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include the single- story
main hospital building and six-story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase
includes the five-story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total).
The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design
features the use of earth-toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian Red tile at
the base. An octagon-roofed rotunda divides the hospital towers. The hospital, medical office
buildings and the cancer center each include a porte-cochere covered entry. The site design and
architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The
project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development standards. The colors and .
materials are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each
R:\C U P\2004\04--0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI I -16-05 v2.doc
22
.
.
;.
building maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco
body and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to
break up the massing, which reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of
windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between the
towers adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a separate
feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and cancer center all
include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary entry for each building
as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder water feature at the main
entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry.
The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and is exempt from City structural review and building
permits. The two medical office buildings and fitness rehabilitation center will be required to obtain
building permits from the City of Temecula Building Department. As a result of OSHPOD's
jurisdiction to review plans for this project, staff has tailored the timing thresholds for the Conditions
of Approval of the hospital building only to coincide with OSHPOD submittal requirements.
Buildina Heioht and Views
The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views, includes the two towers that
are five- and six-stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based
on internal functional relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be
located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes nurse stations, care rooms, treatment facilities,
equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the '10rm follows function"
concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in regard to
tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas.
Staff understands the concerns of the residents located to the north of the hospital properties with
respect to the height of the two hospital towers. However, given that the two towers must be this
height to allow the hospital to maintain it's functionality, and given that the nearest hospital tower is
set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately
630 feet from DePortola Road, and that a 238-foot wide landscape zone is provided along the
northern edge of the hospital property between the hospital and DePortola Road, staff believes that
the visual impacts of the towers have been adequately mitigated.
LandscaDino
Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway 79
South, consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted
shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of a minimum 40-foot
wide landscape/equestrian trail buffer consisting of 24-inch box and 15-gallon Afghan Pines and Silk
Trees; a 50-foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees; and a
minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an informal planting of natural turf and
assorted trees along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box
(approximately 176 trees), 30%.24-inch box, and 50% 15-gallon trees.
The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design
Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33% proposed). The
applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets
to screen the parking lots. Staff has included Conditions of Approval to further buffer the residential
area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.doc
23
California Pepper trees between the project site and residential areas to the north (DP Condition No.
m .
6. Tentative Parcel Map
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight parcels into one parcel. Included as part
of the map is a request to abandon the southern portion of Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to
be abandoned is not built at this time.
The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff originally prepared an Initial Environmental Study and recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the proposed project. However, based on responses from agencies and property
owners at Public Hearings held on April 6, 2005 and April 20, 2005, staff determined that an
Environmental Impact Report would be required for this project.
A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared by P & D Consulting and submitted to
the City on September 28, 2005. The City prepared a shortened CEQA review request that was
authorized by the State Clearinghouse on September 26, 2005. As a result, the public review period
for this project was from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005.
The following impacts are identified in the Draft EIR as Unavoidable Significant Impacts:
. Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts
. Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency
flights
. Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts
helicopter .
The following have been identified in the Draft EIR as Potentially Significant Impacts that Can be
miti9ated:
. Aesthetics - Light and Glare
. Noise - Operational Impacts
. Transportation - Project Impacts
Based on the followinQ mitiQations, staff recommends certification of the EIR for the project.
IMPACT AREA MITIGATION
Air Quality AQ-l. The applicanVpermittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RT A) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out)
appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design
plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
AQ-2. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during
construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TOM
techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and
van pooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going
operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the operation of the medical offices. .
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16-05 v2.doc
24
.
AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards
appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by
State of California regulations.
AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project
site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon,
24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time
grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may
require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust
and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the
applicanilpermittee's expense.
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of
construction activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the
Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large equipment are properly
tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled
vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected
and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy
efficiency reasonably possible.
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be
submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said
program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access
roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves
during the project construction.
AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive
Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in
Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the
following examples listed below:
.
.
.
Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally
safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active
operations have ceased.
Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading
completion.
Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily,
at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon.
Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the
surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there
is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary
coverings.
Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation
ooerations. Comoliance with The Fuaitive Dust Control Plan shall be
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC~ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
25
subject to periodic site monitoring by the City
AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the .
applicanVpermittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic
and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
AQ-9. The applicanVpermittee shall establish construction equipment and supply
staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a
residentially improved parcel.
AQ-l0. The applicanVpermittee shall properly maintain all waste-related
enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure
against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use.
AQ-ll. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use
tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114.
Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with
State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b)
(F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions
of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be
properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks
before they leave the construction area.
AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the
applicanVpermittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to
prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of
adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per .
day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction.
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (I.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per
hour, averaged over an hour), the applicanVpermittee shall curtail all clearing,
grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer,
to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as
determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion.
AQ-14. The applicanVpermittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the
project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG)
emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following
websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdaslbrochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf
http://www.delta-institute.org/publications/paints. pdf
AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including
the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities
to reduce dust.
AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof
subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be
maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during .
pick-up times for off-site removal. .
R\C U N004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11 + 16--05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
26
.
I
I
I
I
I
,
.
i.
,
Noise
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians,
including directional signs tolfrom the public streets (De Portola Road and
Hiohwa\!, 79 South) to promote alternative transportation.
N-l Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully
operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall
conduct continuous, 24-hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such
monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise
levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of
Temecuia General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the
time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds
or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, noise
attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate
by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the
acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance.
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for
critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use
Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in
the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport
Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an
average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except
to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that
response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed
of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350 southeast.
N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per
day, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.
N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings
on the'site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the
General Plan.
N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and
other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise.
Transportation
N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee
shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical
from surroundina residential proDerties.
T -1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite
Country Glen Way with the following configuration:
Westbound:
1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
Eastbound:
2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared throuoh/rioht lane
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
27
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide)
T-2. The project applicanVpermittee will pay Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79
South intersection at 1-15.
.
T-3. The project applicanVpermittee will contribute a fair share toward the
provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project's
contribution toward cumulative impacts:
Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps: Additional southbound left-
turn lane
Highway 79 South/l-15 Northbound Ramps: Additional eastbound through
lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn
Highway 79 South/La Paz Road: Widen southbound movement to dual
left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane
Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway: Additional northbound left-turn
lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes
Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way: Signalize and
provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes
with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane .
for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road: Provide
southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
Aesthetics
T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola
Road develooed to the soecifications of the Public Works Director.
A-l. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a
photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the
entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light,
including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses
and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means
to mitigate potential light impacts.
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office
buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective
glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors.
A-3. The applicanVdeveloper shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as
necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater)
around the perimeter of the project site. Enhanced landscaping may be required
along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI }. 1 6-05 v2.doc
28
.
.
I
I
i.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In addition, an
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, which has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff has included Conditions of Approval and has prepared a Mitigation
Monitoring Program that addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify
the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462,
PA05-0302, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the attached Conditions of
Approval.
The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the
community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a
regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and related
uses and facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought after by
companies looking to establish and/or relocate to the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS
1.
Statement of Overriding Consideration
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in the EIR but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise
impacts associated with the potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative
traffic and circulation impacts.
a. All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital's
construction and operation have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation
of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant, except for those impacts cited above.
b. Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital that could feasibly
achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula Regional Hospital have been
considered and rejected in favor of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
c. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the Temecula Regional Hospital override and make
infeasible any alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation
measures beyond those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
2. General Plan Amendment
a.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The proposed hospital meets Goal 1 of the City's General
Plan Land Use Element which states that the City wishes to have a "diverse and
integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open
space land uses." Additionally, Policy 1.8 under the Land Use Element Goal 1
encourages '1uture development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university."
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11 16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
29
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area due to site design and extensive landscape screening. .
3. Zone Change
a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan of
the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map.
The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment,
the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the
proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic development
goals.
b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the
General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the
diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced community
with additional public services available to the community.
4.
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a
helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and
land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of
residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City
. of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected
and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "a City which is compatible
and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)." The proposed project provides
a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing
adequate medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates
public medical facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future
population. The project is situated adjacent to residential uses and a State highway.
The project has been designed to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via
an EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Conditions of Approval in which
circulation, noise, light and glare, biological impacts and air quality has been reviewed
and conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area.
The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid-rise structures that
provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with
the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to
be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is
also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance,
including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and
conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures. An Initial Study and an EIR was prepared, which identified
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC t 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
30
I
I
.
..
i
,
,
".
c.
potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was
adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise,
light and glare, and biology to a less than significant level. For example, access
points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site
towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary
access points along the State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are
included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The
tallest buildings were relocated closer to the State highway, away from the residential
area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also reduce the noise from the
~ emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial grading and
construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place'
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the
State highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehiCles are
required to turn off sirens no less than 14 mile from the project site. The project is a
conditionally permitted use as has been designed and conditioned (including
mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to
the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site are designed to respect the
surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses,
buildings or structures.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code
and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the
use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-
bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31-acre site. The project has been reviewed and it
is determined that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including
setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also
provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent
residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the Development Code.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-
bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental
to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed
project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and it has
been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general
welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually contribute
to the long-term viability and longevity of the community by providing additional
medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) and/or
the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review the
construction plans for compliance with applicable building and fire codes.
d.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11.16~05\pc.ST AFFREPORTlI-16-05 v2.doc
31
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of
Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad .
facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the
City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
6.
5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula
and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan
for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements
of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has
been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the
project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the General
Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because
the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding
neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the
uniform building and fire codes.
Tentative ParcelfTract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the
City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map, is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
.
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council
prior to action on the Application;
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11.16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTl1-16.05 v2.doc
32
.1.
"
i
.
'.
e.
The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3 of
Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad
facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the
City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
5. Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula
and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan
for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements
of State law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has
been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined that the
project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State law and the General
Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because
the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding
neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the
uniform building and fire codes.
Tentative Parcel/Tract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the
City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate Conditions of Approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, an EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been prepared and is recommended for certification by the City Council
prior to action on the Application;
e. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
6.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11-16-05\PC~ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
33
g.
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property .
within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are
substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
The subdivision is a commercial/office project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
h.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions - Blue Page 35
2. PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report) - Blue Page 36
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
3. PC Resolution No. 05- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 37
Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 05-_
4. PC Resolution No. 05 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 38
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 05-_
5. PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 39
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
6.
PC Resolution No. 05-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 40
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
.
7. Response to Comment Letters received on Draft EIR - Blue Page 41
8. Comment Letters Received - Blue Page 42
9. Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 43
10. Authorization of Shortened Public Review of Draft EIR - Blue Page 44
11. Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR - Blue Page 45
12. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report - Blue Page 46
13. Initial Study for Draft EIR - Blue Page 47
.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 TeD;lecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
34
i.
.
i.
14. Planning Commission Minutes, April 20, 2005 - Blue Page 48
15. Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 20, 2005 - Blue Page 49
16. Planning Commission Agenda Packet, April 6, 2005 - Blue Page 50
R\C U P\2004\04--0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC 11 16_05\PC_STAFFREPORTI I-t6-05 v2.doc
35
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
36
I III II II Iii (/) co ~ I Ii
, .,
'Sea
I!" ill,ri!l',iV u'" .; I I
II I' I' 'I Ill' " - "0. I 8 II ....
!.h! liil ii IIi Iii II! III ill I Eco ft. CI
.,0 l:;j Ii ~
1-:1: ~ ::8 Ie. nil; ici
I'
"
"
~
1 I I
~~li~: ~
IlJl-~) I
ilB~t
" 0
)~.,!./
::-(/ , i
\ 'J "
, \ '
\ II
\ ! ,i _ I
/i /~t
, ,- ;
;1 /-/-"",_ o.
~.~.~ "--.. $.
/.: -l'l
=-=--""'!.""-..!1-_.~ 0
I
; ! I liIili"III'II.'-TiIi"roTfi;,-j
I 1,;; ill! 1", I l.ill
ir . ["+.4""" ;'1' '!'i:i
, II i Wi
lI.li ill I ~1I Ii ,lj ,I I ~i' i: f:
I ill ! !1'rl' r +' I' i I~
1,'!Il,'III,m,I', :ID
Ii! !I,I, '1-
.
i'
i1
I"
''ll, I::
I" ' I .
Ii' ,J.
I :1:-- ~
,
I
I
11
5"
..
o
I
I ! ~ I
I ~ i I
, I'
, I
. I, ill
,i I""
'I:
i1! I
II I
i. II
1'111
/1.11 I
: .1' I
U , . I.m______
,I . 1
I I
i I
I
I
'I I
I I ;
.. I, '," I,
i; ,
i I"
l il;
/111 i Ii III
I .
l~
I I
I
. 1 ~
I;, ii,! Ii
'Ill 'II I'
III. lill i I
:I'I"I,I! II
nl 41
~ ~! , ~! .
~ III'! ail!
~ I!,it M!,1t III
~ ~;,!"ll 5;,!,,11 I "I.
11/111111 illl~~
,.
i
~ i
I ~ f
-~ ci
. __ -._' ;;;o;;w
~ I I I i 1111/ rJ)
,',tIll I'V
II' ;11, ,II'" ,,',' I! ,1-
, ,".!, I' Ii ,.
a> !.! ~Id ~II ~111'IIII II "I I
" I~
~ ~ ;;
~ . I:
Ie- Ill.
.. Ii
'519 .;
h~
E8 .
~x ~
~
_._'Ii
. I"
"
"
\
i
i, ." 11
"
l." ,/'111
: ~:
, "
, "
, "
, "
,
:
i
,
:
,
,
,
1
,
,
I
:
,
:
r
m
Ii!
,
II!
.1
11]
Iii
"
ill!!
,-Iii ...
'I'
Ui_
" m
I~
'Ii
Illf
b'
,Ii
I
~I
:,
,
-~~~---------- ,:
~,.
A
*1
*...' i, I.
'<LY ' ~ '. ~
, I iH I'
'Ill ':I'!e 81 i~!
n"; ~ */f\D~'
iit~f___J. --- II * jt!
: ~:: ,.,......_.~. -I! II
Ejl:a:. ! ,..!_- r-' .--r----------~~--ii.~.:=-----..\,)Ii '11~
'IZl" I I ..
~ 1 : : II '
i i i h1 I
, , , ": i
I :Ii
: :i i
,
I'
.,
I l~
IU
N
C)
lei
,
,
i
,
,
I
,
,
,
i
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
i ~
I-I "
:i.. ..
, : ,t I
,1:: ill
. .).....
'.:1;:- ~
: 0
,
r---------
,
.,
,
,
,
:
,
,
,
II!
:f'
,..
,..
\! \ ~
Oil
i:l
"It
\ \...._---
l ~
.
l
II
{ ,.--~..-
'/
,
,
,
,
:
,
,.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
,
,
:
lu
',"
II:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
:
,
,
~..__.._---
,
,
:
,
,
,
:
.{...
,
.
I:
,
\ !
,
J!
.
.11
~ I' r' ~ l if"l
! I Ii VI
I' . Il ,II i'lV
Ii" "'I"",!\-
~l!li .!iI'1l IIi Ii II iii! .11 ::c
]iG ~
it 1
1-:1: ~
,--'
\l\\\lli l~
-.iIl
I
I
" ey.
Ille.
}, I!
' I'
I,'
I
JiI
~
hi
:~
Do
...
Q
, .
14
,
!
,
I
I
r'
I
:
,
, ,
, ,
:
I
/ L/ 2tl i~.~.._....._..._._.._j~ ~
/ r i! ~~ ))! ii'
J /1 i : ==,;/ 'j
! / 1/ \ 1 \ ~ ~ : /1, ~
t I \ 1
l~-----~__ :1 I' I C,,;) I
-..-'
l
. 'I ~
~
~r
Ii
1 " ~I
.. ...
Cl
"I
II
i
Ii jI
, I
, .
.. .'
z'
0
t: !
"
<> . I I , !
m 11 I, 1
c I ~n .II
CI ,
z "I h el, =, .I
~ ~ Iii! = Ii ~l !! ~n =11
.....L . . L
:I: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. Q.
It
I I
I i ~ I I 'II / j" (/J .. .<3 JJ ~
'3c;
I! . II,; 'iv u= !i '"'
II -, .', 'I.;" II - "D. . ~
~!II h! ~h Illi Iii 'I! 1111!1 I eco J j& Ilh I~
,,0 II Ie.
I-J:
-----.----- .
. ,~
+-.... ~ I
i I i a i
I I I'
i i i
, +- j..j.
. . i
j,
I
i
i'
i
j
i.
i
I
ai
'-+
i
j
I
.
,
;~~
\\
\~
.
\\\
\i
\!
It
i
~
-"..;,.:...'. -.....-...........-..
1
lUll
':r~
IlH
I <l
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I <l
i.
.
i
i
i
i
,
,
.
i
i
,
.
I (
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
ifJ-
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
!
(rn
'.
-~
~
el
e
.
.
L I I! I' I ' j ",
"! ; ~g d ~J
II! t I 1 II, ~: V
il!">!""I"I"I!.-
~hl huh !li IIi 111!!!:1I I
'" </1
"Sea u._
go::
E g. i
,,0 E
I-:I: ~
.I
I'
.,
~. :5
!III i~
~
.gi
.~
.,.
G.
Ie.
1
!
11
..
I:)
<;:> q.) <;:>
i ! !
(.)
T
!
r;
0-
'1-
.,
. .
"
!
'""). -- ). -- J. -- L -- L -- L -- ~ >- A .. .l .. .l"- .l<--'"J!"'v'.i
8 (~:...: ~) (,~,) f"':'i (~l l:) (:1 \:J ~l <-:J ~ C:X.:)C.::J \:)
=
s_ .,...~~.;--- ........
00'
C:)_n
(::>--
0-'-..
0-
I
.
0-
.
. --'.'---0- ~_... ~
-- .........-... -"'"
II!
,I'
I
I
J II j' j' j It'"
. I .1 "WI
,! : I ,I I' 'V
!l! ill !i Ii !11Ii II II I
.. ~
~~ S
"a. I
eUlo
"
~J: ..
.
!'I~J ~
tlI!.
~~~ I
lie, ~II
i'
-,
'lI'
...
II~ lei
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I ,..'-
i.
i
i
l~
...
c
..~
I ~I
~
~n ,
I:. I ~ I
t
-'<2>-
I I
, I
~ ~ ~
~K~ [>f1 ~
I
I ,I l ___
..
'"
1
~
~
~
,
~J
.
I'
I
~
I
I
, !
l -===- ~
\
, I
, I
I~'~
IY~
I
i.
,i
I
i
\1
'.1
~
I
~ IH~U 1m os ~ r I ~
; i Ii n c(
,I 1 I cl I'V " Iii
Ilj'I"'II,',:IIII- "a. 1 ~ i~ It)
!il bl h III Ii III MllIi J: e'" $- . Ilhl i:t
2) ,,0 E .;
J-:I: . Ie-
l- I~
too
t~t~~~l~~ ,~t~"'~~~l .
~ht tlJ
Ul~J_.t.., J._,'. s '~ .'
I:;"~~j..of:i.-~ .r'~r ... {:.-.. ,.,.... ..,."
t
t
~"
t
"
I
III
III
II'!-
!61111
Jl
I
~
Ii
N
o
!
5
il
...
o
.
~
I-
t
I- ,
I . "
Ii.. ,
I.
~ -
I
2)
,-
I
,
'; ,
!
;.
I , I II ~!; I ('i (JJ.
I!,. Illll'IIIIV
III I! JI! j! il!" r 11-
hInd :;.l iii III II! Ihl II I
co ~
:i! !!
u_ .
co... g
eo> e
..0
l-:C {!.
t+p + + ~ + t .
tU.~ J ~.~. r.,~_JJ ,f '
. . ~I
.. '--!
l
: ill
N
Cl
g
II~
'..
,..
,ll
e.
Ie.
++t+++it+it
tUJJJ..lJ l; !'
I
~
I
~.
-~ -~ -- - -~-
I I
I '
, II(
. I ~ (Q
I Ie. ...
II B IcC
!
I
ill
...
Cl
~- - --, ~.--.
...... ---... ....-
I
a>
1 ' l i' ., I j rn
~ , I Ii VJ.
II!, I I d! I:V
ilJf'l '1'1.11" '11-
.:!il tilll Ii li~!i III II! III I
!Iij Ij~J ~
~~li
J ~. {'~ ~;
lie. ~ J.
to ~
'5'ii Ii
u"" _~
"e.
euo
,,0 ...i
1-:1:
o ~~ r~4{;: ; .- i-r ~ r~:-f .. i~
~- ,-- - !ltr-'-t-r-r---'
~ l I , ,
r-- 1 I ,-I-
I "-! i' ': !! I
1"- --rl ~ ~'-'-:--- ~ . i __1
~ .,. --'-l-rt; t -,-tf-- :. ~'~I'- ~ I
~.-._,--~-L~! _1 --, "--.
., ,'1 i
I !! -.' J CI v 1:1:
fit [. ' '. ~ k~~- !! '-'- ~~~mmml .r :;:: =: =:
0"~JfiLL _.-~ -!-!--~,- .---" t:J 6. 16. 16.
I ... 1 ~- I 1 I' I I, ~
0-----, -'-"'-'..'-' . -,-._,-",-- '-'-:
, I. -
1_= I:::
0-'- - -,-- .,--+-- . -,-,+,-,-,-,.-
- I, ' -
~--+
, -
o .-.c.--, ;,---, .,-,-.-,- -,_._-~..._,.;
,0: I :
ttF' ,_,.0; -,- ~,' . .-,.;
- -. 9. ,. -
. - --- ~-'- .,-,- , -,.....:.-!-._--
. ~111/lfllV-J111 !...ll:.l)III:I!~
l
J
it
l
L
0~,0 _ 0 ~~ 0 _~ 0 ~~ ~_ ~ ~_ 7 ~, <? ~~ ~ __ ~n~
':"l"";.L.LL'i"""']d;i i f\ I . jj
,~ . : ii' -. .-- '.,...'-'-~-}._-+ +'+-'- ::l
o '! I I I I I I I I .
; !_1._ -ti_--..L,_.~, ...~ ' !! :: ~
III I II I I .~~t, I I _~
J' Iv-i-i:-'-'1 ,- -- .~, . i -+---~::
," , "~! . i ' . """""
~ .~--h-'-:-'_' ~ +- - ~'-', I Ii I .. ~I __... ~: :
: ! i Ii. II ,_ I i I i I ,I '-,faWil
L ; I' j . I I I'i i I '_:1..,
'I . ri'-"'''''' \I, I ,_-
. -,-+.-,-,J-.-.-I----- --~. ..---1--- I , , , ,_ I ..,
,,' . . j--- . . . . " ~
---!--- -.).,-,-1- --- }-,- .----!--- I ! I .. .' l{ ~ I ..,
-.L--L-.J.--- L---, ! : I! I J~:~~, )
, , , ~ I ' , , , . , J
" I I l I ~ I I I j , I I I r It , I I 11, , , I "I I , I I I '. I , , I , I I " , ' , I I I I I I '" '"
,,'i.
-h"". to:...
..
Gi '
~ ~'l! 001 ~i !
c~. --"'Ct I! h!
~ L~!~I~1 i i I tFr I
( " 'i III .......1: Ii
..,. ,.. III III
It I~I 0 0 0
o I Sa!
I~i
.11;1! I"l!
,~! ,-!
'u I '=' I
....... . I
!! _I!!
AI -;Fr A,
.:t "
o 0
I
!
,
"
Ii
...
o
~
!
,
il
CO!
o
I'
.
...
N
13h lei
.
.
I
.
-...-"",
:1
:,-
.
.
· II j: II I t" UJ
II! 11,,1111'''\/
ill " " " i,l" . 1-
! ilil hI Ii !li IIi ,!1I11! l. I
.. tl
'3s Ii
go. ~
eo> [j
Q)O E
...::C ~
~~~. II
Hi
. I I
h I ~I g
.1, t co
U 1m Ii
(;I.
Ie.
? ,,-t<?~.. ~<? ~ <;)2:? - <p
i i. i i ! i i i i i
0r'~'-'-ll ",,' ..' +,-.i-t-t-._+--
.:.~, , , . ., .
0' _n .+ . - .: . -H-'-'-+'-'-
> i i 'ii i i
I ' . , ,. .
I I I I I !
0- ----.-'t.t . --'-i-'- 'J-' -,-'-
. . . . J
I !!,! .! I
cf--.-{t--tJ -.i!-'--!-j-'l-'-
. I I I I i I
0- ..n._'_.j-.+-. -~'-'- ... -i-.-...j .-'-
.. Ii' i
I !! . ' I. '
I I I I
0--1 I' ~I I '_.~
JJ-,-L.liJ!!E - _u-,_.J_,_
- J I I I I' I I
0- -,-,-,-._,-. -,-,_._. - -,-,-,-,- '-'-
1 I
, I
0- -'-.-'-'-'-' -.-,+-, - -,_.+._,- ,-,-
I "
0- -,-._,-,-'-. -,-,_.-.- -'-'-'-'- ._,-
: I
0- -.-.-.-,-'- 1IJi1' [J .-'-
J' .
0' -,_._,-,-,-.!--'-,- ,. -.-....)..-,-
I 0- -n0 I
(.) 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
1'>'''1 -- { .n 1 - 1 ....1 ....I - r ... f .." 1 -- i~l
! i ! i ! ! _! _,_1-1 i. !!
11 i i i -'T I . i--- -'-I'-'-lT--
~+==~=i!==~===t:' ! . 1 i~__
~'f; ~-'-+r-!--~' '..tkd.I-.-! II! : -'~! '--0
I!, I I III I< I I I '
~I' . . ,. ' .,
. 'II .' ... .'. . "1-' !...-+;t! .' ,--
0-' _,..._,_,1--,_,_1_,__._1_,_ I ;- i
. I' , ,. " .
0' -,...).,-,-+-,-,-!---+-,-,-._-!-- ! - . '--0
I ! ! !! !! !
! ! !! I.! !
0-'T'-'-j-'-'--j'-'-'T'-'-1 I n-j-'_'_
i i i i i i i i
--. --:.....
i'
.,
N
13h I~
~
!
I I
. ,
.,.
II~
~
o
~
!
~ !
".
Ii
N
o
~. J 11:11/ I j'l U)
II, . I j d "v
Ii II! 11! 111111'1' (1-
2) .Ilil".l! M lil III III 1I1:d I
-3iii ~
n -....1
1-:1:
Ii"
r: - .
t~ 1:~ , I
"Il~ ~
llill ! I
'.
---=:.:;. _..._.;l
I.
.,
C')
N
1m lei
,Ie
i
l
ill
...
co
.
l
i
III
N
co
.
"~
~ I' I j I r I j 1'1 UJ .. ~
I. / I I d !I.li'\;' :is !i
!., .",lj' , _ 2"Q. I ~
2) !Il Wlil !i Iii IIi 111,11 ~ll I e"'
ClIO .g
I-I: I! Ii
---
e + + + + +
f. ~fo .~ ~~ ~fo
~ 0" ~"
~f: ,~ or~ ~r8
~~ ~~ .:- ~j~
~!~ m~
,
i
I.
~
!~
~
!~
~8
~~
l--.
:.
G. ~'~ ~ I.
Ie. ~)I
j
!
I
ill
N
Cl
++ + + + + t
l~ L ~1 1 gl ~
.~.:~ c' <~ ~~ "~ ":~
~.,~r. " I" <." ~.- 218
,i~ ,i~ .i~ i~ ~i~ ~ t;i~
%:d..l~ &!,d :d ;:~ ,ld l!':ll;l.
J(I-;~ .~-,O t .9-,0 ~ .~-.~l I .~-.n t .I;l-.~~ .
1]1 ; ;..rr,i:L;.. ;111 I
, . . , '-
! I ! ! i ! i,-
i i! ! ! i"-
I' : i j i 1:1
.1 ,-
! i
!i
i:
. I
i i
j i
I:
. I
i
!
.-
,6.
"s]
~:z :
l(
!
j
i
!
i'
!- - 1
11--1
\ :
o
10
100
"---
o 0
-----
o 0 D:L
o 1:r- 0
-TI cT 0
~r
!"
3~
~~
-- -..;;' ;.;,..;;;~- --
I'
..
II 'It
lid l~
j
!
~
II
...
Cl
I
~ I' '. ~ / J ,n.
'i .j ~~
I,!, .; I d 'I; 'V
llllj!lj'i:lj,I!:I_
~dl ~Iil ~1i~li~li Ilf 111411 I .
OJ ~
i~ f
eg.
..0 ...11
....:z:
+t + t + t t
~~"~ ~ ~~ g~ ~~ ~~
~o~ " 'N <~ .~ "'8
r-.f" F .r- r- 'iF. i-
'1'1":11 l;!:. ~:I !i!:. ;.1 ~:~
'.""1" "r "r ." ,~ <("
il<.T .\;-.n .~-,n .'iI-,n I .\I-,il. ! .0-,"
~ i ! : : .~.,,' , .
i : i ! ! ! i .
~~ [ ! Iii . .
I : ! l
I' j
: I ~
ffi : ~
g- i ' I
~~j I il!
", N
~! Cl
~:
;s
.'
.~
l
~
I!
,..
r.-:~ II
. (9. t ",-I
Ie. -j;" ,I
H: 1:
~g~g ~
~'-"r. -
~~a..1 ~ ~
if: .'-."
~~! !
I! !
~ ~ ~ ~
~ Ii:"" ",fa ~f~
I~ !~ !~ ~!~
.IJ-,[lj .\I-,n I .'iI-,n I .O-,'il 'i
i .~." I I .
-- -- ----
I'
.,
II II)
I~ h~
.
i
I
i
il.
...
Cl
:.
.
-.:'
I
~
I-
i
I
i
I
I.
J I ~ i' j / j,n IV J.
; I .; V~ _ u
II i I ,I i'V 'il:l!!
Ii l'l 'I:' /111' I! ,,_' U ......1-
hI Ylil Ii IIi !Ii dill :d I I-:C
~
IS
~Ic:o
[.~. II'"'''''' ~
C9<1.- l:e
Ie' II Isl5icl
++ + + + +
u. fo ~~.'_, sfo .fo
bl '1 q ~" R>I
Mr~ ~ r~ i1E 2f~
...!....i., 81'~ ~i.!. b ~i.
::r:,~L..JJ[;j "'''' i=ld .w dd
b . , . . .
jg-'f .W-.H I 'W-'~_' J .W-.~' t .D-,,., I
, i i "-'1' i
! i
~ ! ",
~ I :
og' I
s~! j
"j'
l'i
, i
I'
, I
I
.~i
a"'
UF!
!
Ji
~d
~>r
II
~ I
,-:
's!
~8'
..1
8~i
~
. 1
~"i
~-
~8
"
ll~
l:
++ + + + +
~ ff f9 ".,~. ~f9 ~.,f__9
~!!d~ ~ 2" o~ ~~
,i"j,. "I. ~!, 8.!, ~i,
",:d...J!iOl i:d ~:d .0 G::Iij
; f t _: '
{iI-.t .g-,n , .g-,H , ,.9-,n . .0-,<;;,
1 i ! .,-.,!, !
I j i i i
· i :
. . I
~ i :
~g, !
~~! !
II i
: i
! I
.~i
~"!
>=!
!
!~i
~g:
~~!
1:,1
ll,
~! '."
ti ·
s-
~~
~l
l:::
..
;
I
!
H
...
o
--....
~- ....--- --
~ \\\~\\\\\\l\\ ~
}~U~~~(/) \ " \\ \:
-s-
II I 1, ~ \' V .,l'! ~
I, . . \.~ 11 " \1 \-- ,,0-
l\\\ \\\ \\ \\ ~\\ ~\ \\ l\ "I- c"
~!t ,\
.
++ t to t
+t ~\~~~ ~.. t ~
. \ .:$ r: t ~\;1 .
g'<J~~ . ~'~..l ." ~
.1" \" ~ 9-, ..~~.t~ .'r,'" .'II~,,\,:~ . .Q....~ ~
i \ . .0--., \
~ I : \ \ ~
~ a~\ '\ ~\
~'\ ~C\ :
. \ ~
C'l 0
0
.
.~
...~-
~~~\\~\\~ ~ \ \\ \\
i
_-,----J\
\: W \\\\\\\\\\\\\l\~
-
-----;\
\
~
~
~ I
~
o
\
U ~\
en
-CD
-CD
-CD
. \9\9\8\8\8'
~
~
~ f
~ 1; .m ~\
\ ~ ~;, \
, \ ,,~
\ '" ~"' ~
\
,
\
I
\ ",,',p
, , \
~~-
_0
~--
~.
---
!
Illll' Jjl I!I iq,! J II I jl~' 11 i'
hI!!1 dlillli Qlillli Ii.! LILlIl I ~ ~ _
~!I'I!i'J:"III!il..
I II '[1,11 !'I'
III i i I : i ,-
I I . !I.I
: ',! 'l,i~"7
. 'I 1'_
· , il--:=c.:=::f
. --".. --=I
I ,'-
1--
L'"'"
I
~
n._--1
:-"==--1
1
1
.1
----j
~c::=:~'l. r~-,-~-='~
11 'I!:~
~iliJU:II~
I
b f g,
~~ I-;u.
Vl~ =0
~~7
ow iil
~illl!. ilill.il~:
I', '11 '1"1
-. : I . i r i!
. 1 i i!' . ~
:---~ ,Illh=~
. )L.-.
I '
---.--j
,
1-----
I------ -t---
~.~"" -::-+-----,"'m~~
t----- -' -I
e=- ~'=..-.:=l
I---._----+----_.._._-_.~-=I
: ,~' IT- -I
: . i,' ·
. n' I"-.._....~
1--1 'I'
; . i ,I -
..II"U.,i'-=,,,
. "11 ' 'I' ,
, I '"..
I, ,II '
g
o
,..;
1m
.:!i
l
II
Ii i
N
o
I~
~. ~~ iv1
I
~8
I
'~" -.' Ij,,,
,i=J
, .
I~~ '
. c...
I
8.
~~
L
~
le.
,[
~
9
'-n
--q ~
=~~~
-.~ ~
--'~ ~
i~~::.i
I!~ ~
1 ~ ~
-~"l
-r ~ ~
o -'~ ~
~~ -~~
! ,~ ~
w- ':~ ~
~-;,~~~
['7. I! -. ~ ~)
. .
""'-- .
J
I'
h N'!
,Ih I~
,J'
)
- -- - ----. -~-.,
~.... "'....-.. "'..-
.
l
II
Ii,
E ,
..
o
.
.
~
2)
I
ie
!
.
" l~ III j j;j (J)
II ! j' ..-:1
L ~ '" I I . II ., ~
III 'l'I'lll!' .1-
~!iI lil;li Iii IIi ,II ill :1I I
.;t ~ "8~
~1~ ~~ ~:g
.1- .1- .!;
~i~ "i~ "Id
~ .
! .0-. ~ ~ I .O-,~ I I
!
!
j
j e
i !
!
f
I
I
I,
1'1
Cl
j~
.. ~
~~ s
~8 ...1
~J:
~
:~
-__ __Ii
:t
"lO
~:8
1-
r...
~'-J
f"
I
I
!
I
!,l
N
Cl
....'.".
I~ -t ,ll
11"'" r
l
.1
;to ~
0[' ~~~
~:';:; ...-
"I; .1;
~r "r'
< -
! .0 ,H I
.~ j
~~ !
!
!
II ~
a5;ci
:t:t :t
~;'1' .'\'1' ~l'i'
~I;;~" <I"
1- 1- . 1-
.1, ~.. ...
"F r' "r
',01;1-,111 .0-,91
I
!
!
j
!
!
i
i
5~ !
~~ !
\'
I
I
!
I
ill
...
Cl
i
~
)
. I
I i
I I
!
I I
.
i ! !
Iii Ii
I III ..
ii Cl Cl
co
:. Cl
----_...;.........-
.
'~ ' 'T l C/J .. ~i ~. .I, I \1' 11\ ...~ I!
. I ; il i II "5Ci i .. ..
11"('(1'1,111111'\1 ,,~ I tl I; ~"
1111 E!lll!1 ~!I ~ll '11'ln ,II I .,- , ~ II & I! i \
E~ g ~ ',1 f)o 1.\;:; ~
2) .,0 E . I II i I I ~~ a ~
. . , .... Ie.
1-:': ... :1 'ill
,.. I "" I"
I ;~
I I'
1,1'
I : ~
t~f!lt
'1'1 !:
1 \1
,.
.
p
~ .
,~ i,
I!
\
f--
, '
\ \
\
\
\
~
--
;€lT
· :]1
hi
1"8
0;;
I
.
,
._~
! 1 \
4.___ '
t\ \~~ . --'-1\
~, ~ ~
1'\
.
, '
f--.->u- .1
I ~~i'<,,; /
( ~ ',"i, "
I ~ 1;1,
". .._--. ,cxrl1i!i 9-.M SO,a.SJ N --,. F .'
.~ ' .' / .. ti
,
Y'
K-
~.
-
I
11Is1I11I11IPI'I II
Ilmhlllllll.b I H,I
~ I i II i i i !I.~ '~~
~ .. >1~ II ; OG~~D
~ I E j ~; \ ~ 11 J
\ ~ I; [I' \ \: \
. ' \ ,1\. ( u \ \
-
2- ~
\".,
~~~
~~~
~~ ,
~,t;~
~~-
r...:.e::<:r;
~ ~
.
-"-
----------.-...
_ J
........-... .....;"
"'~
, 2)
Ie
.
I
:1
I
:,-
II' ',' , I (J) .
I ~ e~ "
! ~J 'il i
h! i I ,I "\'1'1
ill " "!'i I'i i' !::j -
lill ~d Ii t.i Mk 111lll I
~- ,
,! - r
~- --f
I~--d
--I- - ,
--1-_ L -
! --;
+""-,
_I l' r
++ --~"
-r, - .;,
. . . .1_1 %
I fI 0
~-Li- "
It. ,Q
-T ' lJl
T' - -! --
I! _d~\
F:=~I
,I --I
==:rr:=1
-- .- --+-- -
f+-~~.
, . ,
--t-. I
I ,.
IHH ~
II' I'~
-~~'-
--. -.,--
-,
--- --
_-ll~-=I ~
---1'- ,:z:
_~" r-:g
--- ! lJl
,_.---J I
--" -J
- I \
I, ,
CLhC;
.. ./.
'S1ij ~
g=a :i
E8 g
~~ ~
.
'dJ-' '.' '.
I ,
, ) t
, .
.L+++ '
+-l ' . ,
-+11 i:
! ; \ ~ Q
-Nt- .. p
--~l---t z
1 ,I! 0
~Ii--'I ~
". <II
'--rr--!
If-" '>-.;---
..l_ _~ ~
-+ ,_.'._--
I " '---,
L I" .
U:rtt- I
.
W"
,
I -;
-~I----,.
EI' ,Q
-' '.~-- - ~
+---1 ~
I': l3"-
--: rrLr- --! ~
--++r---
.~! I'
, .
"- ' - '.-
; I !
'_',-+-1 -t-,
1li.t1
~
.g!
I ill
~ 1;
Ie. di
. II III I -
, I --j --,
m'l" --
. ,
--"t ~
- I :n_
I \ L,
I I! I
it: I- ,'-:
.., ,I [.
I'l '
,....,... ,.. - 'I
, , . l -
+{-+---I
.-' 1 -- ~
_..L'. _.1 Z
If' , 0
-I. 1,1-,-,-- l3
__li.~~. .\. ' . ! UI
'[, Iii ..
- -+-i~- -i--I
-._! \.-
I ,
::- T . :-:-.;1.::: I
..,.._I.._I-!--I
, I . I r.
H'r 1 1 . ---t--
++-+ -H-+-I
-+ I 'J L--
· ; · l....LD..-!
--H- H=R' ,~
l..i : . I,
=T"t' ~' 1 :l:'
.~_ ~~i
-F , ,-'-+-
i'" r-- -t- :
-,-", 1"-.
-t-.-+-- --+-w' 'l'
,)! l' \P
-r-'I' ,:z:
'! - j 0
. '\ r-"
---j .-l-.--~ 0
_ 1../ _I._ W - ~
I! . --L....-.( rn
ci-..l-;i I --,
J' -
1-1 I !, -,
1-" .-"'.
~ ~-+-+--l--
-'-J i Ii:
> "~I
I I
i I' ~~ !!
; ~~
" UI.,
! . "9 ~
i Illsffi 18
~I \1
-+-- -+-,
-+-- - +
i -I
==+C -~!.
I "._1
---t--\ C.
Ii, .
I :-,-~--
II .
_I !:f ,~
I. - Ii
---'l' -- lJl
--1-'- ,
-- I -
trt'
I '
- .... 1=::,
~- ....... -......
~
2)
J I' 1'1 ' I (I)
! i I I J Ii
I - j ,I .!'" ~
I., .! j. ,. V
',Ib ~I!I Lj! ~l!! II! il,'I.l1 :.1,1 I-
,UliiLEillul !II, Li""
",II! I
II 'iil!!I' I
III !-I! I'! !!! ii jlli
,II! ill'l ,I' "I:I II
1I!!lli11jil,l!j!I!: !Ii
'1!I!i~,I!! .lll,!! II! I Ii
I nr~r'!I~!l
II II ! i lil.1
, i II I
I I-Iii!!:! :!
II · II'I'!!II'I j!
I I rli,: J'I
!! ii illI!!! I.'
!Ii : I illl','I!I'll',' I
- .., I I 'ii' . 'II ' I
! Ii I : i !,.!II 11I1!l1I1
. .:11 I ! ,illllllll-'llll
~ Iii' ! Il!III.II'llll ;Il~
~ :"I! ~.. _ !,hI;.!!.
.. f
"Sea Ii
U:!:: '5
.. Co ~
e.. E.
Q) 0 . I
I-::t ...!
I
I ~Il
<(
i:!Cl
1hz
05 '?
i z~ ,lL
18Cll8
~.
.
"
1'1"
- ii~
iil
III
Iii
,II
II!
I"
'I!'
r illl
t'!I~
"~I I,i,
.. I',
~I:~ ~i!
;!lil I:::
, .
, ", ' i.ql
!. I I' I'!',',', 'I I','il
! I' ," 'I' !I !! 1illl'I 1'1:',' 1 '!I' II H
, ,I 'I,' !,'I j'lI'l! .1, I' ,Ill 1!l11'
~ Iii! iI i 11 I,! !I, 'i Ii Iii!! II Ii Iii jl !! ! ii I if ill!1
Ii ! !~~i ! ~!~I mil Ii jliiii!~! 1'1 il i ~1~~11
I! h !I !111M! ~ I! Ii: 11 !I !II !11111 !Im !il !i !!!I I!lli !II !! II ! i!l!.i!'
,
I II' I': I ! Ii i
II . !lllIl! il'l i :IlI:I:'
I I 1l"I I III' Ii",,, 0'
, I Illbl, 1,.1.1 · II'" ill! II
" II' ...Ii I'!II I l'IJi I'
,! i il!ii I, I:! I · 'nlll.l I-! I
!II ! Ii !Ij! I' 1.111 I II; !1111!1 i I! , i
~ !il I Ii PI! 'I! illllll ! li!!1 i! llll!lll!
I !'!ll! ii iI'! !mlll' 'i!l ! !!li'lllllni I, IIi
I !llI !Ili !d! !I!I !II! 1m ! I!I!I.!I 11m !lIlil
.
.
"'111' , I
II 8 5' ell..", it"
, " !1l1'i"i!:II" 'lib Ill'! I I."
I ~ . ' I Ii' ! 1IIIilll!!:! lilllllllll! Ii IIII
, 'I '1!li!,!: '! ,", ii', I 1.1.1:111' '"1'1 I I.!II, Ii I', ,'I,!,
' . I '. '. " .111. ", 11"'1'1 'Ii
i II mu!;! Ii Ii! :',:,. " i,!III!!'I' 'i!.': I ,11:11
~ 1 .! "1'1'1' ,,'Id .', 'I":, '1,I'IIl I iI"1
! i III! !,i!iili1i !i !,Ipl. ii', ill , I ',dl,i 'ill!; bil,j!;'! 'I !lill! I
~ ~ ~ 1,1 II :'!' II '1' , I "I'll II H- 1111',1'1' ,,- II, 1'1
ii, II! !!I~!li: ,II !Ii.! I!! il Illlin!'!! 1i!,III!!li:I!II!,!! !llil! fj !l
nl Ii ill mIll!! i Iii mu!! r!i ~I !! !1i:llli!I!lI;!UI !illi~lli!i!!!1 !II! !i !I
,
I . ~ I it f I II .. , ~
- ' .' - "I~ I" 1-";,'11,, ' I' 1-' ,-..,' ,-
',l I: " il!lllll,iil!' l'I!II"lii!I'! 111'1 I!i i,!T
,'! III h,d 'II.. I ,,' ',I, II 'II"
P II 'I I.P!III' ;11!!.I!III i', 'I i'l ,il 'd ;!l
"II 111111:111; 111111'11' '1 ,.' I, -: 1'1'
I n i! Inli'!ii!P 'III ill!!,,',i~ll, 1I/'i M, III illl il II,!
ii' II ,', ' · 'I 110 '! 10'11 ',. 'II'"
I: il! 'j' ;'1". III!hlbI1il'. llli.! !li' h '!!., it
q fil'l! f'j': I! Ill,',il 'i, 11 I!ll,'illl!'jjl, !1,ld; !l,!1I !h! ii !~!'I!i
,. 1: ",'" all: ail' ....., "."."1 !I!
II I !Iii I!! ~i !!i:lllili!ln !!iilllilm !m !i !II!I !liI !! !: :I.~I
.
. "!lIIII. .1iI..w.,
~ - -, ----III" , I 1I"Ii
, , I "1111,"1 '" , II'
Ii .j '!I 'i !, ilil'II!; i hill! III,'!!
!!i in;! i ! Ii; ! i Ill'filll i il'ji !li1ji!li
I pl !i! I t: I .:q I ! Inlllj i ,,1:1, !;III,:,'I
i ,:1 !,I PI; ili!:' · II i 1",1, hil ii'l
, Im,I!II'. "11' I 1.,'1, 11"1 h' ,
!! ! ili 1'111 iil i 111,n 1 l 'I'! 1!lr1l1111!111!li! II!
"I! i! ',I, ,III',!! 1 : Ii, II '1'111"'11' 1111111 I,
.... I. Ihi. llr~ I 1:.... all I I
I~ I hili ii!llim! I illili i! i !I ~i !!iillli;lhn!1II !illilllfI
.
~
...... .........-...
-
- - I' I
::;_-I'_l h - ~ ,
1 \
it ·
. H!~%l ~t' I 1 \ \
. ..~ . t I \
~ \ ~\l nh~ i. .
t ii; \ i
. ~l\t . lit \ <8
i~ lit ~i ! lii~ t lllUi\ i
\\ ~i\\ i \'\ t ~ I' , ~
, 1\\\\ ~\~,\" i
. ~, U t \. ~~Ila !
-
~
--'--, \
\
1
'. .
>,>: >
<,>C <,)
'00>
.og 0
.. 0
I ...:-.010
t\lf(,C'ti
r
,:."'~
::>",a..
c,ii:~. \
\
co
<0
.'<t
C\l - -
\ tt). ; " \ '\ I
'0\11 l' .. ,I
lil '11 " " 'l'
'''Ii' \ II -" ,!It ,,'s, -.., ;;:.> · \..... - "-
o..~; \ tlf >""''''' ~:~. I ,~. '::. '~I~ o.::<~~
<.,...< ifti...\l .... ,"''5:-... ...... I ~.." "(;..,
~ ~..~.. , ' ~ ..... N...... ' . \2,. ' ..,..
g,.:.~g \~\ ' ..1',,,/' ~. /..- .ffl:"*.e~-:-
~ \\\\ irr# ~I]' , -,-
<. '6'15.. \ \ \. ~-
o..~ \ .-
\ UJ~i 1-\- ",.' I:
\!Ill: i \ -,,".
:>~ \ I
_ii . .
I\-\ \
'\ \< \ \
\- \ \
Z \\.,
W v\ . "', .
\ \- )\..".
/-;;,;~,....-' - ~ \
\ <;;;~ . ,\\ .,) ,\ ~
" ,,> \. \ \\ ~~' ) \ \
I " \ ~ ~ I J 1
\ \. '\~\ . .. '
, \. \\\
\ \ Y
\ \ \\ ~.
\ \ \. ..
, \\
\ '
\ \\
, \
\ \
\ .
11\.
-i
~i \. \\
\ \'
i \
i I
\
i'
~\,
.
\
\
,
~U\I \ II .
':\~ ~ 'Ii.
. 10\.......
1\.1'.
\dll
, '~i<'
:t":
\ l----
1\ .
.: ". : \ \.*
4,' · \ ~
~: Il.9 ~~ j ~~i~. \ It!
. '1'/ ... ,.to' ~ \ I..
, :/ I." '1i'). ..~. \ 'i . \<",
. ;II c:" .~~ "I: i \,'
-.l/ 'i~ ~ ~ ~\ >. l:-:~
! ~;'l \ \~ ' . I r
, I I i 1\
~ -~ --~\ .-
:\, \~~l
Iii ·
II II i
I l
, ~ \\;
~~. - - \1
1\ ~~~!61i ~--J' t~
\~,' ,.. /'<.J. 1,
l\~ . ....n." '... I
*' ~' Ii!. "",' ~"l ~
. . \Ii-.. .... "'.\.
\; ~ .'h - l\~ -,.' \\\ /-'-.. A
(I~ >\ r,,-.f-:;7"'-" ..-'" \ \
'..--, '1' . ~ ' \1
....~ . .'. .._.Y<o~'" -'\ili~'r""'-"l' \ \
.....~.\\\ \ \~t ~\' '/ Ii
i r.' \:\ t ,,\ I'
,.. "' I
;..
I
I' I' j 'j j! ,,,
"I i! ;' ~~
'I. I, ! 1,111,; V
IIIII ill'llI,' .11-
Ih! 1M! ,i Mi Iii III II ,;1 I
~]j 1
~Q.
H j
!il'~J ~
II J Ii
I ~-l I
~~:L- i
('>. ,:;;;( I
Ie. - Id
I'
.,
!{
: llldl ,Hlf I'll H' 'Ii i { ! II ti
~; m!!ntiifWI illt! ill: lff!tt!t rJifl1flJ f
. I tull11l'Jl f 'fIr, Jitl 11 'I{ll ptl f '
~; i J'llj./'l:i i'IIJ t.iI dUff'l'1 llfi I! I
< !l !tlll n'pl lltll ~li Ill' I I{'ljll
; uU"llihf~Jj !itlt !ill! idUll! LitH! I
o
.
....
,
...1
,I
I:
j:
I "~' "-___ ,~
I~. I t; II I --I -
I I I /::,'1
I I ~ I
I !R.' $ I li,
I ~'I;_ tIltlllillW."T $iT<$~i !'I~,I
, ,
I' -l----.--
I r
I II!
I t
I 1,--
'I' 'Y'
il\ ~ ~ "
j h\ 1\ .
I ~
. \ \\
I
I
I
\ .~. t \
I "
I I
I
./
/'
I
. iv"
I.....~
,
.
l l
I i
I I I I l ! I I I 11 ~ J! I PlW1HilHIJ III I
~ I q f! fj I I ! 1 t f I III II 11! If j
; ! ! !
~ b I I 1 I
.;; I I 1 I
'!~i!dil!i i ;iil 1111!d11llit ,.IJI1.I!
~ i~ i ~nU 111 ill b III Ii h II!! nhlh,llm~llll
OMtIl 80OC:X) 8 00 888 0nlllllf.l ,. n
lill HU Ii !llllif .
111m 'W I I I I '
1 ~I if I i qit It 1'1'1'11 1
I, W '! llh
Ii !iRII !Ull hi li,i f I i ~ ~ It I
I
I
~ ---- ......it.1
Ii: r.:~ I I'
I . '1
I~ I .
I 8 1::i IIi ...
iJ[:; I .
.N
Ill: !l,t 1..1
ep " i (ill)
.' d~
I!II
J ~ "I.
I.J.
! ; ~~ III
fa ~I
~i
:':\ f t i!. ~l
. . LJ _I
~j"
.. 8 Ii.
~}
~ ! ;jl
&i
I
, ~~
"
~,
f ~
, ~
<l
1; . cl
!' .. ~
I; ~
t~.
w
Q
1 ~
t ~
t ~l
"'.
@
"
~
< I
1
~
,.
~'
~F
,.~
It,~
. ! I '
~IJ~
'.I O\J
1ff
..r
t~
Lt
k
, r
,
,-.' h
.. . tl
11 ..
" r
Jl w
>-
.. , ~ ~
<J) ti
i >-
.1." '"
~ ;'- If ~
u ;::~
z ~ \., 11 u,
<j' :' m,
r:' ... a ,
@ :~f @ !
!f!
I
.
1'1 I I j! jll Jj! ~
I. \ . ! . ,l'llll v
III illlll '. 'I,"., -
\l!lll~!i! ~!i IIIi IIi .If ',11.111 I
.. lS
U..
Q) a. i
Eo" ~
Ql
J-:r ..
)
i
t
lU~/
plio
I i ~l-
'j qi
f <.1
~,.._...
", "
. ..
'.
.' < ',,-
",..,<,'
. '\
~ 1 T' ,
I 'j}~ lill' ,--- .
!F 1" j
RfL I"
1+
.i
'11111:,'
.11..."",,'. '; .
.'''''' ',"
Il "
" ...
"\
....\.1 fr'
. ." ',' '.. 'L~i
. .. I' ...
.. ~"
.', - ; "'"-'''
. . ,
.,
'""
.T.
, ,
!' I g i / III (J)
II Ii' ,:ll
I. '11 11,.1/1, .V
2) Jlfl jf!ll J!i bll Uill Iii n :111 I
" ,
lIS ~
'5]i ,; ~
hili ~
~~ f. U:~
g
~.
It
I
~:-l
ill
.uf L -11, ~ ~;b,,:
v U (t,
""
flt!~
tt l ~ii~
. il "
hjL~ hI'~
um~ mi
, )'
~ ~ .. i
I e. ~ _ I
lie. III
€lBI~
Ii,
..
Iii ,~
H 1..1
Cl)!e
.!l\
H):
III
!il
~i
!il
~
}-
~
~\ e
&:1
0'
€ID
el'~ f
,
!
I-
W
~
<J}
Iii \
Z,
W'
...,
@
UffMU'
.' "0... 'j W
.~., ~
<.: .,..' II'
-'
~
~~
<J} {
u, !
:1
:2)
.
I l j' I' II j r"
II ! I, ;1 ~~
I. j. , I j i"" ,j V
Ili'I'I';I'I":I'-
lhlidil Ii Iii Iii,!! lllld I
~ii ~
u.!:: ..
. Q. '3
Ell K
1Il0 ....=
~:r
:"II~1
Pi! ~
Umul if
I
L
'I i
-
I! FlllPHllHll 11 I
I Itl pp! tf j
I
,
, II! q! II I i I ~ 11
!~ q I 11 fj I f U f f
~
:: ! I I i I
ft j ,Ii
2 ill d'l ,iil I,ll II .
i . i I ! i I I i I H !LI I HI.11.
, ~ e! .:1111 i II II III ~Il! ~ U:!llIlllhl!lmIlHI
: Q)"$~.~.~~liliill "1fI
ii!l. uU
'I :Iih ltill
I I 'II 'i>>'
!: hIl! ll~il
.J !lHll Hlrl
I -+ -I' i I
!' G -I'~ i I I
1(9, [. -=-~-' !I' II I I
.e. I"" "I I".
,
31i
;;
~
~
I.J
, ,
I ~ !I'lll!ll
! lIlt tit I ~.~.!.II
19Hili I .uil!~1 ill
,
,
.
.
j
I
I
..- :iJ
......., - -........--.......
I.' i ~.IIJ (/)
!! I', i" !. I- Ji'l: !,;I 'V
I!l! ub! e!l ~lll!llll!! :lli "Ill I
I
I
Ii. ~
I, !ii /
"3 <ilr
i i ili
:1 ~ lt~
~~.
I
'"
..
'"
/
J
,~
;
o
.. is
l~ ~
~f ~
~r. ~
r -,
!11h
!il'ljJJ ~
mill! l~
j J:~' i
,{l.b-- I
.e. IlII
ep
'"
:> ., .'
u... . -'
!i ;,
u .
zit' .
<it'
}:l.
@
,. .'. >.
.~... '
", '.
, :;
,
!'i
d; I~ I
:\~
~ 1 ,'II
~ tl !H~
! if II!
~n ~I
d! eli
f3f ~I
i ilj~
~M
=
J:
~~
F"
.' ' -- ~
I' <t
l: 5
~.~ ~ Ii
~'. I~
j ,...
~ <t
R. ~
t" ;:0 \
~~ .
@
,",
~.
<
, '~
~ : V
,.
~: .
~~
,
;t ;t,
~t'~
~;n~
if
,,'
r
J"":
~.
u
it
li'
tl ..
" r
i~ w
r-
,. ~
~1 ,~
!-t <t
111 ~
I, ;:0\
u.
., I~D
~t:
it...
..
I
i
!
..
..,...... .~ I
- -
~ \~,\ ~ 'I "I \JI~\i'~l;; tiI,\\ ~ \
S 'n i'lllt. ~l' I' ',II! '\i.ll -r
~ in Ill! iMllt IIi ti,l 1111 ~a ..r-
!! d
:o'iii ~
~:: :t
!i 1\
, . --'-l I~
r. . 'I i
s_~
0- k-.. -' i
te. (-,1 ,,1 \ \ \
I"
0.\
,
I
t
\ r
\ ~~
'f
\
, \
\ ,
i'
" '
Ie
Eli}
,,\', \
I
I
I \ C\l \
111\\ \ i~ \
dffi\\i
Wi
Ill! \
Ii',' \
.. ,
\h \
~\' \
~\
!a,
h\\ml ~
~ 'Itg Ii
...
!
~.
\t
1.
tfi.-
eO;
;\'1
~ll
\ I
J"
~~t
..~
<1'"-
r _ --CU 1. "~7'
I "r'
j (>,
~
l\m t It I
. \
\,~ i\ 'l \\~
t
1L
"
-.J ~
~\} \~
,I
, \
\
--.
\.
l ~l""
J' l t t
~h it h
~ddi
~
\
-.;
\ \l
,t
...,
0"
,
_-----------,,~ ........_;0;- .,~'
'"
4
/<-,
~".j'l"
'~,;.;.t;~
1,</ ~
. ..~.
~;~'
~".:\
...... .,.-;..
!><~ "'-~
"'
"
~.
W
~~;}
c:~
C1>-
J::~
U ~
C/)J::
-
:;]
o
C/)
E'I ...
~I
.
~'~
"
"
. "!\,,
("'~~t;;
.~
w"
\~~
,~"',
';,.,l\!'fill
"I"
.
'~<_:.
~.
, '
~.~
~~
f;~-
'. ~~
","
't'::j
:. ,:
r~:}i
- ~:r.~{ ~ 8
.l!l 'l:
'~ , ' \f;\" c: iJl
".';, ~~'; CI>
~t\ " .,N ~
.. -.' U
.,":' 't a;
it t';:'", -: r
, ,,~~ . g ~
- f 'C
,~{ CI> ~
4f" ::;; ~
a;
c:
0
'0
CI> .!l .
a: E
Ol ,g
:;] ~
u ,;
Q) II
E .
t!!! E
!'
-
(I)s:,
"5
o
(I)
,
"-f_
~t;,~.
+,TlI
!;~'"
\~
\l'
<}If
'tt.~:::
,,\
'...
'~l
~11
,
~,
':i~
~
~
<::'1
;,
,.~.
, ~(,":.
\'i;
&'
..~~~
,~-
si
~
o \
"iii cj:
%~
~ ::>
"iii
c:
o
'en
~
<II
:s
~
E
{e
'0
Q)
6
E
Q)
-
~
o
~
o
~
~
0-
~
'"
U) _~
~
~ ~.
~
\l.l
i
\
'5
o
a:
...
i=
C
~
(l
m
..
..
F
/
'"
.Q
o
u
C
.~
...
j
~
.S!
!
-
.Q
8
c
;f
!
Q:
,g
!
...
.Q
8
~
..
I
Q:
<;
!
:,..,.'
1\,'
....~0:'lj..
€
o
Z
,
\.
"t~
\.
'.
"'~:
Hi
.-'\
,-J\~<'
~
...
i=
C
~
u
.,
,;~
~.
';."
;~\-
'.
l\~,
"~
.<.
w
"
c
;f
i
i[
.Q
~
t.;
~ <<.
,
.
~'
,s.
i
i[
c
;f lor,
S \
~ '1ft
i[
.g
..
;lj
,t, I
~ ~."
,.'
'.
..:,.
'<'-~
\,.
,
.-;
'~'"
'"" "-
1;;
"
w
~Ql
0_
(/)W
Cl
c:
:g
'5
CD
(ij
....
a.
'"
o
J:
-.. z -.....
.
.
... ~
0
Ql ~
- ..
c: (I)
Ql :Ii
0 ..
(ij l
0 ~
13
Ql ~
::2: 0
::>
(ij
c:
0
'0> .~ .
Ql
II: 0
.e
.!l1 ~
::l
16 !i
E a
..
~ E
~
-
~
',",
1
&
1'.
-e
~
3
\
\ &
\ !
,
\ !!l
, F
i
,
"'
~:~:\
~\
..'~
\
~
\.\
, ~
i
~
<;
'0
<.>
-e
1.
i
i
!
Iit'\
:',.,.
'"
!
-e
."
...
l
<;
'~
~
~,
>~.)' "1~:<
~ f,'-L
-"';<'
1;
',.f
'"
~
:.,
0:
.2
S
\;
1
!!l
F
~
E
tl
...
~
1
::<
l
1.
-} .
~
~
v' -
~
'i5
~
ai
""
0-
III
o
~
\\\
.ll
!!l
F
~
<;
'0
<.>
~
..
:;;
Ii
0:
.2
~
...
'"
.2
o
<.>
-e
~
~
0:
~
~
'"
<;
'8
-e
.~
\
0:
~
~
&
~ .~
% i
8 ~
m !
%1
Q) ~
~ :>
ai
5
"9.> ..
[i:E
- g
.l!! '3
~ '
Q) ~
E I
~~
~
.~
:;
.......,
.
.
~
Q)
'C
Q)
o
-a
o
"g
~
\
~
\
~
m
."
c
:>
-a
5
'01
~
tG
"S
'"
'0
~
,
,
,
]
1\ ".
.J
J
01 . ...L.
.
c: c
'6 ~
'S
[D
!l
~ "
Ql .~
- ~
c <I)
Ql ,e
(,) ~
~
11l J:
0 "
'6 ~
~
Q) .~
::E c
::>
a;
C
0
'0 ~
Ql '2
a: I;
11l ~
"
'S ()
0 ,'"
'''.
~:~~.~'
i_i.
p, '.
.~" .
.;c'"
~""C".,
Ol ~ .J..
c: c
'c ~
~
lD
.
.
~
.l!!
c:
CD
U
lIS
o
'5
CD
~
lIS
c:
o
'01
Q)
a:
lIS
~
ill
c
.~
~
'"
:2
..
~
J:
~
~
.~
c
:J
.
..
'E
1;
~
OJ
o
,_
w
- ill (i) .....
... w _o~
..
~ 01
C
:g
'3
III
Q)
0
~
~ I Ol
0
~ 'i5
i= ~
~
~ T"
Q)
1%
s::.
0-
~
.
i=
'"
~
c
0
'. ~
..
.
Ii
'" a:
~ %
'8 ~ %
~ % .~
.. .%
i Q) \
0
Ol '"
~ 0 1
~ 1 ~
Ol
c
~ 0
~ '8 'g> .~
~
'8 c 5 a:. \
" m
i .. 1a
5 11; & '3
.~ ~ 0 .
. i & .. ill ~ a
a: ill ,~ € {!Z. ~
i 1& ~ ~
w
;n \,lJ
.
~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ':I.
w ,. w 6; ~.
~ ',' 1;; ill ....~
0 ~ Ol
fJ) c
:E
':;
[ll
CI>
0 e
'. 5
.,
.< 'ai
0
~, i5
~ CI>
:<
J' ~ t\l
,~~. CI>
1) ~l \II
.r:.
u.
~,
.
\ \>~~f~'~''> r#' -.',..;
-..; ,-~,.
" ,.,~,,' :
,
v;;t
c:
o
.~
~
W
~
LU
5
'ia
i>
w
€
o
z
.
~
~ ~
~ \i
'ai ;I:
.12 l
"'0 i~
Q) ~ ~
:< :;
'ai
c
o
'0 .
CI> 'E
ex: 2
~ ~
g "
~ i
.
a
Ii
N
~
'0
o
:,.~
;1 ll.
I ~
" 1ii "!
Ii:
~
o
~
S
E
~
I
Ii:
j
g
a:
m
F
E
m
E
m
o
I
:.1lI
, m
I <D
, .!!
I i=
11
If
f'ZLf.,
u;r
,
i
:.
12
'E
u;
e: e:
00
~~
a; iD
wm
8lra
:;:w
'iij
F
,,- ~ C)
e:
'6
a:
"
e:
'"
'"
o
t::
o
n.
'"
o
1;;
e:
o
n
'"
Ul
W"
we:
o
:510
oil;
Ulijj
J::
5
z
~
w
~
'"
c
'"
()
en
en
'"
c
-
u::
,
~
15
it
m
F
E
m
E
m
o
m
o
m
<D
m
F
\
a
Ii
E
~
m
'"
m
Ii:
o
~
c:
o
15
il;
W
J::
t::
o
Z
e:
o
ii
il;
w
U;
'"
W
~-::lI
[jj -0-
~
'"
- .
C I
c3 !
I
~
~
C
<tl
()
~ 8
~ 1
'" j;
() '3
(;j :J:
~ ~
'" ~
~ :J
(;j
C
o
'6>
'"
a:
<tl
'5
(J
'"
E
{Eo
m
~
..
o
..
.,
o
m
E
'"
.
.
.
.0
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)
R:\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORT11-16-05 v2.doc
37
.
.
'.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-
0463, PA04-0571
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT:
Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission
hereby finds and determines that:
A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described herein.
B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions ("Project"),
initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the development of
a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula. The Project site
is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of Temecula,
California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles and north of
the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided by Highway
79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462) to
remove the project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from the Land
Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed two-
stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and PDO-
8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the
Hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres,
also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080- .
007 through 959-080-010.
C. UHS of Delaware Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462,
General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan;
and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road,
known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010 ("Project").
D. 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; and,
E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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.
F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for .
this Project.
G. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
H. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project;
I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report
("Draft FEIR") was issued on August 3, 2005, inviting comments from responsible
agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines section 15082.
J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of
Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for
analysis in the Draft FEIR.
K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project
implementation pursuant to CEQA.
.
I.
~.
'.
L. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital ErR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft FEIR dated September 26, 2005,
the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with
the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005.
N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft FEIR in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of
the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for
review at City offices.
O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft EIR,
the City received seven (7) written comments, all of which were responded to by the
City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR).
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all commentors on and before November 22, 2005, including those
received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency
commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005.
Q. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005 and November 16, 2005, the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Project
and the Draft FEIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present
oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft FEIR.
R. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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,
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.
T. Section 15093 of the State CEOA Guidelines requires that if the 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.
3.
.
U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City Council
finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 3 of
the proposed City Council Resolution.
V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant,
but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and
set forth herein are described in Section 4 of the proposed City Council resolution.
W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant
but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in
Section 5 of the proposed City Council resolution.
.
X. Alternatives to the Project. that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 6 of the proposed City Council
resolution.
Y. 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 Section 7 of the proposed City
Council resolution.. 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 assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures; and,
Z. Prior to taking action, the Planning Corn mission has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the
adrninistrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings
and hearings. In making the recommendation to the the City Council as set forth in this
resolution, findings contained herein and in the proposed City Council Resolution
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed
adequate for purposes of rnaking decisions on the merits of the Project and related
actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional .
environmental review of the Draft FEIR under CEOA require additional public review
because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial
; . increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
,
.
.
Section 2. Recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula, California, hereby recommends that the City Council for the
City of Temecula adopt a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)" certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Draft City
Council Resolution for certification of the above, substantially in the form contained in
Exhibits A, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth in
full.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTION by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 16th day of November, 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske
Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of
November, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING .COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CC RESOLUTION 05-_
(DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT)
.
i.
.
I
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL FOCUSED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-
0463, P A04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE THAT:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that:
A. This Resolution constitutes the Statement of Findings of Fact
Pursuant to CEOA Guideline Section 15091 for the Temecula Hospital Project described
herein.
B. The Temecula Regional Hospital Project and related actions
("Project"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula consists of the
development of a 35.31-acre planned Regional Medical Center in the City of Temecula.
The Project site is located adjacent to and north of State Highway 79 South in the City of
Temecula, California, in southwest Riverside County, south of the City of Los Angeles
and north of the City of San Diego; from the 1-15, access to the Project site is provided
by Highway 79 South; the proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (PA04-
0462) to remove the Project area from the Future Specific Plan "Z" Overlay District from
the Land Use Element of the General Plan which will permit new construction to exceed
two-stories in height; a Zone Change (PA05-0302) from PO (Professional Office) and
PDO-8 (De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay District - 8) to PDO-9 (Planned
Development Overlay District-9) and to create height standards which would allow a
maximum building height of 115 feet; a Conditional Use Permit (PA04-0463) for the
hospital facility and private helipad; a Development Plan (PA04-0463) to permit the
construction of a 408,160 square foot, 320-bed hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 566,160 square feet; and a Tentative
Parcel Map (PA04-0571) to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel on 35.31 acres,
also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-
007 through 959-080-010.
C. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed 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 in a manner in accord with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby
incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
D. 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; and,
E. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005,
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.
F. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this Project.
G. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused .
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
H. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the
City is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general
governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project;
I. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact
Report ("Draft FEIR") was issued on August 3,2005, inviting comments from responsible
agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15082.
J. Written statements were received by the City in response to the
Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives
for analysis in the Draft FEIR.
K. Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of the
Project implementation pursuant to CEQA.
L. On September 26, 2005 the State Office of Planning and Research
approved a 30 day public review period for the Temecula Regional Hospital EIR
(SCH#2005030017) for this Project determining that such a review period is consistent
with the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research .
for shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
.
.
:.
,
M. Therefore, upon completion of the Draft FEIR dated September 26,
2005, the City initiated a 30-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion
with the State Office of Planning and Research on September 26, 2005.
N. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft FEIR in
a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to
public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the
Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at
City offices.
O. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft
EIR, the City received seven (7) written comments, all of which were responded to by the
City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final EIR).
P. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City
provided its responses to all commentators on and before November 22, 2005, including
those received after the end of the public review period. Responses to public agency
commentators were provided on or before November 12, 2005.
O. On April 6, 2005, April 20, 2005 and November 16, 2005, the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the
Project and the Draft FEIR at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to
present oral and written evidence on the Project and the Draft FEIA.
A. On November 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula
held duly noticed public hearings on the Project and the Draft FEIR at which time all
persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the
Project and the Draft FEIA.
S. Section 15091 of the State CEOA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a Project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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.
T. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the
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.
U. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City
Council finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section 3 hereof.
V. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the
Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 4 hereof.
W. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in .
Section 5 hereof.
X. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 6.
Y. 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 Section 6 hereof.
Z. 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 assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures; and,
AA. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record
including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings
and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and
related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have
produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional
environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the
Final EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental
.
.
I.
I
I
I
!
:.
I
impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur.
Section 2. Findings Concerning Impacts Identified in the Initial Study as
Having Less Than Significant Impact on the Environment. The City Council hereby
finds and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final
EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of
testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental
impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital will have a less than significant
impact through the Initial Study:
A. Aaricultural Resources The Project site is not currently in
agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15 to 20 years), the site has not
been used for agricultural purposes. The Project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report
prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid-1800s, the Project site
was cultivated as an agricultural field. However, the Project site has not been utilized
for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural
resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural
uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local
importance, as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of
Temecula General Plan. In addition, the Project will not involve changes in the existing
environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5)
The proposed Project could, because of its regional significance, cause other
agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some
remaining agricultural uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and
surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural; however, the
conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the
proposed Project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of
San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the
proposed Project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external
economic forces rather than the proposed Project. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, p. 5)
B. Bioloqical Resources A habitat assessment study was prepared for
the Project site (Habitat Assessment, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., September
14, 2004). The study identified a man-made flood control channel that parallels the
eastern boundary of the Project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows
and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes has
also been identified within the man made channel. The habitat within the channel is
likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The
Project applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular
access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require
Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside
County Flood Control. The study (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004)
concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed .
alteration, placement of fill into the channel, and the encroachment into jurisdictional
areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In
order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be
present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition, if activity
within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur
between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols
shall be provided to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo
bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In
the event either of these endangered birds is found, the construction of the bridge
(schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the
birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the Project with mitigation measures.
The Project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery
sites. The Project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or
state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site has been grubbed and disturbed for
many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16).
There are some grasses on the Project site; however, they are not considered sensitive
habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the
Project site.
The proposed Project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The Project site .
is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic
plants, as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP
guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the
Burrowing Owl. A Burrowing Owl survey was conducted by AMEC and the results
reported in a report dated August 9, 2005. The survey did not identify the presence of
Burrowing Owls on the subject property.
The following Mitigation Measures will be required in the event that an extension of
Dartolo Road across the flood control channel occurs:
Due of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would
need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell's Vireo and
the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found,
bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts
to the birds' reproductive cycle.1 Both the Least Bell's Vireo and the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected
under the MSHCP. (DEIR, p. 5-14)
1 AMEC Earth & Environmental. Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004.
.
:.
.
.
C. Cultural Resource A Phase I survey (Historical/Archaeological
Resource Survey Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004)
has been prepared for the proposed Project. The survey did not identify any historical
resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 on the Project site. No
impact on historical resources is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
The Phase I survey did not identify the Project site as a potential site for historical
resources, including human remains. Historically, the site has been used for agricultural
production, which involved substantial and repeated soil disturbance. The archaeology
survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to
contain historical and archaeological resources. Given the known sensitive resources
discovered within close proximity of the Project site, conditions of approval are required.
The Project site is also a potential site for paleontological resources, and conditions of
approval are required. The City will apply standard conditions of approval to the Project
to address monitoring during grading operations.
The following Conditions of Approval have been required of the proposed Project and
shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the
Project:
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a
written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human
resources, and human remains discovered on-site.
2. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources,
including archaeological artifacts found on the Project site, to the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent
authorized by law.
3. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and
paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the
applicant's sole cost.
4. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities,
they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the
pre-excavation agreement referenced in Condition A above.
5. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the
Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment
Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September
16, 2004, respectively, except as modified by Project Conditions of Approval.
6. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological, and
Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities.
The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert
grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The
monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain .
remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
7. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates
and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they
can be identified and permanently preseNed.
8. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with
permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires
alternative treatment.
9. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens,
should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report
should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens.
The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
10. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and
the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any
Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program
shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the
resources unearthed. (Initial Study, pgs. 14 and 15)
D. Geoloav/Soils A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for
the proposed Project "Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula,
CA," PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula
segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed Project will not be subject to fault
rupture since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the Project site. The
Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large
magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The Project has the potential to be
exposed to severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby
faults. The site, in its current condition, includes subsurface strata that could
experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural
loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial
soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and
recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent
a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive
environment with respect to buried metals. The Project site has a moderate risk for
liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor
slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement
due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the
groundwater.
The following Conditions of Approval have been required as a part of the proposed
Project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant, and will be established
as enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
.
.
.
1 . The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the
Geotechnical Exploration Report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004
and as stated below without deviation.
a. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious
materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction.
Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the
proposed building limits, where practical.
b. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly
compacted fill. The depth of over-excavation should extend at least
12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-grade and pavements, or
24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be
saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The
removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method 0157) until design
finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four
feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
c.
.
The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform
horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified
(to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import
soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a
maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an
expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols
appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading
operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may
be generated. These materials should not be placed within the
compacted fill.
d. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should
be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture
content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and
thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of
compacted-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The
edges of compacted fill should ex1end 10 feet beyond the edges of
buildings prior to sloping.
e.
;.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison
to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be
placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced
lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the
geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth .
pressure used in the wall design.
f. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be
removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum
moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
based on Test Method 01557. The upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base
material and not during the initial grading operation.
g. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial
deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to
moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional
earthmoving equipment.
h. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's
Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of
Temecula standards.
The Project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Project
site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the .
implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan does not identify
any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project.
According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the Project is
not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), and, thus, will not create substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical
exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the
Project site as "very low expansion potential," as defined in the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The Project is required to comply with the recommendations
in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004.
The Project will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available; approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District
for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this Project as the current sewer system and waste treatment
facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. (Initial
Study, pgs. 16, 17, and 18)
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Project could potentially
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
.
i.
,
:.
:.
I
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project consists of medical
uses and will include the storage, use, and transportation of hazardous materials. The
Project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However,
the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in hazardous emissions materials or
wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit to the City an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of
the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health.
A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore
would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20)
The Project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP). There are no other airports located near the Project.
The Project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project does
include a private helipad that will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of
patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to
commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Project.
The Project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or
evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would not impair the implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. The Project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local
treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated
as a result of this Project.
The following standard Conditions of Approval have been required of the Project and
will be established as an enforceable condition on the entitlements:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a
hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials
Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation
of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations. (Initial Study, pgs. 19 and 20)
F. Mineral Resources The Project is not located in an area that is
known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. .
The Project will not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource because the
Project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as
shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated
as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p.25)
G. PODulation and Housina. The Project is a regional facility that will
add additional medical services to the region. As a result, the Project could potentially
cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside
County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial)
since the mid-1980s without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built out with residential dwellings. The Project, therefore, is not
anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has
. already occurred over the last 10 to 20 years. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of the Project.
The Project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly.
The Project includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center, and a fitness
rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The Project site is vacant and
will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The
Project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial
Study, p. 30)
.
H. Public Services The Project will have a less than significant impact
upon, or not result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation, or other public
facilities. The Project will provide additional public services available to the community
and general public. The Project will also provide better emergency medical response
and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The Project will contribute fair-share contributions through City Development Impact
Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure. The Project will not have
an impact upon nor result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The Project will
not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The Project will
have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental
Health have been made aware of this Project. A condition of approval has been placed
on this Project that will require the applicant to obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of the
public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential
and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the Project.
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual
analysis concerning sewer flows from the hospital, and the total flow is estimated to be .
approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the
.
.
I
i.
hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity,
assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP
sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service, the applicant is responsible for
payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee.
Impact is less than significant. (Initial Study, p.31)
I. Recreation The Project is a hospital and medical office Project in a
professional office zone. The Project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or
remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to
c increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of
this Project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project.
The Project does not include an open space or recreational aspect. Furthermore, the
Project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project. (Initial Study, p. 32)
J. Utilities and Service Svstems The Project will not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities,
nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The Project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems.
The Project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line
connections. The applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, EMWD, to
determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the
applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in
place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the
proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle
this quantity of wastewater.
The Project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The Project may require
various state and federal permits. The Project will include the construction of
underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the Project
site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a
result of this Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
Project.
The Project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded
water entitlements. According to RCWD's Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban
Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported,
and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The
ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while
the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet. Based on the
projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands
projected for the Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water
Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the Project location.
The Master Plan projected demands for the Project site are based on use of the site as .
30 acres of, Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate
Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the Project
area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided
for and can be met with existing supply capacities.
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a
combination of the following:
1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells.
2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake.
3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed
to be available.
4. Conservation measures.
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local .
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910. (DEIR, p. 4-35 and 4-35)
The Project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from
solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this Project. (Initial Study, pgs. 35
and 36)
Section 3. Findings Concerning Impacts Found in The Draft FEIR to Have
Less Than Significant Impacts on the Environment. The City Council hereby finds
and determines that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR,
written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony .
:e
!e
e
from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts
associated with the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have a less than significant
impact through the EIR and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation
measures:
A. Aesthetics - Scenic Hiahwavs and Visual Character or Qualitv The
Project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by
the California Department of Transportation.2 According to the City of Temecula
General Plan, the Project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for
its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. Development of the
Project will result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p.4-4)
The proposed Project will be visible from various residential lots north of the Project site,
as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b in ihe EIR. However, the views are
considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by
any City regulation or policy. While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently
taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development. As illustrated
in Figure 4-2a in the EIR, while the Project site can seen from residential areas tq the
north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will
not be blocked by the Project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent
residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the Project site.
Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the
residences to the north.
To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the
preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine,
Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences
and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the
development of the site. Incorporation of these Project features will help to reduce
viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct
views from nearby locations. However, because the views are considered private, are
not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or
policy, impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-5)
B. Air Qualitv - Construction' Odors and Consistency with Adooted
Plans and Policies The Project has the potential to create objectionable odors during
construction. Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines
during site preparation. However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments
and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper
maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions. These emissions are also of
short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Therefore, thE;l Project
will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction. (DEIR, 4-24)
2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
hllo://www.dot.ca.nov/ho/LandArch/scenic hiohwavs/ Date accessed: August 11 ,2005.
With respect to determining Project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air -
quality planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the allainment of the ambient .
air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. The SCAQMD CEQA emissions
thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify
those Projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the
allainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards.
General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the
framework for attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air
quality standards. The Temecula Hospital Project proposes development on the Project
site at an intensity greater than the two-story building height limit established in the
General Plan Land Use Element for this site. However, the proposed hospital and
medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building area, whereas a
commercial office development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations
could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor-Area Ratio of 0.5.
The proposed uses would generate up to 65% fewer vehicle trips than the
commercial/office uses on the site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of
Alternative 2 in Section 5.0 of the EIR). Finally, Policy 1.8 in the Land Use Element
states: "Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as
well as a community college, major college or university." Therefore, the Project is
consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. As the Project is consistent
with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Open Space/Conservation _
Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP, and the development's .
assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP. (DEJR, p. 4-25)
C. Hydroloqv and Water Qualitv Storm Water Drainage and Water
Quality Compliance with the existing regulations, which require Riverside County Flood
Control District review to ensure adequate flood control capacity, on-site drainage
provision, drainage fees payment, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
preparation, will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and
water quality. (DEJR, p.4-33)
California Water Code Sections 10910-10915
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development
Projects pursuant to the General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required
to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and
multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed Project, in
addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development Project will be
permilled to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Water Code Section
10910 applies to the Project because the proposed hospital and medical office building
complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(1) in
square feet and potential employment.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public _
water system within which the proposed Project will be located. RCWD will be the .
Ie
e
.
water purveyor to the Project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the
proposed Project; this assessment states that the projected water demand for the
Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This demand has
been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and
Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD. Furthermore, based on the projected water
demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the
Project service area, this Project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan
projected demands based on land use for the Project location. Therefore, the 42 acre-
feet demand estimated for the Project has been provided for and can be met with
existing supply capacities.
To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the
District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following
alternatives: .
1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and
artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned
RCWD-owned wells.
2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake.
3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed
to be available.
4. Conservation measures.
Due to RCWD's access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local
groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the
basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability
to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of
single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD has the ability to meet demands by
augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with
implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the
use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic
water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or
critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists
to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water
Code Section 10910. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-33, 4-34, and 4-35)
D. Land Use and Planning The Professional Office General Plan land
use designation will continue to apply to the Project site. The uses proposed are all
permilled within this designation. Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land
use policy will apply. The elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height
restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO
zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has
submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum
height of 115 feet for the tower structures. In approving the Project, the City Council _
has determined that no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations .
result, and impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-39)
The Project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of
public facilities and services within the Project area. Furthermore, potential jobs will be
created through the development and programming of this regional hospital, and the
housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing
developments anticipated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project
will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities
Element. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-40)
All uses currently permilled in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in new
PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact will result. The primary changes that will occur
as a result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan will be a change to the
building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development
standards applicable strictly to this site. The PDO document submitted with the
application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet. In
approving the PDO-9 zone, the City Council has determined that the PDO-9 zone is
appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. Therefore, impact will
be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-40)
The hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and
planned development uses and pallerns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola e
Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by,
respectively, a six-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-
way to the north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and
landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses.
The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses;
impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-41)
With regard to intensity of use, the Project will result in a more intense use of the site
than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased
height standard. The Project will require approval of a planned development permit to
provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping,
and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development
standards for the Project.
The hospital bed-towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The
nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially
zonetl parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter
landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These Project
features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding
uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards
are not considered significant. (DEIR, p. 4-41)
e
.
I.
.
E. Noise (Construction. Ground-Borne Vibration. Traffic-related Noise.
Sirens. Loadina Activities. Parkina Lot Activities,_ Trash Pickup,
Landscapina/Maintenance. and Future Exterior/Interior Noise Environment
Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section
8.32.020 of the Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
The proposed Project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the
demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very
near the properly lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the
short duration of the activity. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
Although siren noise may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors,
noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact
because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens
are necessary for safety during an emergency. (DEIR, p. 4-58)
Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less
than significant. (DEJR, p. 4-64)
Activity at the loading docks have the potential to create excessive noise. Assuming
that the worst-case 10-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be
the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading
docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the estimated 10-minute
average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50
dB(A). With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates toa CNEL of 42 dB.
This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB.
Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading
dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. The impact is less than
significant. (DEIR, p. 4-61)
At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet) from the loading docks,
the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City's. standard of 70 dB,
and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less
than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-61)
Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to
commercial uses. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50
feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this
noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts
only three minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the
community. Therefore, this Project impact will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-63)
The exterior noise standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior
locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South. .
However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Impact
will be less than significant. (DEJR, p. 4-64)
The interior noise standard will not be exceeded within any medical office building nor
hospital facility given the noise estimates and the noise reduction characteristics of the
buildings themselves. The noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior
CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will
be lower than 50 dB. Impact is less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4-64)
Section 4. Findings Concerning Potentially Significant Impacts Which Can
be Mitigated to Levels of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds and
determines that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft FEIR have been incorporated
into the Temecula Regional Hospital Project that avoid or substantially lessen the
following potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Project Draft
Focused EIR to a .Iess than significant level. The potentially significant Project impacts
and the mitigation measures which have been adopted to mitigate them to a less than
significant level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics - Lioht and Glare
1. Potential Significant Impact
The Project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically
associated with a hospital and medical office. A minimum of one-foot
candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas,
and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main
entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully
shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto
adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium
outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. The City
is requiring the Project applicant to locate all ground-mounted lighting as
far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the
parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the
Development Code and Design Guidelines.
The hospital towers have the potential to emit glare from the upper floors.
(DEIR, p. 4-14)
2. Findings
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 DEIR. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures will reduce potential aesthetic impacts to a less than
significant level:
e
e
!.
.
I
.
A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a
photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed
light levels for the entire Project site onto adjacent Project
boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate.
Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means
to mitigate potential light impacts. (DEIR, p. 4-15)
A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical
office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-
reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted
from the upper floors. (DEIR, p. 4-15)
A-3. The applicanVdeveloper shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and
replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs
(15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the Project site.
Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The
Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or
berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required
along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels.
(DEIR, p. 4-15)
B.
Noise - Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard. Emeraencv Generators.
Mechanical Eauipment Room. Rooftop Eauipment)
1. Potential Significant Impact
Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment
The mechanical yard duty equipment's noise level for all the equipment is
74 dB(A) at 50 feet. At the worst-case noise-sensitive location, the
estimated noise level is 51 dB(A) and, over a 24-hour period, the CNEL
will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City's standard of 65 dB;
however, the CNEL at the residence will increase by approximately 4 dB.
In addition, the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be
71 dB at the nearest office location. This exceeds the City's standard of
70 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required.
(DEIR, p. 4-62)
Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators
The emergency generators' estimated noise level for each of the two
generators is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include additional
noise from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level
by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. At the worst-
case noise-sensitive location, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A),
without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test
day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the
City's standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24- e
hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the City's 65
dB standard. In addition, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB at the nearest
office properly if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, which
exceeds the City's standard. Therefore, the generator impact is potentially
significant at both the worst-case noise-sensitive location and the office
location as well. (DEIR, pgs. 4-62 and 4-63)
The Mechanical Equipment Room
The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB
hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the
central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the
construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the
equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central
plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers,
and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at
nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the
design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is
required. (DEIR, p. 4-63)
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration
units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise .
sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new
construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included
during the final design of the Project to minimize rooftop mechanical
equipment noise. (DEIR, p. 4-63)
2. Findings
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 DEIR. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than
significant level:
N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators)
is fully operational upon completion of Project construction, the
applicant/permillee shall conduct continuous, 24-hour noise
monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be
conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels
exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the
City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that
may be in place at the time, the applicant/permillee shall implement
measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such .
e
measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation
barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed
appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation
has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report
with the City documenting compliance. (DEJR, p. 4-65)
N-5
Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office
buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise
standards established in the General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
C. Transportation - Proiectlmpacts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
The Project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring
mitigation:
Phase 1: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or
cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak
hours
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak
i.
,I
hours
. Highway 79 South/La Paz Street - P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours
Phase 1: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to Project-related or
cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
Project at Build-out: Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to Project-
related or cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps - both peak
hours
. Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps - both peak
hours
!.
. Highway 79 South/La Paz Street- P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway - P.M. peak
. Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way - LOS F at
A.M. and P.M. peak hour
. Margarita Road/Highway 79 South - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak
hour
. Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita - both peak hours
e
Project at Build-out: Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to
Project-related or cumulative impacts:
. Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
2. Findings
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 DEIR. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures will reduce potential transportation - Project impacts
to a less than significant level:
The Project applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-share
payments for the following improvements:
T -1. Signalize the main Project site access from Highway 79 South
opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration:
Westbound: 1 right-turn lane
3 through lanes
1 left-turn lane
e
Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes
2 through lanes
1 shared through/right lane
Northbound: 1 left-turn lane
1 shared through/right lane
Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes
1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) (DEIR, p.4-93)
T-4. Improvements on the Project site shall include a driveway onto De
Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works
Director. (DEJR,4-94)
Section 5. Findings Concerning Impacts Which Cannot be Fully Mitigated
to a Level of Insignificance. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the
incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts
cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding -
Considerations is therefore included herein: ·
'~.
A.
Air Qualitv - Short-term. Lono-term. and Cumulative
1.
Potential Significantlmpac,t
Short- Term
Construction activity will produce daily emissions above the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). The NOx
emissions are primarily allributable to exhaust from construction vehicles,
and the ROG emissions are primarily from the application of architectural
coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a
significant adverse short-term regional air quality impact because the
levels of these emissions are projeCted to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant
significance thresholds. (DEIR; p. 4-23)
.
Long- Term and Cumulative
Air pollutant emissions associated with Project operations will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called
stationary sources) and by the operation of on-road vehicles (mobile
sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where
production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be
regional in nature. Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the
production of energy were calculated using emission factors from the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (DEIR, p. 4-24)
Regional emissions from the operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital
are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for carbon monoxide (CO) and ROG. As such,
regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project
will result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to ROG and
CO. (DEIR, p. 4-25)
2. Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce air quality
impacts to the extent feasible.
AQ-1. The applicanVpermittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area
(or turn-out) appropriate for the Project site. Wrillen authorization
and final approved design plans shall be submilled to the City of
Temecula Planning Department. (DEIR, p. 4-26)
.
AQ-2. The applicanVpermillee shall incorporate and encourage
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for
reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the
daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall
include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and
I
I,
vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the
on-going operation of the facility. Wrillen proof of such program _
shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to .
the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of
the medical offices. (DEJR, p. 4-26)
AQ-3. The applicanVpermittee shall incorporate energy efficiency
standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office
buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. (DE/R, p. 4-
26)
AQ-4. The applicanVpermittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the
Project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and
mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than
100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning
of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary
landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and
erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the
applicanVpermillee's expense. (DEIR, p. 4-26)
AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of
construction activities, the applicanVpermittee shall verify in writing
(to the Planning Department) that all earth-moving and large _
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. .
In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where
feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed
considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy
efficiency reasonably possible. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall
be submilled to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for
approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on
site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works
Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary
based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-7. The applicanVpermillee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive
Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 - Nuisance and Rule 403 -
Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include
applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and
Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the
following examples listed below:
.
e
. Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally
safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site inactive for over four days.
. Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active
operations have ceased.
. Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading
completion.
. Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily,
at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon.
. Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.
. Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the
surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there
is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary
coverings.
. Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site.
. Direct construction traffic over established haul routes.
The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation
operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be
subject to periodic site monitoring by the City. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
.
AQ-8. During the course of the Project grading and construction, the
applicant/permillee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-
related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
(DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-9. The applicant/permillee shall establish construction equipment and
supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest
properly line of a residentially improved parcel. (DEIR, p. 4-27)
AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-
related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission
controls to ensure against Project site related odors during
construction and subsequent use. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
.
AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the Project
site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with
State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site
(to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code
23114, with special allention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F),
(e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall
be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust
emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall
be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to
prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they
leave the construction area. (DEIR, p. 4-28)
AQ-12. During the course of the Project grading and construction,
the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent e
streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt
in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be
done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of
each day of grading and/or construction. (DEJR, p. 4-28)
AQ-13. During periods of high winds (I.e., wind speed sufficient to
cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind
speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving
and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the
degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site
activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either
off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole
discretion. (DEIR, p. 4-28) .
AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the
construction and repainting of the Project to the maximum extent
feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95
percent over convention architectural coatings. The following
websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content
~~ e
htto://htto://www.aamd.aov/ordas/brochureslSuP.er-Compliant AI M,pdf
http://www.delta-institute.ora/publications/paints.pdf (DEIR, p. 4~28)
AQ-15. The Project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times
(not including the morning and evening water down) during
construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. (DEIR, p. 4-
28)
AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a
covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and
covered at all times, except during pick~up times for off-site
removal. (DEIR, p. 4~28)
AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel
for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets
(De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative
transportation, (DEIR, p. 4-28)
3. Supporting Explanation
e
The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project will result in significant
air quality impacts during the Project's construction and operational
I.
phases. With mitigation, ROG emissions will be less than significant.
However, NOx emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will continue
to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and result in a significant,
unavoidable short-term air quality impact. (DEIR, p. 4-29)
Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated
emissions of CO and ROG will exceed the operational phase thresholds
established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip
reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a
level of significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and
unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4-29)
B. Noise - Associated with the Maximum Potential Number of Emeroencv
Helicopter Fliahts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
.
The Project includes a helipad to be used for the emergency evacuation of
any patient who cannot be treated at the hospital. The helipad permit to
be issued by the California Department of Transportation will have a limit
of a maximum six flights per month. The applicant anticipates no more
than one flight per month. However, assuming one flight on a "worst-
case" day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or
climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) would be 94 to 100 dB(A). The
estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4
(on a scale from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to six times per
month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered
significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. (DEIR, p. 4-61)
2. Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts
to the extent feasible:
N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances
for critical patient transport. The applicant/permillee shall apply for
a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services
Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations,
Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit
allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6
landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter,
except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty
event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond
these limits. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
,
I
I
'.
N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be
informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 1350
southeast. (DEIR, p. 4-65)
3. Supporting Explanation
e
Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts,
these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance
because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to
the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given
month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR, p.4-66)
C. Traffic & Circulation - Cumulative Impacts
1. Potential Significant Impacts
New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring
throughout the Project area, combined with Project trips, will increase the
number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area.
Vehicle trips from the Project and related Projects are anticipated to
create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near
the 1-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections.
The 21 cumulative Projects generate a total of 160,500 average daily
trips with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak
hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be
confined to the area (short trips), while others would travel outside the
Project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the
regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation
network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction
measures and programs are not implemented.
e
. In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development
Project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway
improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City
to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation
programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of
service at local intersections.
Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally
anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment
of fair share fees and citywide and Project-level roadway improvements.
The proposed Project will not result in any cumulative impacts to
intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over
capacity:
. Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway
. Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road
. Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road
. Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South
.
e
Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at Project build-out will be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15
will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future.
Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant
and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
.
:.
2. Findings
e
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce traffic impacts
to the extent feasible. Also, other roadway system enhancements' will be
pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General
Plan Circulation Element. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
T-2. The Project applicanVpermittee will pay Riverside County
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate
cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at 1-15.
(DEIR, p. 4-94)
T-3. The Project applicanVpermittee will contribute a fair share toward
the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the
Project's contribution toward cumulative impacts:
Intersection
Required Improvements
Highway 79 South/I-15
Southbound Ramps
Highway 79 South/I-15
Northbound Ramps
Additional southbound left-turn lane
Additional eastbound through lane, plus
convert westbound right lane to free right
turn
Widen southbound movement to dual le~
turn lanes and one shared through/right
lane
Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus
eastbound and northbound free right-turn
lanes
Signalize and provide dual eastbound
left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-
turn lanes with a shared through/right-
turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn
lane for westbound approach.
Highway 79 South/La
Paz Road
Highway 79
South/Pechanga
Parkway
Highway 79
South/Project
Driveway/Country Glen
Way
Highway 79
South/Red hawk
Parkway/Margarita
Road
(DEIR, p. 4-94)
Provide southbound and eastbound dual
left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps.
3. Supporting Explanation
Cumulative impacts on these roadway links at Project build-out will be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near 1-15
will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. e
Cumulative impacts, as noted in the EIR, will be significant and
unavoidable.
.
.
.
Section 6. Findings Concerning Alternatives to the Project. The City
Council hereby declares that it has considered the alternatives identified in the EIR as
described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of
alternatives to a Project, or to the location of a Project, which: (1) offer substantial
environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only
evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly allain most of the
Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases,
the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead
agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in
an EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over a proposed
Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects
of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic,
technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
The City's objectives for the proposed Project and the Project area are to:
. Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services
. Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify
Temecula's economic and 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
. Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the
City of Temecula
. Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity,
and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses
. Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an
operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the
City
The objectives of Universal Health Services, the Project applicant, for the proposed
Project are to:
. Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and
surrounding communities
. Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with
outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices
. Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-
of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors
e
. Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of
doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures
. Provide a regional hospital facility that is centrally located, with access from a
major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and the
region
A. No Project Alternative - No Build
1. Description
The "No Project Alternative" alternative assumes that site conditions would
remain the same as existing conditions, and no development would occur
in the near future. (DE/R, p. 5-4)
2. Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative does not meet any of
the Project objectives identified by the City nor the applicant. However, it
has fewer environmental impacts than the Project.
3. Supporting Explanation
e
This alternative generally would avoid the significant air quality impacts
associated with the Project and would not generate any additional traffic.
No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with
the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the
Project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the
proposed Project, it meets none of the Project objectives identified by the
applicant and the City. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
B. No Project- Development Pursuant to Current General Plan
1 . Description
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General
Plan" alternative assumes that the Project site ultimately would be
developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and
policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the
standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and
the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-
8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square
feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning
regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. (DEIR, p. 5-4)
.
2. Finding
.
I
i
I.
.
i II
The "No Project Alternative - Development Pursuant to Current General
Plan" would not attain the City's objective to encourage future
development of a regional hospital and related services, or the applicant's
objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of
Temecula and surrounding communities. It would potentially have greater
air quality and traffic impacts, while potentially having reduced land use
and planning impacts.
3. Supporting Explanation
This alternative could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic
impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced
compared to the Project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter
operations would be avoided. However it would not allain the City's
objective to encourage future regional hospital and related services nor
would it allain the applicant's objective to provide high-quality health
services to Temecula or surrounding communities' residents. All other
impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed
hospital Project. (DEIR, p. 5-6)
C.
Alternative Site - Corona Family Properties
1 . Description
The alternative site considered for this Project includes land now owned
by Corona Family L TD Partnership located at the northeast corner of
Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of
three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN
952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN
952150002,20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within
the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for
Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located
within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of
Riverside. The Project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan
planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County
zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant's
control for the Project to proceed, and a County General Plan
amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the
larger parcel. (DEIR, p.5-7)
2. Finding
The "Alternative Site" alternative has the potential to result in similar traffic
and air quality as impacts the proposed Project, and could also result in
adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility
impacts. This alternative will not allain the applicant's objectives.
However, this alternative would allain the City's objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation
This alternative has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural
resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the Project does
not. Also, the alternative site would require annexing a portion of the site
into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be
greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the
Project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight
path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are
uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to
determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those
associated with the Project. The alternative site would not attain the
applicant's objectives because the site is located farther from the broad
population to be served City and the site has limited access. The
alternative site would attain the Project objectives set forth by the City of
Temecula.
D. Access from Dartolo Road
1 . Description
e
The "Access from Dartolo Road" alternative would require the extension of
Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the construction of a bridge
across the existing flood channel immediately east of the Project site. For e
,this alternative, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and
those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed
Project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access
point. As with the proposed Project, the access points along Highway 79
South were assigned the majority of the Project trips (63 percent), with a
slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the
remaining (4 percent) Project traffic assigned through the reciprocal
access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Glen Way.
Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to
Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there
has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo
Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans
to do so.
2. Finding
This alternative has the potential to create greater environmental impacts
than those of the proposed Project. The alternative would, however, allain
each of the Project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the
Project applicant.
3.
Supporting Explanation
.
.
.
.
Traffic and biological resource impacts of the Access from Dartolo Road
alternative could be greater than those associated with the proposed
Project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at
the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more
delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of
more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this
intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go
through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were
removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection,
only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would
improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this
location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79
South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario.
Additionally, the biological impacts of this alternative would be greater
than those of the proposed Project, as the Initial Study found that no
biological impacts would result from the Project. (DEIR, p. 5-14)
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise
impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the Project
objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant.
(DEIR, p. 5-14)
E.
Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road
1 . Description
The "Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road" alternative was
conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction
with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as
described for the proposed Project, would be provided with Phase I, with
access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns
would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would
require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described
above for Access from Dartolo Road. This alternative would involve the
extension of Dartolo Road westward to the Project site and the
construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east
of the Project site. (DEIR. p. 5-15)
2. Finding
This alternative would not avoid nor eliminate adverse environmental
impacts; however, it allains both the City and the applicant's Project
objectives.
3.
Supporting Explanation
e
This alternative would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated
with the Project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would
not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on
Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance.
Biological resource impacts associated with this alternative would be
greater than those associated with the Project due to construction within a
jurisdictional wetland. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts
would result from the Project.
This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise
impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The
alternative would, however, attain each of the Project objectives set forth
by the City of Temecula and the Project applicant. (DEIR, p. 5-20)
F. Construction of Hospital Only
1 . Description
The "Construction of the Hospital Only" alternative would result in a
smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or _
fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative was considered as a means .
to reduce the overall impact of the Project while still providing the
community with a regional hospital. (DEIR, p. 5-20)
2. Finding
This alternative has the potential to reduce environmental impacts and it
meets the City's objectives. This alternative, however, does not attain the
Project applicant's objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation
The "Construction of Hospital Only" alternative would result in reduced
impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there
would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the
visual impact, trips generated by the Project, and short- and long-term air
quality impacts would be less than those associated with the Project.
Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced.
While this alternative meets the City's objectives to encourage future
development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure
compatibility of the proposed Project with surrounding uses, it fails to meet _
the City's objective to support development of biomedical, research, and .
office facilities to diversify Temecula's economic and employment base.
.
Furthermore, it does not meet applicant's objective to provide a regional
hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient
care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in
construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of
rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant's
objectives. (DEIR, p. 5-22)
Section 7. Findings Concerning Project Benefits and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must balance the
benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against any unavoidable environmental
impacts in determining whether to recommend approval of the Temecula Regional
Hospital. If the benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant
effects that will occur as a result of the Temecula Regional Hospital. With the
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can
be mitigated to a less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant
impacts as discussed in Section 5 of these Findings.
.
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula
Regional Hospital.
The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because
they would impose restrictions on the Temecula Regional Hospital that would prohibit
the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers. The City Council further finds that
,
such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the City of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
effects of the Temecula Regional Hospital to the extent feasible by recommending
adopting of the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire
administrative record on the Temecula Regional Hospital, and having weighed the
benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital against its unavoidable adverse impacts
after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the potential
unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts
acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
.
1. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide necessary medical
services to the local community, including but not limited to emergency, acute,
outpatient, and cancer medical care and physical rehabilitation services.
2. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will provide the region with new e
employment opportunities for highly trained medical and medical services
workers.
3. The proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will support the diversification of
Temecula's economic and employment base, including but not limited to
biomedical, research, and office facilities.
4. The Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located, with access from a
major roadway, to best serve the medical service needs of local residents and
the region.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital that cannot be mitigated. The
City Council further finds that each of the Temecula Regional Hospital benefits
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and
therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above,
standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these
unavoidable environmental impacts.
Section 8. Review and Independent Judgment of the Council. The City
Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the e
Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies
with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that
the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
Section 9. Certification of EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the
Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Finding
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final
EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 6 of this Resolution but
cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant: short-term and long-term
Project and cumulative air quality impacts, noise impacts associated with the
potential number of emergency helicopter flights, and cumulative traffic and
circulation impacts.
B. Conclusions
1.
All significant environmental impacts of the Temecula Regional
Hospital's construction and operation have been identified in the
Final EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified, will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, except
for those impacts listed in Section 5 of this Resolution.
e
e
.
,
i.
2.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Temecula Regional Hospital
that could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Temecula
Regional Hospital have been considered and rejected in favor of
the Temecula Regional Hospital.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and
benefits derived from the development of the Temecula Regional
Hospital override and make infeasible any alternatives to the
Temecula Regional Hospital or further mitigation measures beyond
those incorporated into the Temecula Regional Hospital.
Section 10. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in
$li!Ct!QQc;;i; of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is
allached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In
the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program shall control.
Section 11. Location of Records. The documents and materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are
located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Section 12. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify
to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, .Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
e
e
e
.
.
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
.
.
i.
.
:i:
~
C)
o
0::
a..
~
o
ll.
W
c:::
c
Z lo.....
<(.2
C)
z
02
o
I-
-
Z
o
:E
z
o
~
C)
-
I-
-
:E
~
-
a.
en
o
;J:
/-'!...J
<: :l", .': /
""('..~ /..}>'
'z~/ /
I.Ii;f '.~";i
~..... /
aW
W~
0:=<
<~
...ILL
::>
(,)
w
:E
w
to-
w
::I:
to-
Q)N
>0>
.... "C LO
l'llCON
_Q)..l<:0>
j E ..... ro
(,) t:~-
Q) ro D..1,-~
._.Ai<z.--- ..
(J)~'
(l) ro V"
.... OJ.5 ()): !
o C Vl - '/
.- ::J ro 1.1
>. C "^ -/.. "
...., C LLI ::J,;i' \"
;, ~ (,)" f \ \,
..., wO c., / \,
- 0 Q)'" .' \,
(,or. N:-E11/y" /~'"
C9'"~' ./
.' "'<I" ""." .'
r . .7 1-....".
"..:._::_.__.1 ):C-....-.,"_"_
II /':/
\\ /;/
\,,-. ./
.i.......w......,....
'~.,(
'"
o
o
N
....
(J)
.a
E
~
o
z
(J)
-
ell
o
:;:
~
C)
o
0::
a.
C)
z
i=
0::
o
0..
W
0:::
c
z
<(
C)
z
ii:
o
I-
Z
o
~
z
o
~
C)
E
~
..J
<(
l-
ii:
en
o
:I:
..J
<(
Z
It) 0
oCi
Ow
NO:::
0::<(
w..J
lD ::J
:;:0
Ww
>:;:
Ow
ZI-
O~a>(ij(ij'O <tI=
.r:-CC :>
a:-- c__ ca: rJ):>
a.....a>LL co-
-~E<D~.c~
Q)+-'C.!:NQ)+-'
Q)O-'-~>'
"'0 L.. L.. ~ C :J t::
o ::J.:;: 0 <tI (/) <tI
OUJcc2>ctJa.
(/) lii a>.Q 0 ~ a>
~o~roQ) .0
....._.ouL....c.-
:J(/) t;:COo'"
O.-rl'E(/)<tiC
(/)11.= a>w 0
&0:::2:~;;; g.
:EmQ)rJc~
.2:2=fi a> 0 a>
:i5a><tI.r:E+:l.c
:J +-' m .....
a. = 5'~ c: t::o '0
"-.- 0 c:
..coS:c:;:;<o..m
:!:::a>(/)O<tl_
:> ;:; C) .~.
.:> r.n Q) (,)._
O:=c:+-'
a> 0.0.::J
U .... E'
c ::J
<tIo.o
"Ea>
8
U
z
o
i=
u
=>
c
o
c::::
I-
Z
<tI
U
-~
>-0 (j)
OC>
- a. co "-
<tIo...O
u."3(tJ0>C)
c: -- 0 ..;-.~ c:
11. a> 15 ~ lii g.E
%0::::2!il,a> E~
',..",. ::J~Q) I- ::J
""'",,,"0:::..... U <tI
~':i'?/ 0 .-
_- "'O~""C
<( (/)=0
EO .0.- <tI.r:
<tIW .r:::J
.... - C'
OlO -
0-_.......
L........ co >.
Q.O+-'.Q'_
<( C :>
0l~a>'O:>
.5._ E $ .
t:: (ij C 0.11. (/) a>
o::Joo",u
a. .~"'Cu..+:l;:
a>O><tI:2a>(/)
O:::(ijca>:2fi<tl
+-,w..c en
"'0 c__.~ 0>-0
ca><tI:::.cro(])
ro E.S; >: - ~""
o>CLLt5.s~"E
.5 e Q) Q).5 -- Q)
o "5 = '0 -0 L: 32
_c ....
.-w- nO> 0 Q)
c: 0 ..........L.-
Oco Q)~ m
-.:::.-........c0la>(/)
..:::: c: 0 +-' If)
'-C1>.....a>QO>
c:o'--'o+-'..c"-
o~.o.....5..... :J
.- - ::::J en
ii10ca(/)~cQ)co
0> ....(1)"'00)
'-a>(])::Ja>::JE
:t:' -'=00.00
::2-5"""cu c:c,
,+-(/)Q)C1>.-o"O
00'- > .-0)
.- Eco"Om+-'
=.......13 c..c c: 0>55
0>._ <tI.-
a.o..c.Q~ :::E
olO>:ii1....~Ea>
""C~ ~C>:Jooa.
CO c: - ;:; (/) C)~ E
o ro._ ro a>'-
=._:t:':2 Q)+-' 0'-
'--0. E<tIa>(/)
>: u (/). U 0..-
(]) 0 (/) '^ c
co(f)I.....c........""0
- coO._
::J ""C Q)'- Q) . +-'
o c:ro ECO:c-<D 0
Q)COc Cl:Jgco
E;,..o~+:::;rnQ)..c
Q)~'-'-'- L...U
J-~~:J E >'Q) co
,-coo:: g-Q).o'Q; Q)
00 "- (/) L..+-'
~<tI o"'O_co
>-N_ OC _ a>u <tI.r:
..... ::::J .- () +-'
.- c: O+:l~ C'C Q)
U.QQ>co Q)OlL..
-EOl.....E::J
(1)0 --.0::::0> en
.,CQ)Q):t:_'Q):Jc
I-rfJI-Ew....ca>
(]) (]) -'0 oj=
.r:.r:t::(/)-(]) _ <tI
-- :J_
~(/)O"" U<tl
(5.- 0.= a> '0
a>.!!!~'~ Ec
o:JCl""C O>ro
cUcc I-(])
(UQ).-ro ~L.
EEoa> g1<t1
.2 ~ :g CO O"i: ""C(])
(jj..... 0 '0
o.oEo ~gJ
L.. ~_ - CO ..c
~Orog- o...52ui
5 Q)O-O ~ c:.~
..c C Q).Qa;
EI-~ca '~'~ro
o a>a> (/)uE
-Q)'-"'" ::IQ)
~o~~ (0"0,-
<(ro.....:J OwO>
o a. .... U 0 >.fi
w 00 C\I~O
OQ)~ro MU......
"" (/) ~ 0
Q>.!9IDco ...... CD
..c ~..c C/)
-5..;-.-,- .:::t:._-
oWO L.. c:
Oroc:t:: Q)"fiQ)
-.....oc O.-E
-cc.o ..c::J
U.-(/)E >->:
Q)~Q) :t:: g
:O'cnL..Q) UCo'O
:JQ)U)..c
mO.-+-' roa...c
"'0>.>- _:JO
'-lIe :t:: .0 ~ ~ ~
ro~:t> ~ E.5 5
~. . ,CD-~"'O Q) "'0.......
:..c:::'.;:; I- Q) C
1-0 a>ro
E.... ..... 0 ""C
Q).o. oeo
-EC \',.c:-a.1i)
a. 0 ,.-.....::J
~ ~ ;.xYP 0 0
0) co f'i:rr~' :u Q)
S,c,"" .r:
~~~'" E! -
"",-~gJ.-
,"Y;-""': :J C c
> iS~'E 0
&::0>0>-
Q) 0 g-a;
0>_ c:: .....
<(- =
'OC'O
ro a>
a> E
....I::J
U
a> 0
fi'O
(/)(ij
~ 1: 0
.- (])
5-E:2.Q
G>cc:t::
L... 0 0 (/) Q)
,,... L..._ 0 L..
~'5 10 0.'5
T"" c C>.~ C"
coQ>:;::'UQ)
~ ~~c;;;
N<tI a><tI
cc~E(/)
Q.__:J::J
U-oL..gro
~~.E""Cti
:J>,""CQ)
Q>oo53
"Occ\U(/)
0'- a> "
O(/)Ol(/)lll
(]) <tI c E
(/).... 0
Q)~""C+:ic:
ocomoo
....a>Q)m:;::
:J --ro
gE'Olii.2'
~52E:!:
.-roa>E
.2 co a, ~ ~
:0 g.U).E ~
~ 'E ~ lii "5
.....Ol
o c
0):';::::;
'Oro
::J c
~'E
Ol=
ro a>
E 0
....Ol
o c
(]).-
a> U
.... ::J
0l'O
a> a>
'0....
....
a> 0
.r:-
_ '0
OlC
C <tI
:.;::::; ..:
.- c
E a>
.;:' E
.nc
e
(/).-
0>
<tI c
a. a>
E'O
.- a>
-
OlU
c a>
.;;:;lI::
.- ro
E
:~
c
.... 0
o+::
-u
-(/)ro
~~Q)
O.....r:
':::0-
ro .....
OlD
.l!lc
0:;::
<tI <tI
Q.::::
E
'-<tI
.5J..c~,;: ,
ca-,_<:~~
~'"'"' :3
Q) ""
o g> en
[J)'C C
C'- 0
._ ca._
U 0.-
.- a> <tI
g '- Q)
ro>-o.
a>.no
u(/)a>
::JOO
-<tiC
U a. <tI
.S; E c
- a>
0'- .....
Q) 0>.5
.~ c CO
0.- E
a.~
Q)o"O
.r:a>c
_~<tI
o - C
_co
Q) .Q :;::
--<tI
.n<tl~
roc a>
U a>
a.EgJ
O'a>....
<tI- a.
(/) EO. >-
a> .n
:J en (])
m:t::E
co""C:+::;
(]) C ....
E ro g1
c Co
.Q .Q en
1000
Ol<tl<tl
:;::::;Q)Q.
:2 fi .s
.r:
-
_ii1
Q)~-
.r:c
-a>
Ol
.S; 3i:~
(/) o'tt
'~-c:tg:O
E "a'
o 3l\;?s .
U ~ !!!:;'" /.
UJ +-' .0 '<-:~:<:;':r;')
~ CO .~ \:t(Z'i:;',ff'
~o ~ .~
U (/) c
0.!!1 a>
Uo.a>
a>o.n
.r:O(])
- .>
.....Nro
00l.r:
c.,., (/)
<tiN (])
'COlE
.8 cO +:;
~.E c
u.E ~
~roQ)
1-0~
.
~
e
.
e
:;'
~
Cl
~
D.
Cl
z
~
~
o
lL
W
0::
o
z
<(
Cl
z
ii2
o
I-
Z
o
:!!:
z
o
~
<(
Cl
E
:!!:
.
...J
<(
l-
ii:
rIl.
0'
J:'
....Ii
<(I
z!
100
oCi
Ow.
4~'
:;~
ww
>:;
Ow
Z~
n
III III
:::l Gl
1ij'"
...0
cnZ
.l!!
l'Cl
C
C
o
:;:::
Gl
a.
E
o
L~
.!!!c)
:!:!c
f/)'~ >
S::01::
o.:t:: ru
Q.CD,.
III 0
Gl:!:
II::
III
Gl
...
:::l
III
l'Cl
Gl
:!:
s::
o
i
C)
:e
:!:
...
lJ
l'Cl
a.
E
'",
0;
""
E
i::
.S!
Q)
C.
E
o
o
"
1ii
o
~
"
"-
0>
C. .
32"
"3 Q)
.00>
-'"
<em
'i.'.", / jN
"'m/.'
'--"" '0
::I,o.".il::
U' .'ro
(J.) ,,\'-"0
E,c c c:
Q) Q) (tJ Q)
I-g'Eo> E
o'ca;.!::~~
c~ a.g~ 0..
.__ Q):::l ro Q)
OlLO<llWO
"
E
'"
z
/-
':',
"
:!i.g~~o:icrio~~.8
s::..... ro~.~O)ro'+"- c:
!::Q)-co--rn roO
Q) E Q) Q) l...-._ - (/J (/J
c.o"C a.Q)==: :J-m c:
..... oJ:: Q) > E .0 co
g>~.2:S-E E= Q) 00
.- a..J:: 1... c: c> as (t) co E .....
"0 > 0 CD::I 'C ..c. (.)
==ctI;>~().o;;;OCD-gcn ctI
:::l "Owctl _....._(f.)Q)O"
.010 Q)-:Coo 'C W "0 E
(lJ:SE~ro.2 o:g.~.2:;::
-cEQ) 't: (/)-o..c.
o'c.c:,g ~ ~ :J ~.5:g>
~(])$"5,c m ~n. (ij
c"::c=o-gEoa.o-o:;::;
co{ijQ)-c ctl c:='OC:c
$.J::Q)Q)$!f/) :c~cro$!
en cn..c UJ"oo Q) C1::: ro 0
._~ rJJ &. 'C c>&..s Q)"O ~
.B!5!~ eo~'!: (I) a.~~_
l... U) a. Q) c"'C Q) 0 ro co
o >. C "_ :J ..:! t: .2 E a..Q>
'c:!:::~ CD e 0 (.) oQi O)~:!:::
Q..U a.:S c...o.!:O.c= a.E
~
<i:
co
__ roO E
==0 .....- (1)0
5: (I) >.-Cia.1?.J::.,f::
o~ro~2-I-;~
.913.~J::!3 ~~
eo a. ctI O"-:".r:. ~ .
a.{f.lC..c~E -- [!?
"'C5:(l):!::::oO)~Eo
Q) Q) ro ~--~ ~ Q) 0
~CCl"'C~..cO.9~
a.Q)"'C.s~C:--Q)
e g c (IJ Q)'~ro.~ a.
0.'0 C'U"o E Q):!::::c a.
0_0._Q.Q):=J
~~.c~-g.s~oQ)
I-.~gro ro f/).c 0..-5
"
~
'"
(;
'tl
c:
'"
-
.c
'"
:::;
'",
0;
""
."
i::
0
~
c. "
E " E
0 1ii '"
0 0 z
M
- .~~
o Q) 'l' c
Q) 0.. C 0
,goo>oo>:.::;
,-~.~g'.~~
0:=J;g'1::;gg.
it .~ .3 -5 .3 .~
-
.~ Co>
Q) 't .~
"-"'-0
0) 0..= C
. C f/) :=J 0
>>:cro.o:.::;
~.~ Q)~ ~
.0 0> f/) 0..
_~c~
<{ f/) 0._
'" ~~..
- ~1;';,;,,;
~:::la,;;.~y;i,""""
;", <D^.;;;......"'C +;.,
'l;f:-..'" c c c::
~~O>E~ 0,)
_.~t::c".>.~~'
o c ro'- ....ro
~ ~ c..;g ..e.f~!
.- _ Q) :::l roL.(]).;
o lL 0 <ll 00.0
,
'",
0;
""
E
i::
.S!
Q)
C.
E 2
o '"
o 0
"
E
'"
z
.l!l
-'~
0"
,,"-
ouo>
_cc
,-ro:c
.g ~3
a.. .!:2 .0
-
'" 0
c "
~o_
0.. C'-
o>"'E
c ::J "
b .a..~ 0..
3rooO>
O)o_c
.:;-2'-:2
Q) c.Q.-
lY ~ 5..3
'"
:;
u
"
E 1: 1:
" " "
I-g'Eo>E
-.- 1:: c: t:::
o 2 co:c co
~.!2g-3g-
Of),.O <ll 0
-0
C
'"
N
r . ......
o~~~;a.,: ~~~C5:p~g>E,g
o,g-.~'~:-~f5E:~ ./ ~ ~ -5 'c:: 'g.€_
.'t;:: /Olq:::'-;,O / ~ roc..Qoooc
L......L. 0) ro.,!+::."./ '" _ - ._ - '- f/) C 0)
"0 co '- Q) '- ro "'C 0
. 5.2'Oc5/8,...c - 4)ro
(O~ gL;;n/ en 5'
"E-~Q);:f .C
\ I,f/) .~t': Q?'Q) Q) Q) "'C 0>
"'~1u C/)0')::J.c 'Ii Q)f/)c..Q)c
'\S ''-/CCC:a'''''g Li ',:'7$ i-.P .0 g .Q
,~~ 81' c: ... E 'r.~ to m 2 ~ m m
Q)'O ~oo' a; en Q).c_.c
~ c~_ ..... _ ~ ,. -c <n ::; <n c "0
.0 ro C6-~ -"0 ,~' ';:) ~ 15 -g w
ro _ .c: "0 ~ Q)^,~ / c Q) E"O :::l
Cl)ctlCl)Co.... , ~c co 0..
,,'5. "'-0 ELI ="'2:'''' -
o (f.) f/) <n c Q)\1 f5:ctl ro -~
-g.,g g> 3:'~ ~ \ co Q) <n/~, _ ~ €c
.- --oooro' roU1__~ Q)Q)
3: B"OCI)o, '" Q)~t'IY'ctl__>.c..:g
-Q)'Scro '''.c:'~J;lQ)Q)OctlOen
;=.0';';0,'0 ,,~S,S,5.E 5.~
>.
""
iij
::J
a
~
o
~
"
-
u
'"
~
co
.c
o
iij
::J
'"
:;;
g>~ f! ~ _
-a..c ~ 0 g g
~~"Oot5~Q)Q)-Q
Cl)ij)a>- 0'-'--'
"O.-<n(ij 20 COro 0..
c>o_fj)-w ~_-
ro Q) 0..'5...0 >. 3: a> 0 o.
;;:oe:<no€a>15coc
o:::la.ooro'>>.o~
c ~ Q).c - Q) Q)'I:: 0 ctl
o '-.c: Q) Q) C.c: 0..-"0
~ol-.t::::lE-UUc
ro- .::::.~o~e~ro
o.Q.2301:J::Q)Q)Q) ~
CiQ)O-O >u"Oq::
c- .t: <n CD.-.- Q)
0:: ~.2'~ 3: 3 ~ ~ c
g=Ea>=.Q;!oooQ)
_3:._.c:3:>Ioo..c
III III ~
::i =' Gl
.. ..
~ ilia
Cl ii)z
Ii1
Il. I
Cl Gl
Z
~ ..
III II
c
0 C
Do a
III :;::
0:: Gl
C II Ii
z E
<( a
Cl 0
z
it: I
0 I
I-
Z
0
:.'!:
z
0
~
Cl
E
:.'!:
...J
~
ii:
l/l
o
::J:
...J
<(
Z
",0
0<5
Olll
NO::
ffij
~i3
lIllll
>:;:
Olll
Zl-
"I
"
III
l!!
='
III
III
Gl
:.'!:
c
a
i
Cl
:;::
:E
.1
i
I
II
'0
III
a.
E
~
(}:>.
"
>.=
cO
",a.
>-~
.cO
"c
CD.Q
015
~i} _
= Q) "';'i~.., (fl CD =;'~Q)CtJ ,0, I C Q) Q) CD c ro Q)
<tI 0) c::.. ro.c <<h,l"':C: ~.,C Q).c .c 0 0 ..c
..f;ro~/_~- ....../.c:',;;:;/ro:J.o= -c:,c'+-......
C().'-'E:;'-'= = '. _~-:-/ o.\:: (0 0 0
, . -;-~'8~,-3,:~}~;~/B '"" : s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g .E
CD ffi ~/~~'#Y~ .~~ ~ (f) "C"; 6 ~
~ ~:~/_~.E;"-' .cCJ.~
&:<_i?'~ ~ e ~
<!li'O:'tU '- 0
,';'r-Q..'t: E J2 2
'<::gyro Q) U)
"l'J, o!!l
=v c: r::r
~ 2"c
roQ)ro'c
~1::"
~o2
00.._ .s CD
e.. U)::2: ._"C
CD 8 ffio [
r=..~~t:..:s"O
N
o
<(
U)
~
E
c
o
'"
"
a.
E
o
o
'"
1il
o
'"
E
'"
z
'0
'"
.sgg>.!B
o~:.g .~
.;:: 00"5 CD
a...~..o c..
-
o
~;(J)
c:.:!:::'
'", E
il",
-r./):Q.
'0<,0),
~c
5,~
'c;~5
'.a.,;~
.","
'",
:J
()
"
E c
" Cl E"
I-c
-.- t:::
o c '"
~ca.
._~ CD
OQ.O
'"
c
'5
'"
~
D>
.
l!!
0..
-.- cooC5 lD12
rowO"-"IDC.o::J
.cc._ '--'~ ()
0eroroe Q)
.....o~a."C1ijE
..Q ro C..c: Q)
CD CD ctl (I)~
CD :g co O>~ c:
Q) f!? c.f; 0 -
=Q)~O>'-'_cnO
._> ooo15c
C'_ ~-N"'~
to:: co (I) 'l::l5..~'
~Q) '0$0 OE
:;:'..c: 0 .~~ c: ","
c:...... """ Q) L..:J 0> ~
'" a.oa.ro._..c
o..c_>..... r.n-
:= :!::: <( ....- a. c: II) ro
~?;....."O Q.Q.)"OB g.
roQ)~cctl€ 0
m ro_:>"'C~ OJ
c:>- -::;>Q)z::c:
:agg,o Ei-_oc
Q) .... Q)"_ I 0'- E I::
o en (J) E Q) o....c ro
~ 8<(~.a~ g.~n:
~
o
<(
E
c: ~.9c e
0>. oQ).Q "-
t5~ Q)-OoCi.i:OoC9~ .
2-oQ)g~o!!2g20~ ~
1;j~:5ro xE-.5(;jn::E o~
C:::l Q) 20 Q).c I:: Q)';;::"---
O-O>~Z x=oJ::o.o~
OeOI::....Ocoo_Q)co
o. o..g.~.gZz.E-g ~gro
E - Q)"t:: 0 ro ro....
10.;= (J)O (J)..c roJ:: (J) O::l
.23:5::E~I-E--0O5~o
~.2="ij)aJ:: ,-i:: ~~-ij) 0..2
.....;:; (/)<( U)e:> a.ctl_2 (/) ctl.-
.,gU'EU ~o ~~~-E ~~
Cl)ctlQ)CI)_n::roQ)>Q)Pttl
U)
0;
'"
~
c
o
'a;
a.
E
o
o
"
1il
o
"
E
'"
z
'0 .... 5.9'0
0) .g 13 10.. 0)
oOO)U)2.go
_ I:: I:::t::' a..C
5~:OE1;j ~
'c CI) ~ 10.. c: -0 (/)
a...!!2 C)~8 ~.!!2
>-~U)
o J2 I::
C 0
CO$:,;:::::l
a..- l'!
a E 0)
""a.
o a. 0
Co '0$
0)....... -0 0)" '"
g~~c55(/)
ro ~ ro a. c
::J t: C ::l >..Q
~~:8(/)o-
.- 0.!!2 c ~
.s.~5.s ~~
5-0(/)10..:::10
.;:: e g.g 8 ....
O-O)oo.oJ2
.~~
4'" ~
FE c'
" Cl E"
I-c
""'.-1::=
o c '"
~ca.
._.2! 0),
OQ.O
o
'c
a._
Ol" 0
.= r::: c
O~tUQ)
~cd~(f)ro
=.~ Ol.~ 0
oOE2ctl'5~
C..c .- 1::'
c'5e::J~_t)Q)
ctlOla.(/)a..OctlO
J:: 0) ~U)-o"c>Oo;
1:: ~ 0) ~:5 Q. 0) _ c:
co~..c 0>. (J):pctln::O
-- - '-..0 0= E +:;
~~=S:O)~ -oJ::'o+=--o~
o_:>..cO)-gcoQ)ctloocQ)
o._~ ~::; a; co e:5 ~ a: co g. U) ~
"=oo-_(I)'O)~co -0_
<(Cf.l:,;:::::lQ)orosoenoo~o>-
en ~ ::l C 0>_ C c:,;:::::l _ _ J:: ..0
i::coQ)-o.Q-oOo~O-oCl)"O ,
t:CI)Q.-o-~ ....G>(J)Q)~Q)0
Q)cOQ)o..::JguiQ.)a.cQ)J::J::~
"i"oQ-m Em:.;::! CD;; o.Q o-'~a~
t>> ~ ~ Q; ~ I:: ~:'Q o"~ ~ ~ m:o
1::.-"----1:: 1::-0 CD.x=U --_ ro.!Y<(
oEeG>ocQ.Q)c!EE=S;J::enU
-ACDa.cnO(lJO>roroQ):>Q.Q>CI)
U)
a.
E
"
:9Q>
JeOJeO
,,~
>JeO
~
..'j;
~
:::~
..!15
".-
E g
" U)
ogJ
e
'"
.
.
I.
:;;
~
Cl
o
a:
c..
Cl
z
~
o
D..
W
a::
C
z
<C
Cl
z
ii:
~
Z
o
~
z
o
~
Cl
E
~
,I.
..J
~
D:
In
o
:J:
..J
<C
z
I It) Q
OCl
ow
tij
:;;=>
wU
>w
0:;;
Z~
f/J f/J
::J Gl
.... ....
llS 0
cnZ
oS
llS
C
C
o
:;:l
III
ii.
E
o
u
tll>.
c (.)
".: t:
o III
:!:::::J
C C"
~&:
Lif
~.~~.
~Gl\c.1
E..~j
j::~i
"C.~'\
Ill-
..C-
.- C-
&<l:
Ill'"
0::0
Illtll
,ec
~.~ ~
O:!:: ra
C-Cll..
f/J 0
~:l!!
f/J
III
..
::J
f/J
llS
III
:l!!
c
o
:;:l
llS
tll
E
:l!!
L. II
1-4
ti
IV
C-
E
u
Cl
C
:g
":;
~ "'~
1:';<, ..c. 0
/':;;'::.C::) :s g 23
F.f oro"s::
/.; ~ ";:: ~ ~
t,I_'."/~;-,~"I...,". ;~~)~
E c/:-\,cr ''\,~c(Q)E-'"'Y''' +-'
Q) ro..':';dQ) '; j.:""~ c:
!: ~i~~ _.~ ~ g> E
? ~b~!\'iro,,)P '0 "c 'E
ZfS'-l.j;;.,~ c '"
S!6~;brc3 85: l
II
OJ)
0;
'"
:E
c
.!2
Qi
a.
E
o
u
.&
III
o
Q)'O
~'"
00 C) (/.)
_ce-
o ~J2'E
.1:: C/J'- ....
a..U)~Q)
._..0 a.
<Ii
'"
"
IE
o
0;
"
l'g
, E
,10)
;,.r::
I~
o
c
g
~
Q)
a.
o
"
I
= >.- Q) -
co 0 ~ 0 0
~ffi:oa=
'0 Q) o.s
IE E .5
Q) _CIJ
'" ~ III
Q) 25>-
E 'woO
~ 2>S.m~
a.Q).~e~qj
~co.o.li:C
~Q)e ~~
~ 2::"0 $!
a. roC06,
a. m(IJQ)
co.!! '-
m U) ~ ro
~"E CI.I U)._
o ro Q) 0) E
e-"'O;:;.S 0
Q)oc=:Q~
.c. (J co 0 "3CU
~.S0~..oC)
M
o
E~
.~u Q) .S c,S
.0._00 (f)UJ 0"0
'-E"ca> O-oCll :p Q)~ .
Q)('IJ~..c::-(lJm~~S ts= c
~"O 1-.$.QQ):p(ijC ccoQ).2:!
oe$ .:J......cro:eQ)E......a>5-=n.
~roro~€~~"'5ro 2:2....c-
IOJ vi ~ ro c:;:E E a.~ C!!l."oo;S ~
2'~.~~ 815~8~.~ ~ ~-g'~ 55
o.'o==:: ~= 0.-0 cD:::: >.~..!!! m$(!)
....3:'-co"Cc-3:.,CQ)ooQ.c
:R~..c:m~~ro.,gCl)"O:.c6~~~
03-t::::~5(1:1~~O~().iiiaO()
g.o ~ (1:1 CIJ ~cti (1:1 (I:I:J (1:1 00<( o.ID
'-Ct...co.oo 0.-0-0'- EE
o...:x: o>o:S.~ 0 ~ E ID C E~ 0 ID
._,":-COID_ol-
OJ)
;rg
E
'"
E
III
Z
"
o
~
a.
E
o
U
'"
1ii
o
'"
E
III
Z
",-
.<::0
-'"
000>00
::~.~~
o,,:gc
'C 00'- t:
a..!!2 ~ ~
'<t
"
::!\
'~"C
~J!:! .
o>-oCIJSm
c c OJ)
CIJ.O' t... :J.- (tI..c c: c:
'-..!."""" 16>0 a. ;<:.- ~
'i\ja..<::- Q)"'rl1i)~,......
.<:: Q) -" ~E ";4-"''''''.....
CIJ -5 -= Q) ,co c- ~'(~
.<:: "0 <~;!f"" f,._ .B "Q) .~" ,
o 00 C:~,aR CIJ Q)
.E;m/cg0... eO:::::: '
:) I c(-itl~ _Q).E;.- ;W--
>_CD ....._ c: ,'i
'" lllM.!!! Q)~)~" g.E /.~"
roE ~_~(tIO-oOID 71~~
a. c: -01 ~E Q) 0 E c: CIJ a. /;' '. ,,\
:;:;'0; -o!ii~ :50.(1:1(1:1-0:;:;' ,
C:(I3O)C:.""""'o E _cV
(13 0 c: (1:1 X {gf.o C CIJ JS! ro \V
.2oo:,;::::;c:0 ClJO.$!ID:J....~< y
0..-0 e ODO.-:';::::; :5"0 cZ';i~V
a. c: 0 :,;::::; ..c JPA-- 0 _.4~f'"a.,..r
(13..!2 e-.5 (J ~--c' 2 Q) Q) c:r,w...;,C'a:r
ID ro 0 Q).!; difi 1.i).5 g..-1D_j~WQ)
f=. c: g ~~ (I3~e\s CT/"O;~)E :5
1;:::._ > N -5 oj'-8"$:-~/a..$! 15
" (
'(-I
v.
~;:,
..
o
.
~
"
o
0::
c..
"
z
~
o
Q.
W
0::
o
z
<
o
z
ii1
o
I-
Z
o
:!l
z
o
!i
o
i=
:1E
I
.
....I
~
0:
rJl
o
:I:
....I
<
Z
Il)Q
00
OW
NO::
0::<
W....l
ID:;)
:ou
ww
>:0
Ow
ZI-
-, II \
\ <II <II 'I
='Q)
~ lOCi '1
U;Z I I
I i:
, ':
I
Q) "
'I 10
0
c::
0
~ i::
C. 0
E ~
0.
0 E
0 0
~ 0
i=
"tl.~
Q)-
...0.
.- a.
:1<(
tr_
r!:=1
I~ g'
I.-.-~
l!! 5 \
O~ (\1
0.C::Q,.
<II 0 I
Q):E
~
---'
I
I
1/1
Q)
...
='
:q
Q)
:E
c::
o
i
.g>
...
:E
I'
tl
III
a.
E
I
L.J
.'"
ro
.'"
:5
~
'"
,0
"
E
'"
z
e
'"
~
:5
i::
o
"'di
0.
E
o
o
"
c;;
o
"
E
'"
z
"0
,s",
g g g>%J
~ '" '6 E
.ql!!"
0..._ Olo.
I
i
I
il
\ I
II
g'",
:o.~ f'
~::l'O /;
0>'0 c c:: ."
-c 0'
a> C:.Q~"
lJ) .q:J ~ 0 ,~
g:f~ 5E
'-4rot E"C (/)
.gs,~?(o iD S
a..'!!!.~~~ 0, /
ell '<;~
S~D'.t
g ,.:~>-
E c. ~~
t1'l Ol ~
t.5 -e
0" '"
.z,~g.
u1i:o
"0 . Q) Q) 1i)
0)'0 Q).~~~;g.s Q)~..c.s (1)~
.~ -5 as @- ro (j;~ 0)-6>:9
~5 ~~-~~~~3'~:C:~
0):;::::; ~m"C Oro o-o"Cc..
f!:! >g.C:5'1iit1'l~~.U5C:>'
(IJ-5U; Oro....~C3Q) c:<U:o
- tD- E ~_O(l)m
OQ)E~g'Ol~Q) ::ai~o5
Q)~:8 cn'C:'~ [8 ~-g E CDO ~
g ro c: 0 e ::J ~ ~ ,9- ~.e ~
roC) m(IJEc."CE "'0.
::JoE Q)a: I Q) Q)gt1'lC:~
tn::J ~ ..t:. Q) "-~..c "C.2 c:
.~ .-0)1::....0-_ mQ)
"'C E..c to co_ COm c"C tn.-
a> (1)- Q) ..t:. 0 C:'E~
s~Q.g-o 'E~ CJ)ts~Q)~
o to 13 c ~~ Q)E'!: C ~ ~ CD ..... >-
+-,.....;](000 c..~J50(hO~2l
--~._c -_C:--'-C<1>::Q)
5 E ~~:ero 6-'(ijE:g-a;8~ 0 ~
&&8<<13-5(1) Ctl> -
'"
~
II
p~-
'"
e
o
"
ell",
'" "
cn.t:J:.
.~ Q) - -'"" "'C Q)
rooCl)E 0
Q)::"'~~cF6
,s 0 "';:
ro-gs:8.Qc:
.s ~:t:: 0 0-.0 Q)
~~.E::::u-o~:o
o t::..o.s;).- C:.-':::l
;t 8.~~~.3-gQ..':
~
e
I.
:;;'
~
C)
~
D-
C)
z
~
o
D.
W
0::
Q
Z
<l:
C)
z
ii2
o
l-
s;:
o
:!:
z
o
~
C)
i=
~
-'
<l:
l-
ii:
l3
:J:
-'
<l:
Z
1 I/') 0
. 0 a
l'tI o~
, <l:
, -'
: :;;::l
: w U
, w
~:;;
z{!!.
el:>,
C lJ
.~ r:::
o Ql
::j
C tr
~~
ii~ ~
~ lIS""f:1 " );
~<cfl,,~~ ~( /~~
tr 10/0 U'j= "' .y .,',/ ,/
Ql....1 ::t[ill.5 '" '-.'./ ./
0:: 0 : .9'::"'"0 E . /
. I a::~\ij l'i"/ f .
, ,..." /'. .. /'
'" '\;,;.. v:1........
II ~~ ~~(:..
I ~ ro ~ ro ~Q)
_g> e8 E
, o._~t:: ~.,
I ~;g$~:5=~:O
(3:::1COQ)gmc.s
CDU)Ocna~15
~Q)-
ctI>o:6"cQ)Q)-
a.E .~ ~.~"O e-g-c 0)
Q)cn~ ~:J_rot:c:
.... :J.- CD Q) 0>13 c co .~
~LL () g g ~ .S 8,..- g>.Q
co Q) ro co .--
..c.:::Q)=V)~- Q)"OS
en (I)';:' a..:p_(ij~:C ~
~ EZ ..c..oroOlQ)
m..c 0 0 ...... en ~ I- C)J::
:t::~-Ol~ "(ij .~-
'" EQ.c 0>",0 c ~.S:::l U).
~ rncoa><<J -em::
~8a:u-q->([ -g~ 0
:;:, .2Q)E t)"OoJ:Q5
c: (l] _ 0 _ 0)_ Q) :::l'V g..o
~_ e.SZ~ e.oo~ (/)"0
._"__ LL"'" c;:::I Q)
c..~ 5 cO 0 I 5 -- a:: c: (;)
Q.:Jo:;"==C")()..5!:! cn-.Q=
roU) 0..:::0 ..ca>o_oo
_ <oOV co 5C\1 () Q)
1!~!!JE<l:.!!11iig",,,.5a.
I-roo~():J:Jo.m:o~E
...: U)O::Og.E"'o~
I I- 0 CD
~
II) II)
:J Ql
--
.fl 0
U)Z
~
C
C
o
:;::l
Ql
C.
E
o
u
,...--'---"-'-
Ql
:gel
._ C
11)'-
c5~
o.:t:= ro:
a.co.
II) 0
~:!;
II)
Ql
...
:J
II)
lIS
Ql
~
c
o
:;::l
lIS
el
E
:!;
II
LI
1:l
lIS
a.
E I,
I
"'
~
E
II
I
c
I i
2
'"
o
.,
E
'"
Z
co
g~~.g "0" d' ~
00"00,0::; c:> ._bif I... /, \.
., ._ U /~ S 51 J2':;"(;j" ""
{!l rt;:g.5/ ~. .^'~"" 'g .6Ji: ./~"'. m ., '" - =
0"'<::'" .,-,,~"O" .9Sco.l'l B
..c >- Q) r::"'~',:,'j'Cl) '- ~~,/U'" ~ .9 E - 0 (l) (I)
~=no~' ., .,' .,0 uc
E '" <:J >-,i; "" N" n ",.c - '" c .-
E1ll,,41"'''' =--'5 / .,~ "0 uc~.,
l:: Q) _ S:'.x. CD... /...g.', t/ .() "E- _...-$~~:O>_ l5
o E _ '1:;::1 C) V~ oW:;:y7 (I) ~'S:: 4f~'" '" lO.>
1ii c ~ '0 ~~ iO"lny", ~ "',E':OK'W"'g"'~ Q) 1i) (I)
N e l/) "' lii""'-"O ~/'" >- 0,' .g"., 0 l5'- ~
:a os .!!1 l:: > ~ ~4).2 ~ /:,-;,~m .Y.,.... 13 co 1;)" .c
c: 00 'r"',C,,) E ,- .- "-- Q)
.l'l.,!~~.cN~" ~,_C.<:: 2"'c >
","O.,oJ2.!!1 ,>.c I"''''''''''' ",,,,.,
= c: 10 Co Q) :c .!: ('\] (.) g> f ,X~ -- ~ > :?: ~ g..,.;
o '" EO> ",.c "" >-._ ~ IE ., - -" ~. a> . co'
U)~ _~1ii~"'a.~~.~gc~~ "'o~ .,.c
__"Ouw>cnoom-o--o~ .t,~ >
",0"'" o~~~~~ .,,,,.cn~ co~
~.:, =.s ~ 1ii ., ":.!!! - u & ~/n'& .!!1" u .,
",gn., ~~ a,\~gJg~<I1<(&(])m(/)'E:~i;
",ug.'5i oi't .,E'.'~.!!11ii ",/~l'ljg"O~U
u 0 > 0 ,_ _ .,1 .- '" 0
t>=O <D,......."'. ..... D't::>'''CC.
>",m/~'_j/E S:J ~ .~ E
,,( (/J (I) "C S:.s
~
.
~
o
.<::
n
.
.
.
.
.
:;;
~
Cl
o
II:
a.
Cl
z
i=
II:
o
l1.
W
0:::
o
z
<(
Cl
z
ii:
o
.....
Z
o
:!!:
z
o
~
Cl
E
:!!:
..J
<(
.....
0::
In
o
J:
..J
<(
Z
.,,0
Oel
ow
NO:::
11:<(
W..J
Dl::;)
:;;U
Ww
>:;;
Ow
ZI-
Ul Ul
::::I Gl
.... ....
'" 0
U;Z
I~-
Gl
1;
C
C
o
:0:
Gl
C.
E
o
o
Cl>'
c u
.- c
... Gl
U~ 6-
5 Gl
:E:1t .
AiL 1
~Gi\S:;- !
C;;15l1
._....,...,c:.
I- CU:~;
u'Z
-c ._
Gl-
...a.
.- a.
6-<(
GlOO-
0:::0
~ClJ
:9.5
Ul ...
cot::
o ~ co
a.Cll..
I Ul 0
Gl:E
I_a:
Ul
Gl
...
::::I
Ul
'"
Q)
:E
c
o
i
Cl
:0:
:E
....
u
~ I!
II
. I
L_..~
/I
I
~
o
"
l!:
~
'"
o
130
2$
_::J
en 0
'" ~
" 8:;
<D 10
:!::::......!:
en""
<l> f Q)
.r:."- .r:.
-Oen
0) =
'" .a
;::; <0
.- -
x en
<D <D
I
I
I
,
.'
Q) (1)- .- 0
.c.r:.CW0_
_<DC::J
-;;; E.QO..,.,.
,,, Q)"'" u.2:'
~>-o~Q)Q).-
..c C Q) >:0'0
c: CD Q.;;:J ::J
~ EO.5>CI)~
Q.."OEc=' -
-og?oou..Q)~
~oo:+;; ..0......
caQ)~~_g>
00."" 10..... _"'"
uro+='C) roo
o~..c:1S:!::::
CIJ ..... ..... c:
::J"O "- .- 0
oc:.g-g3:c:E
<0 ctl a. ro Q) J!:! Q)
.~ C> oo..:t::'
~"Coc:c (/)
0> ~.- ro (.)
:::J Q)~-o.-o.-
LL~O~Ci..5-g
Q)'- <t: C) E C:"I::
..c>() 00Q)
...... ~(I)'OUO c.
.
en
ro
+>
:s
i:::
o
~
C.
E
o
U
<D
10
o
<D
E
10
Z
0>
'"
'6
e
0>
0> 2
'" -
"'" en
::J" '"
olli8
'"
o
~
'"
o
"
U
::J
~
-
en
'"
o
U
"
'"
10
'"
'"
'5
e
Cl
'"
<D 0
J::;;:J
-"
_2
00
"'.<::
<D 0 en
~ U <D
::J <D 0>
o '" '"
U"'",+> 0>
C t:"-E- <D
<D ro Q)._ co-
-5 0.-"'00
';:)Q)CI-
C)c)~:t::'ro::J
c:.=.2 en u 0
"c"C- ij:-c
O:J ~ 2:~ e ~
om........... c.
cO
a
<(
en
ro
+>
:s
i:::
.S2
10
c.
E
o
()
<D
10
o
<D
E
10
Z
0)- "C '-5
..r:: 0 c: Q) 0--
..... Q) ctI..c '0 (I)
OOC)CI)_C;:Ja>
..... c: c: :!:::: C).Q ~ ;c
.... (0-- ~ c:"'" CI)"5
o:J-gC"Cec+:J
[t.~ o,~-5.g g ~
g'o>
.- '"
" .'"
1O::J_
~" 0
0> '"
Q)--oco
.cOco._
_Q)ctI~t5C1)
.9g~52:m
'- co E"'O U)"S;:
O:J.... C;;:J
"t: ~ Q)~ 0 (.)
a..._ a...... (.) ctI
,... ,- .~
,
"
. ,
e
.....
.
.
e
:::;;
~
Cl
~
a.
el
z
i=
0::
o
D..
W
0::
c
Z
<I:
el
Z
~
~
z
o
:a:
z
o
~
E
:a:
II
III III
::1$
'l;j 0
Cijz
Gl
'l;j
o
C
o
~
ii
E
o
u
'UI
Cii
'"
:E
i::
.2
Q)
a.
E
o
()
.s
'"
o
, Cl >.
Ie 0
I .~ ;
..::I ,
"2 g I
~....i
c:
'"
rlrft~"y
I '" '-"';'c.y
~ ~ I g~ _'~
.-.-> Ec ai
III "'01:: "", E
1:- ......0) 1::'
O._ca -c~co
IIc-cQ. 'lo32.s1o.
III 0 .i?;>.- "'''
Gl:iE (3 ci5 en 0
.Il:::
="O~.9~-g
co Q) c.. 10 co
-53~5-6Q)
~ 'O.b 7 c
I c: Q) 0
.s'Oo~~
Q) en c: 0 en u
Q) ctl CO 2
~3:~S~1i)
E=E'iih5'5
Q)ro~-=._L..o
C.cMEc.. .
'+:J.__ Q)_ Q)
fij.e"OI1l~g'~
(.) C t:_,_ol:;
:a"roro!9~::Jc
a. E'f/} U) CD "C Q)
ttI em g.
~~:5eCl)Q)
11) 0 ::J ~ CI)
o.-.r:; (I) o..c
Q)og:':c-g~
~ 5. Q) 3. Q)
'-
,
I
III II
f
::I
~
Gl
:iE I
C
0 II
~
Cl
E
:iE
II ci
...J ~
~ I a
ii: <I:
,
~ I
:I: I
~
z /I
."Q ti
Oel I
14& III
C-
' <I: E
:: -I i
' ;:)
, :::;; 0
ww
>:::;;
Ow ~u
ZI-
'UI
;m
~
'"
E
'"
z
i::
.2
Q)
a.
E
o
()
'"
0;
c
"
E
'"
z
Ol
c:
:a 5
~ :g
~ ..5
c: UI
'C-c c:
"c:o
O"'u
"0 ~,.
c: ,"'~<..
co ,.t:;.;}:"\,,,
C) A_;;/,,,',,-<,;>
C/;il_7
=a';C'f
I!!,g
/gr..5
;,It: (()
7.~ 6
Cu
.. '\".~"'~"'.
".:,: t....
f
\.;
..-...,.
J><-
I.....
. I
Q)Q. " }
.c: " ! I (",
en 0 en 0 I.,l " "'E.E~",>
- CD 0 tlfJ";..c ..0/0)';0'_
o -. co ... lC'~ 4">:_4=
c: '" c: ,,~,.. ~'''''',;!''''-'o.ru =."" "
Ol ill .- '0 .- '" .~ c: ....-"~!.u;i2 =':"',5. = >
!; ,,- 0 .c: 0 90;......f'O~(/).,.. ""'5., g '"
t:: <;; () '0 E ""''cJ#i,,., = "'-"v.c:_ 0 ~
0= 0 Q) 0>."'....."':,;00::;; ro (.) E~..&..--<i~..c._ Q)
0. ~ - ~ is 01= ",'J!!'e-o t5 ill "/,si' .~ UI
.5 UI "'.- 0. ~ 0;....\''';.. " ~'L. en.c: '"
~ .& '" .g ~..!< i'il!Cii...@"O :sf;;;>',,;:
..!< 'in :;; > I!! -g .c: ~"i,\=: 16~. "._,')>di?fg '0 ~ It) .
-g >" ,.. '" '=' ~~ Edii''r ;: 15 ::; '"
"'~8Nroo;:~~~,e~m~ ~~*
g>"e-:.?:-CI'J 'I:: ~~€ ;;;(\1:f,;;> 0; ~ .2:c:~ c: al.o c:
'Eo."5",.s"'E;:~;;:- ;:Olt::"!i.. "'EL..UJ.2
O "'._ '" - .. ~ ".. -'" ,..
Q) 3::::a=:-ooou"",,,:::::'O>-_ ". .suu..
~.c:o ~"'",,,,_ ,..~>O 224-
",..,.." ll:=~ UI~t::",.. ~,,"t: '''''''4;;
E en g 0 to M C:"O oo..~ ~ ~,,>, [:g 'll,it.A'
UI c:'" .c:",oc: u-_'I!! C:",@~O?:i
13,g '5 = '" UI UI "'" '" ~ IE ij; ;: o.'\~e.2....": '::9'-
2" '" o.~ 13 ,,'0 U - '" " ~.3 .!;,~-,---.........'::~:7
,..,.. e-E;;; 2'='8~~,:, UI 0. 'F',.,,',
== ",0",,.. UI ~~
<I:",,..u ,
~
~
~
00
:0
~
C>
~
D-
C>
z
~
o
II.
W
0::
c
z
<(
C>
z
it
o
I-
Z
o
~
z
o
~
C>
E
~
..J
<(
l-
ii:
UI
o
J:
..J
<(
Z
.,,0
OC;
Ow
NO::
0::<(
W..J
lD::J
:00
ww
>0 :0
w
Z.....
III III
:I Gl
1;j....
....0
(/lZ
Iff>>
c u
.- c
(j Gl
.....:1
.- CO
S Gl
II
i,
I~ ClJ
,eC
UJ"i:
COt:
O:!:: ca
~Sll..I'
Gl:=
0:
I
III
2!
:I
III
01
Gl
:=
C
o
i
Cl
E
:=
U
01
C.
E
LJ
"
'"
OJ
'"
:E
"
o
'"
"
C.
E "
o 10
o 0
"
E
'"
z
A
"
'"
'"
"
:c 15
1~~1
c -;0-1
.c<:-w
:,-SC,_
0"<0'\
0",:"".
"<<.--,
'"
:;
"
""c
E" "0"
Q) ctl Q)> <D
1-", E>E
'+- c ~t:: ,,-e
o:a..... ctl = (tl
z-== ~ a...c a.
._::J ctl Q) ::J Q)
Olll Ul 0 11.0
..... <D CD "C '- ."'C -..... OJ
g..c..cco~c~coc
.0.......... co 1: 3: co m >;:0
a ~Cf)Q)"OUJ(I)ro~
c::::ICi) E ~Q5 ~~ 0>
Q)O~Q)Q) ea>m'+-
-5t$Q)~g(l)1i)co..o
;J = i5..:5 (J) Q) >.
'Oii~'E c'Ectloco
C(f)Q)~-Q)Q)C"O
~o o_~oco .
o II) ro .- ctl 0 J:: C
Q):;:::;'_"'C:C-oCOO
:J :t:S.... c _ ca co:P
8'O"j::ctlg!octl<D:5Q)o
ct:'+-<DC-..c .5
(tlQ)O....oO (I)'+-(I)
~ a. Q.:p 1ij ~ 0 c
..... :;::JC)o(tJO>..c- 0
"'5 c_3.5 00....."9 (,)
,....- 0.. 0 ~
~.!:;;.~ar(/)5Q)t/JcQ)o
.1:::"0-0.,,-0 -' Q)"C -
::Jeo..3:co8::<tl'S<D-g
oO>CtlcnEm(l)E..c-Em
N
~
o
<(
i::
o
~
C.
E
o
o
'"
"
:a 5
!5, 'U
'" 2
" 1il
.C-o c
d~8
<
~"C
W~'-c
~m:~~~,,,
"';;>"c:'-'()
.- "
"Co
~:p
"'''
","
"
.;::
"
'"
OJ
'"
:E
"
10
o
"
E
'"
z
:'Q)- (I) ":<D=-C
Q) (I) ~"'C :J..c co
6i5gmO
th (.)"- a.
"C "C
" 0 '"
.~-o
~"E ~
:c'~.s_
_IE ~
0:::100)
"'-"
'" ,,0
-g "C 00 O)N
"t: Q):J
Q)Q)"Oooc>> E:OH::
0..0. Q)C-O-
rtJQ)t:C
C) >Q)Q)
.I::"'C:;::::; a. Q)
8'~~K~
M
~
o
<(
'" e
OJ
'"
:E
i::
.Q
a;
C. "
E .s E
0 '" '"
0 0 z
"
0
:g
",2
,,-
.- '"
~ "
" 0
0"
"
0
u
"
~
1il
"
0
"
'"
"
."
"
0
'"
:;
" .
""c
E" " '"
"", "
1-", ~
'O.!: Z"ro
z-;.g J!! 0..
._ :J m Q)
OlllUlO
~
x_
Odl3
g>EQ)
._:] ...
-ClcE:J
o C.-. (I)
eO'c co x co
Q)>:J c..co CD
N_"O~EE
"\:,
...
~
o
<(
.
.
:;:
ii
Cl
o
0::
c..
Cl
z
i=
0::
o
0-
w
e:::
o
z
<
Cl
z
ii:
o
I-
Z
o
~
z
o
~
Cl
E
~
.
...J
<
l-
ii:
In
o
:r:
...J
<
Z
11)0
0<5
ow
~j
:;:i3
ww
> :;:
Ow
Zt-
l/l l/l
:::I III
--
l'll 0 I
UiZ,
01>-
C U
.- c
5 III
'2 g II
it: I
"';'~-
"'G>, c
~o
.- -=:1
I- ill,
"tJ o~..;
III =
..c.
.- c.
5-<(
Ill'"
0:::0
.!!!Cl
:!:!c
(I)"i: >
cot:
o ~ fa
c.cc..
l/l 0
Ill:;;
0:::
l/l
III
..
:::I
l/l
l'll
III
~
C
o
;;
l'll
01
E
:;;
,
L_
ti
l'll
C.
E
fa
c
c
o
;;
III
ii
E
o
u
<Jl <Jl
;m a;
'"
E :E
" c:
0 0
~ '"
"
c. " c. "
E " E E " E
0 <;; '" 0 <;; '"
u 0 z u 0 z
'" ::::Q)Q)
c:
'0 c: 3==..c:
I!! 0 C)<o~
'" :g .~ > 0
'" ::> ooa>.....
~ ti5E~
c: u;
"5"'0 c: CU:W'O'
o[ij 0 o o~ l...
0 ::2: 0 = a.
I'
'-uj~U
~ C)OOQ
i O.!::=>
'I ro ~
c g"> e
j' ~ - Kia
Q) '"
a. ~ (I).....
uSa
l() Q)"(ii
(T.l:=::.c~
.ca>(1)cn
>-f23:SOl
.nCOo.....oc:
c: '"
c':>~ ('IJ
Cf.l 0 ;> ::J 0
c;;oc:u
oc=(O-
"w CD.E E 5.i
.fQ i:; IV c:
.,Eo..c:i-_o
Q) 0 0 ()
~
::>
.<::
o
e
.c
Ol-
","
,,"-
~:;:
0._
~ ctl
"'-
.c:
"'"
E=
<To.
",E
'0
~~
:::0.
.. ::>
i}CJl
.<::Ol
.l!l
.~
Q)
a.
Q) '0 >-
..c:Q)g
00",
>" _Co.
B ~::J
"I:: CI) 0
a...~ g
, , \'-
~ II'/~ ~~~>,
Q)"'C !~" .\........~ ",-".0)77..... ~
E c: ;.1:' """E I: I:
CD (lJ ,(Jjl /".7(1) Q) ro
~ cn/'.;.E _5",/ ~ g> E C)
- c::<.i'-So._t:: .-<"""'i,:Y - .- 1:: c
o :n;;";/<<k~';> 0 C <<l :c
~ =--'.er;Q;.~' z. ~ 0.. =
(i.fi-~~8 C3 0:: 8
r;.'"
~og>gS
O;'=-'c15-6
- ";::>
~ l3 a>"ffl ~
C])'~"05.9
..c-ffio{/)
-'" Q)
16 C) C):E
.c: ffi '~'2'~
U)..r: E :,0
,,'" 0" '"
:!::::(/)E C'l
U) ~ alC'_S
0-'<::;:"
Q) -oe
"e g g>"'C C)
a.~:OI...O
Q)~-5,*:o1ii
~.g.!::3:ffi.g
.,;
-
~
<Jl
c:
o
:;::
'"
~
Q)
Q.
o
o
-
::s
~
CI
o
~
ll..
CI
z
~
o
D..
W
0:::
Q
Z
cl:
CI
z
it:
~
Z
o
:a:
z
o
~
CI
E
:a:
..J
cl:
l-
ii:
l3
J:
...J
cl:
Z
Il')Q
OCl
Ow
NO:::
~ cl:
w...J
lD:;)
::SU
Ww
>::;;
Ow
ZI-
III III
::l Gl
; TU '0
I U) Z
L__
I
Gl
'la
c
c
o
i
Q.
E
8 I
g>~ I
.- c
.. Gl
.2::l
.- t:r
C Gl
jtt.!
II-y
II ! '0:
I'~~I
&!o
,a.~~
III ..
C 0
o:t::: n:J
COCa.
~~ 'j
, -
III
l!!
::l
III
III
Gl
::ii:
C
o
~
Cl
:;:::
~
II
II
I
I
ti
III
Co
E
r
Ii
'"
(ij
'"
:s
c
o
:a5
c.
E
o
U
'"
1ii
o
j1i
.~
I 1l.
~5{.~
,-,,:m!=, 0
o/~; 0 OJ
'C'*(~\g 5
a.. .....'(;'""
'<'>.
~ '0 "';,.;
" C
0",,,,
Q)~- l::
E'1::C Q)
Q) 0 Q) C) E
1-:;: ~.!: ~
ogro2[
.??.g g. ~ 0'"
(}a.o~
Q)u)E~~
~~,goE
o:Son::e
0.. (J)... co Co
=~(I)Oo
ro Q) c 1::..... .
~c.C)~_c:
CD (;"w :5.2
Q).... Q)::J16
~-roOot'
.- Q) c: -en 0
i=>O(/) a.
t:ctI:;::3_O)cn
~~ 0 lip..... c:
:;::'O~.b>dO
c: .- CI) ro J:;
~:5'O.21~
= [0)- C)+:;
Co c.o'_cu
a.~:05.J:E
alQ)::J "0(1)
Q)ooQ)c=:
f=. co.s;; co to
,..:
~
a
<{
I
'"
;m
:s
'"
E
'"
z
c
o
'"
'"
C.
E
o
o
"*
o
'"
E
'"
z
~li 0
g' ~ 5 '-
.~ Q) CD E 5
:gs~E-'r
O'-=O~
::2S::0N
,
,
~
/','- ..i:;,. rn '0 0
S\.-::;,.), o\~ 1:: Q)_
.I::. C::';.:ro-,':' (J)::::J Q) E B 00_ Q)
""'. t: ,'LE> 'E '0", . E '" '" '" "':;
",.. ",.", 2'0"""... "'"0 "'.9 c. '" ",.e.g.e
'" 15 ''''', '" .e'''' ..,. 'f'o)1ii E.e '" ._ '0 " C '" '"
:;. c. 'O,g.e~;; 'g:51}~;; 1'1 8 ~ 5!
-"0, oCO'O -'bi"'", "o~
c"'o'" 'Oo""''''!\l,_c.c "''''0
1n Qh c: E ..... 'lD: \UFQ) Q) a
E"a.:"S'o rJlo",,,>C) "'~
c. '" E\.'. 0", . ,il.c'O 1'1
'5 5i 0 'Wen ;:: .~ ~C:'~5> ffi "'C
C'" C) U ..c~:(\J 0/0':"1,0' c: _ _
~ >- c: ~ 1a';CJ3/J ~"C
B g & 6 ar'51:~r~ ~ ~
"c: Q) :J+:l:t::.I::.,\(:).=:o=; 0
~ 2>(ij g "e ~ _0~ ~
()Q)cJ:01o...NOC/)8
Q) E 0 C/) Q) -'0
E Q)E ag~.Q g'm >
Q)O)Q){)cg:u.~~~
:E ~ 0.'0 ~.I:: a.=: ~ m
Q)::J 0 Q):.....:p m Ct._
() 13 >"0 Co C 10... 0 Q) 0
cC=1o...o.ooEol::
0:..::..2 Co ro () 't=-
~
,
Z
(ij
c
o
:g
~
Q)
c.
o
It;
"'..
.!!!Q.
o E
z_
'" ~ 1l
- :; Q) ...J 0 Q) .
al "'~ '" 0 c.'5w :;;.em
C =mea CDE::::; e Z Q)+-'''C
:c "''01iii;o", C.~u-51ii~R
~E i."'~.e$ ~~!'O~I15
- 0 '" 0 r-- "' c 010 ~ 1ii _ '" 1ii 0
~o5~~~m.~~ 0~-_-5CDX",E
." "'- "''0 '1iir-- _ '"
~;;~.e~",,,,~~ 1ii",,,,~,,,,,,'O
~-~-ro.e'~"'m "'-$D~Ec
- '" 0 1ii.":'1- 0 - - ~ _ 0 '0 C I- '"
-:;~-'" .C-ro ~~m2'" 1ii
~'O"'c'~~'O"'~ c"'~l!!Ero",
~CD~Q)E~~'~~~~CDQ)5Q)~'O~
rtlm:- :P1o... .c.cOI::O"'._
~EQ)o.~O::Jroo.~+-'_DQ)Q)~U
U._.~'5 Q)tn 8 0 0.0<(,$ ro 0) _
Q)t) 0 ClEm: 0.2 ro c:
:!CDI::Q)
.l!l
.e
.2'
u:
~
.s
Q.
o
.!1
Gi
:I:
e
~
~
e
'"
'"
'0
Z
.?;
'"
"
E
E
o
o
m
'0
'"
m
'"
.e
I-
e
e
:;;
~
Cl
o
It:
a.
Cl
z
i=
It:
o
II.
w
a::
c
z
<(
Cl
z
0:
o
I-
Z
o
:!!!:
z
o
~
Cl
E
:!!!:
.
....J
~
ii:
1Il
o
J:
....J
<(
Z
11)0
oCi
Ow
-j
:;;13
ww
>:;;
Ow
ZI-
1\
Ul Ul
~ Ql
... ...
III 0
inz
Ql Ul
1ii ;m
0 :s
C
0
:;::;
Ql i::
ii 0
E ~
0 a. '"
u II E '" E
0 1ii '"
u 0 Z
C
E~
i= ';t,r
"C .!:!"-
Ql-
... Q.
.- Q.
&<l:
~o
I~ CD
l:e C
rn.~ >
,I co 1::
O:!:: cv
Q.CQ.
Ul 0
Ql:;;:
a::
Ul
!
~
Ul
III
Ql
:;;:
C
o
:;::;
III
CD
E
:;;:
II
II
.1
1)
III
Q.
E
t~
IP'
,
I
ai
<)
"
.!l1
a.
E
o
<)
Ol
"
'"
"
'"
E
liB
o
"
I
'-
-,-',,"
''\:v/
~~ 0
E 'Ii: E
Q) Q) ctl Q)
f-OlE'-E
_.5t E t::
o C (t).e ctl
~.ffig.~g.
UlLOUO
Ul Ul
ro ro
'" '"
E E
" i::
0 0
:a5 ~
a. '" a. '"
E '" E E .& E
0 1ii '" 0 '" '"
U 0 Z U 0 Zj
=~a>
~-.<::
" Ol~-
'" ceDe
" ." >
'" oOa>_
'" :t:: 5 E g
" c o:;:::lo-
Ul oo"ee
<{ ::2: 0= c..
Ol
"
.0
Ol
"
o
Ol
"
'0
Ol
"
o
'"
:;
<)
'" E
E '"
" E
f- "'''
'0 a> ~.Q
.z."O.g.~
._ 0 c.;:?;
UUWO
'"
~
O"-Q)ct:lCC>CC1C ".c:-""oo--o
_o..r:. ctIc'-orn_OO__ttl
~I-"'" :aE:;:::lsgQ)-.....Q);;
~ .e5cg~:EEQ)~c..(/)
=::(1) _ro-U)e: I ~:pQ)
EQ) >. ...Jm q:Na>COu
= g o.~ (I) () ...: Q) ~ > Co ~
a>St::g-E~Q)NOi:'~rol,;"
..cfIJO Q)'-:SQ)tctlttlJ::Q)
E 0.._ a. C: :;:i 0 ..... .....
_ VJ m Q) c: .- a..... C'5 a..
-~C:..c (/)"-I-=Q)ro>o
~e~CI)"O "- -Q)>..c:..c.2Q)
(I)"(j.. [ro.E~:C':-'E03E
Q)=o 0 (I)~o..c::Q)
~ _~Q)B~;~~OE m~Q)~
.cZ>c._I Q)~~ ro 0 E Q).... ro Ul", "'.
C>CQ)~ ~~~ - '-..c:~ -
q: o:t:' t: Q)..::'5 c>t:m 0 ~- g~ ~ Q)
'(tla>(I)>.2Q)o_1:: C-cC'l:lo(l)
,-i,j'c...g-=:loa.o::::e.'s::",VJorou ~
$c c: 55(1)-4:t:.Eg>(I)I...(I)m~
Q.Q)_ctI(ij[']'Jct!o CD ~._-.e(/JC:"O
8~ctI~~~ Q)~a.~~c>ctI0C
=a>gaQ)Q)E~"ON.~~ro!~Ec..~
Q)E~c..c.. ~O~..cQ)-ctI= oo~
I~u~OOWOOOM~awa~~~D
N
,
Z
..&_ 15 00 $Ii
- c.....1'- +-' -
"0001:: 0> +-'.-....,LO~ 0
::d .suo c~~oo~>-.2> E
~~ro~u ~~~~o~~ 1::~
~ g '6'"0 'O.8.~ ii) E g-Ctj Q5 o.~ 0
_s-oc..c~-O~E+-'+-'DaJ
"0 00 a~ 00 o>u~.c a._ a"O E"
(1)~--Q) (1)--<1>00"0 xOQ)
> Ctj oo.c C) 0 Q) ~'o Q) Q) 0'.2 +-' ro M
Q)-E+-'c"Oc~c-o.5~-roQ)>-
...JO C'C >-> _a<1>aooD
1>- 0 .2>.- 0"0 c: :p - ::J 0 aI'u (I)
uoo~5DCm'U)cu m :w.c.!!!
~~s-'5.cmoc:~g~00~c_Q)
~ S::> 0>....:: +-' <D D 'c .- w '" '" >
~5a>-'Q)Q)"OooEC)'ut +-'oo~
~oo~cc:c:~m~._ozg~Q)
:; +-' .2 .~ c: ~ 00 00 > _9-0 ~ 00
c:rga;1::-g~x'o~'x <D(j)aJ ~ u'o
u..c:: Q) ro u Q) c:~ <D5.c"O m.!; c:
Ol
"
.- -"0
-giQ'c
0" '"
- ~ .
/-&"':::;
~ ..-.,=
'. ..,.o."'-""~
.- "- /..,.....:::.:;:.:.;.:.. ."'"''''00 :::I'.",.....:..... _..
Q) ffi '4"':.__5:/"::.>7/ 0 .e g,n
c D "ro'~'_' '.'~ .c.. '"..:..
o /<D',/" 0....)
a = &:>:5:;-/ Q) +-' -
Ul .<::,"".0:'5.\' :5 " o~.."..~
~ (1)-:::<<1';6 0 ~ ~ .'::;:'-- .
00 t5.:::.:;e:I;n -'E :::J:~;
'Oio/CtLO ~ =60/
=(~)c.CV') 'i;:/I$'f.F7
cJ:cn.::':;fJ~ (IT-D;:,(I)
~ f"ffl.'" - -,,->,;~y..c:
~\~;;~ g,~:~ ~ ~
o ~<t _5 I..: .-' 00 Q) Q.
.~ .~\$.."O /(';/~ .::.::. '* 0
Q) m ~{m / :_,f' 2 g Q) c::!
I aa-:c:>":/ ~"ODW
....., .7
~
'"
.
Z
..,.
,
z
~ ~ ~ g 00
610$....; "" ~-"O
en ....,...., ~~...... . 0 '" '"
~ ~Q)~~ +-'.c~~Q)aJ+-' Q)Q)
S ~DQ)~ ~+-'Mm..c:~m~DU
~ N=~cQ)t~LO"'O+-'oQ5N_X
~ m~Q)ro5Q)Q)+-'+-'5I'-c~jQ).
~ 2 ffim'~~o e~~2'~o ~;'...J~~
.... > -...... Q) a...~ m <D (/)~ Q)"UiW..c::"O
~~oZ~~U<Dro u~'-..c~zJC:
~2~Ow~~~=~~n~~gom~
~~:::sQ)~ ~~::J-cEc cQ)~
'Q)O.c (/)cnoO=Q)om~-.c 00
~c::J~~~~oo~J~uoo~c~NOO~
~Q)C"OI-'-Q)~...J'- 0-
~C):wo~O..c::~~w~~~;U~~O
e~gim~~~~zE~~ocgro~
~5ua~~~cQ)Uro~OI2..c::~~
~
C)
o
a::
0..
C)
z
i=
a::
o
lL
w
c::
c
z
<(
C)
z
a:
o
l-
i:
o
:a:
z
o
~
C)
i=
~
...J
~
ii:
rn
o
:J:
...J
<(
Z
11)0
0-
oC)
N~
a:: <(
W...J
m:J
:!it)
w w
>:;:
Ow
Zt-
~00 " "
I~Gl
1lI-
_0
U)Z
Gl I
-
III
0
C I
0
:;:::
Gl
ii c
E .2
Q)
0 a.
u E
0
t)
en
Jg
:f;
2
~
en
;rg
~
<Il
E
'"
z
C
.2
Q)
a.
E
o
u
2
~
I'll .~g
o Gl
I' .:!:: :::J
: c C"
I 0 2!
Lj::'u.
111~ ~1},~
j::~:I';",';'1
cr"
"tl._ "''h
! Q. :~:'sl ,.,_,,)
'~!i'I"I~.
,,0 .
_-----j' I 0
..! tll " I
:f!c
00-
c 5~ I
o.:!:: ca
coco.
o 0 I
~:E I
I
o
2!
:::J
o
III
Gl
:E
c
o
:;:::
III
Cll
:;:::
~
t)
III
Co
E
u
'"
'3
"
<Il
E E
<Il <Il
I-ClE
'O.Et::
z-;g ~
o~~
~
<Il "
" c
co a:: Q)
..co~Q)CJ
="0 :J.S!2 CD
~~~g~
(1)_ Q) '- l::
5.~ B.g:;
+:;"'CQ)Q)Q)
('lJQ)~'E..c
:is E (fJ.-.~
c _ Q)..c::C
~ro:5jS
_'-I:: U'J
~..e 0 Q) Q)
'-"C UJ g UJ
C Q) 0)(0 'E
~"O l::= CG
o'5:.a 0..:0 .
(1)o==EcC
:!:....:JoroCtJ
0..0 0 1;) a:
'"
,
z
I - >-
"'- e "
II _=1:: ro 0)
t:"'C Q) Q) ~ "(f.i
~2~ em ~
a;:;; ro.- +-' >
.s..g.5-~ :.~ CI)~
::'.~ Q):J- 0)'-"'"
t:J"c _ "0 g '- c: 0
UJro~ea.g?~1:
1; CI)'- a.E'- (0'-
.!:!= ~J2:;:1&.2>~
c:-..c:Jcc~"'"
rtI '. 0 0 ro Q) E E
.c:eE(I)u~o/U)o
uo E.-Q)U)e.
oi 0 CD 0 a'S!2 ~ 0
-= a::: 5. e "00 g 3.g
~ -g c
8ro:8
C):E! oi g
c:o.E~
'I:: E'O UJ
:J Q) E C
0"00>8
~'"
::O.c
0- .
.cc"
c CD'-"'C
o .c 0
"",s",u
000-
2-- co
_ _ c.
1;).... 0)'0
c.!! en.-
0'- en C
(.) E c :J
-0=0:2:
cQ);;:::a:ro
ca..c.O-
c=.5B
o (IJ (I) Q)
E~~E
- ~
O(l)Q)~
E:&=_
~'> 0 0
_+:l"'C~
:;(M~u
co
2:
"
E
'"
z
"0
C
'"
Cl
c
:ac
",0
tiJu
'L> ~.E
'c en
::0 c
08
\::-,
.!!! . "
~_<r,tf;.J;;L,
p/,'f""yY'-
~"ffi ~
I-ClE
Q.Et::
z.;g [
._ :::J Q)
uwo
en
~
:E
C
.2
Q)
a.
E
o
u
2
~
"
E
'"
z
Cl
c
=ac
~.g
Cl'o
Cl2
c-
'c en
::0 c
08
I'-
o
Z
en
~
:E
.
C
.2
Q)
a.
E
8
2
'"
o
<Il
E
'"
z
_ -g C
5ca~
._ - 0
rn~ g> 2
C 0.__
'C E"O (IJ
:::J Q) co C
0"0 i:>> 8
~
o
;e
<5
E"O C
Co
~ ~n
0lg>2
c.- -
'c"O (IJ
::0 e! c
o 018
.Jll
13
"
E E
1-" Cl"
c E
'0'2 ai
~~ g.
1l.0
e
e
VI VI
::;:' ::l Gl
--
~ "'0
e" li)z
e ~
Il.
e" Gl
Z
i= 1U
II: C
0 C
lL 0
W ;;
0:: Gl
C Q.
z E
< 0
e" U
z
ii:
0
I- CI:>.
Z C 0
0 ";:: c:
::= o Gl
1~1}
z C Gl
0 i
~
e"
E
::=
..... ,
"C.!:!
Gl- I
..0-
.- a.
1}<(
Gl....
0::0
..!!!CI
..a C
. "in";:: >
COt::
o==ca
a.CIl.
VI 0
Gl:;;
0::
....I
<
l-
ii:
II)
o
:I:
....I
<
Z
11)0
05
ow
-~
I lD::::l
'I :E CJ
ww
>::;:
Ow
Zl-
VI
e
::l
VI
'"
Q)
:;;
C
o
~
CI
~
:;;
ti
'"
a.
E
--,
<J)
;m
E
"
<J)
'"
.r:
"a.
" "
"e- 2 J'
'Ie.. 0"
/"; 0) 2
,,~
l"C: ~
'::10
~."O U
,
"'.. .~.
ro."'..'
"S ". 'g. ;"
~ rn"~~
E~-"." .......
0". "
" " "
I-5:Eg'E
-o't:.-'t
O=ctlCctl
.~.g g-.ffi g-
uo..oo..O
<J)
<J) OJ
" "
" 'j:
~:m 0
Q;j(/)=
~&..e
~ a."
~o.s
'o~=
C. 5'~
" II) >-
.- en (tJ
~""'$:
>- c: ..
~ ~~ g
;.E:<ge
.~.2> i::'::l
(ijI-Ol
cEcq;;:
.2J 0 5 g
<n-=()o
~
~
(l) C
~~~
::: ~.2>
"S-::::
en c E
~~g>
=q::.-
'3'~'S
0'0 g
.~ 0) "-
e.!: ~
a.;:",
Q).Q Co
t= :2 _~
<J)
ro
"'
E
"
E
'"
z
i::
o
~
a.
E
o
U
"
1ii
o
"
E
'"
z
"-0
.r:
~"
.sgg>~
.... ctI:o E
.g ffi=s
a...~.o ~
/;'
'~""
, ,
,
OJ
"
:Q
':;
.0
"'0
"'''
0" "
.......c::::
~ '" E
.Q ffi a;
a...!!? a.
..'
;
"
.!)l u
:J "
"" '"
"E~"" C
Q) 0 a5 Q)
I-5:Eg'E
og~'c~
€:@ g- ~ g-
uo..,o 0..0
'<t
\
"
"
"
.!)l
.r:
OJ
:J
Ole
".r:
"'~ "
-M"
Eb~
:J <:: c:
'7'::3....
~c'"
-a,:S""i'
'C 0~
~~..92
i:i ...-
<::
"
c
oS
"
~
.- ..,
Q) ~ iEI
..ffi / ,jB<:-"-" J ~
:s./ E~" ,~.
..n/" 0> ::r '"
"Ci /:E 0'
:2i ci, -a l3~. / - ~ I ~
V'J (fJ miC:J c/-'/ O~)
~ ~ e\"'~ e S.}/ rn m ~ ' "
.!)l.!)l", "\E''''/E~ "E.$ :u.
E-a,"O .a~;g '..8 m. '-~'-.~ ~~;,~
~~~ ~~..,~ ~~ liil~/:,/"'
"t:l t:: 1E-:-.-t t) ():t:::' ::1o>/,.:,:,J>"
S ::s "f":{ Q) (()::2 () "7:;'
o 0 ~~I-~{ --"0 E (l)!!>>:'
~ ~ ~ :t\' ~.~ ~,<ai.:~~
1:: "S Q)"> QJ Q)..z_0)~
~ c\3 ~ '~>~~g~
~~
~
::;::.0>
~'"
, 0.,
"
"'
..
.r:
lL
-0"
(/) ro_.;:::
clJ..QJ-
O....::I~
~O"O::J
"w- E
" ""
e?(f)"~(,)
.soe....
C-la.O
";;' m ~ ~
c(1).....-
'315'O-m
0.... ......
-o>-'(/)
:Ea.mot)
o (/) 0> co
0>_ ro'oo..
.= ~ B: a..~
.
-'"
'" "'" -'" I
I I...J ro
~(/) ~(/)::c':- 0> ~
a. 0..(/)'5:2: roo.. ~....
.& E ~ ~ E .... (/)0 a.: g>::E ~ ~ ~
S ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ro' ro.... 0
m~~~m~~~mlm~~m~ro~
~o>c~~o>c~~~~(,)I~~~~
>>-::1 co >.-::J ro >>m >>Q) >. >>2>..ro
ro.EOQJ ro.EOo> ro.... ro~ro ro......roo>
~::c~0"3::c~a.3w3::c3~::c3a.
-5,"5'5:5 -5,'51:::5 -5,N -5,'5~ -&'5~:s
I~~2I~g2I~I~~I~~2
.
.
.
.
::!i
~
C>
o
II::
a.
C>
z
~
o
0..
W
0::
c
z
<
C>
z
ii::
o
~
Z
o
:iE
z
o
~
C>
i=
:jij
...
<
~
iL
rn
o
J:
...
<
z
:g~
Ow
NO::
0::<
w...
IDj
::!iU
w w
>::!i
Ow
ZI-
i=
"C .!:!
Ql - .'
.~~
Ql'"
0:0
~ tD J
:!:!C
CI)"i:
COt::
o ~ ra ~
1~511.
I
I,~u~
I L I
'"
Ql
...
~
'"
1Il
Ql
~
C
0
:;:::
1Il
I:ll
i2
~
I
I
II
tl
1Il
a.
E '[
I
1'---
'"
:; "
"U> '"
Q)~- ......
~oa5 5i
i-:;:Eg'E
- ()1::.-t::
0= <tl c: ca
.2;-.oa.ffio.
._:J <1>_ Q)
U 0.. 0 0..0
U>
ts
'S: >..~
;> Q) CtI e
,,5" c."
~"E-g <L>.:::
.- co 0:510
E 3: ;;'(/)"5
Q) .9. c ~ E
~e.~o-c B
'" "0
B..c=om"E
=rI.l""o<<l
0...= a>-:!:
ats :5 ~ .9
1Jmoffia
.~.S! c: E+:i..
o ::::J 0 Q)::::J U)
c.:g:!!i~:@o
Q)c>ac~
..c::OeEOE
f-oo.._o._
M
t-!.
-.0 Q)
(I)(IJ_>
~l.LQ):;:::;
= ,,-::::J~
>- 0"'0 ::::J
ctIwt5E
" ,,"
"'C (j).0' 0
roO.... ....
O....J a. 0
~ "0
o>ro~Q)
cm..........
.~15o~
0.... ...-.
-m-I!J
:E: a.. CD 15 0
o fJ) Q) l'U
(1)- <<)'00..
~ j it a..S
't),*
'" "
=>-
.8-g
,s"
=> 0
0.0
CF)'<::
",S
~o
. U>
~tij
-"
=> 0
~:e
"0
"'"0
"'<(
:::..... CD
~ (.I) c
.c: ~.!!l
.\1>", E
:to::.a
U> 0;
" >- "
"'" "
.." ..
..c::i:..c'O
"5(O'5ro
00.. 00
m met:
m~O)s
r-... t: ""'1::
>. ttl :>. ctJ
ro"fi co ~
"Q) "'"
~c... -5,~
.-- .--
IoIo
. .
.<::"
0l:5
't)"-
",0_
:,..2-5,
0-'1::
:@"'C"O
t::5C
00"
<:.00
LOt)~
~"'"
...!.Q)3;
~tij1::
'ScQ)
0.2> E
U):t::c::::J
"00-
0)"00......
"""-=(00'5
~.. ::::J'e
~C/)c..Q)
"-I:: . Q)
.c: Q)~
.!;2>cu c"'"
:tn::,g.s
a..
'"
~"O
-"
=> "
00
CF).o
"'.<::
,,'5et>>
~oJ2:E
m(l)E.J::
~C:::::JO)
.t:Q).....:::J
0>:2= e
5:~.g'!:5
10 "
rn .2:
5~ ~
:j:jOa:J
" - E
a>w Q):J
~ en ::::J 0
Q)O"C "-
1:--''50
';10 9 ~
.!: Q):!2-a;
~...":; C5
o e.o .... ..
~ ~o-t~
Q)~'~'~~
t='~ a. a..E
-
"
o
:2
:;
ID
-
'"
-
u
"
0-
~
0..
-'" c
ro ctI ~ Q).
l.O I I.() ~ ~ ~ a~
...... VJ .,.... VJ .c. c.. '>..~
c.. c.........:2 ctl. L.-
cD E ~ tD E ~ is. O)~ E (ij
~~5 E~5(J)a. ~~ u5L1..
mf~.L:mf~.L:ml~.L:"lmtDU(J)
~tDC~~tDC~~~I- ~W-o
>.'E~(\'J >o'E~ro >OeD >.O)>.>O.....>....J
~~~[~~~[~~~~~~~~I
;>.L:.c >.L:.c >(J) >.L: > >.c Q)
-a, S "5 :5 -a, "5 1::::5 -a, N -g, S -t: -a, "5 .> ~
I~g~I~g~I~I~&I~B~
.
.
.
.
.
10
~
e
e
:;;
~
C)
o
a:
e~
~
o
Do
W
c::
o
Z
<l:
C)
z
ii!
o
l-
S!:
o
:!!:
z
o
~
C)
E
:!!:
.
..J
<l:
l-
ii:
In
o
::J:
..J
<l:
z
100
oi:;
Ow
tlj
:;;13
ww
> :;;
Ow
ZI-
Ul Ul
::s Gl
10-
_0
UlZ
Gl
10
c
c
o
:;:::
Gl
ii
~
I
,
^
"
o
:ai
0.
E Q)
o 10
u 0
'"
(ij
""
~
Q)
E
'"
z
Cl>-
c 0
.- c
5 Gl
~::J
cC'
o Gl
:E1it
/1'-
~'- =~'ijY'" ^
--,::~, c:':.fGr"-
'0 t: ,.
'~'\:;'I
~]~<
~ ii '...
.- Co
5-<1:
&!'O
.!!! Cl I
J:lc
.-.- I
f/) .. ~I
cot::.
0== (tJ
Coco.
Ul 0
Gl:a;
l:t::
Ul
Gl
...
::s
Ul
ell
Gl
:a;
c
o
i
Cl
E
:a;
_J
-
o
Cll
Co
E
"'.
Q)~ ~
,,-'"
.~ ~"5i
.;c"-"C>
:=:Q..-c 0
co.. Ceo
~~~5,
" 0<3--
9;:ll:",'"
5:mm~
5ta-g~
CI) ~ro c
0)(tl"C....
",,;:':Ec~
~~:J.......
~ ~~-g,
;::....sc:..r:::.c
.c:l.:'5-c
:f~ ~ ~
,.
I .J::
'5
~ 0"
'~ rn"
o (j)Cll 19
f'-... ..... ..:ll::'g ~
ro ~:a;:J 3: en:J
~lD ~~B O)~ ro,g
'(lJThctJ~""'~~~
:':CILL~~O::iti'~
~ m:om a. 3:2: 3: a.
ElroD' ..r:::'5.c..r:::
c ro o-.J~ .Q'lo roo
'im::EO:: 10. IUJQ....c
I. .
.~ C) c
0).2 ~
-2:J 0
0"0...... 2
:!:~~1i.i
c O'-C
00 e 0
::E 0 a. 0
r'^'~ \:
"'liO", ,.
3;-;~-c' ~-:::; /
liL0:f ~.:\. ,//--"
g,'i!:k E~./
'-Clfa> Q).____;;:)7
I-'~~/
I C:C ~
'--:~:JQ)~Q)
/,..>-0 a.. 0 a.. 0
(ij '"
-fjj~g
Q)O:.j:j
~t:~
~~~
~ CD ~ ci
'0'0 0. t)
....00(1)
a........ CD'~
Q)C.cO
.J::O-
->-O~
cro--.::
03;:"00
U)CDQ):S;
_>0-
liS'c.Q .2
E"'C~:O
CD ro CD:J
>CD'OQ..
e '0 "C CD
0..2 ('IJ 5
EOo_
_.sa:: 0
..
~
0010 ~
~u.. ~
~o 03
row;E
~cn:J~
roo"C ....
e...J"5 0
C'Jrti 9-g
c ,,-
.~~~~
o .....c .... ..
~[o13~
o l1> CD ro
CD = '0"0' a.
.:: '3 c. 5..~
co
(/) 1i.i .Q 0
Q)>.Q) 0 '0
""''' 1: 1:",
fi~fi-o~c3 c3~
:J (lJ:J (lJ.. .. (lJ
On. 00-0.9 -g~
en enD:: ~-o 0.1::
CD ~<J)S D:: (lJ D::.2>
t--. c: t--.'c 0 (lJI
>.ctl >.ro sa::: _
ro..croe>'Cctl 'c.E
;: ~ ;: ro ctlo-o ctl-o.l::
.l::n..c:2 E>t:: ro e>ro"5
.2>_ .2>_ co 0 0 ctl 0 0
IoIo::<o..c::::<c::rn
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC.ST AFFREPORTII-16-05 v2.doc
38
I.
I
I
'I
I
I
i
I
I.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 mailer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California
R:ICity Council Agenda Manager\20051112205lRegional Hospita~Hospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso GP.DOC
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September
28, 2005 through October 8, 2005; and e
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on
November 16, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of
the Application makes the following findings:
A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the .
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a State highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). e
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa GP.DOC
.
.
,.
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the State highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the State highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 'A
mile from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionar Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa GP.DOC
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of
Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the _
Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove the eight (8) subject parcels of the .
Project from the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for the site
located on the north side ;of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-
004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "An.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November
2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day
of November 2005 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIQNERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
w
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Aesos\PC Rase GP.DOC
e
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
.
I
I
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed 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 in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the properly consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 mailer.
, D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that a Focused 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 Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospilal Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005.
G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16,
2005, 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; and
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
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. 05-_ , recommending approval of a General
Plan Amendment.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22,
2005, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes
the following findings: .
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rasa GP.doc
!.
I.
:.
A. The amendment is c;:onsistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use pallerns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a state highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the Project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping. and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than '.4
mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permilled use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa GP .doc
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not .
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby _
amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove eight subject parcels .
from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story
height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South, approximately
700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending
Figure LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A,
Existing General Plan; Exhibit B Proposed General Plan allached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full.)
Section 4. Severabilitv. 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.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
e
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Raso GP.doc
e
.
I
I
:.
,
:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL] .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Susan Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:ICity Council Agenda Manager\20051112205IRegional HospitallHospilal Staff Report and ResoslCC Reso GP.doc
e
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(EXISTING GENERAL PLAN)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso GP.doc
I
i
i.
'I C I T Y
"
Land Use
Exhibit A - Existing
A
I.
L
A
N
o
u
S
E
I.
/,' (
"
Figure LU-4
Specific Plan Areas
CITY Or TEMEECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
sp- 1 Roripaugh Hills
sp- 2 Rancho Hlghlands
SpA 3 Margarita Village
sp. -4 PalomaIPaseo Del Sol
SP. 5 QldTown
SP- 6 Campos Verdes
SP- 7 Temecula Regiorlal Center
SP- 8 V'iestsldeMnages at Ol<llown
SPA 9 Redhawk
SP-10 Vail Ranch
SP-11 RoripaughRanch
SP-12 \M:IlfCreek
SP-13 Harveston
PD()-4 Temecula Creek Village
PD~ Rancho Pueblo
# 106 Dutro Vmage
# 184 Rancho BaUa Vista
#213 V'AnchesterPropel1ieslSilverhawk
# 265 Boret Airpark
It 284 Quinta Do lago
1# 286 V'Anchester 1800
"238 Crown Valley Village
1# 313 Morgan Hill
Future Specific Plans
Y SpecifIC Plan Area Y
Z Specific Plan Area Z
't
'Ii
~
"
~
_.__1 _
f'P~f-S-
_""",o'-oS'
I'
i
o
o
~
'"
~
~
~-
'6
''&
'"
\
'il.
\.....tn"~\N.ES-
W'~
Temecula City Boundary
Sphere of Influence BOundary
Plaming Area
SouI<:ol.:Teme<::l.llaGlSllndCo\\on/Bl\ClgeIllAssocla\oo
W+EO
S
250
500
, Feet
o F
,
~
't
"-
/
cP'",0
0",.0<<'
\
"
;;
%
o
q
\
,.\
,
\
\" \
\ , RO--
'O"te.MECI.J\;A
_\I\1'R\
LOU" UNOft, RO
TEMECULA
LU-28
G ENE R. A L
P LAN
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Raso GP.doc
:.
I
I.
I
,
I
,
'i.
A
L
A
N
o
u
S
E
/,' /
,
,
Figure LU-4
Specific Plan Areas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Approved Specific Plans
sp- 1 Roripaugh Hills
sp- 2 Rancho t{igh\arIds
sp- 3 Marganta Village
SP- 4 PalomalPaseo Del Sol
Sf'- 5 Old Town
SP- 6 Campos Verdes
SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center
Sf'- e Wes.tsideNUlagesatOldTtmn
sp. 9 Redhawk
SP.lO Vail Ranch
SP-11 RlXipaugh Rand'\
SP.12 Wolf Creek
SP-13 Harvesta'l
POO-4 Temecula Creek. Village
PDQ-5 Rancho Pueblo
11106 Dutch Village
#- 184 RanchG Bella Vista
II 213 'Ninchester PropertieslSilVerhawk
"265 Borel Airpark
#- 284 Qui1'\ta Do Lag<)
# 286 \lVinchester 1800
II 238 Crown VaNey Village
# 313 Morgan Hill
Future Specific Plans
Y SpecifIC Plan Area Y
Z SpecifIC Plan Area Z
p..O'P-~S
.osf>
c>"-" .
<.
j.
1':.
g,
'b
,
\
\
...
~
'r
,
,
r
o
o
'!,
"'
"
10
~
'?,.
'%
'"
\
~
- _\
\dtSf.~.JNE.S
.v\~';:)t'.'~.
_ . _ Temecula City Boundary
Sphere 0{ Inf\ueflCe B()\.lNjaTy
Plaming Area
Souroe:TemeaJlaGlSandCotlllfliBrIdgesIAssooiules
w4EO
S
LOM,I\LlNDARD .-
250
500
1 Feet
C
T Y
o F
TEMECULA
LlHS
G ENE R. A L
r LAN
;Land Use
IExhibit B - Proposed
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI1-16-05 v2.doc
39
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY
(PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9
(PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH
17.22.206 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A
SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD" AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-
0302)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known a~ Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 mailer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa Zone Ord.DOC
WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on
November 16, 2005, 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 mailer; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the
General Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land e
Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan
Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the. type of uses that will occur in this
area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term economic
development goals.
B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use
is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of
the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the
diversity of uses desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with
additional public services available to the community.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing
the zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), adopt sections 17.22.200
through 17.22.206 including the PDO text and development standards in the form
allached to this resolution as Exhibit A, and change the official Zoning Map to show the
boundaries of the proposed PDO-9 in the form allached to this resolution as Exhibit B.
e
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rese Zone Ord.DOC
.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
. I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
that the PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of
November, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa Zone Ord.DOC
e
.
.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 05_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
:e
"
I
.
I
I
"
:.
ORDINANCE NO. OS-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADDING SECTIONS
17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206, TO THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA05-0302)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinos. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 in a manner in accord with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are
hereby incorporated by reference, for the properly consisting of approximately 35.31
acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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..
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 mailer.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that a Focused 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 Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
F. A Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California e
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September
28, 2005 through October 8, 2005.
G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16,
2005, 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; and
H. 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. 05-_ 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. 2005-, recommending that the City Council
approve a Zone Change to amend the land use designation from Professional Office
and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9)
and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206, including the PDO text and
development standards for property generally located north of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010.
e
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22,
2005 and , 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
e
.
.
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use
designation for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The
PDO text, as proposed is also consistent with the General Plan and related General
Plan Amendment
M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Zone Chanoe. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
amends the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula by changing the zoning
designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) for the properly consisting of approximately
35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 70
feet west of Margarita Road, and specifically known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 (Amending the
official Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A, Existing Zoning; Exhibit B Proposed Zoning
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.).
Section 3. Zone Text Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby adds Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 to read as follows:
"TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
17.22.200 TITLE.
Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital
Planned Overlay District).
17.22.202 PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for
design flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects
of this PDO will be consistent with the land use designations that are described in the
land use e,lement of the Temecula general plan.
17.22.204 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE
DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and
regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area:
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any
development in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an
application is deemed complete.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaN-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is _
deemed complete. .
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect
at the time the application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the
application is deemed complete.
17.22.206 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the
exception of the following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum
allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the
Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited as follows: No more than 30% of the
total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot building height limit. The
maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area
may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that
portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the
parapet wall that defines the roof area."
Section 4. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not .
affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a
court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this
Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts
of this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of , 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
e
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
'.
Ie
!
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 05-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of November, 2005 and
thatthereafler, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council on the 2200 day of November, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:ICity Council Agenda Manager\20051112205lRegional HospitallHospital Staff Report and ResoslCC Zone Ord.doc
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. OS-_
EXISTING ZONING
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
e
I.
,
i
I
,
I.
, Zone Change
" Exhibit A - Existing
///
"
r
/
/
Zoning
_ Hlsicle Residential (HR)
D Very Low Density Residential (VL)
_ Low Density Residential (L-1)
_LowDensilyResidenlial(L-2)
CJ LowMedkm DeoSity Residential (LM)
_ Medium Density ReSidential (M)
_ Hgh Oeo5i1y Residential (H)
_ Rufllll Residenlial (RR)
_ NflighborhoodCorrmertial (NC)
_ Corrmunily Commerdal (eC)
_ HghwayfTQtlIist Commurcial (HT)
_ 8erYI0ll <Axnmerdal (SC)
. Profenional OftiOll (PO)
_BusiF'HlSSPark(BP)
ITS]lightlnduslrial(LI}
@?i] Public Institutional (PI)
_ ~enSpace(OS)
_ Public Par1I.& Recreation (PR)
_ Conservation (OS-C)
_ Planned DevelopmentOvellay
. Specific Plan (SP) Proposed
. Specilic P1en Approved
_TribalTrust(T1}
VL
e
.
.
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. OS-_
PROPOSED ZONING
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Zone Ord.doc
e
.
.
Zone Change
Exhibit B - Proposed
/ / /
" '-
/"
/
/
Zoning
. Hl$IdeResldenllal(HR)
Overy Low Density Residential (Vl)
_ Low Density Residential (L-1)
_ low Density Residential (L-2)
D Low MedUn Density Residential (tM)
_ Medium Density Residential (M)
_ Hgh Density Residential (H)
_ Rural Residential (RR)
_ Neighborhood COnmertial (Ne)
_ Community Commercial (ce)
_ tfghwayfTourisl Commercial IHT)
_ Service Commerdal(SC)
_ProfesslcnalOlliOll(PO)
. Busines:sPark(Bp)
[2E] light lnduslrial (U)
!:::mPubllclnstitutlonal(PI}
. OpenSp8Ce{OS)
. Public Park & Recrealion(PRj
_ COnservllion (OS-C)
_P1annedDeveloprnentOverlay
_SpeciflCPlan(sp)Proposed
_SpecifiePlanApproved
_TribalTrusl(T1}
~
~
::.-----
-------
VL
-----
-------
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\C U N004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll~16-05 v2.doc
40
e
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND
HEll PAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0463)
.
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
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 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and,
WHEREAS, 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 mailer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused
I . Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionat Hospital\J-Iospital Staff Report and ResQs\PC Rese DP CUP.DOC
WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on
November 16, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
a Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the e
following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal
Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad,
is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use
standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "A City of diversified
development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with
newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated
regional land use pallerns; (Goal 8)." The proposed Project provides a regional use that
is needed in the community. and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of
medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical
care for the general population. The proposed Project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The Project is
situated adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The Project has been
designed to mitigate various potentially. significant impacts via an environmental
assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has
been reviewed the conditioned so the Project can co-exist with the surrounding rural
residential area. The Project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and
intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise e
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Resa DP CUP.DOC
.
.
.
structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the Project is
consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping,
lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The Project as
conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed
conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the Project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the Project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 1A
mile from the Project site. The Project is a conditionally permilled use as it has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in a manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital
and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The Project has been reviewed and it is determined
that the Project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The Project also provides
amenities such as a multi-use trail between the Project site and the adjacent residences
to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without
A:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and ResQs\PC Reso DP CUP. DOC
affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code. e
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed Project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and
it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and
general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed Project will actually
contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing
additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building
permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD)
as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review
the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of .
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of
the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
Project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the
General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has
been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the Project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Recommendation of Conditional Approval. That the City of
Temecula Planning Commission, hereby recommends approval of Planning Application
No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan for the Project,
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of e
R:ICity Councii Agenda Managerl200511 122051Regional Hospita~Hospilal Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso DP CUP.DOC
Margarita Road subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit
. B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
.
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof ,held on the 16th day of
November, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\20051112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso DP CUP.DOC
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rese DP CUP .doc
.
I
':.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY
AND HELlPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A
HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE
FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT
FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY
79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010 (PA04-0463)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 maller.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project.
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl200511122051Regional Hospila~Hospilal Staff Report and ResoslCC Reso DP CUP.doc
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 Focused .
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005.
G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16,
2005, 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 maller.
H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
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. 05-_, recommending approval of the Conditional
Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22, .
2005, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Aesos\CC Rase DP CUP.doc
:.
,I
I
:.
I
I
.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinas. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad,
is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use
standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential,
commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified
development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with
newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City which is compatible and coordinated
regional land use pallerns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project provide's a regional use that
needed in the community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical
treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the
general population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary
for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated adjacent to
residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which
circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the
conditioned so the project can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The
project, a hospital facility, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional
Office (PO) designation, which allows low and mid rise structures that provide uses
such as community facilities. In addition, the project is consistent with the development
standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for
the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed
conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
state highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the state highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl20051 1122051Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and ResoslCC Reso DP CUP .doc
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor rather than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 'A
from the project site. The project is a conditionally permilled use as has been designed
and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the
site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and
required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with
other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320-bed hospital
and helipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined
that the project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development
Code and associate Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks,
parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The project also provides.
amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the adjacent residences
to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site
is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the' proposed hospital facilities without
affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
for a 320-bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because the
proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and region and
it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and
general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed project will actually
contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the community by providing
additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of any building
permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD)
as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will review
the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rasa DP CUP.doc
.
.
.
.
'I
i.
Section 3. Findinos. The City Council hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of
the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General
Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable
requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the
project has been reviewed and as designed and conditioned, it has been determined
that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the
General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has
been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the
surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned to
comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. (!onditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and
a helipad and Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad,
two medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer
center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately
566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres, located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through. 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 as set forth in
Application No. PA04-063, subject to .the specific conditions of approval set forth in
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, allached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2005
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
,
I
I. [SEAL]
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa DP CUP.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 05- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Rase DP CUP.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
~
R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
1
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed
hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and
a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04-
0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known
as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through
959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
DIF:
TUMF:
Office
Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
November 22, 2005
Expiration Date:
November 22, 2007
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
.
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
3.
The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
.
4. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004,
(attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions
of approval.
5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
6. The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be
limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined
unsafe due to weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the
greatest extent possible.
7. The applicant shall pursue agreements with all emergency service providers stating that
emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the
project site.
8. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program as attached.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
3
.
i.
.
Police Department
9.
All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized
after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore,
all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements.
10. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. . The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
11. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware
shall be commercial or institution grade.
12. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within
twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department
immediately so a report can be taken.
13. Upon completion of construction, the interior of this facility shall have a monitored alarm
system installed and monitored 24-hours a day by a designated private alarm company,
to notify the police department immedia)ely of any intrusion. All multi-tenant buildings
located within the center should have their own alarm system.
14. All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
15.
Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well-
lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering.
This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this
facility.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
16. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee,
required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section
21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
17. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
4
PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HOSPITAL PLANS TO THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF STATEWIDE
HEALTH AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (OSHPOD)
Planning Department
18. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the
Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad. All
construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation
Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of these
agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of their approval
action.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
R\Cily Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
6
I
i.
.
I.
.1
'1
,
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital
facility, approximately 408,160 square feet in size, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a
10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling
approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
November 22, 2005
Expiration Date:
November 22, 2007
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
7
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
.
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as
attached.
4.
This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two-year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
.
5. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan,
contained on file with the Planning Department.
7. This Development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's
Development Code.
8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan
elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Department.
9.
The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent
of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\200S\112205\Regional HospitaN-Iospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
. 8
i.
.
.
Material
Stucco Color NO.1:
Stucco Color No.2:
Tile Base:
Aluminum Panel:
Ceramic Roof Tile:
Tinted Glass:
Window frame:
Color
Senergy, Parchment, # 342
Senergy, Walden, # 3104
Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51
Centria, 9910 L T Seawolf
Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta flashed
Vi racon , Bronze VE 4-2M
Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 fluorocarbon
10. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of
that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
11.
All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be
provided around fire check detectors as required by the fire Department before starting
the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of
utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around
utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall
insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
12, The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent
site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines.
13. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be
submitted for review and approval for the project site.
14. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
15. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan)
contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to require the properly owner to bring the landscaping
into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
16. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape
Design) are required to be met.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
9
Police Department
17.
Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police
Department immediately so a report can be taken.
.
18. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can
contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department.
19. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should
be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature
to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the
interior of the building.
20. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at
a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants,
hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from
breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows.
a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
21.
Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting
Requirements.
.
22.
All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
Building Dep~rtment
23. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits,
24. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
Community Services Department
25. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
.
R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospiral Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
10
.
.
i.
I
26.
All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a
regular solid waste container.
27. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways,
perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting.
28. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
Fire Department
29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM
at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may
be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type,
or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The
Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A).
30.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site
and off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire
access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart,
at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow
shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing
fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
31. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this
project (CFC 903.2).
32. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
33. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
34. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if
any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4).
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\HospitaJ Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
11
35.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should
any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce
any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
.
Public Works Department
36. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work
and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
37. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
38. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with
adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be
submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
39. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
40. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
41. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-inlright-out/left-in
movements.
.
WITHIN 48 (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision.
42. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee,
required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4{d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section
21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
43.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\200S\11220S\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
12
.
i.
.
WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT
SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
Planning Department
44. The applicant shall submit seven complete sets of final approved plans to the Planning
Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will stamp
these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant.
45. The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide a vines on the screening wall at the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable
screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details
for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape
shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas
(including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center).
d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking
spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is
to shade.
e.
One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior
finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the
adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5'
width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding
groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary
to reflect this requirement.
46. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are
sqreened from the public view of Highway 79 South.
47. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing
details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance.
48. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature
at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall be subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning.
49. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be
screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning.
50. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and
structures, excluding trash enclosures.
51.
Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and
shall comply with the following:
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\J 12205\RegionaJ HospitaN-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
13
a.
Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the
site.
All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and
include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning.
Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide
shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening.
.
b,
c.
52. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry
of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Details of
all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be
provided on the plans.
53. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show
a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that
deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all
FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per
Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
54. A note on the grading plans shall be provided and shall read as follows:
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural .
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at
his/her sole discretion may require the properly to deposit a sum of money it deems
reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully
qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the
significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the
Director of Planning shall notify the properly owner of such determination and shall
authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an
archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the properly owner
that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other
corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning.
55.
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontologicaV archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/
archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall
provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
14
,;.
I
.
paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving
activities.
56.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an
opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions
regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit
correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been
made prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
57. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets
forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native .
American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for
the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that
may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the
presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The
applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
58. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of
Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be
placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance ofa grading permit.
59.
Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be
present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation
with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate
the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This
mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
60. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities
in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's
office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the
treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan
as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
61. The applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga
Band of Luiseiio Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural
resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. A copy of the
signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
62. The grading plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79
South as discussed in these conditions of approval.
b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100
days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion.
c. Show the 5-footlandscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1-foot
concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten
(10) parking spaces..
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
15
Public Works Department
63.
A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit
from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for
work within their right-of-way.
64. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
65. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
66. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
67. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction.
68. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
69. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post-
construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction-
phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the
City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for
Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction
Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development
Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include
a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs
to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff
year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction
BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the
approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project
proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term
maintenance of all structural post-construction BMPs.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
16
.
.
.
'I.
I
1
,
.
.
70.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
71. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
72. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
73. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
74. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
75.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features
into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Planning Department
76. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the
colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
77.
R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaN-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
17
a.
Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at
time of submittal of construction plans).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
.
78. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following:
a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall
be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that
minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the
specific zone requirements.
b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate
proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally
mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning .
Department.
d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of
street frontage.
e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six
months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted,
seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan
and landscape plan shall be provided.
f. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking
rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter
length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers.
g. Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas
in order to define the entry and provide a focal point.
h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle.
i. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building
MOB #2 as approved by the Director of Planning.
j. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California
Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern
perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved
by the Director of Planning.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
18
.
:.
.
:.
,
A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent
to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box)
screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare
from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross
section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer
area.
I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm
with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant
shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking
from off-site views.
k.
m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features
shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area
along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be
landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed.
79. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle
illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel and
building entrances. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be maintained
throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be provided at
primary building entrances.
80.
The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting
onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
81. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the
primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including
decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting.
82. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility.
83. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines,
adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western
edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the
driveway at DePortola to the western property line.
84. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined
acceptable by the Director of Planning.
85. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they
are not visible from Highway 79 South.
Public Works Department
86. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless
otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\l12205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
19
87. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
88. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R1W) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer).
b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88'
R1W) to include installation of pavement, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing
and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way
shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection.
89. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
a. . Dona Lynora (66' R1W) to include the installation of street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road to include installation of paving and curb
per the approved site plan.
90. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal
systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
Storm drain facilities.
b.
R:\Cil)' Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
20
.
.
.
'I.
'1
'I
I
.
.
c. Sewer and domestic water systems.
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
91.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
92. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and
reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and
approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through
private property.
93. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
94. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
95. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Building Department
The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that
fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California OSHPD. These conditions are applicable to
the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within
the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
96. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Tille 24 Energy Code 2005 Standards, California Title 24
Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
97. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for
the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside
lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property
or public rights-of-way.
98. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
99.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencernent of any
construction work.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
21
100. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April .
1,1998.)
101. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
102. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
103. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
104. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans'
prior to permit issuance.
105. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
106. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
107. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
108. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Community Services Department
.
109. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
Fire Department
110. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
111. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil
engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are
signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants
shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National
Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A 170-bed
hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED .
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaN-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
. 22
.
Public Works Department
112. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of
Public Works.
.
113. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RNJ) to include
installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
i. Westbound
a) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
b) Provide three (3) thru lanes
c) Provide one(1) left turn lane
ii. Eastbound
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c) Provide one (1) shared thru/rightlane
Dona Lynora (66' RNJ)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
b.
c. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
i. Signal modification
ii. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
Iii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide tWo (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right'turn lane
iv. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
d. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' RNJ)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Provide a 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection to De Portola
Road
e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i.
Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap.
:.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
23
Community Services Department
114. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever .
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an
approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the
transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program.
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING
SHALL BE COMPLETED
Fire Department
115. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
116. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a
320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
Public Works Department
.
117. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) include dedication of full-width street right-ot-
way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER
Planning Department
118. The applicant shall paint a 3-toot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning
Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
Building Department
119. Developments with multi-tenant buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house
electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals
and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User
Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for
the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house .
meter is not specifically proposed.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaI\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
24
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
.
Planning Department
120. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
121. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning
Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
122. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the
Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private
common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the
approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning
Department for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
123. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural
resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
. Police Department
124. Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
125. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall
be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code.
Fire Department
126. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or
aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or
any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire
Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
127. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the DWG format
must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be
acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval.
128. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
.
129. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
25
130. Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3).
.
131. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial,
multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches
numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a
minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4).
132. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer
shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
133. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the
developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
134. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department
vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an
exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC
see 902).
135. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of. six (6) .
feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4).
136. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs.
PHASE I - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space
Public Works Department
137. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way
ii. Roadway improvements
a) Westbound
(i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
(ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
(Hi) Provide one(1) left turn lane
b) Eastbound
(i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
26
.
J.
I
.
(ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
(iii) Provide one (1) shared thrulrightlane
Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/rightturn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88'. R/W)
i. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De
Portola Road
b.
ii. Roadway improvements
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
e. Dona Lynora (66' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office
space.
Public Works Department
138.' Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall
be constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector - 78')
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
139. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
140. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and
completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director
of the Department of Public Works.
141. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\lI2205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
27
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
142. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7,2004 from the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health.
143. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
144. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA).
145. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Rancho
California Water District.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaNIospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs CUP & DP.doc
28
.
.
.
~~
i. JuIy7,2004
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecuta Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long
'~\l;C ~ n q if. ~i
,II
JC' "l'J Z~04,,!
- i.J
By_
-~
RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to
""u.>..JCt Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be
available in this area, although we have not iti receipt of any information concerning those services.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the ..pp.vp.:ate water and sewering districts.
.
I
1
b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Unifonn Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330.
c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the
Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955-
5055)
Sincerely,
Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
00: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
.
,
'1
A>ca1 EaforcemeDt AgeDCY . p.o. Bo. 12BO, Riverside, CA 92502-12BO . (909) 955-8982 . FAX 1909} 781-%53 . 4OBO Lemon Street, 9th F1oo~ River>ide, CA 92501
tad Uoe end Waler EngIDeerlng . P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Stree~ 2nd Roor, Riverside, CA 92501
yy .rU~J.~ JJ. VV lL....UUV!,:)
General Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909,788.9965 FAX
51180.1
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: DM-l L.otole.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONIR ~~ @[EO W ~ ~
ANDWATERCONSERVATIONDISTR'
U JUL 2 8 2004 J
.
By
ladies and Gentlemen: Re:
The District does not nonnally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check ci,ly land use cases, or provide Slate Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. Dislilct comments/recommendations for such cases are nonnally limited
to items of s~c Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componenf or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area DraInage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, infonnation of a general nature is
provided. ..
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such Issue:
. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
$-. This project Involves District Master Plan facilities, The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check' and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required, .
This project proposes channels, stonn drains 36 inches or larger In diameter, or other facilities that could be
conSidered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted . .
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership Oi SUCillacmaes on wnllen request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District Plan check and ins~on will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the District's. Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoP!<ia; ;;....,;;<abie iees soouia De palo oy cashier's
check or money order only to tfie Flood Control District prior 10 issuance of building or grading permils
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the.actual
penni!.
GENERAL INFORMATION
.tA cA ~()"'lco 'l. .... PI>- 0'1- - o~(,.3
.
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl l1ennit from the Slate Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has detennlned that the project has been granted a pennlt or is shown to be exempt.
If this prolect Involves a Federal Emergen9' Management Agency (FEMAl mapRed flood plain, then the City should
requiretfie applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and other Infonnation re~ulr'ed to meel FEMA
re<:juiremenls, and should further require lhalthe apPlicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain Is impacted by this proje"\. Ihe City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement frOm the California Departrileril OT Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Penni! from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, or. written correspondence from these agencies
Indicating the project is exempt from these reqUirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
pannit.
)( ~ ~r;,J,-l'li~IT' Sttrtl,L B~
- tl~l1'rltJe~ fO(2.. kJ>{ ...Jo,.l'- wrllHN r~
l:>1S~ cr p.\~tI1-()f'- """'1 ,p..-...J rrtt
Dle.~c..r ~l...IT1P:S.
""l!'~e.,^,""", q~\(.. l--\.~.,f
c:.....t-\
Very truly yours,
~4
ARTURO DIAl
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:_, h/J/..2'1 ;lm1'
.
I.
i.
';.
· ~ r ~
t:
;-
--
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 ThIn! Slreel
P.O. Box 59968
Rlve<Slde. CA 92517-1968'
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
July 21, 2004
Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner
Planning Dept., City ofTemecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: P04.Q462 and PA04.Q463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA
Dear Mr. Long:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical
complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's intemal
Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in
support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project.
To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the
site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features:
. A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong tumout configura-
tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR
79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should inw. tM,,;e a paved
passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters.
.. Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this tumout without
significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and
with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations.
.RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear
path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building.
. RT A staff also 'advises that the project." v.,v, ,ents work with the City to install two new
passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design
and architectural themes.
RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and
PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at
(909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccovl1ilriversidetransit.com.
Si?:::wJnc
Michael McCoy
Senior Planner
F:\data\Planning\MikeM\WordIDev Review\TemeculaI2004\RTA Ltrhd - Temec Hosp.doc
'_lIrA
July 21, 2004
Rl".".ld. n.sIt AII-r
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
To:
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~
City ofTemecula, Cases PA04-o462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for
535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79
and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments
Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes
From:
Subject:
Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use
pennit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35
now vacant acres Yo mile west of the SR79-Margarlta Rd intersection In a rapidly expanding
commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full.facility medical Institution In
Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging
planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to It The
project includes the following components:
. 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, Including Emergency admittance
. A 5-story expansion of the hospital
. Two multl-story medical office buildings
. Cancer center
. Fitness center
. 1280 parking spaces
The site plan's perimeter and Interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary
access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The
hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive-thru loop suitable for van.
pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of.travel are specified
on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways.
RT A operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop
at this site. RTA is currently studying a general reconfiguratlon of bus routes In South.
west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita
Rd In the relatively near future since It is an important arterial that would serve many
commercial generators of bus traffic.
In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital
site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some
cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is Important enough to be the route tennlnus or
name of the line as Identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often
serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page.
.
.
It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, .
to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside
F:\dala\P1anning\MikeMlWordl\Oev Review\T emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc
i.
.
1
,
,I.
1
Ie
County General Medical Center In Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like
Kaiser or San Gorgonlo, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby
street. Some examples of transit service and stops are:
_Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having
multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc;
_ Lorna Unda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter
of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital;
_ Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very
close and convenient to main building;
_ Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property;
_ Corona Regional Med ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main Sf, off the property;
_ st. Bernardine Med ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts
Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical
Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full
bulld-out. RT A staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would
be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the
former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access
road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site.
To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital,
RTA Is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be
amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at:
_ North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized
Intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's
taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the
Intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked
buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer-
cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth
(i.e. width) of the turnout is 10 It, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa-
ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79.
_ Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the
main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location.
. RTA staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing In some
additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by
perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site In
the interests of maintaining the community Image of Temecula. Because this
facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places In the city, its bus stop
is deserving of a hlgh-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and
complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect
or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details.
RTA staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above
be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with
future deVelopers ofthe eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is
comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21,2004.
F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlT emecula\2004IT emeculaHosp.doG
/
@
IaDCho
later
Board of D1netori
John E. Hoagland
President
c..ha F.Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. CoI'OJ18
Ralph R Daily
Bell R. DrAke
LlsaD.Hel'lllaD.
.John V. Rossi
Officers:
Brl.an J. Brady
G.nemlM>nager
PhiUlp L FoJ'bes
Director ()f FinanCEl- Treasurer
&P. "Bob- Lemons
Director of Engineering
peny R. Louck
Contzoll....
.......M.........,
Distrid SeaeWy/Administrative
~M>nager
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best '" Krieger I..LP
Gen""'~
,
July 12, 2004
j;::'~: ->
Dan Long, Project Planner ~<. ~
City of Temecula 0'/;;> .{' . .
Planning Department :e; /) .1'.).
Post Office Box 9033 v~l"~ -2
Temecula, CA 92589 _ 9033 'V @~~
;::::;;
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONALHOSPITALj
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043;
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2,
NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001
THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-08Q..OO7 THROUGH
APN 959-080-010; P A04-0462 AND P A04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced pwp""J is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
If fIre protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the l'wl'",'J owner
signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
"
All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline
and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be
contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that
no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project
proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these
requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
/11.;/ /J/z
~c~e;erpe~er, P.
Development Engineering
04\MM"ncOI8\FCF
.
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones. Engineering Project Coordinalor
,
Rancho CaJifol'Dla Water District
42135WmehesteJ'Road .. Post Office Box. 9017 .. Tenwcula,Clllifurnil:l.92589-9017 - (009)296-Ggoo-FAX{9W)Z96-6860
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC I 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTI 1-16-05 v2.doc
41
.
.
I
I
:.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31
ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET
WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-
080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-
0571 )
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed 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 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 70 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and
959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
WHEREAS, 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; and, .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 maller;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that a Focused Environmental Impact Report would be required
for this Project; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Focused 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 8, 2005; and
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HQspitaJ\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Reso TPM.DOC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission again considered the Project on November
16,2005, 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 maller; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section
16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General
Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is .
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code, Subdivision
Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land
is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on
the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known
fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any fish, wildlife or
habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and
certified prior to action on the Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems;
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\l-lospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rasa TPM.DOC
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
. cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially
equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided;
fees.
H. The subdivision is a commercial/office Project and is not subject to Quimby
Section 3. Recommendation of Aooroval. Based upon the findings set forth
above, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City
Council approve the Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels
totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel subject to the Project specific conditions set forth on
Exhibit A, allached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and
all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 16th day of November, 2005.
.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
.
R:ICity Council Agenda Manager\20051112205\Regional HospitallHospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso TPM.DOC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of
November, 2005, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\PC Rase TPM.DOC
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa TPM.doc
.
I
i
.
,:.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING
35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.(UHS), filed Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA 05-0302, Zone Change to
PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet
west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 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.
C. The Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, 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 maller.
D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general
public, determined that a Focused 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 Focused
Environmental Impact Report for the Project.
F. A Draft Focused 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 8, 2005.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Resa TPM.doc
G. The Planning Commission again considered the Project on November 16,
2005, 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 maller; and
H. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-_ 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. 05-_ , recommending approval of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 32468.
J. The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 22,
2005, to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment.
K. 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. 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 70 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004
AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463,
PA04-0571)." The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring
reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this
Resolution.
L. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Findinas.
makes the following findings:
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General
Plan, and the City of Temecula Municipal Code.
B. The Tentative Map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a .
contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965,
or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl200511122051Regional HospilallHospilal Staff Report and ResoslCC Reso TPM.doc
.
.
I.
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown
on the tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements,
with appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the Project site, and the Project will not affect any
fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and certified prior to action on the Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely
to cause serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements
which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be
provided.
H. The subdivision is a commercial Project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. Conditional Aooroval. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571,
consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1 parcel, for the property generally
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in
Exhibit A, allached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth
in full.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl200511122051Regional HospitallHospital Slaff Report and ResoslCC Reso TPM.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\ 112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC Reso TPM.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regionat Hospital\l-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
1
.
i.
'1
,
,.
I
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0571
Project Description:
A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight
parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on
the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
D1F:
Office
TUMF:
Service Commercial/Office
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
November 22, 2005
Expiration Date:
November 22, 2008
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaN-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
2
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
.
Planning Department
1. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems'to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
3. The applicant shall comply with the phasing plan, as superseded by these conditions of
approval.
4.
The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application
Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-0571.
.
5. The owners association may not be terminated without prior City approval.
6. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
7. All the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or nay use allowed by
this permit.
Public Works Department
8. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
9. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaN-lospitaJ Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
3
.
.
.
10.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
11. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
12. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
13. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
14. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in movements.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed
easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may
require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
Planning Department
15. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight
Dollars ($914.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required
by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County
administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental
Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of
Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer
has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for
the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
16. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Terrecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
18. The following shall be included in the NDtes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\RegionC3,1 Hospital\1-lospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
4
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the .
discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the
Director of Planning.
19. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning
Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery
of fossils.
20. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity
to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection
and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the
Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.
The Applicant shall enter into a pre-constructiDn agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits that sets forth
and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American
cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment
of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered
during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga
tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed
copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
22. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the
grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
21.
.
23. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present
and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation
measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
24. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of
such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl20051112205IRegional Hospila~ospilal Staff Report and ResoslCC COAs TPM.doc
5
.
.
.
.
Public Works Department
25. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
26. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
27. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP
Planning Department
28.
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
ii. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and is on file at
the City of Temecula Planning Department.
iii.' This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City ofTemecula General
Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and paleontological
resources.
c. In the event the project site is subdivided into multiple parcels, an Owner's
Association shall be required to be formed. In addition, Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted the City of Temecula for review and
approval. CC&R's shall address the following:
i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's
shall include liability insurance, identify and include methods of maintaining all
open space, landscape areas, drive aisles, private roads, parking areas, exterior
of all buildings and any common areas.
ii. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
iii. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning Director,
City Engineer and the City Attorney and shall include such provisions as are
required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the
interests of the City and it's citizens.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
6
iv. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association .
are subject to the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments and
the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
v. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective . establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
facilities.
vi. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
vii. The CC&R's shall provide that the association may not be terminated without
. prior City approval.
viii. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
Ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
ix. All open areas and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the
association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this
maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Department
.
29. The Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Community Services District
j. Verizon
k. Southern California Edison Company
I. SDuthern California Gas Company
30. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
7
.
.
.
,.
!
,
,
include installation of sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer connections)
i. Westbound
a) The dedicated right turn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be
,
12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum.
b) Provide three (3) thru lanes
c) Provide one (1) thru lanes
ii. Eastbound
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c) Provide one (1) shared thru/rightlane
iii. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way.
b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W)
to include installation of half-width street improvements, paving, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer connections)
c. Improve Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) include dedication of full-width street
right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but
not limited to water and sewer).
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
31. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of half-width street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private 28 foot wide ingress/egress road connecting to De Portola Road to include
installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan.
c. Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 fDot wide shared thru/rightturn lane
iii. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
32. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional HospitaJ\I-Iospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
8
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P .C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207 A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
g. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
h. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
a.
b.
c.
d.
33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruptiDn to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
35. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
34.
36. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
37. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
38. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
39. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
40. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreemenllo complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
41.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of
any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
is required for work within their right-of-way.
42.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
43.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
44.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions."
Fire Department
45.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
. .
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
47. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI
Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
10
48. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
.
Public Works
49. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise
approved by the Director of Public Works. .
50. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
51. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
52. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
53. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Public Works
54. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way
ii. Roadway improvements
a) Westbound
(i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
(ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
(iii) Provide one(1) left turn lane
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
11
.
.
.
.
55.
b) Eastbound
(i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
(i1) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
(iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/rightlane
Main Entry/Country Glen Way
i. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
ii. Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/rightturn lane
i1i. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) - 88' R/W)
i. Half-width roadway improvements
ii. 28 foot wide internal ingress/egress connection from project site to De Portola
Road
State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
Dona Lynora (66' R/W)
i. Installation of half-street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer)
ii. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase II, the following improvements shall be
constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Principal Collector - 78')
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
b.
c.
d.
e.
56.
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
57. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and
completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of
the Department of Public Works.
58, The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
12
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
59. The applicant shall cDmply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the
Rancho California Water District. .
60. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the
Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2005\112205\Regional Hospital\Hospital Staff Report and Resos\CC COAs TPM.doc
13
.
.
.
.~~
. July 7, 2004
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecula Planning Deparbnent
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long
'rn~-:' ~~ \1 \'.1 I;~~. il
J'" ',n04' I
l.. v tI i...J' Ii!
- b..J
By
-
~ :::<...
RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Department af Environmental Health has reviewed the Plat Plan No.. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to
construct Temecula Regional Haspital and has no. abjectians. Water and sewer services shauld be
available in this area, althaugh we have nat in receipt af any infarmatian cancerning thase services.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the ..yywy.~ate water and sewering districts.
.
b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete
sets af plans far each faad establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in arder to. ensure compliance with the
Califarnia Unifarm Retail Food Facilities Law 2. Far specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330.
c) Any hazardaus materials handling ar starage shall require a clearance letter fram the
Department afEnviranmental Health Hazardaus Materials Management Branch (955-
5055)
Sincerely,
Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Deparbnent of Environmental Health clearance.
00: Daug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
.
lou. Enforcement Agency. P.0. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
\-d llH...d Waler Engineering' P.o.. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909)955-8903 . 4080 lemon 5lree~ 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
WARREND. WILLIAMS
General Manager-Chief Engineer
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51180.1
.
City of T emecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
lemecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: ~ \..<>tJtt
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR ror~ @ I~ 0 \fJ ~. -"11-
AND W AlER CONSERVATION DISTR iW
U. i: JUL 2 8 2004 J
L! J
Bv
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
1"A O'H)'IIot. ! PI>- t>t-04~
The District does not nonnally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in illCQfPOrated
cities. The District also does not plan check ci,ly land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard, "'I'U' '" for such cases. Distilct comments/recommendations for such cases are nonnally limited
to items of specific Interest to the District Including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, infonnatlon of a general nature is
provided. .
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
-.K- This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownershil> of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, stonn drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
conSidered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District woulll consider accepting ownership OT sucn TaClllues on wntten request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and ins~on will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
This project is located within the limits of the Districfs Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adoPleo; appllcaDle Tees snoUlo oe palo DY cashie~s
check or money order only to tfle Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading pennits
whichever comes firs!. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
penni!.
GENERAL INFORMATION
.
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl pennit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has detennined thalthe project has been granted a pennit. or is shown to be exempt.
If thi~ project invc;>lves a Fedel'!ll Emergenc;y Managem.ent Agency (FEMAl mapped f1D9d plain, .then the City should
requlreffie applicant to prOVide all studies calculations, Plans and' other Infonnation reqUired to meel FEMA
requirements, and should further require thai the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project. the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Penni! from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Waler Qualitv Certification
may be required Trom the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tne Corps 404
penni!..
K ,..J ~c;,J1 'PfS'/4..\I. ,srt'1tI.,L.. 13~
- tl~l1'<-I,JE:" fO(2. MJy "JD(l..l'- Wl"f1+'IN f'~
})IS~ c.T f-\qt\'1-W- """'1 'II-' vJ 1T\'t
DI&Tfl-Ic-. ~l.../T1P.S.
-rt::'r-\l!!.cIM..,.. q~\'" L-{~~-/
c:....to..I
Very truly yours,
c::U;4
ARTURO DIAZ
Senior Civil Engineer
Date:_, ////1/.21 .:Jm-(
.
.
i
'I
.
'.
~j..
z_
-
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Slreel
P.O. Box 59966
Riverside, CA 92517.1968'
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
July 21, 2004
Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner
Planning Dept., City ofTemecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: P04..()462 and PA04..()463 - Temecula Hospital- Comments from RTA
Dear Mr: Long:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq fl medical
complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's intemal
Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in
support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project.
To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the
site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features:
. A paved, lighted, and ADA-o.-vll'l':iant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong tumout configura-
tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR
79. just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved
passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters.
. Information note: SUfficient right-of-way appears available for this tumout without
significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and
with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations.
.RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear
path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building.
. RT A staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new
passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design
and architectural themes.
RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and
PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at
(909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccov(cj)riversidetransit.com.
Si?::wJnc
Michael McCoy
Senior Planner
F:ldatalPlanninglMikeMlWordIDev ReviewlTemecula\2004lRTA Llrhd - Temec Hosp.doc
:;-~
._~
RIverslde Tr.ml AgencJ
July 21,2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
To:
From:
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~
City of Temecula, Cases PA04-0462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for
535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities, N of State Route (SR) 79
and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments
Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes
Subject:
Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use
permit for the Temecula Hospital project. 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35
now vacant acres V. mile west of the SR79-Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding
~v......ercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical institution in
Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging
planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to ~ The
project includes the following components:
. 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, including Emergency admittance
. A 5-story expansion of the hospital
. Two multi-story medical office buildings
. Cancer center
. Fitness center
. 1280 parking spaces
.
The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary
access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The
hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive.thru loop suitable for van-
pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of.travel are specified
on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways.
RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop
at this site. RTA Is currently studying a generai reconfiguratlon of bus routes In South.
west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita
Rd In the relatively near future since it is an important arterial that would serve many
commercial generators of bus traffic.
In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital
site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some
cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is Important enough to be the route terminus or
name of the line as identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often
serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page.
It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, .
to drop off and pick up passengers If the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside
F:\dalaIPlanningIMikeMlWordWev ReviewlT emecula\2004IT emeculaHosp.doc
.,
'.
'I
County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like
Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby
street. Some examples of transit service and stops are:
. Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having
multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc;
. Loma Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter
of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital;
. Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very
close and convenient to main building;
. Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property;
· Corona Regional Moo Ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property;
· St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts
Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical
Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full
lluild-out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would
be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the
former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access
road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site.
To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital,
RT A is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be
amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at:
.
· North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized
intersection with Coun~ Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's
taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the
intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked
buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer-
cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth
(i.e. width) of the turnout is 10ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa-
ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79.
.,
I
I
i
I
· Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the
main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location.
· RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider investing In some
additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, its benches and shelters by
perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in
the interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this
facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places in the city, its bus stop
is deserving of a high-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and
complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect
or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details.
RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above
be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 04-0463. RT A staff will work with
future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is
comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital.
. INITIAL REVIEW INFORMA nON - Review completed date: July 21, 2004.
F :ldaIaIPlanningIMikeMlWord\Dev ReviewlT emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc
/
@
IanchD
'*
Board ofDirectoril
John E. Hoagland
Pre$ident
c.aba F. Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Daily
Ben R. Drake
Lisa D. Herman
John V. Rossi
Officers:
Brian J. Brady
Genernl Manager
Phillip L Forbes
Director of Finance- Tr-easurer
E.P. "Bob" Lemons
Director of Engineering
Petty R. Louc:k
Con""",,
Uncia M. Fregoso
District '::'~..........~,~\dminilitratiVB
Services Manager
C. Michael Cowett
Best Best & Krieger LLP
Genernl """"""'
"
July 12, 2004
,
Dan Long, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033
.
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONAL HOSPITAL;
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043;
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2,
NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001
THROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH
APN 959-080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner
signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
I.
All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline
and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be
contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that
no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project
proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these
requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICf
/11:/ /J1z
Uc~e:eIpe:er, P.
Development Engineering Manager
04\MM,mc018\FCF
.
c:
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones, Engineering Projecl Coordinalor
/
Rancho California Water District
42135 Winehestel' Road .. Post Office Box 9017 . Temeculs, California 92589.9017 .. (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.7
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16~05\PC-ST AFFREPORTI I -16-05 v2.doc
42
.
S TAT E OF C ALl FOR N I ,II;
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit.
~"!'!A4f...
'"~~
I *~'i
~ .1
.~ -'
'I/i,,~~
Aniold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
Sean Walsh'
Dii'eclor
October 31, 2005
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
II~~@ ~ D l!J ~-/
Ull NOV 0 2 2005 J
By
i
Subject: Temecula Regional Hospital
SCH#: 2005031017
Dear Emery J. Papp:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghous<( has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document The review period closed on October 28, 2005, and the CV'~'~llts from the
responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed, If this comment package is not inorder;ple.se notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
'.
Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall onlyinake substantive commentS regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those c"~__~ shall be Slo"'M~_a by
Specific aocumentation." . .
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document Should you need
more infonnatiol) or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recoIIJinend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
,.
I
This letter acknowledges that YOll have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environniental documents, pursuani to the California Envirorimeiltal Quality Act. Please conllie! the State
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 ifyotl have any questions regarding the 'environmental review process.
Sincerely,
I
i
I
I
~~
';!:::1
Director, State ClearinghoUse
i
'.
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 U"""O STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
. . . TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 WWW.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
. State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2005031017
Project Title T emecula Regional Hospital
Lead Agency Temecula, City of
.
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PD0-9) Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permn and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a requesl to
eliminate the 22 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along
Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning frOm Professional Office
and DePorlola Road Planned Development Overlay (pD0-8) to T emecula Hospnal Planned
Development Overlay (PD0-9). The proposed PD0-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof
areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Condnional Use Penn it is a request
to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, calicer center and a fitness
rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight
lots into one parcel.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Emery J. Papp
Agency City ofT emecula
Phone (951) 694-6400
email
Address 43200 Business Park Drive
City T emecula
Fax
State CA Zip 92590
. Project Location
County Riverside
CIty T emecula
. RegIon
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
.
N. of Hwy. 79 South 1 De Portola Road 1 Margarlta Road
92Q-100-0011hrough 013
Range
Section
Base
Proximity to:
HIghways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S
AIrports NIA
Railways None
Waterways Temecula Creek
Schools Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (privale school under construction
Land Use Vacant
Z: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PD0-8)
GP: Professional Office
Project Issues AestheticlVisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Landuse; Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply
RevIewIng Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and
Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Integrated Waste Management Board; Office of
Emergency Services; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Health Services;
Department of Water Resources; Departmenl of Conser1iation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans,
District 7; Callrans, Division of Aeronautics; Department of Toxic Substances Control
Date Received 09/28/2005
Start of Review 09/28/2005
End of RevIew 10/28/2005
.
Nola: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient infonnation provided by lead agency.
...~
.~
"I
~~
---
-
.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
! Alan C. UOyd, Ph.D.
, Agency Secretary
Cal/EPA
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
October 14, 2005
RECEIVED
OCT 1 9 Z005
['(.e Ct"'-
I Q '.28" 01')
.e,
Mr. Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031 017)
Dear Mr. Papp:
.
The Department of Toxic Sl:Jbstances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document:
. :'A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay
District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to
consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately
408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square
feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness
rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. "
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follow:
1)
The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project site.may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
The EIR should iden~ify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, theEIR should evaluate whether
conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the
databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
2)
.
. National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
@ Printed on Recyded Paper
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 2
.
. Site Mitigation-Program Property Database (formerly CaISites):
A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) /Spills, Leaks, .
Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.
. Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
. The United States Army Corps of Engineer!';, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be
conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should
be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce existing qr potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state regulations, policies, and laws.
.
:.
.
:.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 3
4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be
conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized
in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found
should be clearly summarized in a table.
5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be
. conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and
overseen by a regulatory agency.
6)
If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous
chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated
site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the
"Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be
taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone
Property.
7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures
are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the
presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are
identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities.
Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with
California environmental regulations, policies, and laws.
8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. _
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted-to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
9)
Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 4
.
10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations.
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, pivision 4.5).
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite,
or (c) disposed 'of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the
facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application
discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number
by contacting (800) 618-6942.
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from .
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
requirementfor authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
14) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be
required to oDtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
15) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater'
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted,
and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
16} If the site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, onsite soils may contain
pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and
remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to
construction of the project.
DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at
www.dtsc.ca.gov. .
.
.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 5
If you have any questions regarding this leller, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
~~j~
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
. State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA #1179 .
.
.
7.0 Responses to Comments on
the Draft fiR
This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to .xvritten comments
received during the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) exten .~ from September
28,2005 through October 28,2005. Pursuant to Section 15105(d and Appendix K of
the 'California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline City of T emecula
requested a shortened review period to the Governor's Offi 'ng and Research,
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit. The fOIlO~' pages tain the State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit letter dated Septem/ 26, 2005 t ccepted the
shortened review period of 30 days, as well as the Ci t Shortened Revie est Form
with an attached letter to agencies.
Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to co
the Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (L'[1~ :~::~ :~:-::~.:~
Final EIR\. Corrections of typographical ors have been
and are not indicated by stFikeolcJt or und
Environmental
.
I
I
Comments
Issues
o Sugita, Deputy ecutive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission,
r 4, 2005.
2. Gre es, Unit <;i ef, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department
of Toxi stances1< ontrol, October 14, 2005.
3. ;~6~anie ,.~cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, October 24,
4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. October 26, 2005.
5. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 26, 2005.
6. Salvador M. Salazar, AICP. Best Best & Krieger LLP. October 28, 2005.
7. Gloria D. Smith, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, October 28,2005.
I
I
~.
CITY OF TEMECULA
7-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
.
$ TAT e OF CALI FOR N I A
'Governor'e Office of Planning 8,pd Re.!I~l!rch__.
. ,... ..' .
ShLte Clearinghouee and Planning Unit :.
""".n.
~.;.,,: ,.-
.. *. . .
(.:;'
~..~,
.
Arnold
8<:b_er
OoVtmlOt
S<llll WalBb
Director
September 26, 200S
Emery J. Papp
City ofTemecula .
43200 Business P<!rk Drive
Temccula, CA 92$90
RE: TeinecllJa Re$iollal Hospital (EJR) SCH#2005031017
Dear Emery J. Papp:
We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined thal;'it is consistent with
the criteria set f(jrth in the wrilten guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for
shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
The shortened reView period for an EJR shall nol be JellS than 30 days. 1'Iili review process for
lhe. referenced prdJect will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/2812005.
If you have any q~el>tions, please conlact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613.
.
Sinc~~., .
C- ;ii;if
t\.( ---'.. r-
~erryRobeils ' .
Director .
cc: file
.
. .
1400 TEN'l'll. a.........' P.O. BOX SO<< SAOIlAMENTO, C,u.IFORNIA 968l2-1lO44
. TEL (916) 445-0613 PAX (916) 82l1-3018 .....,.opr.ea.gov :
.
I.
I
I.
Shortened Review Request Fonn
Fonn E
"
(To be filled oul and siflllcd by the Lclld Ageocy and ,ubmiued witll DBIR '" Negative !)eol""'tion 10 SCH)
To: State Clearinghouse
P.O" DOl( 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
From: CITY OF TEHI!C1lLA
U21dAgency:
43200 RnRin~RR Park Driv~
Ad,....
Temecula. CA 92590
Phone#: (951) 694-6400
SCH # 2005031017
Contact: l!lIIlRY J. P APP. AICP SIlNlOR PLANm!R
Project Title:
TnmCULA IlEGIOlIAL HOSPITAL
Projecl Location:
TEHECULA
City
IUVKRSIDE
COlllly
~.plain "excep'lon/ll oiIevm......'" (CEQA, Seeli~n 15205(d)) ror r"'l""slin~ a shortened review:
An initial studv (Sen #2005031017) for this proiect was previousl... released for uublic
review and comment with the int.mt of prel"<ring 0. 1!I.t:l.go.ted Nllllativ8 Declaration. The
comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was Harch 8, 2005 through
April 6, zOOS. lIo State Agencies c_nted 011 the original Initial Study. Tbe scope of
the project has not chaDged; however, the City is now rec"""""ndi!!g that a Focused EIR be
prepared. Tbe attached lette" vas sent to ageucies requesting their authoriz""tiou for
a shortened revl8w. The City received no responses to this letter.
List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as any agencies that have commented on the projecr (Indicate wb~ther the Respon-
sible and Trustee Agencies h.ve JlI"ll'ed ap~toval for this shortened review): .
Native AlIleric,"" Heritage COIJIIIIission 8/15/05 Bo C<lIIIJnenl: conceodng shortened request
Riverside transit A~encv 8/19/05
Pechanga Cultural Resources 8/29/05.
No comment cODceming shortened request
. lIo cOllllDeIlt conceruiag shortened request
As designated nrpresentatlve for the lead agency, I YQrify. in their behalf~ mat there ia no "statewide, regional. or areawide
significance" to this project.
.Lt:ngth of review beillg requ~tcd;
30
days
D' /U/oS
TodlIy's OaIC
~~,.p~/f
IlIII!llY J. l'APP
Prinr Name
Revjsed January 2004
21
City of Temecula
Plannin~ Department
.
Notice of Completion
SCH#2005031017
I Project TIt\e;-Temecula Regional Hospital .-
P AlJ4..0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change: P A04.0463 Development Plan
and Conditional Use Penni~ and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
l Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Street Address: 43200 Busines. Park Drive
Cit'(: Temecula. CA Zio: 92590
Project Locution
City of Tomeculll, Riverside County
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South.
south of De Portola Road and west of
Margarita Road
Assessor'. Parcel No.:
920-100-001 through 13
Total Acre.: 35.31
CEQA DlKPlDent Type
[ )NOP
.arlv r..onsulblli01l
Lo~1 Actkm Type
[ ]Geoeral Plan Update
[X]Geoeral Plan Amendment
[ ]General Plan Element
[ ]COUI/Ilunily Plan
[ 1 Other
Development Type
[ ]Residential; Units_ Acres_ []Water Pacjlili.s: Type MOJ'l
[X]Office: Sq.fLl40.000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ [ ]Tra.nsportation
[)Commmcial: SII.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []MJning:
[ ]lndus1rial: Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employccs_ [ ]power:
[]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment: i
[ JRecreational' [ ]Hazardoll8 W lISle: 'I
lXlOther. J:Itl.mital408.160 So. Ft.: Cancer Center 10.OOOSaJ~t.:J'ltnes, Ce~ OQO SO Ft.
Project "'ues Discussed in Document I
[X)AesiMlicIVisual [ ]F1ood PlainlFlooding [ ]ScboolslUniversities [ J Water Quail!)'
[ JAgricultural Land [ ]Forest LandlPir. Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [XlWater supply/groundwater ~
[XlAir Quality [ )GtQlogic/Scisnrlc [ ]Sewcr Capacity [ ]WetlllIl<IIRiparian
[ ]ArcheologicaJlHj'lDrical [ ]Mineral. [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Orad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]CoastaJ Zone [X)Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ )Growth Inducing
[ ]Dtainage/Absorption [ ]PopulatioolHousing Balances[ ]ToxicIHazardous [XlLand U..,
( ]Economic/Jobs [ ]Public Services/Facilitles [X]Traffic/Circulation [X]Cumulative EffOOlS
[ lFlscal [ lRecn:ationlParlcs r IVe~etation r lOlber: Li~bl &. Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Cw:rent Zoning; Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-S)
General PIlID Use, Professional Office .
Project DescrIption: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
u request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
: along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
i and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PD0-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
; Overlay (PD0-9). The proposed PD0-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
i medical ~;F...,,<o. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
, 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
; acres. The Te!1tative Parcel Mae is a re;1uest toconso!idate ei.\lht ,18) .lots into one J11 parcel....
M2il to: State Clea:riAghouse, 1400 Teeth Street Saernmearo, CA 95814 (916) 445-0613
Contact Person: Emery 1. Papp
Title: Senior Planner
l
I
Pbone: (951) 694-6400
W'rtItin 2 miles .
State Hwy II: Interslate 15, Highway 79 South
Airporl$: N/A
Waterways: Temecula Creek
ll<rilways; Non.
Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancbo Community (private scbool under
construction)
[ ]Negative Declaration []Supplement EIR
rXlDrafl EIR. r lSubseauenl EIR
[ ]EIR (prior SCH II.'
[ IOther
[ ]Specific Plan
[ ]Master Plan
[ ]Plarmed Unit Development
[X]Site PlanIPlot Plan
[X]Rezonc
[]Prezone
[X]Use Permits
[X]Subdivision of Land
[ )Annexation
[ ]Redeveloplllent
[ JCoastaJ Pcnnil
[ JClly DeYclopment Project
.
Type
Mineral
Type
Type
TYP"
.
R:'C U fI2OO4\04.l)\63 Te....-Ja Regional Hcop;tll\NOTlCB OP roMPlllTIDN PElR 09.26-05.doc
I
.
.
.
,REVIEWING AGENCmS CHECKLIST
Resources Agency
BoatingIW aterWays
Coastal Co.mmlssion
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
...I Fish and Game
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Pevelopment Commission
~ Water ResolU'CeS (DWR)
BuMess, Transportation, & Housing
~ Aetonautlcs
..L California Highway Patrol
..:L Calnans District No, ......L.
..I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
Housing & C.._w"ity Development
Otber
State & Consumer Servic..
General Services
~ OLA (Schools)
Public Review Period:
Starting Date: September 28, 2005
SillDature
Dare
II
.,1-
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Bmel)' J. papp, AICP
Phone (951) 694-6400
Applicant Universal Reallb Services, Inc.
Address 367 Soulb Gulph Road
. King of Prussia, P A 19406
, Phone (610) 768-3300
KEY
S<>Documon' sent by lead agency
X=Document senr by sea
T=Suggesttd di.lributlon
Environmental Affairs
Air Resoun;es B card
~ APCD/AQMD
..I. California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unil
J' SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
..I. Regional WQCB # 9 (
Y onth & Adult Corrections
C=tions
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
L Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Moun1ains Conservancy
Stale Land Commission
Tahoo Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
..L Health Services
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Seotember23,2005
For 8CH Use Ouly:
Date Received lit SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
Clearance Pate
Not.s:
R.1e U P\2OO4\D4-046J T=uIa Rcg;onol H"'I';~I\NOTll;Il OF COMPLBTION PBlR Q9-2G-O$.doc
.2
August 2, 2005
.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43:100 BnslDep Park DJive . Tcmecul.. CA 92590 . Mailing Addreos: P.O. Ilox 9033 . Tcmocula, CA 9ZS$9.9033
(951) 6~4400' PAX (951) 694-6477
Trustee and Responsible Agencies
Subject:
Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project
Dear Agency:
The City of Temecul!l Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will pl'Elpare a Focused
EnVironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The CIty of Temecula
Is requestfng a shortened (30-Day) review of the E;IR for this project. The shortened review is being
requested because at a scoping sesslon, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard public Input and .
testimony, the. City. determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential Impacts :j....~f..d in the
attached NOP should be prepared for this project. Furthermore, an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031 017)
for this project was previously released for public review and comment with ltJe intent of preparing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for ltJe proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was March S. 2005 through' April 8, 2005. No State Agencies commented on the origInal Initial Study.
Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been addressed. The scope of the project
has not Changed; however, the Cily is now recommending that a Focused EIR be prepared.
Pursuant 10 Seelion 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the City of Temecula believes that the project Is riot 01 statewide, regional, or area wide
signlllcance, as defined in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of. Temecula Is
requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We
respectfully request that your agency provide written approval of the request for a shortened review
period to Emery J. Papp, SenIor Planner, CIty of TemecUla, by August 15, 2005. If I may be of any
ass/stance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emeN.oaoo@cltvoflemecula.orq.
Thank you for your consideratIon and quick response to this request. .
Z:/Il~
~e~J~app, kfcp ?f .
Senior Planner
Attachments:
N.otice of Preparation
Inlllal Study
00: (Continued on next page)
..
R:\CU PI2OO4Ill>l-04lT_ R_ H~l18rlOll_ ~st.AgIndoo.cIOC
"
;.>
.
Ie
- ,}
State:
~
CA Department of Fish & Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Clearinghouse
CA Department of Water Resources
Federal:
Army Corps of engIneers
U,S. FIsh & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management
Realonal:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Rlverslde Countv:
Airport Land Use Commission
Flood Control and Water ConservatIon DlstrlOl
Iiealth Department .
Planning Department
. Habitat Conservation Agency
Riverside Transit Agency
lransportation Department
Utilities;
Eastem Municipal Water DIstrict
Inland Valley Cablevision
Rancho California Water District
Southern California Gas
Southern California Edison
Temecula Valley School District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Ve~n
Other.
Pechenga Indian Reservation
Eastern Infonnatlon ~nter
Local Agency Formation Commission
RIVerside. County' Transportation Commlsslon
FtlCUP\aJtJ4lD4.o463r_FltgIonalHosjll__ _"-A_doc
.
. . ..s'~;>:.;;.:/'f.;;::;
. Rim'liJ< C"""'J JIq;io..J Compln
1080 l,mJ.. S"..~ 3rd PM;, . Ri""'7i4 CJifomi.
MJUlinK AJJ_ Po.. O.u;.. 8....12008 .lli>,ml.k. r ..Jip,.;. '2502-2208
Pi""" !!J51) 7B7-)>H' . P"" (9.51) 787-7Y20 . "'""""""'''''I:
~---
. v';';'sideOmnty
mnsportatio1l CmrimlsslO1J
October 4, 2005:
Letter 1
Mr. Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
City of Temecula:
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project (SCH No. 2005031017)
Dear Mr. Papp:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (ReTC) received a copy of the Draft
Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project in
the City of Temecula on September 29, 2005 and are providing you with the following
comments:
.
1. RCTe is concerned about any potential impacts to State Route 79 ISR-791 and
Interstate '15 (1.15). Most of tha impacts are expected to oCcur at driveways
entering onto SR-l9 and local streets such as De Portola Road as well as other
nearby roadway intersections. Several mitigation measures are listed in Section 4.6
(Transport~tion) pages 4-93 lhrough 4-95 and again on pages '-15 and 1-16 and
pages 1-':8 through 1-20 of the Executive' Summary, which would alleviate
potential impacts. ReTC supports the City's requirement for these mitigation
measures.. Please ensura that all mitigation measures are implemented both during
and after construction.
2. Will .PreeIllPtion" of local traffic signals be used for emergency vehicles entering
and exiting the hospital, especially ambulances approaching the Emergency Room?
Will emergency vehicles use the main entrance way at SR-l9 or will they have a
separate d~signated access?
3_ Wi/I an Emergency Operations Plan be prepared that will outl1ne procedures to I
evacuate the facility during a disaster emergency? Would al/ the evacuation traffic 1-3
be forced onto 1-1 5?
1-1
1-2
4. The Hospital is defined as a Regional Fecility. The new MRI, cancer treatment
facilities and Fitness Center will draw patients from a broad. area. Have the
cumulative impacts of these potential traffic generators been fullv evaluated to
determine :that all necessary and appropriate measures are included before final
project approval?
1-4
.
.
.
.
Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Project (SCH N~. 2005031017)
Page -2-
5. The Draft: Focused EIR indicates that adequate parking will bll provided (1.278
spaces on: surface lots). What about employee parking? Is it indluded in the 1,278
space tot~1? . What measures will be put into place to prevent employees from
parking in 'the surrounding neighborhood? .
6, In the futljre. the hospital surface lot parking areas could be absorbed by expansion
projects, Will the future parking demand be fulfilled by parking :structures and has
any preliminary thought been given as to where these structures ;mlght be? Access
and visuaHmpacts are usually significant Impacts associated witli parking structure:,
and shoul<il be given early consideration. , .
7. There are; many other residential and commercial development projects near the
Hospital project area and RCTe wo'uld like to see that all of this ongoing effort is
closely cdordinated. Coordinate directly with Caltrans concernlhg SR-79 and 1-15
for .thls project. Contact John Pagano, Caltrans IGR Coordinator, at (909) 383-
6327.
1-5
1-6
1-7
This concludes ~CTC' s comments. Should you have any questions or require additional
information, plea~e contact Bechtel Measure "AU Project Coordinator, G~stavo Quintero, at
(951) 787-7935.; Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your Draft
Focused EIR. .
jc;elY, :
l t!:::'d;&
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director ReTC
Riverside County: Transportation Commission
Cc: John Pag$no, Caltrans 08
Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel
M:'Environmental R~Yi~ws NOII-PrujUl.;l\ 1 00305DEIRTemsGl,IlaHospitalPmjec.doc
.
1. Hideo Sugila, Deputy Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation
Commission, October 4, 2005.
Response 1-1
The comment states the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) concern
regarding potential impacts to Highway 79 South and Interstate 15, and RCTC's support of
the traffic mitigation measures. After project approval, the mitigation measures in the EIR
will be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring Plan to ensur at all mitigation
measures are implemented and completed. The comment is acknow ed, and no further
response is required.
Response 1-2
Emergency vehicles will use either the main entranc
Portola driveway, depending upon the direction fro
call. Pre-emption of traffic signals will not occur.
Response 1-3
As the hospital is a critical facility in the
not anticipated to occur. Persons may I
occur. If the need to evacuate arises, s
emergency response plans, which provide
depending upon the location scope of a
cuation of employees is
i1ity should a disaster
.
Response 1-4
According to the pr
Fitness Center were all i
and
78 parking s be provided on surface lots include parking for
yees of the hospita cility. The 1,278 total parking spaces exceed the City's parking
s, which requir 3 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest
exce e is associate ith parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the
project, hich the D lopment Code requires one space per three beds, The parking
provided e site ceeds the standards contained within the Development Code
because apph ed of experience at other hospitals owned and operated by Universal
Health Services" leves that the City of Temecula code requirements do not fully account
for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and
other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital
facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason.' Providing additional
parking guards against employees parking in surrounding commercial development or
residential neighborhoods,
.
1 Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. - Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECUlA
7-10
.
Response 1-6
The applicant has no plans for expansion of the hospital or construction of parking
structures. CEQA guidelines require an EIR to analyze reasonably foreseeable significant
effects of a proposed project. The expansion of the hospital or its facilities is not anticipated
in the in future and thus, has not been analyzed in this EIR. Any future development on this
site would be subject to CEQA review at the time proposed.
Response 1-7
The comment states that there are many other residential and
projects near the proposed project, and efforts regarding impac
Interstate 15 should be coordinated. The City requires a cu ve is of all projects
in the vicinity of a proposed development and analyzes al~pacts of a
the CEQA process. The traffic generation from 17 cu Jl!ffive projects was
traffic analysis. No additional analysis is required.
.
I
"
I.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
7-11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
a
,\ I
j~
.-.....
~
.
.
: Department of Toxic Substances Control
Alan C. Uoyd, Pll.D.
AgIll\CY _ry
CallEPA
5796 Corporate Avenue
CyprllllS, CelWornla 90630
AmoId SdlwarZonegger
Govemor
October 14, 20Q5
Mr. Emery J. Papp
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
NOTICE OF P~EPARAtibN FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT'"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031017)
. Letter 2
Dear Mr. Papp::
The Departmerit of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Notice of Prep~ration (NOP) for the draft Environmentallrnpact RepOrt (EIR) for the
above'mention~d project. The following project description is stated In your document: .
"A proposed Gqneral Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Dev~lopment Overlay
District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to
consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a'320-bed hospila~approximalely 2-1
408,000 squar~ feet In size, two medical office buildings approximateily 140,000 square
feet in size, a 1i),OOO square foot cancer center. and an 8.000 square foot fitness
rehabililation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, 19catad on the
north side of HifJhway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of MarQarita Road. .
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has commen1S as follow:
1)
The EJ/i should identify and determine whether current or histbric uses at the
project ~ite may have resulted in any release of hazardous waistes/substances,
2-2
2)
. .
The EIR: should ide~tify any known or potentially contaminated sites w~hin the
proposed Project area. For'all identified sites, the EIR should:evaluate whether
conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
A Phaseil Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the
databastls of some of the regulatory agencies: . .
2-3
. .
. .
. National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
8wironmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). .
.
(jl Printod on R~led Paper
.
.
I.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14. 2005
Page 2
. Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaiSltes):
A Qatabase primarily used by the California Department'of Toxic
Substances Control.
. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A ~atabase of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S! EPA.
. Comprehensive Environmental Response CompensatiQi:l and Ullbility
Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that rs~~'--~=c;..~,
maintained by U.S.EPA. .
. S61id Waste Information System (SWIS): A database prpvided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which cionsists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
tr<jnsfer stations. .
2-3
Cant.
. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills. Leaks.
Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional
W~ter Quality Control Boards.
. LOcal Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous sUbstances cleanup
sItes and leaking underground storage tanks.
. The United States Army Corps of Engineers. 911 Wilshire Boulevard.
Los Angeles. CalifornIa. 90017. (213) 452.3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The EiRshould identify the mechanism to initiate any requirediinvestigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated. andithe government
agency ti> provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardoos materials or
wastes were stored at the site. an environmental assessment should be
conduct~d to determine if a release has occurred. If so. further studies should 2-4
be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contaniination, and the
. potentiaHhreat to public health and/or the environment should:be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce e.xisting or potential threats to public health or the envii,onment. If no
immediaie threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with stati:l regulations. policies. and laws.
Proper inj'lestigation, sampling and remedial actions. if necessary, should be
conducte1:t at the site prior to- the new development or any conijtnJctlon"-aml'-"'=''''~2~ ',2-6
overseer! by a regulatory agency.- .. .
If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated wllhi hazardous
chemicals. and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated
site. except for a gas station. then the proposed development may fall within the
"Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precailtions should be
taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone
Property, · -
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14. 2005
Page 3
4)
All enviro~mental investigations. sampling andfor remediation should be
conducte~ under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regljlatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations. including Phase I and II investlgations. ShOlild be summarized
In the doCument. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found
should b~ clearly summarized In a table. .
5)
6)
7)
If building structures. asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures
are planried to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the
presencE! of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbe~tos containing
materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products. mercury or ACMs are
identified. proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities.
Addilion~lIy. the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with
Californi$ environrnental regulations. policies. and laws. -
The project construction may require soil excavation and soil fdling In certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated. properly dispose of it rather than pl3cing it in another
location_: Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also. if t~e project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated. proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soli Is free of
contamination.
8)
9)
Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors shoUld be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the ~ite overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are. have been. or will be. any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a ri~k to human health or the environment. . .
.
2-5
2-7
.
2-8
2-9
2-10
.
.
.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 4
10) If it is det~rmined that hazardous wastes are, or will be. generated by the.
proposed! operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
Californi~ Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code. 2-11
Division 20. chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(Califomi~ Code of Regulations, Title 22. Division 4,5). .
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stOred in tank.s or conlainets for more than ninety days :(b) treated onsite.
or (c) disposed of onslte. then a permit from OTSC may be reapired. If-sO'i'tIl&>":;.:."" ~-12
facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application
discussiqns and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated. the facility should
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number 2-13
by contat:tlng (aOO) 618-6942. .
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require aulhorization from
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
require~nt for authorization can be obtained by contacting Y,\ur local CUPA.
2-14
14) 'If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain. you may be
required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional 2-15
Water Qoality Control Board. .
15) If during tonstruction/demolitJon of the project. soil and/or gro~ndwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and app~priate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is 2-16
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist. toe EIR should
identify ~ow any required investigation and/or remediation-wili'pe conducted.
and the ilppropriate government agency to provide regulatory bversight.
16) If the sit~ was and/or is used for agricultural activities. onsite spils may contain
pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and
remediai actions. if necessary. should be conducted at the site prior to 2-17
construction of the project.
DTSC provides! guidance for Cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP). For additional information on the vep, please visit DTSC's Web site at 2-18
www.dtsc.ca.gQv. .
Mr. Emery J.Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 5 .
.
If you have any questions regarding this letter. please contact Mr. Joseph Cully. Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov. .
Sincerely,
$: &;;~
~....~
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
cc: Governoi's Office of Planning and Research
State CI~aringhouse
P.O. Box' 3044
sacramento. California 95812-3044
Mr. GuerltherW. Moskat, Chief
Planning!and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tr,acking Center
Departmtmt of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramsnto. California 95612-0806
CEQA #1179
;;:
~
..;.;....,..,'..~~':~~:...:.
.
~
l'
.
.
.
.
2. Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, October 14, 2005.
Response 2-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required.
Responses 2-2 through 2-7
e project conditi of appr val, and consistent with standard City practices and
ments, the applica pperator will be required to submit for review and approval by
rside County D~artment of Environmental Health and Fire Department a
Hazar Materiallnvenfpry Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. Such report
will be ke n files, andifiihould any quantities of hazardous materials used or stored on-site
increase or d c,,:,\;fges to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not
listed in such re;the operator will be required to update such reports.
Response 2-8
The comment is noted. Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, standard
procedures to comply with California environmental regulations, policies, and laws will be
implemented.
2 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cortese List,
http://www.dtsc.ca.govjdatabasejCalsitesjCortese_list.cfm?county=33, Date Accessed November 8, 2005.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
7.17
.
Response 2-9
The comment is noted. As noted in Response 2-9, no known soils contamination exists.
The project applicant will apply standard procedures to comply with California
environmental regulations, policies, and laws regarding contamination of soils being
excavated, imported, and reused.
Response 2-10
Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that th
all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations.
Response 2-11 through 2-14
The comments are acknowledged.
approval, and consistent with standard Ci
applicant/operator will be required to submit for re
County Department of Environmental Health and Fire
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Repo
files, and should any quantities of haza aterials used
should changes to operation introduce a hazardous
reports, the operator will be required to ts. oreover, the proposed
project will comply with the California Haza < Law (California Health and
Safety Code. Division 20, ter 6.5) an Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regul 22, Divisi
.
Response 2-15
nt due to compliance with standard City
's NPDES permit. Construction-phase and
t Practices (BMPs) will be designed and included into
e approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
t propo nt will also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure
ce of all structural post-construction BMPs.
As indicat ments above, no known hazardous soils conditions exist on the
property. 0 California Water District is responsible for ensuring acceptable
groundwater qu I. Through the permit issuance process, the City will ensure that the
applicant complies with all applicable local, state, and federal environmental regulations.
Response 2-17
Refer to Responses 2-2 through 2-7.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
7-18
.
.
I
'.
Response 2-18
The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to DTSC's comments
on the Draft EIR.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAl HosprrAL
7-19
J:'ECtlAl'iQ}\ q,JL TURAtMSQUtt~~
T(!1I1rc:ul" 8aM q[L/JisrRQ. MissiOl1lridfdiis
(~hai1pe6.nl):
Umruunc: Ai'crni'"
.
;V!cc (:blll!P~n:
Mary Ilc" Moll">
._._.___._-,- _..' .. . ,0
, . . .
PnstOfflce_, ~.218.1. Tcn)CC\jllla C:A,.lJ:159J
TClcpbnne,(95 n 30H..lJ;l9S.. ri~(9Sf) ~~'lj4~1
P-l11llltm~l,! MemhCB_:.
Kaymmzd&$quCl;~r.
Evie Hmer"
uariene'Miranda
Rf!trr,en 'Jl:u~ello_M>'XWr.Jl
J)j(~'1'JI,
Om 1 ThiR,-i....
October 24, 200S
(,~inalUJ:
!1'fUrMil~1'Jro
Emery J. Papp
City OfTemccula PlamiingDepartmellt
43200 Busines~'Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
f',llhll':lI^llalii4;
St"-Phi\lli~:(fllrt1m'
Morllloi'Suj)l:rvlllor:
Aurdi:lMtlmitru
Letter 3
1,<<: pommel1tsotl Temecula Regional Hospital EnvironmentaUmpaCtRBport
Dear Mr. Pa:pp,'
This COillnleilt letter is 5lib.milted by the Pechanga Band ofLu~el!.o II!clians (hereinafter,
''Pet;hanga Tri\le"),a' f~er.illytecognizcd Indian tribe and soverei~ government. The PecMnga
Tribilis fonnilllyrequesting,pursull1itto PUblic Re$ol,1wes Code ~2J092.2. to bc'notinCdand
involved in theentirc CEQA environmental review process forthe'duratiOl) (lfthe above
referellced.pt()j~ct(thc "Project").
~
3-1
Pilrsullnt to ourcliscussion yesterday, it is the Tribe's'lffider,;t!!nding that, in addition to
lh\l COp.t!itions listed as itcms 5b and 51 in.the initial study, the City:ilitMds to include as a
condition ofapproval. tobecompleledprior to gr:l,ding, the requirl:nWnt ror a Treatment 3-2
Agreelll!lDt .betw!lell the developer and the Tri\l~.A:> discussed, the Tribe liiiS.soIile adijjtioliaj
items.which ltwH! ,lx:,requestin~ be added as mj.tigation measures and conditions.l>f .........., ,. al.
While the TrIbe appreciates the City's~mngneSsto include condiuons of approval for
thepfojilctwhiCh will protect the potential culturdlresources on thc$iw; it has a concern about 3-3
the:City!s lack o[lnclusion of cultural resources inits;CEQA evahlllUOn oethe.project
I am ,alsO requestil1~ that the County of Riverside incll(de aJ.Iaddiiional mitigati(ln
mettSute' that. deals specifkally with the treatment of r!lJ1:lainsdf they ljre f(l11lld during 3llY
grading activitY. The mitigation requirements should alSo inClude informatiOn relating to the 3-4
p~exCavatjon agreement which requires the developer to provide compensation to the monilors
dUring thc,Projecl .
"
e
Sar./"I'd kThe:DIJ~V Trust.dUma Ollr rn~ ,4110 W"', Hallar 1fp,.I1i.feTa The IVP.P.d
..
^,
.."
:.
R@llangaC9J!1m~f letter tO~(lCollnty (jfRiversj(fe Planning Dcpartmeilf
RB: Commenls on DriiftFocUsedEIR'foJ: the'TemeeulaRegiolla1 Hospital
P~gt) 2 .,
;pIE LEAD AGENCY MUST IjIlci.UDEANDCOt'!SI1LTWITH THE;TRIBEINIT~
, . REV.IEW PROCESS ' .
It has, bccnthednient of the Federal Governmentl, and :theBtate.ofCalifomia:i that IIldian
. tCilicsbcconsU1t~d ~tll t~gardtolssues Vl'hichifnpact'CtIlluralandspiiiitl~~Qurces. ~weUIJS
tlther.~vcromeital cOllcems. TherCliponsibilitytOCOIlSUltwith Indian tribesslems Wroth!:
uniqUe.govemInent.to"llovemmCnticlationship'betwc,cnthe'lhJit~States:andIndiantrib~, 1hjs
m1s\iswI\,el1 tlMI illterestsare:aff:ccledbY .the acliC!T\s 9f;governJ1:lenta1illgcnci~anddepartinerit!J
s~gh as apptovllJ()f~p~ifi.ePlans;andEIRS: In this case. id~ undisputed thal!he pttljectlic$
"within theLuis\iiio tribe's trllditionalfeffiwry,'rherefQtc. jnorder to COJ:llply Y,'ithC;eQfI,and
other applil;;a,bJe Federa1and Caji,forriialawi itis ;"'I'~...tive Ihat the Lead Agency and the Projccl
llPpliclli1'tcollslilt with the Tribe in order to gu~an1eeanat:lcq\latcbasi$ of kn()\l\'ICd8e foratl
appI:Opriafe'e1!lIlJlationofthe project effects, as weIhs generating adequatemitigatiori measures.
3-5
'fHF:'i:~trYtNADEoUATELY ADDRFAc;Sli;DCULTURAL RESOURCES:IN THEDEIR
:While a.copyofthc cull1l1'a1 r~Ources survey is inclu~ed in the E.IR lllld tlle'Tribe
1lll.l:\erstan4~ thl!\ll'jt()Cused" EIRwlisintended, theie.i8'rJO scctioiuliscussingcultwdl resollrces
iilidno mitigation meastires~ecificaiIy addtessllig cultuJ'll1 re~oilrces, de~ite thefllc! ~tthe
City,and'cultullllresources n3P.ort ac\q1(jwl~g~ that th~l?rpj!<CtisiiJacuItw:al1yswitivearea.
As the l;:it.r i,B awarei14ercis al'!ighly sensitive cultural site in close pttlximitjto this Project site.
Whi\ethecu1tuhi1resoW'c~ report l;;onc!lules thattIitrcwct<; 110 ~9ur~IOCAAld OJj th.e pr9j~i
~i~, this iSn()tfl cp:nc!l!S.ivc eVllluatioll:.sil1ce no~~a.c.J:~gwas,peifotJricd.Because of
the proximit}':to'the other significaiitilitCi the Tribe beJieve,sthere isalikelihood fOTeultural
tesourceslo l?e el1c,ountered dunng,gr9\l11(\Jlisl11rbing @tiVit!es. Th\lS,theTribll believes that
'eul,turahesources sholild'have'bccn included lis at~pic.Ofevaluation in the fOciisedElR.
QE.QAmakes clear lhaUhemain pfuposcsofanE1R is to identlfyandatiillyzcthc
environmerital effeCts ofaprojeet. (Califoma Puh/i.cRe..w.". OOde ~21 002.l(a); 14 Ql\lifornill
.COde ofReguIatious:("GWdeIines") l1,51;l6).As cu~i~y drafiedithedraftEIRdoes not
provide adequate protectionJor si$riificantlircbaeoloiliciil and culfural site$lUid.dbe$ \lOt
adequmely follow the prpvisions fur CEQA,and its Guidelines, jncluding:Qalif.,Pub. ~. C()de
~~!Og3':2(b) (llvoidim,clll!9 JlJ:'l:fc.ll'~ method ofpresC[Vation of arcliaeologicalicsoutceS), CEQA
Gliideliilcs ~ 1~126.4(b)(3)(a~encjes should avoid eITcctsonhistQrical resOUTcesof
llJ'Ch,,"9logiclilnature); and O\QA Ouidelin~ nS02Q (~ead agency responsible foradeq!lllCY of
l?1l-vironmcrifaldocuments).Incltision i)fprojeClcClilditions ofapprovill does not'$ubstituiefor
the City's obligatiollS 10 adeq\lllteI:y initigateunderGEQ,A.
3-6
1 ,S,~eE~Cliilv~:M~mpll1!l<lum of Ap'n12~, 1994 on GOvtrnmenl-Io--Oovemmenl Relations with Native' Ameriean
Ti~al. p"".,tl1l'lientS and Execulive QrderofNovelllber6, .2000 on COllS11ltalion and Goordinalion with IndianTnDal
c. ' _. .~,..,D1S.
i .' .. ,
See California Public ResonrceCode ~S097.9 ""cq.
P~~hp,!go rlllr~r"l Re~qll!,l'~S'~' Tt.?ru:('II'Q,lJaj~.if ol.fUfsiflio MJ:v.'t((jil'lndh",.~
PiI:{{ Olfite,Box.2iS3" 1/!meCllla.CA'9159J:
.~i;ieill.v TlrrJ,DII(VTilLY1etI Uiilii Olir CUr<' AM W"frHonor We'll;'.. 7;,.11" /'Il!i!i
PethAAga co.!DfIlI:'~tletter to the cOuilty bflOversideplanmngO"I'......ent
RE: Comments. on t,tlIIi'I'ocused FTR' for tlW Temeclll1l ~egionalHospitaI
P!lge3
In o*r to IlJIProve anElR the City.is reqUited to make fhu:IirigJhlitit has adoptei:l
initigatiotl meaSuI'estbat have clUninated br sJlb~anlial!y lessenC!i all significant effects on the
environment wherdcas"ible. CEQAGllidcline ~ 15.092_ Sincetherc:atectirrebtly no iniugl!lion
mea.S'ures addtes'~cultural tes/jurces,thefocus"d :ElR.does-not funy;addr~,the ~red
cllltural reSOllrgesptot~tiol!S as.it 4oesnotpropose mitigatloll'measW'es whichwouldelim.i.lUlte
or s\lbsl1lntial1ylesscnsignifrcallt effects dn cultutal,resoUJ\1es. Be~l,Isetherll isa potential for
the disco'Very of cultuta! resourcesandJorbUIlla.nrema!!IS On the l'I\lji;c1 ~le, "I'~.':'"riafe
mitigatiOn m~$t.be adoptlXi. Pursuanl 10 Public Resources COde 2l0S2and ctQA Guidelines ~ ~
15064.5; 15126.4 and 151'51 aLead Agen-cy should makeprovisions[orhistonc1jl Qr IUlique '
archaeological rcsoUroes i!iscv:' ~. ~J during construction. .
As detailed belo\V, inc!usiQllof mitigation measuresaddressfug cultural resources ate
needed toaddress.the Tdbe~s CUllUial conteXllS'and to assure lhattJie;Projectis in fuU,
compliilllccWitb the Californill EnvironmematQ!Iality Act (GEQA)ll!1dits implerhtntihg
re:gu!ations, Calif. Pub. Res. Code ~21 000 et seq.. alId CEQA Guidi:lfues ~. 15000 el seg; 1t is the
Tribe's position that its pr/jposed mitigation measures wiltenable the city to make *e required
fmdings. the CEQA llTIcI i~ Guidc~.es lDandate thaI avoidance is the preferred method of
presCfYfug archaealogicalresouroes, Calif; Pub. Res.,Code ~21011~t~). Seeals()CEQA
Gujdelines~ 15126:4(bj(3). .
PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The pecilall'ga Tribd'.s primary concerns stem from the project's Ii~ely in:1pacts on Nativc
American cultural Itsourocs. As was disc\l~ed above, the PQlclltial ,likelihood of discOvenrig
cgltural resources is vel')' high, due to bther known rcsourees fo\1ndl'nclQse proximity to Ibis
project. The most well known cultural sitewithin'tbis~ is ahu,&9 Lu.isciiQ vi lIage,site, which
,has b~previouslydocumenrcdand is.known to c.oritafuat leastfi!leeIi artheological sites
within a one mile radius otthisyillage. Witliin'tbis'Villllgc~tll.!)UJl1etOuscultW<!l items hllve
be.en fOllnd'inc luiIing whole snetates as wen as fragments, pottery shards aIId many other
personal and saCred ItemS.
The Pechanga Tribe isconcemed aBout both the,PIotecUotlQI.!lriiquc'an4 irreplaceable
cultural resources, SUcb,i1S Luiseno villagcsitesandarchC9logiclil items whicbwould be
displaced by ground disturbfug workon the pioject,and on the proper aildlaWful treatrrierit of
citltural items, Native American humail tell1ains:and sacW:iteil1S likely t/j be discovered in the
course of the work: The: Tribe would also Iilce to poinlout ,thl1t a preferred metholi oftreabne/lt
for archeological sites according to the CEQAis avoidance aIIdthat this is ~ agreement with the
Tribe's practices and policies COllcerning cultured resol11"CCS; .
ThePechanga Tribc asserts that the J>rojectate3 is part of the Pechllnga Tribe's aboriginlll
\erritpry"as evidenced by the t})!:islence ofLuis(liio place ~es,rock art picto~phs' .
petrOglyphs and extensive artifilct records found in the vi\lfuitv. oftbe.Proiedt.Further,the
Pechanga Cllllurql-Re.toun'cw ~ 1ft"":,'"I,, BunJ:.o/t,uiS-'J;oMts$fnn; InditJ1Lt
p""i'{}ffi(je Bot 2 J!lJ "1'er!ffi:rilo,.f1 Q1!O.?
Sll('~(lls The DulY Tru.t/M Villa. Our (.Crrt!,/1l1d Jt;ithlfOllorWe /fi.w,r fn Thv Neild
.
3-6
Cont.
-
3-7
e
.
..
.'..
.:.
fiee~3l!~W!IU\l,l:!1tlelf.llt to the CoiiritYofR.iversiaepj<i:tlnU1~ Pepl\l'ttrJept '.
RE: COriiTilMt$On DrafH'ql;;us!ld,~ for tile 1'emecula R.egional.Hospilil!
Pilge 4 .
Pechanga'f4b~ bllliev~~atjf!llJIJlarirc:mainsaredi$c:qveM Stajlllaw wO\llclapplY3Ild{!1e'
miligationm:easureS(otlhep~t m~acc~,unt ror tlJjs. Ac"orrlingtothe, CalifoInia,PUblic
Resources Code, .~ :;097:98"ifNativeArlicriCM human remains are discQver:ed,the Native
Ainericari Heritage coJIilIlissiOn 'Ii1ust AAme a ''lnostllltelydcscen4ant, ".who ,sliillbe consUlted
/IS,tqthe"t'y.uy.;!lte disposition of the remainS; Gi'ireri the Priiject'sloeationin Peeh3I!gll
lerritory..thePechlll\~ Tnbemtendii 10 asscrti~ right(l\lISllanttoG~fomialawwith regard to
any remains or It~diScoyere4 in;theco~eoflhiSprojeet For/this teasOn,a:ddiliQnaI
tnitiglllionl3llguageisreqiiestedpriorto the finalized 'ETRbeihgapPtnved.
REOUlREn MlTIG:.\:l'lON'
3-7
Cant.
GiyCD this Projectls close'p~ldmity lo IUlowllcultu'ralsilesthatwerenOldiscussed in $e
Initial eulturalStudy,.inCluding a knoWI\villagesitc; Pech!ll)ga,request the Conditions,of
Approval that w~ presented'in lheJn.itial siu4Y, along With those adc&esse.sbelow, be ineluded 3-8
asmitigalion tneasUIes as well as Conditions ofAPi!roval wliieh,are: requir~ lobe !J1elprior,to
the issuance of gtading pennits; Tl!.efolloWingconditions listedinthe Initial Stildyare
requcstedto be includeda,s lIlitjgation:
1.
. The.I!lJIllOw!lllragre~JorelinquiSh,own:ership ot'allciiltutaI resources,
intluding;archa'iiolo$ic:u, a:rtifaets found on the project si~, to tl!ePeellaDga
BandtifLtil~eiio L,J.di;u1s;'forJlroper treatment and'disposifion to the extent
au.thoiized,bythe law.
M:onitor!ng~yaprofessional qualified paleontologist, archaeological 3l1d
EechangaTribe ,monitor is reqUir~ dqringaltgtQunddisturbing'aelivifies.
The monitor's Sh~lleaci! havemeauthc111tY 10telnporariIyhall and/or divert
~iI1g "eq\!ipmenltoalli:iw'for removal ofa:hunaantoJ' lar/;\especimens. Tile
moriitot shalneinOvesampte.s ofsediments,whicharelik~iy to contain
r;enl~ns offO$sU iiJ~,.,;... ~..:.~,~. "'les~d ,v~~~"'.~1 "tes.
2.
The,f()l1owlngmellSli1'eS shouldl1e;jJlclucl~ a,sb9Urmitiglltion measures and conditions
ofapptoYaI: '
3.
If'hlJlllanten1aiI1$l!!~ !lIIC9unt~,allactiVity shall'Stoji aridtlie Q:iu'n~y
Coroner must be not1fledlmmediately. AllilClivitY!J1u5tcell$C UIItil.the
CoimtyCbroneth-asdctcrmined,iheOrigin and disposition of said remains.
Tlte'c.;.,<"...)lha)) 4ciennil),tl jflhe reDlliIils areprehistClne, and shall'Dolify the
Slate Native AI11erii:a'n Heritage:Commissionif applicable. rwtheractions
sbli1Jibe detenTliltedby.thed!:i;Ires'oNhe Most Likely-Descedent.
I!riortoissuani:;e ofibe gradingpennit, the developer shall enter into a
.Treatrl1<;1it Agr~lffi~.withthePechanga Tribe. Tllis Agreement will addre$s
the treatmCrlt anddisposlt.On,ofCUlturalresoun:es and hUJllan femainsthat
may be encounJered c'!tll'ingconstruction. The Agreement will ftfrthet,contliiJl
4.
"','>('}JtIll;:O CuIfJlraIRt!s{)l/Il'r:.~ . i(ime('lIl(1'l1DI1J;lJl';Il~\'f!lifJ Mis.firm lnJ;cms
POor; ()"Uit'~ 80.<,2183 '1cm,'clliil. Of 92592
Siiqeif l,\"TII~ Du(liTnisld1llltiJ 0111' ('",,- ,1,urWilll flollor We Ri.rc 10 .,.""Need.
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
,;
Pechanga conunent ielter lathe'CQUIlI;}' QfkiveJ$ide Planning Dllpartmcmt ,
RT::: Comments on Draft,Focused EIRfor the Temecula Regional Hospital
Page.5 .
provisionS'oftriQalmonitors.andalidress c..~'f'_.sationfQr the Native
American monitors being'paid by the developers.
fJt~ac~ Sites wi.thin the Ptojeclarea are to be avoidedaI).d.preserv~.
The P@anga Trih loolcs forward to workipg toge$.\lT with the appliCll!ll; the City of
Temecula Plamiing Department and othet intetestedagellcies irt profeCtingth6mvahiable
L\liseilo c"ltural ~ol.1i'l;es fOlJnd, in the Project lirel!. ,If you lIave any questions, plellSedo not
qesi1a'lirtOe()ntact.me~t(gSD 308.9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676.2768; Ext. 2137; thank
you for the opportunity'to submit these comments.
I
5.
Sirteerely,
~t lftdJi
Stephanie Gordin'
Cultural Analyst
F!(!c:hanj!Q Clillw'alRl!s()lIh:e,t . Tt!nw~u/q'Banif df'4lixeiio Mi't.t:i,jlf 1Ildian.~
Post Oflk~ Box JJ.YJ . T~",,,,,"/o. CA'91591
,""riM t, I'ht /My THlwd I)",,,(iw C:P,.,. AM With //0"'11' W~Ri'" 70 7'/1. 1V."r/'
.
3-12
Cant.
13-13
-
-
.
.
.
3. Stephanie Gordin, Cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, October 24,
2005.
Response 3-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians' (Pechanga
Tribe) comments on the Draft EIR. The comment is a formal request pursuant to Public
Resources Code S21092.2, to the Pechanga Tribe to be noticed throughout the proposed
project's CEQA process. The Pechanga Tribe has been on the ~tribution list for
throughout the entire CEQA process and will continue to be notified en mailings occur.
:iSSP:::~~:t is acknowledged regarding the additional mi t: meas
of approval. Both the City of Temecula Planning Com Ion and City Co will review
all project conditions of approval, ineluding those no n the Initial Study for t " oposed
project a~d incorporated .into the conditions of a . I dO~Fts. The co '~llons of
approval Inelude the requirement of a pre-constructlo . ee" entftreatment plan With the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians prior to the issuance ~.,~' ing permits. Consistent with
state law, such plan must set forth and contain the terms anll't~. ditions for the treatment of
any discoveries of any previously unkno surface NativE!<t rican cultural resources
or human remains that may occur during . 'ties.
Response 3-3
ck of inclusion of cultural resources in the
roject. Th nitial Study, contained in the Draft EIR as
d project's ,pact on cultural resources. Pursuant to
the proposed\project will result in a less than significant
s. The following two reports, included as
pport t e nelusion of a less than significant impact on
ditional analysis is required per CEQA.
urces Surve"y Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech.,
Report. Temecula Hospital Project, CRM
nse 3-2, the applicant will be required to guard against harm to any
led subsurface cultural resources during the project grading process.
Response 3-4
See Response 3-2. The applicant will be required to compiy with agreements, as well as
Sections lS064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations)
addressing the discovery of human remains during the grading or construction process.
CITY Of TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
7-25
.
Response 3-5
The comment is acknowledged. Maintaining a good working relationship with the
Pechanga Tribe is important to the City. As noted in Responses 3-1 and 3-2, the Pechanga
Tribe is included on the project notification list, and per project conditions of approval. the
Tribe will be consulted by the project applicant and can be present during ground-disturbing
activities.
Response 3-6
. ect is approved by
the conditions will
roceeding with
A Guidelines
significant
The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses 3-2 and 3-3. If t
the City Council, conditions of approval will be adopted by the
_ be enforceable measures that the applicant must comply ~ prio
different phases of the project. Additional mitigation is necessary pe
Section 15143 because impact to cultural resources w dentified as less
during the Initial Study analysis.
Response 3-7
and 3-3. Pursuant to
roposed conditions of
ation phase, state law
ust be cleared by the
.
The comment is not
the Initial Study, all 0
to the project.
. All four conditions of approval cited in
ractices and regulations, will be applied
is
be co
treatmen
such cultur
identi as part of the cultural resource investigations cited in
f grading and construction monitoring activities. any sacred site
will cease until appropriate reconnaissance and treatment can
ith state law (see Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[bJ),
esigning of project components to avoid, protect. and respect
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
7.26
WARRI'N D. WILLIAMS
, 41....1 M.nager.Chief Enllineer
1995 MARKET S1'iiEF.T
RTVI'RSlDE. CA 9;501
951.95$;1200
95 1.788.996$ FAX
www.l1cx1dcuJltr(l1.eo.rivcrsidaca.us
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSER V ^ nON DISTRICT
October 26. 2005
Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
CityofTcmecula .
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589.9033
Letter 4
Dear Mr. Papp:
!.
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
for TemecuJa Regional Hospital
This letter is written in response to the Dr..ft Environmental Impact Report (DElR) for the Temccula: :
Regional Hospital P.rojeeL The proposed project is 10calOO on lhe nortbside of Highway 79 South, . ~
south of De Portola Road, and approximatcly 700 feet west of Margarita Road, within the city of:: 4-1
Ternecula '
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has thc following..'
commenlslcollcems that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
1.
Existing: District facilities are loeated adjacenl 10 !he proposoo project area and may"" .. :
impacted. Thc proposed project may impact the District's Temecula Creek Line V. Any ;
work that involves District rights-of-way, easements. or facilitics will require an::
<''llcroachment permit lrom !he DistricL Thc construction of facilities within road right. ::
.. !If-way ihat may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. 1.'0-,,;
obtain fUrther'informatiol\ on encroachment permits or existing facilities, contact Ed Lotz : i
ofthe EIlcroachment Permit Section at 951.955.1266. .'
4-2
.~",.~'..~'
I
Ie
2. Page 4-3'3, Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIRillcorrectly states that ::
the District reviews all propo~ed projecl~wilhin the planning area. 'please he advised that .:;
the District does not normally recommend conditions for land diviSions or other land use ::
cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City laud use cases, or ::
provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.: : 4-3
District comments/recommendations lor such Cases are normally limited to items of.,:
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other .:'
regional :f1ood control and drainage facilitics which could be' 'considered a logical ,;:
componenl or extension of a mabier plan system, and Area: Drainage Plan fees '::
(developinent mitigation fees). Pleasc refer to the previous leUer dated August 25, 2005 "
ilial is ~Iuded in the NOP Responses section of the DElR. ' .
Mr. Emery J. Papp :
Re: Draft Environinental Impact Report
for TemecuIa Regional Hospital
.2-
October 26, 2005 :
3. It is IDlc!ear in the DEIR where the proposed storm drain system will outlet. Any impacts .::
that may occur to the District's existing Line V Stage 2 Channel as a result of the':
connectiOn should be addressed. Potential impacts include,but are nOI limited to,:: 4-4
biologicid resources, air quality, water quality and potential for increased erosion due to' ,
concentration of flows.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DElR. Please forward any subsequent'
environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions .
concerning this letter may be referred to Steven Horn at 951.955.1200 or me at:951.955.1233.
"':":~r'
Very tntly yours,
0~o::J
TERESA TUNG
Senior Civil Engineer
c: TLMA
Attn: David Mares
Ed Lotz
SCH:mcy
P8\! 02972
:~.~>......._.,.~~;;x:.,-:;...
_.Jl...
.
.
.
.
4. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District October 26, 2005.
Response 4-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District's (District) comments on the Draft EIR. No response is necessary.
Response 4-2
.
The comment is noted. Per standard City practices and regul
Department has included conditions of approval for the
encroachment permit from the District for any work within i ight-of-way. An
additional condition of approval requires that a copy of thlltcSrading and i ement plans,
along with ~upporting hydrologic and hydraulic calc~...la.t,,:......6..3P....ll il~be s.......u...b.mitted t. District for
approval pnor to the Issuance of any permit. ./y
i)." ....
:7~t.:\' ~/]>
Response 4-3 .*z'i:~/'
In response to the comment, under the "Storm Wa~~)llIRa~e and Water Quality"
subheading on page 4-33 of the Final EI Irst sentence Ofl1J~rst paragraph has been
revised to read as follows: ~
To ensure that adequate ailable to support new
development, all-propos~ 'ecls within t e City of Temecula are mav
be reviewed by the R' ontrol ann Water Conservation DistriCLi!!
the reouest of the C: ,e City of Temecula.
f the Draft EIR, currently the eastern watershed on the project
channel (the District's existing Line V Stage 2 Channel). The
nt propo to constr~ct storm drain outlets into the District's Line V Stage 2
. the project site. Current flows into the channel are anticipated to
the project. The hydrology and drainage analysis report prepared for
the project (No mber 2004) analyzed the impact' on channel capacity. The report
concluded that the slight increase in flows into the channel will be less than significant; thus,
the proposed project will not impact downstream drainage systems.'
As
site
project a
Channel dir
Per standard City practices and regulations, a condition. of approval will be applied to the
project requiring that all grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations, be submitted to the District for approval prior to the issuance of
,.
,
3 Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRe Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical
Center. November 2004.
CITY OF TEMECULA
7-29
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECULA REGIONAl HOSPITAL
.
any permit The applicant will be required to implement any measures imposed by the
District.
The comment suggests that biological resource impacts should be analyzed in relation to
the channel. The project applicant does not propose construction within the channel and
thus, no such analysis has been conducted or is required. If, subsequent to project approval
and through the review of improvement plans, any construction within the channel is
required to comply with'District directives or to address any additional requirements that
the City Council may impose as a result of public hearings, then subse nt environmental
review will be required per CEQA for any such activity.
All other impacts related to t
the proposed project d
additional impact anal):
Id be analyzed in
quality impacts
ct analysis is
The comment suggests that air quality and water quality iml'!
relation to the channel. Section 4.1, Air Quality of the Draft naly
associated with the construction of the proposed project ' 0 additiona
required for air quality.
Water quality impacts will be less than significant 11
City practices and regulations. enforced through con I
City's NPDES permit. Construction-phase and post-const
included into plans for submittal to, and s bject to the appro
issuance of a grading permit. The projec nent will also p
to ensure ongoing long-term maintenan ctural pos
additional impact analysis is required with r ity.
less then significant because
the channel. Therefore. no
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TEMECUlA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY Of TEMECULA
7-30
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.8
DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
R:\C V P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-$T AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
43
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.9
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 1 1-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTl 1-16 05 v2.doc
44
I.
.
,
I
I'
I
i
I
i.
..
Trllmark
Companies
November 3, 2005
#
.
Ms. Debbie Ubnoskc
Planning Director
City ofTemeeula
PI9l\ning Department
43200 B1lsiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589
RE: Comments on Draft Environmcntal Impact Report for Temccula Regional
llospital (SCHIt 2005lB I 017)
Dear Ms. Ubnoske;
Trumark Companies is processing the entitlement of an approximately 7.3-aere pl'Oject
site directly 10 the ca,~t of the pro))os.;d Temecula Regic\Jlal Hospital (h()flpital) fOf' the
purposes of developing a senior residetltial devl:>lopment. The application tor the
proposed senior residt-'IIlial development w>u; tiled with the City of'J'cmccula (City) on
August 9. 2005 and the L'Iltitlc.111Cnt for development is anticipated to be completed by
January 2006. The requested entitlement allows for the development of appruxiIlla~ely
112 attached two-story residential units, a common recreational facility and open space,
and pedestrian and vehicular access.
Tmmark Companies submits the tollowing comments related to land use compatibility
with rcspect to three of the project charactt-TIstics of the hospital that are located directly
to the west ofthe proposed senior residential development. These three project
characteristics, which are described on pages 1-3 and 3-1 of the Draft ETR, are: the 60-
toot by 6o-foot hclipa<! proposed near the northeast comer of the hospital; the truck
loading area located at tbe easlt:rn edge of the hospital, to the south of the he/irad; and
facilities plant located at the eastcrn edge ofilie hospital, to the south of the helipad. The
COlllments are as follows:
Aesthetics: The analysis of visual character or quality provided on pages 4-5 through 4-
14 in Seetioo 4.1, Aesthetics, ofthe DraH EIR tailed to analyze potcntial1/icw/aesthetie
impacts and light and glare impacts on the proposed senior residential development site
located immediately to the east of the proposed hospital site. Please revise the discussion
in the Draft ElR to include an analysis ofthe poteotial view/aesthetic impacts and light
and glare impacts on the senior residential development duc to the development of the
proposed hospital. This needs to specitically address the potential impacts to the
26~47 R,\NCH() PARKWAY SOUTH LAKE FUI(E~'r. CA Q2(031l
~~nn.nVT ~^^Y^~.D.D ~~. nn.._ ~~__._^ .__
proposed senior residential development from the construction and operation of the
helipad, the truck loading area, and the plant.
.
Air Quality: The analysis of long-term impacts to air quality provided on pages 4.24
through 4-26 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR failed to adequately analyze the
long-term impacts of the proposed hospital on regional and local air quality. Ple::ase
revise the discussion in the Draft ETR to include an analysis of the impacts of the ongoing
operdtion of the proposed hospital. This needs to specifically address the potential
impacts to regional and local air quality due to operation of the helipad, the truck loading
area, and the plant (including the maintenance and testing of emergency power
generators) .
Land Use and Planning: The analysis onand use compatibility with surrounding land
uses provided on page 4-41 in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft ElR
failed to analyze the potential land use compatibility impact.~ on the proposed St1nior
residential development site located immediately to the east of the proposed hospital site.
Please revise the discussion in the Draft ErR to include an analysis of the (lotentialland
use-compatibility impacts on the senior residential development due to the development
of the hospital. This needs to specifically address the potential impacts to the proposed
senior residential development it-om the operation of the heHpad, the truck loading area,
and the plant and the associated aesthetic, air quality, and noise impacts from the
operation of these project characteristics.
Noise: The analysis of operations-related noise provided on pages 4-58 through 4-63 in
Section 4.5, Noise, of the Draft EIR failed to anill)l7.e potential noise impacts on the
proposed senior residential development site located immediately to the east of the
proposed Temecula Hospital site. Please revise the discussion in the Draft EIR to include
an analysis of the potential noise impacts on the senior resid\::ntiaI development due to the
development of the hospital. This needs to spt....:ifically address the potential impacts to
the proposed senior residential development from the operation of the helipad, the truck
loading area, and the plant (including the maintenance and testing of emergen~y power
generators).
.
Tromark Companies requests that, prior to taking action on the proposed Temecula
Hospital project, please provide the written responses and the revised analyses indicated
above. These written responses and revised analyses should be transmitted to Trumark
Companies attention Victoria Mata at the address indicated On the letterhead.
While Tromark Companies strongly supports the development of the Temecula Regional
Hospital on the site where it is proposed to be located, we need the analysis of the
potential impacts of the proposed hospital to be reflected in the environmental
docwncntation in order to protect the pending entitlement tOr the proposed senior
residential development and the future health and safety of its residents. We have every
confidence that the City will require that the issues indicated be adequately addressed in
the Response to Comments/Final EIR and any changes to the design of the project
.
;~ ,;
.
.
Ie
characteristics will be reflected in the final entitlement approved for the proposed
hospital.
~\c~10~
Victoria Mata
Cc: Emery Papps, City ofTemecula Senior Planner
ASSOCIAllON
MANAGEMENT
.
42430 WINCHESTER RD.
TEMECULA. CA 92590
PH: (951) 296-5640
FAX: (951) 296-5524
~~@~~~~~\\
\m NO\} OJ 1\l\l5 ~
BY-- --=:::
Equity
MANAGEMENT
October 31, 2005
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Oty of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association
Re:
Proposed Zone Change
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
The Santiago Ranchos Property Owners Association Board of Directors, on behalf of the entire
membership, strongly believes designation of the proposed zone change to allow an A6 (six) story
structure is misleading to all except those in the construction trade. We feel an urgent need to see
something placed onsite at the proposed height, showing everyone, induding the Planning
Commission, the impact such a structure would impose.
.
We understand this 'concept was brought up in a planning meeting and rejected by the applicant.
Please Tespondin writingastowtly :the applicant declined this request. It would be as simple as
flying balloons at the indicated height. The Board of Directors sees no reason this matter cannot be
resolved in a timely manner before the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting. If the
applicant declines to provide the Commission and neighbors a structure (i.e. balloons) indicating
the height of their proposed building, we feel the application for consideration by the Commission
should be pulled from the November 16, 2005 agenda.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (951) 296-5640.
.
JBO/jlb
CC: NM
Corrs/Oty
Planning Commissioners
,. ~: :.'
-.' ~- ',. .
.~>.
{ ';;,
coAAS1OJ:YIJlBtlOSI<IHEMw.AA-PROP'ZQN~Q1P,NGE.SRH' '
", '~-j'.- :.~"~.:
'.. ,,~(.;..
"-:'.,
rf\:-; (YJ{Y":, .--,~",;;G ~~q;:. ;~(:L :J-iD~ /J.::,:;~ ;':'-;,::'C-;. ,y
'" ..; ~
'. .,,",:_i,:,-,
,,: -""-'^".
- :".!- "(".,'J;
..
.
.
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
It. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATiON
SACRAMENTO OfFICE
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
RICHARD T. DRURY
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
MARC D. JOSEPH
OSHA R. MESERVE
SUMA PEESAPATI
GLORIA D. SMITH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1225 8th STREET, SUITE 550
SAC~MENTO. CA 95814-4810
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX; (916) 444.6209
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080-7037
TEL: (650) 589.1660 ,
FAX: (650) 589.5062
g s m i th@:adam8broadwall.com
FELLOW
KEVIN S. GOLDEN
. OF COUNSEL
THOMAS R. ADAMS
ANN BROADWEll
October 28, 2005
TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL
AND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Emery Papp
Planning Department
City of Temecula
43200.Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92589
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Imnact Renort for the
Temecula Reeional Hosnital
Dear Mr. Papp:
On behalf of the California Nurses Association ("CNA"), this letter provides
nreliminarvcomments on the City of Temecula's focused environmental impact
report ("focused EIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital project (''Project). As
explained below, the City of Temecula's ("City") focused EIR does not comply with
the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").l
Accordingly, the City may not approve the Project or grant any permits for it until
the City prepares and circulates a full EIR that addresses all of the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed Project.
The City's proposed Project is located within city limits on undeveloped land
near south Highway 79 and Margarita Road. Temecula Creek runs approXimately
1000 feet south of the project site. (Focused EIR, at p. 1-1.) The project site consists
of 35.31 acres of vacant land on gently sloping terrain, with a high point between
two watersheds on the western side of the parcel. (Id., at p. 1-2.) The eastern
boundary of the project contains dense riparian vegetation, presumably along
Temecula Creek.
1 Public Resources Code ~~ 21000 et seq.
1818-003a
0-"=--
.
October 28, 2005
Page 2
The proposed Project consists of a 566,160-square-foot medical facility that
will include a two-tower hospital complex with approximately 320 beds. One tower
will be six stories and the other five stories. The hospital will provide in-patient,
out-patient and emergency services. The facility will also include a 1O,000-square-
foot cancer center in an adjacent one-story building, and an 8,000 square-foot
fitness rehabilitation center. The Project also includes a 60-foot by 60-foot helipad
and 1,278 parking spaces. (Id., at p. 1-3.)
According to the focused Em, the Project will have unavoidable and
significant short term, long term and cumulative impacts to air quality. The Project
will also have unavoidable and significant impacts concerning traffic and noise.
The California NUl'ses Association is one of California's oldest nonprofit social
welfare institutions. Founded in 1901, today CNA represents over 65,000 members
in more than 165 facilities throughout the state. CNA has represented its members
on nursing and public health issues before municipal, county, and state bodies for
. over 100 years. Over 100 members of the CNA provide professional care for .
patients in medical facilities in the vicinity of Riverside County and Temecula.
CNA's comments are made in its representative capacity of over 100 CNA members
and their families who currently reside in Riverside County, on behalf of its
members and their families throughout California, and on behalf of health care
consumers generally who are directly affected in their health and general welfare
by the availability of, access to, and quality and safety of health care services.
CNA members and their families have a direct and substantial interest in
assuring that scarce health care resources are devoted to the provision of safe and
quality care to all persons, and that new health care facilities are developed,
constructed and operated in'manner that will serve the public health priority of
universal access and a single standard of safe and quality care.
In addition, like the public at large, CNA members are concerned about
sustainable land use and development in this county. Similarly, CNA members live
in the communities that suffer the impacts of environmentally detrimental and
poorly planned projects. lll-conceived development, in turn, may jeopardize human
health and safety. This is particularly true here given that underground hazardous
waste occurs in close proximity to the proposed Project, and the fact that the City
seeks to situate a hospital adjacent to an active earthquake fault zone. Likewise,
environmentally detrimental projects may jeopardize future jobs by making it more
difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and .
1818-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 3
by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live here. CNA
members breathe the same polluted air that others breathe and suffer the same
health and safety impacts. The CNA therefore has a strong interest in enforcing
environmental laws such as CEQA to 'protect its members.
We have prepared these comments with the assistance of three technical
experts: Mr. Tom Brohard, Mr. Matt Hagemann, and Dr. Petra Pless. The
comments of each of these experts along with their curriculum vitae are provided
herein as Attachments 1, 2 and 3. Please note that these experts' comments
supplement the issues addressed below, thus each expert's comments should be
addressed and responded to separately.
I. INTRODUCTION
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which the focused EIR satisfies.
First, CEQAis designed to inform decision makers and the public about the
potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA
Guidelines") ~ 15002(a)(1).) The EIR is the "heart" of this requirement. (No Oil,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,84.) The EIR has been described as
"an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its
responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological
points of no return." (County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795.)
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines S 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 564; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents
of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400.)
The City failed to satisfy these purposes by not issuing a full EIR but instead
circulated a focused EIR adllressing only a small portion of the actual impacts
associated with the Project. In fact, a focused EIR, by design, is a final-stage tiering
document, but the City has not conducting any tiering for this Project. In addition,
the City has not complied with CEQA by: failing to provide sufficient information to
conduct project-level environmental review ofthe Project; failing to accurately
describe the environmental setting and establish an accurate baseline necessary for
an accurate evaluation of environmental impacts; failing to disclose all potentially
significant environmental impacts; failing to describe inconsistencies with the
applicable general plan and zoning ordinance policies and regulations; failing to
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 4
provide adequate mitigation measures to avoid impacts; and failing to analyze
cumulative impacts.
Based on the foregoing, the focused EIR fails to inform the public or decision
makers about the Project's significant impacts, and fails to avoid or reduce
, environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation
measures. The City must correct these shortcomings and recirculate a full EIR for
public review and comment.
II. THE CITY VIOLATED CEQA'S STATUTORY PUBLIC REVIEW
PERIOD
As a preliminary matter, the CNA hereby reserve its right to file
supplemental comments at a later date because the City illegally curtailed its
Project's public review period from the statutorily required 45 days to 30 days.
Specifically, CEQA expressly provides the public with a 45-day review and comment
. period for all draft environmental impact reports submitted to the State .
Clearinghouse (No. 2005031017). (CEQA, section 21091.) Here the City
impermissibly curtailed the review time by a full two weeks, which precluded the
CNA from providing full and complete comments on the Project.
It appears that, coincident to the City submitting its focused EIR to the
State Clearinghouse, the City also requested a shortened public review period.2
(Focused EIR, at p. 2-3.) The State Clearinghouse website indicates that it granted
the City's improper request for shortened time, but does not state the date or
justification of the State's decision. (www.ceaanet.ca.l!"ov) Appendix K of the CEQA
Guideline describes exceptional and very limited circumstances under which 'a
lead agency may curtail the public's review period, and it is clear that the City's
focused EIR meets none of the below criteria:
Under exceptional circumstances, and when requested in writing by the lead
agency, the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
may. shorten the usual review periods for proposed negative. declarations,
mitigated negative declarations and draft EIRs submitted to the
Clearinghouse. A request must be made by the decision-making body of the
2 Note, that therocused EIR simply declares that the City intended to apply for a curtailed review
period, omitting any justification or indication of final resolution of this issue. (Focused EIR, at p. 2- .
1.)
1818-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 5
lead agency, or by a properly authorized representative of the decision-making
body.
A shortened review period may be granted when any of the following
circumstances exist:
(1) The lead agency is operating under an extension of the one-year period for
completion of an EIR and would not otherwise be able to complete the EIR
within the extended period.
(2) The public project applicant is under severe time constraints with regard to
obtaining financing or exercising options which cannot be met without
shortening the review period.
(3) The document is a supplement to a draft EIR or proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration previously submitted to the
State Clearinghouse.
(4) The health and safety of the community WOlfld be at risk unless the project
is approved expeditiously.
(5) The document is a revised draft EIR, or proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration, where changes in the document are primarily
the result of comments from agencies and the public.
Shortened review cannot be provided to a draft EIR or proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration which has already begun the
usual review process. Prior to requesting shortened review, the lead agency
should have already issued a notice of preparation and received comments
from applicable State agencies, in the case of an EIR, or consulted with
applicable State agencies, in the case of a proposed negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration.
(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K)
According to State Clearinghouse senior planner, Scott Morgan, the City
relied on section (5), above (Telephone communication, Oct. 24, 2005). However,
that provision only allows shortened time when the lead agency has circulated a
revised DEIR, a proposed negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration,
1818-003a
v
.
October 28, 2005
Page 6
none of which applies here. Instead, the City issued a focused EIR, and circulated it
for the first time on September 28, 2005. Thus, Appendix K's section 5 is
inapplicable, as are all of the other limited exceptions to CEQA's 45-day rule.
Therefore, the City submitted a wrongful request which the State granted, likely
assuming the City's request had been made on valid grounds. In any case, the
City's dubious actions have curtailed the public's and decision makers' review of its
CEQA document by a full two weeks.
Because the CNA was illegally denied the full statutory period to review and
comment upon the City's focused EIR, the CNA hereby reserves the right to
supplement these preliminary comments at a later .date.
III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT
An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally adequate EIR. (County of lnyo v; City of Los Angeles (1977)
71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192.) Without it, CEQA's objective of fostering public disclosure .
and informed environmental decision-making is stymied. AB one analyst has noted:
The adequacy of an ElR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy
of the ElR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description
is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the
environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and
Zischke, "Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474
(8/99 update).)
The project description must be accurate and consistent throughout an EIR.
(County of lnyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192.) It.is impossible for the public to make
informed comments on a project of unknown or ever-changing proportions. "A
curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting
process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and
public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental
costs. . . ." (County of lnyo, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192-193.) In County of lnyo, the lead
agency first defined the project to include only the extraction of groundwater from
Owens Valley for export and use on city-owned land in Inyo and Mono Counties.
'Then, the project was defined as "one part of the larger operation of the Los Angeles
Aqueduct System." And in yet another part of the document, the project included
the entire Los Angeles Aqueduct System. (ld. at 190.) The Court found the
inconsistent project descriptions to be harmful because "the inconsistency confused .
1818-003.
.
!.
I
.
October 28, 2005
Page 7
the public and commenting agencies, thus vitiating the usefulness of the process". . .
"as a vehicle for intelligent public participation. . . . A curtailed, enigmatic or
unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input."
(Id. at 197-198.)
A project is "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a
physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately"...including "the activity
which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary
approvals by govemmental agencies." (CEQA Guidelines ~ 15378(a), (c); see
McQueen u. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143.) In McQueen, the
plaintiff challenged the approval of a project that was improperly described in a
CEQA exemption as simply acquiring surplus federal property for public open
space. (202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1140, 1144.) The court concluded that this
description impermissibly "divided the project into segments which evade CEQA
review" because the public entity had plans for the interim use and management of
this property that contained polychlorinated biphenyls. (Id. at pp. 1144-1146.) An
accurate j!escription of the property also demonstrated the project was not exempt
from CEQA review. ([d. at p. 1149.)
AB discussed below, the focused EIR fails to describe the Project and its
environmental setting accurately and completely. It omits key project features that
have the potential to result in significant impacts. AB a result, potentially
significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or addressed by
the focused EIR. Therefore, the focused EIR is fatally deficient under CEQA.
A. The Focused EIR Failed To Accurately Describe The Project
Construction Schedule And Equipment
The focused EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list
of equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the
hours of operation, the type of fuel used, the length and timing of the individual
construction phases, and so forth. Further, the focused EIR contains no information
regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as
well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically
provided in an EIR, but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting
from construction cannot be accurately estimated. AB discussed below, the focused
EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which may
considerably underestimate emissions.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 8
1. The Focused EIR Contains No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-
Fill Analysis
The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to
geology and soils, relying on a perfunctory geotechnical investigation conducted for
the Project. The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review.
According to the Initial Study, the geotechnical investigation recommends over-
excavation up to 24 inches below existing grade and recompaction for support of
building slabs and pavement. (Appx. A, NOPlInitial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet,
neither the focused EIR nor the Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other
information regarding the amount of cut and fill necessary for development of the
site or the projected amount and location of spoils, if any. Review of the focused
EIR's emissions modeling suggests that only some minor amount of material will
have to be imlexported.3 This suggests that the focused EIR largely relies on
balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil on site with no additional import
of fill material or export of excess cut material. Yet neither the Initial Study nor .
the focused EIR contains any information demonstrating that cut and fill can, in
fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived from a grading plan,
which would ordinarily be provided in an EIR, but was not. If cut and fill cannot be
balanced on site, material would have to be imported or exported, which causes
additional emissions. \
2. The Focused DEIR Failed To Adequately Describe
Mechanical Equipment
The Project require~ a variety of mechanical equipment, including heating
and air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None
of this equipment is described with any detail in the focused EIR. The focused EIR
provides only the following vague statement: "A truck loading area and facilities
plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This
area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock,
cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage
area." (Focused EIR, p. 3-4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling
towers, two emergency generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the
3 URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveled ("VMT') for on-road truck travel
during the grading phase, suggesting a minimal imIexport of materials; a..".u..:mately 2500 cubic
yards based on the program's default values. This small amount of material is most likely export of
existing pavements, utilities and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site.
1818-0030
.
,.
:.
I
I,
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 9
mechanical yard. (Focused EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The focused EIR's noise impact
analysis further indicates that the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed
to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard,
will contain pumps, chillers and boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units
and their associated inlet and outlet exhaust systems will be located on the
hospital's rooftop. (Focused EIR, p. 4-63.)
This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the focused EIR,
is entirely inadequate to determine emissions and resulting environmental impacts
from operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project
description mustinclude the fuel, firing rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for
the two emergency generators; the type and efficiency ofthe proposed pollution
control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids ("TDS")
content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information
,required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas
flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it
is impossible to determine emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were
not included in the operational emissionS estimates for the Project.
Because the City failed to include an adequate project description in its
focused EIR, CEQA requires that it complete and recirculate a full EIR that fully
complies with long-established caselaw on this issue.
IV. THE FOCUSED EIR LACKS SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ANALYZE
THE PROJECT'S IMPACTS
Rather than issue a full EIR, the City circulated an incomplete CEQA
document it deemed a "focused EIR." Irrespective of its title, the EIR fails to meet
CEQA requirements because the document only addresses a fraction of the true
environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. There is no dispute
that CEQA allows agencies to prepare different types of EIRs. Indeed, the different
types of documents serve to promote efficiency imd avoid redundancy in the
planning process while still providing the public with full disclosure of the
environmental impacts of a proposed project. The permitted CEQA documents
include: project EIRs; EIRs as part of general plans; master EIRs; program EIRs;
staged EIRs; focused EIRs; subsequent EIRs; and supplemental EIRs. Most of
these EIRs, including a focused EIR, are associated with a process known as
"tiering" by which an agency prepares a series of EIRs or negative declarations,
typically moving from general, regional concerns to more site-specific'considerations
1818.0030
.
October 28, 2005
Page 10
with the preparation of each new document. (CEQA sections 21068.5, 21093, 21094;
CEQA Guidelines sections 15152, 15385.) However, as shown below, the City has
not engaged in any early planning or tiering which would allow it to issue anything
but a full Em.
A. The City Must Prepare A Full EIR
The most common type of Em examines the environmental impacts of a
specific development project. Such project Ems address all of the changes in the
environment that would result from the development project. Project Ems must
examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.
(CEQA Guidelines'section 15161.) Project Ems mayor may not be part of a tiering
process because they operate as stand alone documents containing all of the
necessary components of a valid CEQA document. On the other hand, a focused
Em is only appropriate where an agency has prepared a master Em ("MEIR") for a
broadly defined planning program. (Remy, Thomas et a!., Guide to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (10th ed. 1999), p. 275.). In such cases, a .
focused Em may be a.......u....~ate for subsequent individual projects expressly
contemplated in the MEIR. (Id.) This allows the lead agency to dispense with
analyses already addressed in the MEm. (CEQA, sections 21157 et seq.; CEQA
Guidelines, section 15157.) However, importantly, a focused EIR must
incorporate by reference the MEIR on which the lead agency is relying.
(CEQA, sections 21158.) .
Here, the City circulated a final-stage tiering document, despite its not
providing any indication of prior tiering associated with the proposed Project. As a
result, the City's focused Em is incomplete and omits important impact analyses
that would normally be discussed in a prior finalized document, and then
incorporated by reference into the focused Em. Specifically the focused Em failed
to include analyses for: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. As shown
below, the City's preparation of a focused Em for the proposed Project does not
comply with CEQA's legal requirements because a factual analysis ofthe Project
shows that the City failed to include significant environmental impacts in its CEQA
document.
In sum, given the procedural and factual background of the City's Project, it
is clear that the City was required to prepare 'a full project Em since the Project is
1818-0030
.
.
.
'.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 11
not part of a larger CEQA planning process. By this measure alone, it is clear the
City acted improperly by preparing a focused EIR which omits essential impact
analyses for ten CEQA factors without incorporating by reference from an earlier
CEQA document. The City must prepare and circulate for public review a full EIR
that includes analyses for all of the required topics.
B. The Fair Argument Standard Requires The City To Prepare A
Full EIR
Here, the "fair argument" standard determines whether the City is required
to prepare either a full EIR or a focused EIR. (Remy Thomas, at p. 506.) This
, standard obtains because CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can
be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant environmental impact. If an agency is presented with such evidence, it .
cannot rely on contrary evidence as a basis for choosing not to prepare an EIR.
(Sierra Club u. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1316-17.) In this case,
the City prepared only a partial EIR addressing only a fraction of the significant
impacts associated with the proposed Project. Thus the fair argument standard
applies to those resource areas the City omitted from its CEQA analysis.
More specifically, a full EIR is required (as opposed to a negative declaration
or focused EIR) whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair
argument that significant impacts may occur. Even if other substantial evidence
supports the opposite conclusion, the agency nevertheless must prepare a full EIR.
(No Oil, Inc. u. City of Lost Angeles (1974) 13 Ca.3q 68, 75.) The fair argument
standard creates a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR. (Citizens
Action to Serue All Students u. Thornley (1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 748,754.) This
standard is founded upon the principle that, because adopting Ii negative
declaration has a terminal effect on the environmental review process, an EIR is
necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions," and to
"substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation."
(No Oil, Inc. 13 Cal.3d at p. 85.)
This analysis is fully applicable here because, by choosing to ignore ten of the
sixteen environmental factors in the NOP's Environmental Checklist, the City has
precluded all review of these issues, resulting in the same outcome as if the City
had simply issued a negative declaration for these issues. It is clear from the City's
environmental documents that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment in resource areas the City refused to analyze. For example, the City's
1818-003. ,
.
October 28, 2005
Page 12
focused EIR omitted significant analyses covering the existence of hazardous
leaking underground storage tanks within 250 feet of the Project. Therefore,
applying the fair argument standard, there is substantial evidence that the City
should have prepared a full EIR addressing all of the environmental factors
enumerated in the NOP's Environmental Checklist.
v. THE FOCUSED EIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE OR ANALYZE ALL
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Even if using a focused EIR were appropriate in this instance, which it is not,
the document itself is defective and must be revised and recirculated. Under
CEQA, an EIR must disclose all of a project's potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts. (CEQA section 21100(b)(1).) The City's focused EIR
patently fails to do so. First, the focused EIR contains only cursory analyses of
impacts associated with aesthetic resources, air quality, hydrology and
groundwater, land use and planning, noise and transportation. Second, the focused
EIR failed to include any analyses whatsoever for: agricultural resources, biological .
resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, hazardous materials, mineral
resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and
service systems. For nearly all of these issues, the record is incomplete because the
City failed to identify significant impacts associated with these resource areas. The
most glaring deficiencies are as follows:
A. The Focused EIR Fails To Identify Hazardous Waste Sites
Since 2001, Riverside County and the City of Temecula have known that the
Project site and local groundwater is contaminated by hazardous waste due to
leaking underground fuel tanks ("LUFI's"). Yet, the City's focused EIR fails to
reveal this information, claiming instead that there would be no impacts or less
than significant impacts associated with the proposed Project for geology, soils and
hazardous waste issues. (Focused EIR, at p. 1.8)
But, in reality, the proposed Project is within 250 feet of two gas stations
where leaking underground fuel tanks have been the subject of ongoing assessment
and cleanup activities. First, there is a Chevron station located at 31669 Hwy. 79
which has been listed as an 'open file' according to the California EP A "Geotracker"
1818-003.
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 13
web site.4 This website specifies that the site's groundwater is contaminated with
gasoline-related hazardous materials, including methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE),
tert-buytl alcohol (TBA) and toluene. There is no evidence that remediation at this
site is close to complete. Nor is there any indication of the size and movement of the
existing contaminant plume.
Second, there is an ARCO gas station at 44239 Margarita Road that is listed
at the Geotracker web site as undergoing assessment and cleanup activities. Here,
as at the Chevron station, there is no evidence that remediation is close to
complete.s Also, as with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include
gasoline-related compounds. Currently, there is no indication of the size and
movement of the existing contaminant plume.
Significantly, the City is well aware that these facilities pose serious health
risks to workers and patients at the proposed medical facility because the gas
stations are included in the City's General Plan as "open fuel leak cases" and
specifies:
"any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate
the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable
federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will
be permitted to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar
determination is issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic
Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other
responsible agency."6
Despite this clear directive, the City is proposing to locate the Project, a
hospital contaicing a cancer center, in-patient, out-patient, emergency services and
a rehabilitation center, adjacent to two hazardous waste sites that are listed as
open and are actively undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials.
Inexplicably, the focused EIR completely omits any discussion of these hazardous
waste sites and the status of their cleamlP.
4lhttn:llgeotracker _swrcb"ca..!?'ov/renort#1uft,~ sn?~lobal i.d=T06065992R6&asf:;iPTled name=MAINRrr
E).
'(httn:/I..eotracker.swrcb.ca...ov/renortslluft.asn ?p'lobal id=T0606599255&assi<med name=MAINSrr
E).
6httn:/Iwww.cityoftemecula.orp.lcitvhall/Comm DevDiviaionlPlannin..l.....ttona telFina 1%20EIlU5 7%20
Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materiala.ndf
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 14
Similarly, the focused EIR does not address the issue of hazardous waste
exposure to hospital patients and employees through groundwater contamination.
Instead, the City asserts that no mitigation measures are required with respect to
these issues. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-35) This, despite the fact that the City
acknowledges it intends to rely on groundwater on an as needed basis, "if surface
waters are reduced." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-35).
Groundwater is less than 25 feet below the ground surface at the Project
location, and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds via the water or vapor
pathways is possible during construction and within hospital buildings post-
construction. Therefore, the City must prepare a full EIR to identify potentially
significant impacts of contaminant exposure to construction workers, the hospital
staff and patients as a result of these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that
would result in risk to human health must be mitigated prior to construction.
B.
The Focused EIR Fails To Identify the Location of An Active
Earthquake Fault Zone Near the Project
.
The City failed to disclose and discuss in its focused EIR the fact that the
Project would be located within 2500 feet of an active earthquake fault zone known
as the Elsinore Fault. This particular fault has generated a magnitude 7.0
earthquake along its southern segment in the late 1800s. The fault zone is
recognized in the Temecula General Plan and designated an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act), limits the types of construction
and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to prevent
damage associated with ground surface rupture. (See Pub. Res. Co~e section 2621
et. seq.)
Significantly, the purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to prohibit the location
of developments, such as hospitals, across the traces of active faults. (pub. Res.
Code sections 2621.5, 2621.6) The Act prohibits the City from approving the
proposed Project without completing "a geologic report defining and delineating any
hazard of surface fault rupture." (pub. Res. Code section 2623(a)) Moreover,
Project approval must be in accordance with the policies and criteria established by
the State Mining and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geologist. (Id.)
There is no evidence in the focused EIR that the City has conducted such a report in
consultation with the State.
.1818-003.
.
.
I
l.
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 15
Additionally, the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act of
1983 (Hospital Seismic Safety Act) provides further requirements to ensure the
safety of medical facilities sited in earthquake prone areas. (Health and Safety
Code Section 129675 et. seq.) The Legislature passed the Hospital Seismic Safety
Act to require that "hospital buildings. . . shall be designed and constructed to
resist, insofar as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes." (Health and
Safety ~ 129680(a).) To accomplish this goal, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act
requires approval of all projects by the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and
Development ("Office"). (Health and Safety ~ 129770(a).) Approval by the Office
must include an independent review of geological data by an engineering geologist.
and independent review of the structural design data by a structural engineer. (Id.)
In addition to independent review by the Office, the Hospital Seismic Safety Act
requires that plans for hospital construction include "an assessment of the nature of
the site and potential earthquake damage, based upon geologic and engineering
investigations and reports by competent personnel of the causes of earthquake
damage." (Id.) Prior to construction of any hospital building, discretionary plan
approval by the Office is required. (Health and Safety Code ~ 129810.) Clearly, the
City has not complied with the Hospital Seismic Safety Act since there is no
evidence in the focused EIR that the City has obtained an approved assessment
from the Office of Statewide Health and Planning and Development.
The City must prepare a full EIR that includes a geologic report consistent
with the State Board for Geology and Mining, and must obtain approval by the
Office of Statewide Health a~d Planning and Development. In addition, a full EIR
must include measures to mitigate safety impacts as a result of the. Project's
proximity to this particular fault zone. Finally, in accordance with the City's
General Plan, the full EIR must include a complete geologic investigation by a
State-licensed engineering geologist to ensure that the project will not be
constructed across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. If an active trace fault is found,
a hospital cannot be placed over the trace of the fault, but instead must be set back
from the fault in accordance with the California Public Resources Code.
C. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project in a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone
Finally, and in connection with seismic impacts the City failed to disclose in
its focused EIR, the Project area is also especially prone to liquefaction in the event
of an earthquake. According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the
following figure, the area underlying the proposed Project has been mapped as a
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 16
''liquefaction hazard ZOne."7 Ail mentioned above, a geologic report in consultation
with the State Mining and Geology Board and incorporating its policies and criteria,
would likely remedy the focused EIR's deficiencies with respect to the issue of
liquefaction.
.
7Ihttn:/lwww.citvoftemecula.orl./citvhallJCommDevDivisionIPlanninl./lmundafR}Final%20EIRJ5 6%20 .
Peolol"'%20and%20Soils.ndf. p. 5.6-4). .
1818-003.
;.
'!, .
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 17
l"~!l6,1
Si;ib""" Huimh
'k,_
1i!iIJ:. .;~Mi.-Jz(..~
..~. '''~_i'~:'''''''Jlf~
-.I_--~'~~-
.......... ~..~~-'~,:.
,.,-"~~_Ii"~
::::~~"QiMl~
i .. '
~~
I ~ I, . 'l" - .
~
..J
'\
(
.-.."....'.'.'...'..
. - ,.
. _c. ,..~
"""''''''4
, fl..
"t-t-t-1
JJ.
~-
Nevertheless, because the City failed to comply with State law, and
completely omitted a geologic report and omitted the actualtopic of geology and
soils from its CEQA analysis, the public and decision makers are denied the
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 18
opportunity to review this critical issue. An adequate EIR containing a geologic
report, specifically identifying the Project as within a liquefaction zone, is required
to analyze the issue of liquefaction and to identify specific ways in which these
conditions can be mitigated.
D. The Focused EIR Fails to Identify Particulate Matter Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive
dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size
depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly
emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ofless than or equal to
2.5 micrometers (''PM2.5'), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers (''PMI0')
Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated
through ambient air quality standards for PMlO. However, a substantial amount of
important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at
much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter
than was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S.
EPA 04196;8 U.S. EPA 03/01.9)
.
This new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter,
particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath,
wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung
function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense
mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EPA 04196; 61 FR 65638.10) A recent
article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air
· u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report
EPA/6001P-95-001aF through 00lcF, April 1996.
9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second
External Review Draft, March 2001.
10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Decision, Federal
Register, v. 61, no. 241, December 13, 1996, pp. 65638-65675.
1818-003.
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 19
pollution to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.ll Particulate matter is a
non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse
health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking u. EPA- Unjustified
Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Environs Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.)
This new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S.
EPA') and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5. These standards are not subsets of the old PM10 standards, but new .
'standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual
PM2.5 standard of 12 J1g/m3 was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5, 2003, more than two
years before the focused EIR was published. (Voting on the proposed 24-hour-
average PM2.5 standard of 25 J1g/m3 has been deferred by CARB.12) At the same
time, California lowered its annual PM10 standard from 30 J1g/m2 to 20 J1g/m3.
(CARB 09/0513.) The focused EIR also failed to acknowledge this new, lower
standard for PMlO. (Focused EIR, at Table 4-1.) Consequently, the focused EIR
failed to accurately characterize the regulatory setting for the Project.
E. The Focused EIR Fails To Analyze PM2.5 Emissions
The focused EIR does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on
ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and
inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("SoCAB"), where the
Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality
standards for PM2.5. The focused EIR should be revised to include an analysis of
PM2.5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on
air quality and human health.
11 AA Pope et al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution, JoUrnal of the American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132-1141.
12 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of EnvirOnmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March
12, 2002.
13 California Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter and.8ulfates, httn:llwww.arb.ca..-ov/researchlaaoslstd-rs/std-rs.htm. accessed
October 26, 2005.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 20
F. The Focused EIR Failed To Include A Health Risk Assessment
The focused EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
Project, including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary
schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project
site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-21.)
Yet the focused EIR contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential
health risks for these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or
operational emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic
air contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such
as emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that
access the loading dock. The focused EIR should be revised to include a health risk
assessment.
G. The Focused EIR Underestimated Construction Emissions
According to the focused EIR, significant impacts will continue after its .
implementation of proposed mitigation measures for ROG and NOx. As discussed
below, the focused EIR's air quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions
from construction activities and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air
quality from Project construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO
and PMlO will likely also exceed applicable significance thresholds.
H. The Focused EIR Employed An Incorrect Construction Period
For Emissions Estimates
The focused EIR indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five
phases as summarized in the Table 1. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8.)
1818-003.
.
..
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 21
Table 1: Project Construction Phases
Phase
IA
Activity
Grading
Demolition of existing buildings
Construction of 3-story, 60,000-square foot medical office
building
Construction of surface parkin~
Construction of I-story, 162,650.square foot main hospital
structure
Construction of 6-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
Construction of associated parkin~
Construction of 5-story. 122.755-sQuare foot bed tower
Construction of 4"story, 8O,OOO-square foot medical office
building
Construction ot hospital connector
Construction of I-story, lO,OOO-square foot cancer center
Construction of associated parkinll:
Construction of 8,000 square foot fitness center
Construction of io~gin~ trail
IB
II
III
IV
V"
Period
10 months
14 months
12 months
(II"V
concurrent)
Total 36 months
Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the
proposed construction phases (lA, IB, and II-V) are conducted subsequently. In
contrast, the focused EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60-
month construction period, starting in January 2006 and terminating in December
2010. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-24, footnote to Table 4-5, and Appx. B, p. 2.) By
stretching construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual
proposed 36-month construction period, the focused EIR considerably
underestimates maximum daily emissions and, thus, considerably underestimates
air quality impacts" from Project construction. In fact, construction of the Project
could even be shorter than 36 months because nothing in the focused EIR's
language restricts the developer to the staggered construction phasing. If more
than the specified construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even
greater emissions would occur.
The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 model in assuming a construction
buildout of 36 months and otherwise accepting all of the focused EIR's assumptions.
Results are included in Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless' comments. Maximum daily ROG
emissions increase considerably from 224 lb/day to 344lb/day. Therefore, the
focused EIR failed to disclose the magnitude of impacts associated with Project
construction. The focused EIR must be revised to include a construction schedule
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 22
showing the projected start of the various construction phases and their expected
buildout. The focused EIR's air quality analysis must be corrected accordingly
because, as currently drafted, it employs an incorrect construction period.
I. The Focused EIR Assumes Unacceptable Model Default Values
The focused EIR's construction emissions estimates largely l}ssume
URBEMIS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's
real emissions. For example, the focused EIR assumes the default factor for average
fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/acre-month. By accepting the
default value for average conditions, the focused EIR fails to evaluate the potential
worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case
condition is 0.42 ton/acre'month. Therefore, the focused EIR may have
underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the Project by a
factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested when no
other information is available. Typically, for a Project of this size, the amount of
cut/fill would also be known.
.
Another example is the assumption of 8 hours of construction per day. This
assumption directly conflicts with the focused EIR's statement. that "construction
activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday,
and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. (Focused EIR, at p.4-53.) Although the
focused EIR makes this assertion, it should be noted that the document contains no
enforceable restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction
may be conducted for more than the assumed 8 hours per day and more than the 12
hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. This would
considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The focused
EIR must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible
hours of construction or it must adjust its emissions estImates accordingly.
J. The Focused EIR Failed to Identify Fugitive Dust Emissions
From Wind Erosion And Trackout
The focused EIR indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur
during Phase IA, exposing those portions of the site which will be developed in later
phases (phase IB through V), to wind erosion for an extended period of thne.
(Focused EIR, at p. 3-7.) The City relied upon the URBEMIS2002 emissions
modeling to estimate Project construction emissions which includes fugitive dust
.
1818-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 23
associated with grading, but does not account for wind erosion.14 Wind erosion can
be a substantial contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in
summer-dry climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMIS2002 emissions
modeling does not account for mud/dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the
focused EIR does not disclose the full impact of fugitive dust PMlO emissions from
Project construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can
be calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("U.S. EPA"). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.516; EPA 450/3-88-008.16) The City must
prepare a full EIR to include this analysis.
K. The Focused EIR Failed To Properly Estimate Operational
Emissions
The focused ErR's air quality impact analysis underestimates operational
emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses inadequate trip
, generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from electricity
generation. The focused EIR finds total operational NOx emissions of 94.5 lb/day,
only 5.5lb/day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 100 lb/day. This NOx
significance threshold will likely be exceeded when taking into account the omitted
emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and secondary emissions from the
Project. Similarly, PMlO emissions, currently estimated at 123 lb/day, may exceed
the SCAQMD's significance threshold of 150 lb/day. As a result, the focused ErR
fails to disclose and adequately mitigate significant impacts due to operational
emissions of PM10 and NOx. . The focused EIR should be revised to address these
issues and be recirculated for public review.
14 The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for
the SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute ("MRf'). (Software User's Guide: URBEMlS 2002
for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, April 2005, p. A-6.) The MRI study specifically
notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do not include
wind erosion or mud/dirt trackout from the site. (MRI; Improvement of Specific, Emission Factors,
BACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29, 1996, p. 4.1.)
15 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001.
16 C. Cowherd, G.E. Muleski, and J.S: Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EP A 450/3-88.
008, U.S. Environmental r "O;oo;:on Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
1818-oo3a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 24
L. The Focused EIR Omitted Important Emission Sources
The focused EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions
calculated with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source
emissions from traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas
usage, hearths, landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and
operational traffic emissions. The model does not include emissions from the
helicopter, the three cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers.
The Initial Study concluded that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air
condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of
emissions." (NOPlInitial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of
the focused EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these
sources were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must
therefore be included in the a full EIR concerning a Project emissions analysis.
The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators and the .
boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold.
For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters17
are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff (''LTO''), bringing total NOx emissions from
the Project within one pOUlld per day of the significance threshold. (OCS 10/041s,
p. 6-17.)
M. The Focused EIR's Failed To Identify Emissions From Natural
Gas Usage
The URBEMIS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses,
e.g., residences, industrial, hotel/motel, and office, to calculate area source
emissions from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does
not calculate emis~ions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project
is intended to operate a number of, presumably natural-gas fired equipment-types,
17 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been
confirmed, but that the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. The
Bell 222, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transports, is a commercial light twin-
engine helicopter. .
18 R. Billings and D. Wilson, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas
Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gulf of Mexico, Final Report, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, MMS 2004-071, October 2004.
1818-0030
.
:.
I.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 25
including boilers and heating/air conditioning equipment. Emissions from such
equipment, which are likely consider<tble, are not included in the focused EIR's area
emissions estimates for Project operations presented in Table 4-6. Because the
focused EIR does not include these types of emissions analyses, the document is
inadequate.
N. The Focused EIR Used Incorrect Target Year Results To
Underestimate Vehicle Emissions
The focused EIR assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic
emissions. Construction is assumed to start in January 2006 with a 36 month
construction period. Therefore, the target year for operational emissions should be
2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are assumed to decrease with every
year, the calculated operational emissions for 2010 underestimate actual emissions
at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009.
Relying upon URBEMIS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming
all of the focused EIR's assumptions, results are included as Exhibit 1 to Dr. Pless'
comments. Emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for
target year 2010. This results in NOx emissions exceeding the SCAQMD's
quantitative daily significance threshold. This is a significant impact that was not
disclosed in the focused EIR.
O. The Focused EIR Underestimated Traffic Emissions
The City's URBEMIS2002 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to
estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not
apply to traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional
hospital are typically longer and hence traffic emissions attributable to the Project
are higher. In addition, ar, independent review ofthe focused EIR's traffic analysis
found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not
reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard
10/0519.) Consequently, emissions associated with Project traffic are also
underestimated. The" focused EIR's emissions estimates for Project traffic must be
modified to reflect the Project's actual traffic characteristics.
19 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria D. Smith, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph &
Cardozo, Re: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused
Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula, October 26, 2005.
1818-0030
.
October 28, 2005
Page 26
P. The Focused EIR Failed to Include Secondary Emissions From
Electricity Generation
GEQA requires that an ErR identify direct and indirect significant effects of
the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project
will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or
secondary emissions. The focused EIR mentions that air pollutant emissions will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional
emissions were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. (Focused EIR, p. 4-24.) Yet the focused EIR fails to account for
these emissions in its presentation of regional emissions associated with the
operational phase ofthe Project. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-25, Table 4-6.)
A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by
coal-fired power plants, which genenite substantial particulate matter andS02
emissions. The focused EIR should be revised to include emissions from electricity .
generation.
Q. The Focused EIR Failed To Identify Increased Ozone
Fo~tion Due To Urban Heat Island Effect
The Project would develop 35.31 acres of largely open grass-covered land.
The focused EIR states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent
building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.20 (Focused
EIR, at pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots,
roads, and roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black surfaces
absorb about 85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the
hottest surfaces in urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark
roofs quickly warm the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer
urban ''heat islands." On a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban
areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter than the surrounding rural area. The elevated
temperature increases cooling energy demand, accelerates the rate of smog
production, and increases evaporative losses of organic compounds from gasoline
tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces.
20 The Site Plan provided in the Draft EIR suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and .
parking spaces and lower perceutage of landscaped areas. (Draft EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.)
1818-003a
I,
,
.
I.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 27
Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase local
ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and
increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island effect would
exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The
SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the
Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and State
ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v.
City of Hanford (1990) 221 CalApp.3d 692) This is a significant impact that was
not discussed in the focused EIR and is absolutely feasible to mitigate.
R. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Water Quality Issues
The Project site lies within the San Diego Basin, which encompasses
Temeculli and the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-32.)
Murrieta Creek is a tributary to Temecula Creek and is located downstream of the
Project. Significantly, the focused EIR failed to disclose that a twelve-mile segment
of Murrieta Creek is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board's 303(d) list
(pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act's section 303(d)) as an impaired water
body for phosphorous pollution. 'The San'Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board has listed sources polluting the creek to include urban runoff and storm
sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and unknown point sources.21 The focused EIR
omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to, add additional
phosphorous pollution into Murrieta Creek, further impairing the creek's water
quality in violation ofthe Clean Water Act.
Additionally, an 18-mile portion of the Santa Margarita River, the primary
drainage course within the Planning Area, is also listed as impaired for
phosphorous from the same sources. The focused EIR states that Murrieta Creek is
one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River: ''The creeks drain the
inland portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the Santa
Margarita River at Temecula Canyon." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-32.) Again, the
focused EIR omits from its hydrology analysis the potential for the Project to add
additional phosphorous pollution into regional water bodies such as the Santa
Margarita River, further. impairing its water quality in violation of the Clean Water
Act.
21 (!lttn:/lwww. w"t.erbOllr(k~.a...ov/tmdlldocRl2002re.,.g303dlist. odD.
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 28
The Regional Board's total maximum daily load criteria (''TMDL'') classified
MUrrieta Creek as "low," nevertheless, the potential for additional phosphorous
contamination from the Project should be evaluated in the a full DEIR. Urban
runoff typically contains phosphorous as a main pollution component. Since
potential exists for phosphorous contamination to travel downstream into the Santa
Margarita River, further degrading its water quality, it is imperative that
mitigation measures are included as specific best management practices ("BMPs")
which describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering
Murrieta Creek.
Furthermore, the focused Em states that flooding of Murrieta Creek banks
has occurred during times of heavy rain:
"Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a
number of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant
damages, and other water-related problems are caused during major
rainstorms, resulting in increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and
traffic disruption. Murrieta Creek has been altered since the late 1800s and
has been channelized for flood control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration
of the natural functions of the creek is planned, including the banks, channel
invert, tributaries and floodplain." (City of Temecula General Plan, at p. 5.8-
3)
.
It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to
protect water quality of Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the
developed site can contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but
are not limited to debris, oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such
as phosphorous. Water quality omissions of this magnitude in a project level CEQA
document are impermissible, and can only be remedied through circulation of a full
ElR.
S. The EIR Fails to Disclose The Fact That the Project Cannot
Meet NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 Requirements
Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are
required to file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board
("SWRCB"), Order No. 99-0B-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water
Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). The proposed
1818-003a
.
.
i.
,
,
i.
,
,
October 28, 2005
Page 29
Project is thus subject to the NPDES General Permit requirements. In addition,
the General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water
,Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must contain:
. a site map which shows the construction site perimeter;
. existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
and discharge points;
. general topography both before and after construction;
. drainage patterns across the project.
In addition, any SWPPP must include BMPs the discharger will implement to
protect storm water runoff.
The focused EIR fails to analyze whether the proposed Project will meet the
NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements. It likewise omits a
discussion of storm water discharge and the adoption of a SWPPP. Finally the
focused EIR does not include specific mitigation BMPs for both of the above-
described requirements.
With respect to post-construction, the focused EIR omits the discussion of
post-construction stormwater BMPs as required in Sections A of any SWPPP in
accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse impacts
on water quality associated with the Project's operation, such as anticipated water
pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typical landscaping upkeep, and
. equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post-construction storm water BMPs is
critical to ascertain the effectiveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational
impacts and meet applicable water quality attainment objectives.
Finally, the focused EIR omits the inclusion of water quality monitoring
programs as required in Sections B of any SWPPP. This section of an NPDES
permit requires that a SWPPP also include a sampling and analysis strategy, and
sampling schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact
water bodies listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Section 303(d)
impaired water bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa
Margarita River are listed on the Regional Board's 303(d) list as impaired for
phosphorous, a full EIR should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the
establishment of baseline water quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate
1818-oo3a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 30
and validate the effectiveness of the BMPs, to measure the effectiveness of the
BMPs and avoid further degradation of the impaired waterways.
T. The EIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment
The focused EIR's water supply and impacts analysis fails to comply with the
requirements ofCEQA, California Water Code section 10910, and S.B. ino. In
essence, these legal requirements mandate that a local public water system, here
the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) for new development proposals. The City attached a WSA to Appendix G of
the focused EIR. However the assessment must be revised as it is insufficient
-under SB 610 because it does not comply with the following S.B. 610 requirements:
Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis
10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the
following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply
Assessment: ,
.
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of
groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either
is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past
five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be
supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is
reasonably available, including, but rwt limited to, historic use records.
(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of
groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the
city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to
subdivision (b) from any basin from which the proposed project will be.
The City admits that additional water supply will come via local groundwater
sources:
"To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional
Hospital, the RCWD intends to meet supply planning issues through a
combination of the following alternatives: (1) Continued practice of managing
groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater
extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . >> (Focused EIR,
at p. 4-34)
1818-0030
.
,.
i.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 31
However, the Project's WSA does not include a "detailed description and
analysis" of the most recent groundwater usage, including source locations and
pumped volumes for the past five years, nor does it provide a detailed description of
projected water usage volumes, as mandated by points (3) and (4), above.
Additionally, according to the WSA regarding groundwater volume: "The
amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to'such factors as rainfall,
recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." (yVSA, at p. 7)
With respect to a drought with decreased surface wateI: flows, the WSA states:
"increased groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and
other measures" will make up the difference.
This analysis is wholly inadequate because without calculated projected
groundwater volumes, it is impossible for the City or RCWD to guarantee that
groundwater will be an adequate and reliable source. A full EIR must quantify the
range of variable groundwater volumes, and then evaluate the most conservative
scenario to demonstrate quantitatively that water demand will still be achieved.
Absent such an analysis, the whole WSA and groundwater discussion is inadequate.
Accordingly, the City must prepare a full EIR that includes a proper WSA.
U. The EIR Fails to Identify Important Traffic hnpacts
The focused EIR, its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and its Appendix D
provide only a cursory analysis of the actual traffic and circulation impacts that
result from the construction and operation of the City's hospital project. The City's
most glaring traffic analysis deficiencies and omissions are enumerated below.
First, flaws in the focused EIR's traffic analysis stem in part from the City's
failure to properly calculate the phasing for the Project's construction. Regarding
Project phasing, the focused EIR states:
"Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA
consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3
story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction
of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to
last approximately 10 months.
1818-0030
.
October 28, 2005
Page 32
Phase IB consists of construction of the.one story main hospital structure
comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story tower of
approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the
structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with
the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet.
Phase III will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB
#1) and the hospital connector.
Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer
center and associated parking spaces.
Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the
jogging trail.
.
Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and
to last approximately 12 months."
(Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8)
Such construction phasing, according to the focused EIR, will take 36 months.
Importantly, however, it is likely that a number of months or years will pass
between construction activities associated with each of the three major construction
phases. Thus, the focused EIR does not properly evaluate baseline conditions in
concert wit4 the phasing of construction for the proposed Project. The failure of the
focused EIR to analyze traffic impacts associated with the major construction
phases as well as buildout of the entire Project provides no assurance that
implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts
caused by the phased development of the Project.
Next, the focused EIR's Traffic Impact Analysis and Appendix D contain the
City's traffic analysis for the proposed Project. Unfortunately, these analyses
include significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and
daily trips that will be generated by the proposed Project. Use of average trip rates
per hospital bed, together with the omission of all trips associated with the 10,000
.
1818-003.
'.
.
!.
October 28, 2005
Page 33
square-foot cancer center and the 8,000 square-foot fitness center, significantly
imderstates the Project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts.
Based on these errors in trip calculations, major revisions to the focused EIR
are required to address the significant impacts that the Project will have on traffic.
The focused EIR must use the higher trip forecasts discussed below to properly
identify the Project traffic impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Until the City conducts a proper traffic analysis, trip forecasts are significantly
below those that should have been calculated for the Project as follows:
1. The Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On
Site
According to the focused EIR, "...the total parking spaces provided will be
1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires 663 parking
spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the Project, for which the Development
Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the
standards contained in the Development Code because the Code requirements do
not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff
parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common in
most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking
requirements for this reason." (Focused EIR, at p. 3-8 note 2.) Thus, the City's
constructing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over the City
requirements in its Development Code is a strong indication that the Project will
generate more than the average number of vehicle trips, particularly since the site
is not currently served by bus or other public transit.
Likewise, the City's unrealistically low trip rates enumerated in its focused
EIR do not provide a proper basis for analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions
associated with the City's intent to construct nearly double the parking spaces
required by the its own Development Code. In addition, the low trip rates clearly do
not provide an evaluation of the "worst case" condition.
2. The City Relied Upon A Low Trip Rate Per Hospital Bed
Analysis
The focused EIR relied upon a trip rate of 20 daily trips per hospital bed
published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to develop its
forecasts of daily, AM and PM peak hour trips. (Focused EIR, at section 4.6) For
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 34
the initial phase with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak
hour and 340 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. For the buildout of 320 beds,
6,400 daily trips including 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640 trips in the PM
peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably low trip generation forecasts for the
170 bed hospital and the 320 bed hospital were relied upon throughout the focused
EIR.
In addition to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of 25
daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the daily trips in the
AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the PM peak hour. Applying the
SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet indicates the initial phase of the hospital
building with 285,405 square feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips
in the AM peak hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of .
408,160 square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate
10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the
PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on site and the absence of
public transit services, the SANDAG trip rates per 1,000 square feet for the hospital .
portion of the Project must be used to analyze and mitigate Project traffic impacts.
Without such an analysis, the focused EIR's traffic impacts are artificially low.
3. All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were
Omitted
The focused Em indicates that the Project will also include a 10,000 square
foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness center. (Focused Em, at p. 3-4)
The traffic analysis is also misleading because the focused Em fails to include the
cancer center and fitness center in trip generation at buildout. (Focused Em, at
Table 4-22 on p. 4-87) Instead, the focused Em diminishes the trip generation
numbers forecasted for buildoutby only considering trips for a hospital containing
320 beds and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. This analysis is misleading and
inaccurate because all trips associated with the cancer center and the fitness center
were omitted from the focused Em's traffic analysis.
A more reasonable calculation, for example, would include employing
SANDAG data showing that, per 1,000 square-feet of hospital space, the 10,000
square-foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips, including 20 trips in the AM
peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Also based on SANDAG data, per
1,000 square feet of hospital space, indicates the 8,000 square-foot fitness center
will generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20 trips in
1818-OQ3a
.
.
:.
i..
October 28, 2005
Page 35
the PM peak hour. An additional 450 daily trips including, 36 trips in the AM peak
hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour, from the cancer center and fitness center
alone, is critical to an accurate analysis of Project trip generation forecasts,
distributed to area roadway links and intersections, analyzed, and the resulting
significant traffic impacts mitigated as necessary. Without this type of analysis, the
focused Em's traffic analysis is fatally flawed.
4. ' Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant
Traffic hnpacts
Next, with respect to Phase I construction, the focused EIR incorrectly
forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340 trips in the
PM peak hour for the 170 beds for Phase I. (Focused Em, at Table 4-21, p 4-81) A
proper analysis of the Phase I hospital component indicates that the 285,405 square
feet in Phase I will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak
hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips including
298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM peak hour trips that will
be generated by Phase I will significantly impact additional intersections and
segments over and above those identified in the focused EIR. The focused Em
iniproperlyomits all ofthese additional trips. These significant Phase I traffic
impacts must be identified and mitigated as necessary to maintain the City's Level
of Service (LOS) D standard.
5. Additional Buildout Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
hnpacts
For buildout, the focused Em incorrectly forecasts 6,400 daily trips, with 512
trips in the AM peak hour and ,640 trips in the PM peak hour for 320 hospital beds.
(Focused Em, at Table 4-22, p. 4-87) A proper analysis indicates that the' 408, 160
square feet forecasted for buildout will generate 10,200 daily trips including 820
trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour.
Furthermore, 45Q daily trips including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45
trips in the PM peak hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center
and the 8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips including
344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM peak hour trips that will
be generated by the Project will significantly impact additional intersections and
segments over and above those identified in the focused Em. Clearly, the City
greatly underestimated the actual daily trips that will be generated by the Project.
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 36
A full EIR must address these significant traffic impacts for buildout, and must
identify and mitigate these impacts in order to meet the City's LOS D standard.
As the foregoing illustrates, the focused EIR fails to identify numerous
potentially significant impacts. Unquestionably, substantial evidence exists in the
record for this Project supporting a fair argument that significant Project impacts
may occur. Accordingly, the City must complete and recirculate a full EIR in
compliance with CEQA
VI. THE CITY'S EIR FAILS TO INCORPORATE EFFECTIVE MEASURES
TO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
A. The Focused EIR Must Describe Effective Mitigation Measures
for Each Significant Environmental Impact
An EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures sufficient to .
minimize the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the ElR.
(CEQA sections 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3).) Also, mitigation measures must be
designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to
rectify or compensate for that impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15370.) Where
several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be
discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (Id.
at section 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA
findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties
regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.
The City's administrative record is clearly deficient with respect to mitigating the
impacts in all of the affected resource areas.
In particular, CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation
measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the Project's potentially significant
environmental impacts (Cl!:QA sections 21002, 21081(a)) and describe those
mitigation measures in the EIR. (CEQA section 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines
section 15126.4.) A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain
efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate
mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was
available).) "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful mariner .
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
1818.003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 37
legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines section 15364.)
Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements or other legally binding instruments. ([d. at section 15126.4(a)(2).)
Here, the focused Em lacks effective mitigation for the following categories of
impacts: air quality, traffic, parking, and circulation, geologic hazards and water
quality. Additional mitigation measures must be included and a full Em
recirculated for public review.
1. The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation
for Air Quality and Public Health Impacts
The focused Em improperly defers the development of most of its mitigation
plans into the future without specifying any performance measures, including:
Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-1);
Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2;
Landscape Plan (AQ-4);
Watering Program (AQ-6); and
Fugitive Dust 'Control Program (AQ-7).
Further, severalofthe mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping,
clean fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the
focused Em are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or
"reasonably possible," which renders them unenforceable as a practical matter.
(Focused Em, at p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The focused Em must specify specific performance
measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or
ill"JH"Upriate.
By the focused Em's own admission of "significant unavoidable impacts" and
as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation of
the Project remain significant after implementation of the focused Em's proposed
mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The comments below discuss
the specific inadequacies of the focused Em's proposed mitigation program and
propose mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the
significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation.
1818.003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 38
a. Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation
The focused EIR [mds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the
Project. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.) As discussed below, construction emissions are
considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROG,
CO, and PMlO emissions beyond what is reported by the focused EIR. Likewise,
there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel exhaust
mitigation measures contained in the CEQA Guidelines and rules for air districts
and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate its
'significant construction impacts.
b. Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures
Several agencies have conducted relevant and comprehensive studies of
fugitive dust control measures to bring their region into compliance with national
ambient air quality standards on PMIO. For example, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g.,
Rule 40322), and published guidelines that identify best management practices for
controlling fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation
Handbook23 contains a comprehensive list of such measures, which should be
incorporated into the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Focused EIR, at p.
4.27, Mitigation Measure AQ.7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored
research, passed regulations (Rule 94), and published best management practices
for controlling fugitive dust from construction activities.24 Clark County's
Construction Activities Dust Control Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best
.
22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust and Proposed Rule 1186, PMI0 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads,
and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997.
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, January
1999.
.. P.M. Fransioli, PMlO Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County, Nevada,
Proceedings of the Air &Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition,
Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001.
1818-003.
.
.
i.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 39
management practices.25 Similarly, Arizona has developed guidance to control
fugitive PM10 emissions.26
Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and
therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines ~~15126.4,
15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below:
During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will
be operated; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live
perennial vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust
palliative unless immediate construction is to continue; and use water or
dust palliative to form crust on soil immediately following
clearing/grubbing. (CCHD)
Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or
grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to
graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after
grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook)
During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres
or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated)
apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site
if applicable. (BCAQMD)
During cut and fill activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to
allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to
allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to determine if
soils are moist at depth and continue to prewater if not moist to depth of
cut; use water truck/pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent
cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill
and compaction. (CCHD)
For backfilling during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or
apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when
not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively
handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water
25 Clark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control
Handbook, March 18, 2003.
2. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events
'Policy PM10 Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 2001.
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 40
truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed;
water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty
loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHD)27
For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches,
vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to
5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for
long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or
vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHD)
Barriers with 50 percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to
reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook)
In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surface soils where
support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to
15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHD)
Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from,
the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively .
stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ)
For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material
from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material
following stockpile-related activity. (CCHD)
When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered,
effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of
freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
(BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ, SLOCAPCD)
Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403
Handbook)
Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader bucket.
(CCHD)
.7"The following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ = Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District; CCHD = Clark County (Nevada)
Health District; MBUAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD =
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
1818-0030
.
.
I
:1
I
i.
': '
:e
October 28, 2005
Page 41
Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving
construction site. (CCHD)
Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of
mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD)
Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all
access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect.
(CCHD)
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be completed
as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(SLOCAPCD)
Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD)
To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible;
install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site
access. (CCHD, SLOCAPCD)
While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water
spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use
industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air
to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCHD)
Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ)
Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ)
Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a
separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control
requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building
plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor
the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to
prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take.
corrective action within 24hrs. (BCAQMD, CCHD)
While portions of some of these measures are included in the focused EIR's
mitigation measures, the above measures are far more protective and should all be
1818-0038
.
October 28, 2005
Page 42
required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these measures are
feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required elsewhere to
reduce fugitive PMlO emissions. Bee, for example, the fugitive dust control program
for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 200028), for the EI Toro Reuse focused EIR,29
and for the Padres Ballpark Final EIR. 30
c. Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures
There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for
construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the
SMAQMD and California Energy Commission ("CEC") decisions), including:
Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the
amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53);
Conversion to cleaner engines;
Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel;
Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers;
Buffer zone between facility and sensitive receptors;
.
Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment;
Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum
practical size;
Electrification of construction equipment;
28 A. Kasprak and P .A. Stakutis, A Comprehensive Air Quality Control Program for a Large
Roadway Tunnel Project, P.wcdlings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 93'" Annual
Conference, June 18-22, 2000.
29 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse ofMCAS EI
Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume 1, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2.123.
30 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master
E...;"vumental Impact Report for the Centre City Redevelopment Project and Addressing the Centre
City Community J?lan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development
Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. IV. Responses to Comments, September 13, 1999, .
pp. IV-2M to IV-256.
ISI8-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 43
Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction
equipment;
Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g.,
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel;
Implementation of activity management techniques including
a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan
designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment
operating during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction
truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions;
c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and d) phasing
of construction activities;
Installation of catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment, if
feasible;
Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and
by providing for lunch onsite;
Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through
October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time;
Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as
they become available and feasible;
Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power
generators; and
Emission offsets ifROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons/quarter.
The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment
certified by CARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative
diesel formulation.
i. CARB-certified Construction Equipment
Both the U.S. EPA and CARB have established emission limits on new
off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old
or less at the time of use lmd which comply with these new low emission limits.
This equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of CARB-
certified equipment should be required for this Project.
1818-oo3a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 44
For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least
20 percent CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction equipment
operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and/or PM10 emission
reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by
the Texas Natural Resour('e Conservation Commission ('TNRCC") for the
Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et at. 2001.31) The
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") has also recommended
this measure to address the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ
11/9/00, pp. 19-24.)
ii. Post-combustion Controls
Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate filters,
are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the
exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are
capable of removing over 90% of the PM10, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust,
depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post-
combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation .
catalysts, and combinations thereof. The many variants of these devices have
recently been identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB32 and
others.33
The City should avail itself of these devices as most are commonly required
as mitigation for construction emissions, which are similar to Project operations.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (''MTA'') implemented a voluntary program
in the fall of 1998 which resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment
with oxidation catalysts (Kasprak et al. 200134) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5-
31'S.G. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Retrofit
Programs as a Part of Houston SIP, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th
Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001.
32 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk
Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000.
33 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control
Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final
Report, June 1999.
.. A. Kasprak, G. Schattanek, and P.K Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction
Equipment of the Central Arteryfl'unnel Project, Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management
Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see: .
www.ena.l!ov/OMR....;...EtJdocnment.....{l!dil!caseOJ.htm. accessed October 26, 2005.
1818-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 45
year, $10 billion-plus Central ArterylTunnel Project in Boston's North End and one
of the largest infrastructure construction projects in the country.
These controls have also been widely required to mitigate construction
emissions in California. The CEC, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in
licensing of new power plants larger than 50 megawatts ("MW"), has required these
devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed
using this equipment.3s No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW
power plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls,
including High Desert36, Elk Hills37, Pastoria38, Western Midway-Sunset39,
Mountain View,40 and Contra Costa,41 among others. (All of the CEC citing
decisionS are posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name of the individual
facility.)
Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA
mitigation in EIRs. The El Toro Reuse focused EIR42, page 2-124, AQ-11k and AQ-
111, required the use of particulate traps with a mininlUm 80% PMlO efficiency and
selective catalytic reduction ("SeR") or comparable technology with a minimum 70%
NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University
35 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Sunrise Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 120.
36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000,
ConditionAQ-3(o), p. 107.
37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123.
38 California Energy Commissio!1, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000,
Condition AQ.C3, p. 108.
39 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project,
March 2001, ConditionAQ.C2, p. 114.
40 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Project, March 2001,
ConditionAQ-C2, p. 34.
<1 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, May
2001, Condition AQC.2, p. 12.
"County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse ofMCAS
EI Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, April 2001.
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 46
General Use Permit Application focused Em43, page 4.11-10, AQ-1, required a
range of measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, including catalytic converters
and particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final Em44
required the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others,
oxidation catalysts, particulate filters, and ''Blue Sky" low-emission engines.
Similarly, the Port of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion
controls on trucks serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality
mitigation program is now partially in place and has been very successful in
reducing emissions.45
All of these post-combustion controls are feasible for construction of this
Project. Therefore, a proposed Em should be prepared requiring the use of post-
combustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels.
iii. PuriNOx
Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PMlO and NOx reductions. PuriNOx .
is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31,
200146 as achieving a 14% reduction in,NOx and a 63% reduction in PMlO
compared to CARB diesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty
compression ignition engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing
storage, distribution, and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates
little or no difference in performance and startup time, no discernable operational
differences, no increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke.
(Hagstrand 6/0447.)
.. Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Em Stanford University Draft
Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000.
44 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Ballpark and Ancillary
Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent
Em, May 12, 1999, , page IV-262, 18A89.
45 Port of Oakland, Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February
2002.
.. Letter from Dean C. Simerotb, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol,
Verification of Lubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31, 2001,
httn:llwww.srb.r.s...ov/fuel.tdieRAllaltdiesellaltdiARALbtm. s""ARsed ,June 18. 2004.
.7 Personal communication, Petra PlesslPhyllis Fox with Hep Hepner, Ramos Oil Co., Dixon, CA,
(916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347-6592), March and June 2004.
1818-003.
.
.
i.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 47
This fuel has been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road
equipment, including by the Tri-Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa
County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer
station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction
projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco
and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-road
equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at
the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0048 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have
been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC'') has also approved PuriNOx
fuel for funding under Texas Senate Bill 5.
PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los
Angeles and is competitively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about
10 cents per gallon.49 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust
emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan focused
Environmental Impact Statement, 50 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and
feasible, use alternative diesel fuels." See also construction exhaust mitigation in
the Bickford Ranch Final EIR, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission
reductions to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. (''Includes the
use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines...".)
d. Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation
The focused EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, emissions of CO and ROG from operation of the hospital and
other on-site facilities will remain significant. The focused EIR states that "[e]ven
with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot
be mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that "[l]ong-term air
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.)
Yet, the focused EIR imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address
operational emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of
.. P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOx™ on Exhaust Emissions from Yard Haulers at
the' Port of Houston, April 2000.
<. Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstrand, Lubriwl (440-347.6592), June 21, 2004.
50 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, November 2001.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 48 '
Transportation Demand Management techniques (''TDM''); AQ-3 incorporation of
energy efficiency standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ-
.16 enclosure and cover of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative
transportation. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-26 through 4-28.)
By the focused EIR's own admission, these mitigation measures are
insufficient to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less
than significance for CO and ROG, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts
from Project operational emissions. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-29.) Further, the focused
EIR considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PMlO and NOx,
which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance thresholds.
The focused EIR does not contain any discussion why no additional mitigation
measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on air quality.
As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation and should have been required for the Project.
For example, the Initial Study for the Project recommends the following two
mitigation measures for emissions from Project operations that were not
incorporated into the focused EIR:
.
Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where feasible; and
Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall
submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew
has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via
incentives or other inducements. (NOPlInitial Study, pp. 9-11.)
e. Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures
The following traffic mitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to
mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the
Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PM10 impacts:
Encourage carpoollvanpool program;
Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within
walking distance;
Provide preferential parking for carpoollvanpool vehicles;
.
1818-003.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 49
Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes;
Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work;
Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute
trips;
Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network;
Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building
entrances near transit stops, eliminate building setbacks, etc.;
Construct transit facilities such as bus turnoutsfbus bulbs, benches,
shelters, etc.;
Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/commercial areas;
Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers;
Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters;
Implement parking cash-out program for non-driving employees;
Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit
stops and adjacent development;
Implement compressed work week schedule;
Implement home-based telecommuting program;
Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG")
vehicles in vehicle fleets;
Install EV charging facilities;
Install CNG fueling facility;
Provide preferential parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and
Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles;
The Lent Ranch Final Ern,51 for example, requires most of these measures.
The NASA Ames Development Plan focused Environmental Impact Statement
5. City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report, for example
Table 4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000.
1818-003a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 50
("EIS")52 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management
program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanford
University focused Community Plan and General Use Permit focused EIR53 adopts
all applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR54
requires that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these
measures. The Old Greenwood Planned Development focused EIR55 requires,
among others, paying an air quality mitigation fee to offset PMlO emissions from
vehicle exhaust and re-entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed
measures should be assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by
this Project to reduce traffic emissions to a less than significant level.
f. Operational Area Mitigation Measures
The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation
measures that are not required by the focused EIR:
Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and .
windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling; and
Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting,
and specific high-efficiency electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8.)
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the focused EIR and
contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be
mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including
exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas
combustion for heating/air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat
island effect, and indirect emissions from electricity generation. In addition, the
CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify numerous other feasible measures
. 52 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 0-11 to 0-16, November 2001.
53 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford Uriiversity Draft Commuriity
Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11-6, June 23, 2000.
5. County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2
and 8.4, November 13, 2000.
65 City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development,
pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
1818-003.
.
'.
.
,
,.
i
I
I
'.
October 28, 2005
Page 51
for commercial/industrial operations. Some ofthese additional measures, which are
routinely required as mitigation in other EIRs56 include:
Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD);
Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment; e.g., utility carts
(BAAQMD);
Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc.
(BAAQMD);
Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
(SLOAPCD57, SCAQMD58);
Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD)
and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCD59,
BCAQMD60);
Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQ~, SBAPCD, BCAQMD);
Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer
cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPeD);
Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning
(SCAQMD, BCAQMD);
Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances
(SLOAPCD);
Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD);
.. For example: City of Elk Gro\e, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Table 4.3-5, p. 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8.20 to 8.22, November 13, 2000; Sacramento County, East
Franklin Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report, Table ES-l; and Appendix D,
February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned
Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
57 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997.
58 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
59 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in
Environmental Documents, September 1997.
60 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.
1816-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 52
Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD);
Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect
heat;
Install solar coolinglheating (SBAPCD);
Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area
(BCAQMD);
Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD);
Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop-
systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD);
Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new
production processes (SCAQMD);
Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD);
Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD61);
Use concrete or other non-pollutant materials for parking lots instead of
asphalt (SBAPCD);
.
Pay an air quality mitigation fee;
Secure emission offsets;
Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather
than pavement to reduce heat reflection;
Provide electric maintenance equipment;
Use ozone-destruction catalyst on air condition systems; and
Reduce standard paving by 20%.
Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully
mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures.
For example:
6' Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan,
Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989.
1818-003.
.
/
.
I
.
,
I.
..
October 28, 2005
Page 53
Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with approved
energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD);
Replacelrepower school/transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD);
Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles
(SLOAPCD);
Contribute to an off-site TDM fund (VCAPCD);
Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program
(SLOAPCD); and
Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment, diesel
locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD).
g.
Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect
A number of the above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban
heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard
paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following
comments in more detail.
i. Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20%
The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the
pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement
materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the
formation of ozone, and reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on
and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by
using grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and
fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. This measure is widely used,
technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic.
There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this
measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt
pavements using light aggregate, to conventional concrete pavements. Some are
comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides
reducing air quality impacts.
1818.003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 54
ii. Use Of Energy Star Roof Products
Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs
. absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and plenum space.
Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space
between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the finished interior space, this
raises the summertime cooliiig demand. In addition, heating the roof heats the air
that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes
warmer, increasing the formation of ozone.
As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over
urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The
additional air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible
for 5% to 10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to
higher emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to
20% increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on- .
road motor vehicles.62 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective
roofs and pavements.
Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler
and reduces the heat flow into the building. This reduces the demand for air
conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-colored, reflective roofs. A
light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to
70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air
ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than
absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures
may be as high as 90 F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18 F.
This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and
the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the
lifetime of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of
extemal power that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is
formed in the vicinity of the development from the heat island effect.
62 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, Pt. 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling
the Impacts of Large-Scale Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin,
Atmospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp. 1667-1676.
1818-003.
.
.
,
I.
,.
October 28, 2005
Page 55
Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to
20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing products certified to achieve at
least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions
for 3 years after installation. The program is sponsored by the U.S. EPA and the
Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the
program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the
latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers ("ASHRAE") Standards 90,163 and 90.2 on energy-efficient
buildings.
Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be
cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50
to $2.50 per square foot installed.64 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including
reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other
coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to
$1.50 per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets
applied in a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), TPO
(tripolymer olefin), Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00
per square foot. A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of
roof material, including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt.
The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively
documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity
of the roof from 18% to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling
energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At
a one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8% to
68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June
to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.65 In another Sacramento study,
daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office,
museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofs.66
.. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999.
54 R.S. Means, Square Foot Costs, 21" Ed, 2000, Division 5, Roofing.
65 H. Akbari, S. Bretz, D. Kurn, and J. Hanford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High-
Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25, 1997, pp. 117-126.
66 E.W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R. Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building
Energy Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v. 14, no. 2, 1998.
ISlS-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 56
At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis,
increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat roof from 24% to 60% reduced summertime
average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot
Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increasing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof
from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by
13%. At a 33,000-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a
foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air
condition by 2%.67
Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other
commercial buildings in California.68 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced
galvanized corrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was
increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space
cooling energy use by 25%, with a range in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the
temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior
temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was .
$0.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years.69 In nine Florida homes, daily air
conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced
by an average of 22%. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with
the amount of ceiling insUlation and duct system location, with the largest savings
in poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and
smaller savings in well-insulated homes.7o A high-reflective coating on an office
building in Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.71 In addition to
field studies, computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling
.7 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs:
Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1, 1998.
68 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and L. Rainer, Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool
Roofs, LBNL Report 40673, 1998.
6. D. Parker, J. Sonne, and J. Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof.
Surfacing in F10rida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, F10rida Solar Energy Center Report
FSEC-CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsoc.ucf.eduIBldglpubsonline.htm.
70 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE r.__hJ.ings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998;
www.fsec.ucf.eduIBldglpubsonline.htm.
71 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials
Research Project, Mississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986.
1818-003.
.
.
I
I.
'.
October 28, 2005
Page 57
energy savings in residential and commercial buildings.72 Cool roofs have been
widely used in California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San
Jose, on control towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,000-
square foot Honda distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,000-square foot JC
Penny warehouse in Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley.
Thus, this measure would save a substantial amount of money over the life of
the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce
pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the
heat island effect.
In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be
evaluated and required for this Project. The focused EIR should be revised to
include these additional measures and be recirculated for public review.
2.
The Focused EIR Does Not Provide Adequate Mitigation
for Significant Traffic Impacts
The City acknowledges that there will be significant traffic impacts
associated with development of Phase I of the proposed project. (Focused EIR, at p.
4-86) For example, the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk
ParkwaylMargarita Road is a particular problem. Yet, the City takes no affirmative
steps to mitigate this issue. Instead, the focused EIR states, ''Mitigation measures
are required to reduce the level of impact" (Focused EIR, at p. 4-86), but the City
neglected to actually identify real measures to mitigate these traffic impacts. An
adequate EIR requires the City to identify near-term mitigation measures for this
intersection.
Next, the focused EIR points to four primary mitigation measures for project
buildout. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-93 and 4-94) For two ofthe four, mitigation will be
achieved by paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange
with Highway 79 South, or by paying the Project's fair share of the cost of the
improvements at six other intersections. These are hollow and totally inadequate.
12 See, for example: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox, M, Van Geem and D. Parket,
Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1,
1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki,and H. Akbari, Modeling the Effects of Reflective
Roofing, ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy Effici,mcy in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124.
1818-oo3a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 58
For the other two mitigation measures, the Focused Em recommends that
Temecula Regional Hospital construct the associated mitigation measures.
All adequate traffic impact mitigation measures must be achieved through
actual implementation of real mitigation measures, not payments or fees. Payment
offees to Riverside County or payment of the Project's fair share of improvements to
the City does not guarantee that these mitigation measures will ever be
implemented. Until improvements are actually in place, Project traffic impacts
must be considered as "significant" rather than ''less than significant." Finally, the
focused Em must include a mitigation-monitoring program that clearly identifies
financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring
to achieve actual mitigation of these significant impacts. A full Em must include
these measures.
B.
The Focused EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Mitigation
Measures Before Concluding That The Impacts Are
Unavoidable, Relying Instead Upon A Statement of Overriding
Considerations
.
A lead agency may not conclude that an impact is significant and unavoidable
without 'requirip.g the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures to reduce
the impact to less than significant levels. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15126.4,
15091.) When the agency is unable to provide a specific mitigation measure, CEQA
requires the articulation of performance criteria at the time of project approval.
(Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229
Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029.)
With respect to the focused Em, CEQA Guidelines specify that a lead agency
must make a "fully informed and publicly disclosed" decision that "specifically
identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or
avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project." (CEQA Guidelines
section 15043(b).) An agency must "state in writing the specific reasons to support
its action based on the final Em and/or other information in the record" and must
include the statement of overriding considerations in the record of the project
approval and refer to it in the notice of determination. (CEQA Guidelines sections
15093(b)(c).) A revised and recirculated Em must show that the City required all
feasible mitigation measures and full articulation of performance criteria before
issuing a statement of overriding considerations.
1818-oo3a
.
..
i.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 59
1. The City Failed to Provide Specific and Adequate
Measures To Mitigate Significant Traffic Impacts
The focused Em fails to adequately discuss potentially significant impacts,
and fails to develop mitigation measures associated with the following topics:
First, the focused Em must analyze and evaluate impacts associated with
construction including dirt and building material hauling, worker traffic, and
worker parking for each of the three major phases. Measures must be developed
and incorporated into the focused Em to mitigate construction traffic impacts.
These measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69.
and 4-70 of the focused Em so construction traffic does not degrade the LOS below
the significance threshold used in the focused Em.
Second, according to the focused EIR, there has been communication between
the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) and the City indicating that, "...future bus
service is highly likely along SR 79.and that the busses will be stopping at the
proposed hospital. The City has expressed previous support for the concept of a bus
turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be installed by the project sponsors."
Providing public transit to the Project presents significant mitigation to project
impacts. Yet, the focused Em simply fails to address the request for a bus turnout
from RTA. Likewise, the focused Em fails to quantify the demand for new transit
services that the Project will create, and fails to provide any transit mitigation
measures such as financial contributions to help establish new transit service along
Highway 79 South. A full Em must include public transit as feasible mitigation to
the Project impacts.
Third, the City fails to fully and adequately address parking impacts. For
example, the focused Em states, "Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be
, provided on surface lots." (Focused EIR, at p. 1-4) As previously indicated, the
focused EIR characterizes the proposed parking as being significantly above the
requirements of the City's Development Code. ([d. at p. 3-8) However, the
document neglected to review and analyze the amount of parking being proposed on
site.
Instructive to this analysis is the publication Parking Generation, 3rd Edition,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This authority
contains parking data for various land uses including hospitals and medical office
buildings. For suburban hospitals like the Project, the average peak parking
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 60
demand is identified at 4.72 vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510
parking spaces would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project.
For medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces per 1,000
square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would be needed for the
140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000 square foot cancer center, and the
8,000 square foot fitness center in the proposed project. Based on the data
published by ITE, at least 2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of
the Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking spaces being proposed.
Clearly, parking proposed for the Project is inadequate. A full EIR must analyze
actual parking needs for the Project.
Finally, with respect to parking, the focused EIR fails to analyze impacts
associated with providing all parking on site as surface parking. Given that the
Project has an overall parking shortage of 850 spaces, and given that over 30
percent of the Project site will be occupied by surface parking, the City must
consider building a parking structure to reduce environmental impacts in other
areas and to avoid impacts to rock outcrops and trees on the site.
.
C. The Focused EIR Employs An Incorrect Baseline, Thereby
Skewing The Impact Analysis
The environmental setting establishes the baseline physical conditions
against which a lead agency can determine whether an impact is significant.
(CEQA Guidelines ~ 15125(a).) Under CEQA, an EIR must include a description of
the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at
the time the Notice of Preparation is published, from both a local and regional
perspective.73 (Id.) Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of
environmental impacts. (!d. at ~ 15125(c).)
The importance of having a stable, finite, fixed baseline for purposes of an
environmental analysis was recognized decades ago in the case of County of Inyo u.
City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185. The recent case of County of Amador
us. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App. 4th 931 provides a
comprehensive exegesis concerning baseline water condition and held the EIR must
focus on impacts to the existing environment, not hypothetical situations. (Id., 76
Cal.App.4th at 954.) The presentation of baseline information must be sufficiently
73 According to the DElli, page 5, the Notice of Preparation for this Project was published in
Februaiy 2002.
181s.oo3a
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 61
detailed to make further analysis possible. (Id.) In short, it must provide not only
raw data but also analysis. (Id., 76 Cal.App.4th at 955; See Environmental Planning
& Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 355
(holding that an Em should inventory and address the environment as it actually
existed, not as it was proposed to be under the old General Plan).)
"[T]he impacts ofthe project must be measured against the 'real conditions
on the ground.m (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Board of Supervisors
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121.) While the absence of information in an EIR does
not per se constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion, "a prejudicial abuse of
discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed
decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory
goals oftheEm process." (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of
Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355.) Here, the focused Em does
not correctly describe the existing physical conditions related to traffic and geologic
setting.
1. Inadequate Description of the Traffic Setting
According to the focused EIR, "Existing peak hour manual intersection
counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 - 9:00) and PM
(4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-72).
Supplementary counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study
Addendum." (Id. at p. 4-76) Also, "The current levels of service for study
intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and
current intersection and roadway configurations."
The focused Em indicates the peak hour traffic counts were made on March
23, 2004, for all intersections. Also, the City then made capacity calculations by
using the traffic volumes from these March 2004 traffic counts. This approach
ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with the rapid
growth and development withID. and adjacent to the study area. The values
obtained were then used in the focused Em to represent baseline conditions at the
time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP).
Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In addition,
traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical Center report.
-Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." This data indicates that peak
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 62
hour traffic counts were made on July 7, 2005 only for the intersection of Margarita
Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004 traffic counts included for the other
two intersections studied in the Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7,
2005, were taken during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday.
These traffic counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the
national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and with schools
closed for the summer months. In short, all of this data grossly underestimates true
traffic capacity.
Next, the City made capacity calculations by directly using the traffic
volumes from the March 2004 traffic counts and the holiday week counts. This
approach ignores the significant traffic volume increases that have occurred with
the rapid growth and development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides
unreliable data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the focused
EIR do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the NOP.
The NOP was released on August 3, 2005. (Focused EIR, at p. 2-2) CEQA .
requires evaluation of the existing conditions at the time of the NOP because timely
information is essential to an accurate and complete impact analysis. Traffic counts
made in March, 2004 at the eight intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline
conditions in 2005. Traffic counts at Margarita Road and Dartolo Road taken during
the summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable. New
traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all calculations and
subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze traffic impacts of the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project.
With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study intersections
reflect traffic conditions, as they existed in 2004. (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) To
account for traffic volumes from other development projects and to include
continuing traffic volume increases year after year due to project construct phasing,
existing volumes are expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to
three percent annually. (fd.) To proper.1Y evaluate buildout conditions, traffic
studies must include an appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume
projections from approved near term land development projects.
The focused EIR states, 'To assess opening year and buildout traffic
conditions, two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a 4
percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative .
projects were added." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) The focused EIR's analysis is
1818-0030
.
I.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 63
flawed because the capacity calculations for project buildout failed to include a
growth factor to the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. (Appendix B)
For the analysis of conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4
percent growth was included to account for the traffic volume increases from small
developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor does not
appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the buildout horizon year for
the entire Project. In addition, the capacity calculation sheets for the PM peak hour
analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all ofthe other intersections do not
include any growth factor in the analysis of buildout conditions for the Project. This
flawed approach does not properly reflect linnual traffic volume growth essential to
an accurate buildout baseline for traffic volumes.
The focused EIR neglects to identify the expected timing of completion of each
of the three major Project construction phases, as well as the buildout horizon for
the entire Project. (Focused EIR, at pp. 3-7 and 3-8) Such an analysis provides no
assurance that implementation of mitigation measures will be linked to significant
traffic impacts caused by the phased development of the Project. The following two
significant omissions in the focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis,
causing it to be inaccurate and incomplete as follows:
First, to account for traffic volumes from small development projects and to
include continuing traffic volume increases year after year, existing volumes are
expanded by an annual growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually.
Second, to properly evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an
appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from approved
near term land development projects.
Instead, according to the focused EIR, ''To assess opening year and buildout
traffic conditions, -two approaches were used. In the November 2004 traffic study, a
4 percent growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes and then 17
cumulative projects were added." (Focused EIR, at p. 4-81) However, near term
capacity calculations in Appendix B indicate that a no growth factor was applied to
the March 2004 traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of near term
conditions in the AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for annual traffic growth. But, the capacity calculation sheets
for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz Road and for all of the other
intersections do not include any &<v" ~h factor in the analysis of near term
conditions for Phase I of the Project. The focused EIR's flawed approach does not
properly reflect annual traffic volume &< v" ~h. This information is required for
1818.oo3a
.
October 28, 2005
Page 64
accurate near term baseline traffic volumes. A full EIR must be circulated
containing this information.
The focused EIR failed to evaluate the Project traffic impacts at the conclusion of
each Project phase. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine the point in time at
which the multi-phased Project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted
intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing assumptions
in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the focused EIR so mitigation
measures can be implemented in a timely manner to maintain the City's LOS D
standard. (Focused EIR, at pp. 4-69 and 4.70) A full EIR must include aIinual
growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all
intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic impacts and
associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of the three major phases
of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
VII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE SIGNIFICANT AJ'lD UNMITIGATED
An EIR must discuss sigIDflcant "cumulative impacts." (CEQA Guidelines
section 15130(a).) This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which
requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if
"the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable. . . . 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of
an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futUre
projects." "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects
which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).) "[I]ndividual
effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate
projects." (CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).)
.
'The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added
to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time." (Communities for a Better
Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117.) A legally
adequate "cumulative impacts analysis" views a particular project over time and in
conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the
1818-003.
.
.
.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 65
project at hand. "Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA
Guidelines section 15355(b).)
As the court recently stated in Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 114 (2002):
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact
of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important
environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage
often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear
insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions
when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
(Citations omitted).
In Kings County Farm Bureau v, City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718, the
court concluded that an EIR inadequately considered an air pollution (ozone)
cumulative impact. The court said: 'The []EIR concludes the project's contributions
to ozone levels in the area would be immeasurable and, therefore, insignificant
because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts of [ozone]
precursors compared to the total volume of [ozone] precursors emitted in Kings
County. The EIR's analysis uses the magnitude ofthe current ozone problem in the
air basin in order to trivialize the project's impact." The court concluded: "The
relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of
precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but
whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered
significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin."74
The Kings County case was recently reaffirmed in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at
116, where the court rejected cases with a narrower construction of "cumulative
7. Los Angeles Unified u. City of Los Angeles, 58 CalApp.4that 1024-1026.found an Em inadequate
for concluding that a project's additional increase in noise level of another 2.8 to 3.3 dBA was
iDsignificant given that the existing noise level of 72 dBA already exceeded the regulatory
recommended maximum of 70 dBA. The court concluded that this "ratio theory" trivialized the
project's noise impact by focusing on individual inputs rather than their collective significance. The
relevant issue was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared
tQ existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered
significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem.
1818-0038
.
October 28, 2005
Page 66
impacts." (See also, Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal.
App. 4th 859, 869 (2003) (adopting Kings County approach for cumulative impacts
analysis).) ,
In Friends of Eel Ri,Jer v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App.
4th 859, the court held that the EIR for a project that would divert water from the
Eel River had to consider the cumulative impacts of the project together with other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.that also divert water from
the same river system. The court held that the EIR even had to disclose and
analyze projects that were merely proposed, but not yet approved. The court stated,
CEQA requires "the Agency to consider 'past, present, and probable future projects
producing related or cumulative impacts. . . .' (Guidelines, ~ 15130, subd. (b)(l)(A).)
, The Agency must interpret this requirement in such a way as to 'afford the fullest
possible protection of the environment."' (Id. at 867, 869.) The court held that the
failure of the EIR to analyze the impacts of the project together with other proposed
projects rendered the document invalid. 'The absence of this analysis makes the
EIR an inadequate informational document." (Id. at 872.) .
The court in Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Bd. of Supervisors, 176
Cal.App.3d 421 (1985), held that an EIR prepared to consider the expansion and
modification of an oil refinery was inadequate because it failed to consider the
cumulative air quality impacts of other oil refining and extraction activities
combined with the project. The court held that the EIR's use of an Air District Air
Emissions Inventory did not constitute an adequate cumulative impacts analysis.
The court ordered the agency to prepare a new EIR analyzing the combined impacts
of the proposed refinery expansion together with the other oil extraction projects.
A. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Assessment is
Inaccurate and Inconsistent and Not In Accordance With
CEQA
The focused EIR's cumulative impact analysis is deficient and legally
unsound for several reasons. First, there is no cumulative impacts analyses
whatsoever for ten of the sixteen environmental factors listed in the NOP's CEQA
Checklist. Given the comments above concerning leaking underground fuel tanks,
seismic hazards, fouling water quality, and traffic problems, it defies credulity that
the Project presents no cumulative impacts for these issues.
1818-003.
.
.
;.
"
I
,.
I.
October 28, 2005
Page 67
1. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For
Hydrology and Water Quality is Inadequate
The focused Em's cumulative impact analysis for hydrology and water
quality merely discusses flooding and storm drainage in vague terms that do not
actually require anything of the facility or other present or future projects: 'Typical
measures could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated swales,
detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs." (Focused Em,
at p. 6-2 (emphasis added).) In this regard, the focused Em merely discusses
measures which would normally address the flooding impact without actually
requiring such measures or conducting an assessment of whether the measures
reduce significant impacts. In other words, the DEm contains no cumulative
impact analysis at all for this issue. Worse, the cumulative impacts analysis for
hydrology fails to address i,he cumulative impacts associated with water supply
issues for the proposed Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future projects in the planning area.
Significantly, with respect to hydrology and water quality, the City's
cumulative impact analysis fails to mention the issues of cumulative phosphorus
pollution and groundwater contamination. A full Em must address the cumulative
result of this Project and other area projects' affect on water quality issues in the
project vicinity.
2. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For Land
, Use and Planning is Inadequate
With respect to land use and planning, the focused Em is impermissibly
vague: ''The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to
existing land uses. Vacant properties will be developed pursuant to recently
updated Temecula General Plan, leading to intensification of housing, commercial,
and industrial development throughout southern Temecula." (Focused EIR, at p.
6.3.) Again, the DEm contains no cumulative impact analysis at all for this issue,
and fails to identify other past present and future projects in the planning area. At
a minimum, the City must identify and describe specific projects in the planning
area in its cumulative impacts analysis;
1818-003.
.
October 28, 2005
Page 68
3. The Focused EIR's Cumulative Impact Analysis For
Traffic Is Inadequate
The focused EIR fails to undertake the required evaluation of consistency
with the City's General Plan policies related to cumulative traffic impacts. The
cumulative traffic analysis fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout of the
City's General Plan. Instead, the focused EIR evaluates conditions at buildout
using the faulty methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17
nearby projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the analysis does not include
trips associated with buildout of the City's entire General Plan or trips associated
with buildout of the surrounding area. (See TIA, at p. 9) While Appendix B
includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its analysis of five intersections, the
'cumulative projects data does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's
entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding area.
Furthermore, the focused EIR fails to properly account for annual growth from
small development projects out to the horizon year ofthe City's General Plan.
Accordingly, the focused EIR must analyze traffic conditions at General Plan .
buildout without and with Temecula Regional Hospital Project traffic. Absent such
. a cumulative analysis, the City's focused EIR is inaccurate and incomplete.
B. The Focused EIR's Cmnulative Impact Analysis For Air Quality
Is Inadequate
The focused EIR finds significant and unavoidable cumulativ~ impacts. The
focused EIR evaluates impacts "based primarily on 21 related projects identified by
the City of Temecula." For a description of 17 of these projects, the focused EIR
relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza. Rather
than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts analysis
section, the focused EIR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis contained
in Appendix D for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain any
information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their
projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is
contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study failed to include this document.
Further, the focused EIR claims that four additional projects were
supplemented, yet it fails to supply any information on these projects. (Focused
EIR, p. 6-1 and Appx. D, p. 9.) The focused EIR contains no information for any of
these 21 projects. For example, there is no information on these project's time
period over which they will be constructed, their expected buildout, or the air
ISIS-Oua.
.
.
;.
'.
October 28, 2005
Page 69
quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation. In short, the
information provided in the focused EIR is entirely inadequate to assess the
cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project.
In sum, the cumulative impact analysis must include all past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, including proposed projects. Instead, the
focused EIR only discusses other projects in the abstract, not once identifying other
applicable projects subject to an adequate cumulative impacts analysis. CEQA
prohibits the City from viewing the Project in a vacuum. The City must prepare a
full EIR for the Project to fully analyze, disclose to the public and consider
mitigation measures to address the important resources in the region.
VITI. THE FOCUSED EIR MUST DISCLOSE ALL GENERAL PLAN
INCONSISTENCIES
CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze the impacts of a project in reference
to relevant }Jlanning documents, including the General Plan. (CEQA Guidelines,
App. G, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, Item 6.) An EIR must discuss any
inconsistencies that exist between a proposed project and any applicable general
plans and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d).) This discussion is
mandatory under CEQA. The same analysis must be conducted when a lead agency
elects to use a negative declaration to evaluate the significant environmental
impacts that may be caused by a project. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) Thepurpose
of this requirement is to determine - in the context of a general plan's policies,
objectives and standards - whether a particular project will have a significant
impact on the environment. A project's impacts may be significant if they are
greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416.)
Here, there are a number of inconsistencies between the focused EIR and the
General Plan for the City of Temecula. Specifically, as explained by Dr. Pless in her
attached comments, while the General Plan requires the Project's air quality
impacts to be reduced to the greatest extent feasible, the focused EIR does not
include all feasible mitigation. Dr. Pless provides a list of feasible mitigation for air
quality impacts that are not addressed in the focused EIR.
Second, according to the General Plan, "public and institutional facilities
should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce other uses and benefit from
access to alternative modes oftransportation." City of Temecula General Plan, LU-
1818-003.
'1~~23i+~lW,5'
.
,
'~~"~~i$;~~ti~':e"'''\l:'",sl:1d'fQf'aVMlWt;pieee:orlaw'i~1i''i~h9w~'P,~!l1':iU11
BP~=~:~S
~~:S~~t~=.
7777;~'~~~100cii'i~
'.,. . ...."., ....... .... "
.~...q~~
.
8m.ce~
:. ~1?;.:
~....~....-'
.... -,., ',-. -,:,;-'
........'.'..,.........'...,..~..................
.. ,. . -' - .
. T '," " .
," . ""'" .' ,. ''-',' -:'
,- -, -'
. ".. .
(})(j~n~~-m
;a.:
'~~i
..
.
October 26, 2005
Ms. Gloria D. Smith, Attorney at Law
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080-7037
SUBJECT: Review of Traffic Portions of the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project Focused Environmental Impact Report in the City
of Temecula
Dear Ms. Smith:
Tom Brohard, PE, has reviewed various documents associated with the
proposed Temecula Regional Hospital in the City of Temecula. These
documents include the September 26, 2005 Focused Environmental Impact
Report (Focused EIR) prepared by P&D Consultants as well as the November
4, 2004 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the September 22, 2005 Traffic
Impact Analysis Addendum (Addendum) prepared by Linscott Law &
Greenspan Engineers.
!.
My reviews of the Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum indicate that numerous
transportation and circulation issues associated with the project have not
been properly or adequately addressed. As detailed throughout this report,
the following significant omissions, deficiencies and inadequacies were found:
1) Trin Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Silmificantlv
Underestimated
a) Project Will Provide Additional Parking Spaces On Site
b) Low Trip Rate per Bed Was Used
c) All Trips from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted
d) Additional Phase I Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
Impacts
e) Additional Buildout Project Trips Will Create Significant Traffic
Impacts
2) Inannronriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existimr Conftitions
3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis Issues
a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth
b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth
4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneous
'.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
.. October 26, 2005
.
5) Mitigation Measures Do Not Result in Less Than Sillllificant Imnacts
6) Numerous Orriissions from the Focused' EIR
a) Construction Impacts
b) Transit Impacts
c) Parking Impacts
d) Site Plan Analysis
In summary, the City has not conducted an appropriate traffic and
circulation analysis of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Without
further study to address the City's inadequate analysis of significant traffic
impacts, it is not possible to conclude that the majority of the project's traffic
impacts have a less than significant effect on the environment with
rriitigation.
To rectify the numerous significant deficiencies and inadequacies, the issues
in this report as well as those expressed by others must be carefully studied
and addressed in a revised traffic impact analysis conducted as part of a
thorough project reevaluation in a revised and recirculated EIR.
Education and Exoerience
.
Since receiving a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Duke University in
Durham, North Carolina in 1969, I have gained over 35 years of professional
engineering experience, all of which has occurred in California. I am licensed
as both a Professional Civil Engineer and as a Professional Traffic Engineer
in California. I formed Tom Brohard and Associates in 2000 and now serve
"on call" as Consulting Transportation Engineer for the City of San Fernando
and as the Interim City Traffic Engineer for the City of Indio.
I hav!l extensive experience in traffic engineering and transportation
planning. During my career in both the public and private sectors, I served as
City Traffic Engineer for the Cities of Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Huntington
Beach, Indio, Lawndale, Los Alarriitos, Oceanside, Paramount, Rancho Palos
Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Fernando, San Marcos,
Santa Ana, and Westlake Village. While serving these communities, I
personally conducted hundreds of investigations of citizen requests for the
installation of various traffic control devices. During these assignments, I
successfully presented hundreds of traffic engineering reports at City Council
and Traffic'Commission meetings.
During my career, I have reviewed numerous environmental documents and
. traffic studies for various projects. Several recent assignments are
.
2
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
highlighted in the enclosed resume. During these assignments, I worked
successfully with several law firms and local interest groups in the review of
environmental documents and traffic studies, frequently within very limited
time constraints.
Brief Summary of the ProiecJ;
According to Page 3-4 of the Focused EIR, "The proposed 566,160 square foot
Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of:
.:. An approximately 408,160 square foot, 2-tower hospital complex to
contain approximately 320 beds...
.:. Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories173 feet high and the second
3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of
office space.
.:. A 10,000 square foot cancer center housed in a one story building.
'.
.:. An 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one story
building."
Regarding the project phasing, Pages 3-7 and 3-8 of the Focused EIR state:
"Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA
consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a' 3
story, 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction
of adequate surface parking to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to
last approximately 10 months.
Phase IB consists of construction of the one story main hospital structure
comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6 story tower of
approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the
structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14
months.
Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate 320 bed configuration with
the addition of the 5 story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet.
.
Phase III will add a 4 story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB
#1) and the hospital connector.
3
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
Phase IV consists of construction of a one story, 10,000 square foot cancer
center and associated parking spaces.
Phase V will be construction of the 8,000 square foot fitness center and the
jogging trail.
Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated to occur concurrently and
to last approximately 12 months."
From the above description of the project phasing in the focused EIR,
construction of the proposed project will take 36 months. It is likely that a
number of months or perhaps years will pass between constru~tion activities
associated with each of the three major construction phases. As discussed
throughout this report, the focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum do not properly
evaluate baseline conditions in concert with the phasing of construction for
the proposed project. The failure of the focused EIR to analyze traffic impacts
associated with the major construction phases as well as buildout of the
entire project provides no assurance that implementation of mitigation
measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased
development of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
.
Traffic Related Issues
Section 4.6 of the focused EIR provides a summary of the environmental
setting, project analysis, traffic impacts and mitigation measures for the
project prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers. Based on the
information in the Focused EIR, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and
Addendum, my review indicates the following orriissions, deficiencies, and
inadequacies in the traffic analysis for the proposed project:
1) Trin Generation Forecasts for the Proiect Are Silmificantl'l
Underestimated - The TIA and Addendum summarized in the Focused
EIR contain several significant errors in the calculation of AM peak hour,
PM peak hour, and daily trips that will be generated by the proposed
project. Use of average trip rates per hospital bed together with the
orriission of all trips associated with the 10,000 square foot cancer center,
and the 8,000 square foot fitness center, significantly understates the
project trip generation and the resulting traffic impacts. As such, major
revisions to the Focused EIR are required to address the significant
impacts that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will have on traffic.
The Focused EIR must use the higher trip forecasts discussed in the
following comments to properly identify the project traffic impacts and
.
4
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
develop appropriate mitigation measures. As detailed below, trips forecast
in the Focused EIR are significantly below those that should have been
calculated for the proposed project as follows:
I.
a) Project Will Provide Additional Parking Snaces On Site - According to
Page 3-8 of the Focused EIR, "...the total parking spaces provided will
be 1,278 which exceeds the City's parking standards which requires
663 parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for
which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The
parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained in the
Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately
account for parling needs within the hospital associated with staff
parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This
is common in most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed
rriinimum parking requirements for this reason." Footnote 2 on Page 3-
8 of the Focused EIR attributes the above comments to a personal
communication on September 22, 2005 with Mr. David Prusha, HKS,
Inc., the architects and engineers for the proposed project.
Providing nearly double the amount of parking spaces on site over
what is required in the City's Development Code is a strong indication
that the proposed project will generate more than the average number
of vehicle trips, particularly since the site is not currently served by
bus or other transit. The unrealistically low trip rates used in the
Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum do not provide a proper basis for
analysis of reasonably foreseeable conditions associated with providing
nearly double the 'parking spaces required by the City's Development
Code, and the low trip rates certainly do not provide an evaluation of
the "worst case" condition.
b) Low Trin Rate Per Bed Was Useq- The Focused EIR, TIA, and
Addendum used the trip rate of 20 daily trips per bed published by
SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments, in developing
forecasts of daily, AM, and PM peak hour trips. For the initial phase
with 170 beds, 3,400 daily trips including 272 trips in the AM peak
hour and 340 trips in the PM p~ak hour were forecast. For the buildout
of 320 beds, 6,400 daily trips including 512 trips iIi the AM peak hour
and 640 trips in the PM peak hour were forecast. These unreasonably
low trip generation forecasts for the 170 bed hospital and the 320 bed
hospital developed in the TIA and Addendum were the used
throughout the Focused EIR for the proposed project.
.
In addition to trip rates per bed, SANDAG has also published rates of
25 daily trips per 1,000 square feet for hospitals, with 8 percent of the
5
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
daily trips in the AM peak hour and 10 percent of the daily trips in the
PM peak hour. Applying the SANDAG trip rate per 1,000 square feet
indicates the initial phase of the hospital building with 285,405 square
feet will generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak
hour and 710 trips in the PM peak hour. For the buildout of 408,160
square feet, the hospital portion of the proposed project will generate
10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,020
trips in the PM peak hour. With the additional parking provided on
site and the absence of transit service, the SANDAG trip rates per
1,000 square feet for the hospital portion of the project must be used to
analyze and rriitigate project traffic impacts.
c) All Trins from Cancer Center and Fitness Center Were Omitted - Page
3-4 of the Focused EIR indicates the proposed project will include a
10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness
center as components of the Temecula Regional Hospital. Table 4-22 on
Page 4-87 of the Focused EIR for the trip generation for buildout of the
proposed project only forecasts trips for a hospital containing 320 beds
and 140,000 square feet of medical offices. From the description of the
project on Page 3-4 of the Focused EIR, all trips associated with the
cancer center an-:l,the fitness center have been orriitted from the traffic
analysis. '
.
Using SANDAG data per 1,000 square feet indicates the 10,000 square
foot cancer center will generate 250 daily trips including 20 trips in the
AM peak hour and 25 trips in the PM peak hour. Using SANDAG data
per 1,000 square feet indicates the 8,000 square foot fitness center will
generate 200 daily trips including 16 trips in the AM peak hour and 20
trips in the PM peak hour. The additional 450 daily trips including 36
trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak hour from these
two project components must be added to the project trip generation
forecasts, distributed. to area roadway links and intersections,
analyzed, and the resulting significant traffic impacts rriitigated as
necessary.
d) Additional Phase I Project Trins Will Create Silmificant Traffic
Imnacts - Table 4-21 on Page 4-81 of the FocusedEIR incorrectly
forecasts 3,400 daily trips with 272 trips in the AM peak hour and 340
trips in the PM peak hour for the 170 beds in the hospital in Phase I of
the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as
discussed above indicates the 285,405 square feet in Phase I will
generate 7,140 daily trips including 570 trips in the AM peak hour and
710 trips in the PM peak hour. The 3,740 additional daily trips
.
6
..
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
including 298 additional AM peak hour trips and 370 additional PM
peak hour trips that will be generated by Phase I will significantly
impact additional intersections and segments over and above those
identified in the Focused EIR. Each of these significant traffic impacts
for Phase I of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as
necessary to maintain the City's Level of Service (LOS) D standard.
i
I.
e) Additional Buildout Proiect Trins Will Create Silmificant Traffic
Imnacts - Table 4-22 on Page 4-87 of the Focused EIR incorrectly
forecasts 6,400 daily trips with 512 trips in the AM peak hour and 640'
trips in the PM peak hour for 320 beds in the hospital at buildout of
the proposed project. Analyzing the hospital component properly as
discussed above indicates the 408,160 square feet at buildout will
generate 10,200 daily trips including 820 trips in the AM peak hour
and 1,020 trips in the PM peak hour. Furthermore, 450 daily trips
including 36 trips in the AM peak hour and 45 trips in the PM peak
hour will be generated by the 10,000 square foot cancer center and the
8,000 square foot fitness center. The 4,250 additional daily trips
including 344 additional AM peak hour trips and 425 additional PM
peak hour trips that will be generated by the project will significantly
impact additional intersections and segments over and above those
identified in the Focused EIR. Each of these significant traffic impacts
for buildout of the proposed project must be identified and mitigated as
necessary to maintain the City's LOS D standard.
2) Inannronriate Traffic Counts Used to Evaluate Existing Conditions - Page
4-72 of the Focused EIR states "Existing peak hour manual intersection
counts were conducted during the traditional weekday AM (7:00 -9:00)
and PM (4:00 - 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary
counts were obtain.~d in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum."
Page 4-76 of the Focused EIR states "The current levels of service for
study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon
traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations."
.
Our review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the TIA indicates
the peak hour traffic counts were made on March 23, 2004 for all
'intersections included in the TIA. Capacity calculations in Appendix B
were then made by using the traffic volumes from these March 2004
traffic counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic volume
increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and development
within and adjacent to the study area. The values obtained were then
used in the Focused EIR to represent baseline conditions at the time of
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Focused EIR.
7
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
Page 10 of the Addendum states "Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volumes and intersection counts were conducted by LLG in July 2005. In
addition, traffic counts were also obtained from the Temecula Medical
Center report. Appendix A contains the existing traffic volumes." Our
review of the traffic count sheets in Appendix A of the Addendum
indicates peak hour traffic counts were made on July 7, 2005 only for the
intersection of Margarita Road and Dartolo Road, with the March 2004
traffic counts included for the other two intersections studied in the
Addendum. The traffic counts on Thursday, July 7, 2005 were taken
during the week with the July 4 Independence Day holiday. These traffic
counts do not properly represent normal weekday conditions with the
national holiday on Monday of that week, with summer vacations, and
with schools closed for the summer months.
Capacity calculations in Appendix C of the Addendum were then made by
directly using the traffic volunies from the March 2004 traffic counts and
the holiday week counts. This approach ignores the significant traffic
volume increases that have occurred with the rapid growth and
development in and adjacent to the study area, and provides unreliable
data for the holiday week. The capacity calculation values in the Focused
EIR do not represent baseline conditions at the time of the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of the Focused EIR.
.
Page 2-2 of the Focused EIR indicates the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
was released on August 3, 2005. It is my understanding that the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of the
existing conditions at the time of the NOP. The evaluation of existing
conditions at the time of the NOP is essential to an accurate and complete
impact analysis. Traffic counts made in March 2004 at the eight
intersections in the TIA do not represent baseline conditions in 2005.
Traffic counts at Margarita Road' and Dartolo Road taken during the
summer week that included the Independence Day holiday are unreliable.
New traffic counts must be made at all study intersections and all
calculations and subsequent analysis must be redone to properly analyze
traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project.
3) Near Term and Buildout Baseline Analvsis Issues - Pages 3-7 and 3-8 of
the Focused EIR provide information regarding the length of construction
of the three phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital. However, the
failure of the Focused EIR to identify the expected timing of completion of
each of these major project phases as well as the buildout horizon for the
entire project provides no assurance that implementation of rriitigation
.
8
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
measures will be linked to significant traffic impacts caused by the phased
development of the project. The following two significant omissions in the
Focused EIR bear directly on the traffic analysis, causing it to be
inaccurate and incomplete as follows:
a) Near Term Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Growth -
. With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study
intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused EIR,
development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases
over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small
development projects and to include continuing traffic volume
increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual
6w..~h factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly
evaluate near term conditions, traffic studies must include an
appropriate annual growth factor plus traffic volume projections from
approved near term land developinent projects.
.
Page 4-81 of the Focused EIR states "To assess opening year and
buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November
2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing
traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our
review of the near term capacity calculations in Appendix B of the TIA,
we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004 traffic counts
with one exception. For the analysis of near term conditions in the AM
peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for annual traffic growth. However, the capacity
calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz
Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth
factor in the analysis of near term conditions for Phase I of the project.
The flawed approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR
does not properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must. be
included in the near term baseline traffic volumes.
I
!.
b) Buildout Baseline Traffic Volumes Must Include Annual Gw..lh -
With one exception, existing traffic volumes counted at study
intersections reflect conditions in 2004. According to the Focused EIR,
development of the proposed project will occur in three major phases
over a number of years. To account for traffic volumes from small
development projects and to include continuing traffic volume
increases year after year, existing volumes are expanded by an annual
growth factor ranging from one to three percent annually. To properly
evaluate. buildout conditions, traffic studies must include an
9
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
appropriate annual growth factor plus'traffic volume projections from
approved near term land development projects.
Page 4-81 of the Focused EIR states ''To assess opening year and
buildout traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November
2004 traffic study, a 4 percent growth factor was added to existing
traffic volumes and then 17 cumulative projects were added." In our
review of the capacity calculations for project buildout in Appendix B of
the TIA, we found no growth factor was applied to the March 2004
traffic counts with one exception. For the analysis of conditions in the
AM peak hour at SR 79 and La Paz Street, a 4 percent growth was
included to account for the traffic volume increases from small
developments and annual traffic growth. This 4 percent growth factor
does not appropriately expand the baseline traffic volumes to the
buildout horizon year for the entire project. In ,addition, the capacity
calculation sheets for the PM peak hour analysis at SR 79 and La Paz
Road and for all of the other intersections do not include any growth
factor in the analysis of buildout conditions for the project. The flawed
approach used in the TIA and included in the Focused EIR does not
properly reflect annual traffic volume growth that must be included in
the buildout baseline traffic volumes.
.
J
Without evaluating the project traffic impacts at the conclusion of each
project phase, it is impossible to determine the point in time at which the
multi phased project will cause the Level of Service (LOS) at impacted
intersections to deteriorate to an unacceptable level. Project phasing
assumptions in the traffic analysis must match project phasing in the
Focused EIR sO mitigation measures can be implemented in a timely
manner to maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on Pages 4-69
and 4-70 of the Focused EIR. The Focused EIR must include annual
growth of the 2004 traffic counts for both AM and PM peak hours at all
intersections. The traffic analysis must also disclose significant traffic
impacts and associated mitigation measures at the completion of each of
the three major phases of the Temecula Regional Hospital.
4) Cumulative Traffic Analvsis Is Erroneous - The cumulative traffic
analysis in the Focused EIR fails to evaluate traffic conditions at buildout
of the City's General Plan. Instead, the Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum
evaluate conditions at buildout of the proposed project using the faulty
methodology discussed above. While the TIA includes trips from 17 nearby
projects in its analysis of eight intersections, the listing beginning on Page
9 of the TIA does not include trips associated with buildout of the City's
entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the surrounding
.
10
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
area. While the Addendum includes trips from 21 nearby projects in its
analysis of five intersections, the cumulative projects data in Appendix B
of the Addendum does not include trips associated with buildout of the
City's' entire General Plan or trips associated with buildout of the
surrounding area. Furthermore, the TIA and the Addendum fail to
properly account for annual growth from small development projects out
to the horizon year of the City's General Plan. The Focused EIR must
analyze traffic conditions at General Plan buildout without and with
Temecula Regional Hospital project traffic.
5) Mitigation Measures Do Not Result in Less Than Significant Imnacts -
Page 4-86 of the Focused EIR indicates there will be significant traffic
impacts associated with development o~ Phase I of the proposed project in
the AM peak hour at Highway 79 SouthlRedhawk ParkwaylMargarita
Road. While Page 4-86 states ''Mitigation measures are, required to reduce
the level of impact", no measures are identified to mitigate these traffic
impacts. Near term rriitigation measures for this intersection must be
identified.
!.
Pages 4.93 and 4-94 of the Focused EIR list four primary mitigation
measures for buildout of the proposed project. For two of the mitigation
measures, the Focused EIR indicates rriitigation will be achieved by
. paying fees to Riverside County for impacts at the 1-15 Interchange with
Highway 79 South or by paying the project's fair share 'of the cost of the
improvements at six other intersections. For the other two rriitigation
measures, the Focused EIR recommends that Temecula Regional Hospital
construct the associated mitigation measures.
Mitigation of project traffic impacts can only be achieved through actual .
construction of mitigation measures. Payment of fees to Riverside County
or payment of the project's fair share of improvements to the City does not
guarantee that these mitigation' measures will be built. Until
improvements are actually in place, th(l traffic impacts of the Temecula
Regional Hospital must be considered as "significant" rather than "less
than significant". The Focused EIR must include a mitigation monitoring
program that clearly identifies financing, scheduling, implementl,ltion
responsibilities, and lead agency 'monitoring.
..
6) Numerous Omissions from the Focused EIR - The Focused EIR for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project fails to analyze potentially significant
impacts or to develop mitigation measures associated with the following
topics:
11
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
.
a) Construction Imnacts - The Focused EIR must analyze and evaluate
impacts associated With construction including dirt and building
material hauling, worker traffic, and worker parking for each of the
three major phases. Measures must be developed and incorporated into
the Focused EIR to mitigate construction traffic impacts. These
measures must maintain the City's LOS D standard as defined on
Pages 4.69 and 4-70 of the Focused EIR so construction traffic does not
degrade the LOS below the significance threshold used in the Focused
EIR.
b) Transit Imnacts - Correspondence in response to the NOP dated
August 18, 2005 from Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) in Appendix
A of the Focused EIR indicates "...future bus service is highly likely
along SR 79 and that the busses will be stopping at the proposed
hospital. The City of Temecula has expressed previous support for the
concept of a bus turnout and related amenities along SR 79 to be
installed by the project sponsors."
The Focused EIR fails to address the request for a bus turnout from
RTA. The Focused EIR also fails to quantify the demand for new
transit services that the Temecula Regional Hospital Project will
create and to provide any transit mitigation measures such as
financial contributions to help establish new transit service along
Highway 79 South.
.
c) ;Parking ImDacts - Page 1-4 of the Focused EIR states "Approximately
1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots." As previously
indicated, Page 3-8 of the Focused EIR characterizes the proposed
parking as being significantly above the requirements of the City's
Development Code. However, the Focused EIR fails to review and
analyze the amount of parking being proposed on site.
Parkin!! Generation. 3!'.!! Edition published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) contains parking data for various land
uses including hospitals and medical office buildings. For suburban
hospitals, the average peak parking demand is identified at 4.72
vehicles per bed. To satisfy this demand, at least 1,510 parking spaces
would be needed for the 320 hospital beds in the proposed project. For
medical offices, the average parking supply is identified as 3.9 spaces
per 1,000 square feet. To meet this, at least 616 parking spaces would
be needed for the 140,000 square feet of medical offices, the 10,000
square foot cancer center, and the 8,000 square foot fitness center in
the proposed project. Based on the data published by ITE, at least
.
12
.
.
.
Ms. Gloria D. Smith
Temecula Regional Hospital Focused EIR Traffic Comments
October 26, 2005
2,126 parking spaces are required to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Hospital Project, significantly higher than the 1,278 parking
spaces being proposed.
The Focused EIR also fails to analyze impacts associated with
providing all parking on site as surface parking. With the project
having an overall shortage of 850 parking spaces and with over 30
percent of the project site occupied by surface parking, consideration
must be given to construction of a parking structu.re to reduce
environmental impacts in other areas and to avoid impacts to rock
outcrops and trees on the site.
d) Site Plan Analvsis - The FocusedEIR fails to analyze the proposed site
plan shown in Figure 3-2 on Page 3-5 of the Focused EIR for the
Temecula Regional Hospital. Important traffic considerations that
must be addressed by the Focused EIR include topics such as the
length of driveway throats to adequately accommodate vehicle queuing
and stacking, sight distance at external and internal intersections, on
site vehicle circulation, patient and visitor drop off and pick up areas,
pedestrian facilities, truck loading areas, and accessibility of parking
spaces.
Without these additional analyses, the Focused EIR fails to address all
reasonably foreseeable adverse construction, transit, parking, and traffic
impacts of the proposed project.
In sum, there are numerous transportation and circulation issues, omissions,
and inadequacies associated with the September 26, 2005 Focused EIR for
Temecula Regional Hospital Project. The items outlined in this letter must be
carefully studied and evaluated before reaching the conclusion that most of
the project traffic impacts can be reduced to insignificance with mitigation.
The Focused EIR, TIA, and Addendum must be revised to respond to our
significant comments as part of the environmental process and recirculated
13
':.'-
M~.;~lqFi.f).srnith " , ".
T"'" ,'~..)it"'ln...u""s"it8IFoci.i.edEJRtmftlc.<M-...iWlts
,~Jn..!I,p,...AU p ~"""'" .,......n"'L
O~l$,pS .
.rb'!" uhJie .:'6'W d Cv____t. If' ',' .. hliv~""-'dfiS:~"'-..a~.."'i .tlmsi!l'
".p ". 1.'eY1l, ,U ' ",. yqJ;l. .' 9J!._~~ . .. ~"'S""~"",",' , ,
.Mi.. ,;,!~li1ill.,Vt~~'il!lll.tiiea.t~ci}~~...;;;~~~
.:';;'
;:.
Re~Stibmitmlj
, '1'~B~~aJJ~~S(J:~hlte.s'
.~M~b~
,.',. ~..~atd;.<PE
'P:i~iri~ .
..... ,.~,~
't~
.
e
;;,:.:
...".
' .
.
L
"
:.
.
Licenses:
Education:
Experience:
Memberships:
Expertise:
Tom Brohard, PE
1976/ Professional Engineer / California - Civil, No. 24577
1977 / Professional Engineer / California - Traffic, No. 724
BS / Civil Engineering / Duke University /1969
35 Years
Institute of Transportation Engineers - Member
Orange County Traffic Engineers Council- Chair 1979-1980
American Public Works Association - Member
Tom is a recognized expert in the field of traffic engineering and
transportation planning. His background also includes responsibility for
leading and managing the delivery of various contract services to
numerous cities in Southem Califomia. Since forming Tom Brohard
and Associates in 2000, Tom has reviewed many traffic impact reports
and environmental documents for various projects across the state.
Tom has extensive experience in providing transportation planning and
traffic engineering services across Southem California. From 1972
through 1978, he conducted all traffic engineering investigations in the
Second Supervisorial District in Los Angeles County. He has served as
City Traffic Engineerrrransportation Manager/Engineer as follows:
o Bellflower............,........................ 1997 -1998
o Bell Gardens................................ 1982 -1995
o Huntington Beach ........................ 1998 - 2004
o Indio....................................... 2005 - present
o Lawndale..................................... 1973 -1978
o Los Alamitos................................ 1981 - 1982
o Oceanside ................................... 1981 -1982
o Paramount................................... 1982 -1988
o Rancho Palos Verdes.................. 1973 - 1978
o Rolling Hills.................................. 1973 - 1978, 1985 - 1993
o Rolling Hills Estates..................... 1973 - 1978, 1984 - 1991
o Sail Fernando.......................... 2003 - present
o San Marcos .................................1981 .
o Santa Ana.................................... 1978 -1981
o Westlake Village.......................... 1983 -1994
While serving Huntington Beach, Tom oversaw a staff ,of 20 including
traffic engineers and transportation planners, traffic signal and street
lighting personnel, and the signing, striping, and rnarking crews. He
secured $3.5 million in grant funding, managed the initial West Orange
County Rail Feasibility Study, and recently oversaw the consultant
selection for the City's Traffic Model and Circulation Element Update.
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 2
Selected significant accomplishments during the last four years include the following: .
.:. Conducted Traffic Impact Analyses for the Sacred Heart Church and School Master
Plan in the City of P",lm Desert including presentations to community residents and
testimony at Public Hearings before the City Council (3/2005 to 7/2005)
.:. Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Prewett Ranch
Project in the City of Brentwood for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Traffic Impact Analysis
for the Providence Center Specific Plan in the City of Fullerton for Shute, Mihaly, &
Weinberger (6/2005 to 7/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic and circulation sections of the Draft Subsequent EIR
of the County of Ventura Focused General Plan Update and prepared rebuttal to
responses for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the Community of Somis (12/2004
to 1/2005; 6/2005)
.:. Prepared response to Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for 483
condominiums proposed in three high rise towers in Century City in the City of Los
Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (6/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic and parking impacts identified in the Draft EIR and .
Traffic Impact Analysis for the Long Beach Memorial Medical Center Expansion in
the City of Long Beach for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005 to 5/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Villages at Fairfield Project
in the City of Fairfield for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (4/200510 5/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic, circulation, and parking impacts identified in the
Traffic Impact Analysis for Los Angeles Unified School District Valley High School #5
in the City of San Fernando (4/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the transportation, circulation, and parking impacts identified in
the Draft EIR and the final EIR for the Wood Street Project in the City of Oakland for
the East Bay Community Law Center (3/2005)
.:. Conducted City wide engineering and traffic surveys confirming enforceable speed
limits on 31 street segments for the City of San Fernando (1/2005 to 3/2005)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and in the Revised
Draft EIR for the Central Larkspur Specific Plan in the City of Larkspur and prepared
responses to comments in the Final EIR for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (7/2002 to
8/2002, 12/2003 to 2/2004, and 1/2005 to 3/2005)
.
Tom Brohard and Associates
.
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 3
.:. Checked plans for traffic signal installations and modifications as well as signing and
striping revisions for various projects for Engineering Resources of Southem
California and the Cities of Hemet and Palm Springs (12/2003 to 3/2005)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and traffic study prepared for the Hidden
Canyon (Greenfield) Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan iri Monterey County
fqr Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (2/2005)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Los Angeles International
Airport Master Plan Draft EIS/EIR for Altematives A, B, and C arid in the Supplement,
Draft EIS/EIR for Alternative D, prepared responses to comments in the Final
EIS/EIR, and reviewed Addendum #3 for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger and the City
of EI Segundo (2/2001 to 7/2001, 7/2003 to 10/2003, 11/2004, and 12/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Traffic Study for the 450-460 North Palm. Drive Senior
Housing Residential Project in the City of Beverly Hills for Luna & Glushon (11/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study and provided testimony at a
public hearing regarding the West Los Angeles College Facilities Master Plan in Los
Angeles County for Culver Crest Neighborhood Association (10/2004 to 12/2004)
.
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis as well
as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments in the Final EIR for The
Ranch Plan in the County of Orange for the Endangered Habitats League (6/2004 to
712004 and 10/2004)
.:. Prepared preliminary critique of the Draft EIR and traffic study for the Chandler
Ranch Specific Plan Project in the City of Paso Robles for Adams Broadwell Joseph
& Cardozo (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and traffic-report associated with the Magnolia
Park Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and
traffic study for the McKean Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute, '
Mihaly, & Weinberger (9/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Assessment for Robie Ranch Reclamation
Project in Calaveras County for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (9/2004)
.:. Provided expert assistance to residerits in the City of La Mirada during settlement
negotiations regarding litigation involving the Big T Residential Development Project
in the City of Buena Park (6/2004 to 912004)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR and
, the associated traffic study for the Lake Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San
'. Diego County for SOFAR and Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (8/2004)
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 4 .
.:. Reviewed Traffic Impact Study prepared for the San Fernando Corridors Specific
Plan for the City of San Fernando (7/2004 to 8/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Negative Declaration for the Brisbane Recycling Project in
the City of Brisbane for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (6/2004)
.:. Reviewed various alternative alignments for the extension of Lexington Drive from
Cerritos Avenue to Katella Avenue, a proposed secondary highway, for the City of
Los Alamitos; provided expert assistance to the City of Los Alamitos during
settlement negotiations regarding litigation of the proposed Cottonwood Christian
Center Project in the City of Cypress (4/2004 to 6/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact study for the
Jaxon Enterprises Mine and Reclamation Expansion Project in the County of Merced
for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (5/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Environmental Secondary Study for the Santa Fe Parcel 6
Mixed Use Project in the City of San Diego for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
(4/2004 to 5/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the
for the San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan & Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment in
the City of San Mateo for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 5/2004) .
.:. Reviewed the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan Traffic Analysis for the proposed
redevelopment and intensification of adjacent land uses for the City of Huntington
Beach (12/2003, 4/2004, and 5/2004)
.:. Conducted the Traffic Impact Study of the San Fernando Regional Pool Facility
Project and the associated street improvements for the City of San Fernando
(3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated traffic study for the Pixar Headquarters Expansion in the City of
Emeryville for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the. Draft EIR and the associated traffic impact analysis for the
Lower Lagoon Valley Specific Plan in the City of Vacaville for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (3/2004 to 4/2004)
.:. Conducted the Traffic Study of Two Par1<ing Altematives for the City of Sr;ln Dimas to
provide on street par1<ing to complement potential retaiVresidential development on
the east side of San Dimas Avenue north of Arrow Highway (12/2003 to 4/2004)
.:. Prepared trip generation calculations for various retail and "Big Box' stores in
conjunction with a March 2004 ballot measure in Contra Costa County for Mark R. .
Wolfe & Associates (1/2004 to 2/2004)
Tom Brohard and Associates
:.
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 5
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated transportation impact analysis for the S&S Farms and Hancock Property
Residential Development Plan in the City of BrentwOod for Adams Broadwell Joseph
& Cardozo (2/2004)
.:. Prepared critiques of the traffic impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative
Declarations as well as subsequent rebuttal to responses to these comments for the
Bayfront Live Work Project in the City of Hercules for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (4/2003,10/2003, and 2/2004)
.:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Calming Study of Residential Streets in the City of
San Femando including development of traffic calming guidelines and specific
recommendations addressing over 70 "Hot Spots. throughout the City including
monthly presentations at Transportation & Safety Commission meetings and a
presentation of the Final Report to the City Council (5/2003 to 1/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
associated transportation analysis for the Cottonwood Christian Center in the City of
Cypress for the City of Los AJamitos (112004)
,
i.
.:. Prepared critique of the Recirculated Draft EIR and the associated transportation
analysis for the Sand Creek Specific Plan in the City of Antioch for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (1/2004)
.:. Prepared critique of the Initial Study and the associated traffic impact studies for the
West Dublin Transit Village in the City of Dublin for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (11/2003 to 1/2004)
.:. Prepared critiques of the Initial Study and the' Recirculated Initial Study/General Plan
Amendment and Rezoning for the Jack Parker Trucking Site in the City of San Pablo
for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003 and 11/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and rebuttal to
responses to comments in the Final EIR for the proposed Wal-Mart in the City of
Fremont for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (7/2002 to 10/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to
responses in the Final EIR, and testimony at a public hearing regarding the Alpine
Village Shopping Center in San Diego County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger
(6/2002 to 10/2003) . .
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EI R, rebuttal to
responses in the Final EIR, testimony at public hearings, and assistance during
settlement negotiations regarding the 2000 Avenue of the Stars Project in Century
City in the City of Los Angeles for Tract No. 7260 Association (9/2002 to 10/2003)
'.
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 6 .
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Glen Lorna
Ranch Project in the City of Gilroy for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Ryder Homes Project 'in the City of Oakley for Adams
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (9/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Ravenswood Residential Project in Contra Costa County for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003 to 9/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR for the
proposed Boronda Crossing Commercial Project in the City of Salinas for Mark R.
Wolfe & Associates (8/2002 to 9/2003)
.:. Prepared four grant applications to Caltrans for $1,115,000 of Hazard Elimination
Safety funding to modify traffic signals and to upgrade regulatory, warning, and
street name signs in the City of Santa Ana (3/2003 to 8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Bluerock Business Center Project in the City of Antioch for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Clark Road .
Residential Project in the City of Richmond for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
(8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Initial Study and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Sky Ranch Residential Project in the City of Antioch for
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003 to 8/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cal Poly
Student Housing North Project in the City of San Luis Obispo for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (7/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Final EIR for the Lake
Jennings Ralph's Shopping Center in San Diego County for SOFAR and Shute,
Mihaly, & Weinberger (3/2003 to 7/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the Cypress
Grove Residential Project in the City of Oakley for Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo (6/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the McKean
Road Sports Complex in Santa Clara County for Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger
(5/2003) .
Tom Brohard and Associates
.
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 7
.:. Prepared grant application to Caltrans for $448,000 of Safe Route to School funding
to upgrade all school signs at 68 public and private schools in the City of Santa Ana
(3/2003 to 5/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the
Blossom Valley Middle School for the Dunbar Lane Task Force in San Diego County
(4/2003 to 5/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR and the Traffic
Impact Analysis for the Bettencourt Ranch Aggregate Mining Project in Merced
County for Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld (4/2003)
.:. Conducted a complete review of the General Plan Circulation Element for the City of
. Huntington Beach including comparisons to the Orange County Transportation
Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Streets and drafted a Request for Proposal to
update the City's Circulation Element (8/2002 to 4/2003)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the
proposed Wal-Mart in the City of Gilroy for Mark R. Wolfe & Associates (2/2003 to
3/2003)
:.
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the
Waterfront/Downtown Mixed Use Project in the City of Vallejo for Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo (2/2003)
.:. Provided expert witness evaluation of the traffic impacts caused by simultaneous
construction of various Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority projects for
Sullivan, Workman, & Dee (12/2002 to 2/2003)
.:. Conducted 12 training sessions in Urban Street Design Fundamentals for the
Engineering Department staff in the City of Torrance (4/2001 to 4/2002 and 10/2002
to 12/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in,the Transportation Impact Study
for the Western Research Campus in the City of Richmond in Contra Costa County
for Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (11/2002)
.:. Evaluated Conditions of Approval for the proposed intersection of Mulholland
Highway and Hazel Nut Court in Los Angeles County and provided testimony to the
Board of Supervisors for Seminole Springs Mobile Home Park (11/2002)
.:. Reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Pacific City Project for the
City of Huntington Beach (9/2002)
.
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR for North Yorba
Linda Estates in the City of Yorba Linda for Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (9/2002)
Tom Brohard and Associates
Tom Brohard, PE, Page 8
.:. Conducted the Hacienda Road Traffic Calming Study and presented the final report .
at locally televised meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City
of La Habra Heights (10/2001 to 9/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in Initial Studies with Traffic Impact
Analyses for three residential subdivisions in the City of Pitts burg for Adams
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (8/2002)
.:. Conducted the City Wide Traffic Safety Study and presente(! the final report at
meetings of the Traffic Committee and the City Council in the City of Rolling Hills
Estates (4/2001 to 5/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIR, rebuttal to
responses, and testimony at a public hearing regarding extensions of Corona and
Valley View Avenues in the City of Norco for C. Robert Ferguson (1/2002 to 4/2002)
.:. Prepared critique of the traffic impacts identified in the Draft Initial Study and
Environmental Assessment, rebuttal to responses, and testimony at public hearings
before the Ventura County Board of Supervisors regarding intersection
improvements proposed by Caltrans at State Route 118/State Route 34 in Ventura
County for the Community of Somis (12/2000 to 10/2001)
Tom Brohard and Associates
.
.
.
.
.
l'ecI1n\t;!iCclllsUItillqn,OItaAnalyslsw
I,IIIPlloifSUJlPOrnorihe~
SOIUW ATERlAIR PROTECllON ENTERPRISE
20 I Wilshire Blvd., Second Floor
Santa Monica, California 90401
Fax: (310) 393-4909
Matt Hagemann
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Email: piliaQ"emann((i)swaoe.com
October 26, 2005
Gloria Smjth
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
651 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 900
South San Francjsco, California 94080
Dear Ms. Smjth:
We have reviewed the Draft Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report,
as prepared on September 26,2005 for the City ofTemecula. We have the following
comments on the proposed project's potential for impacts on water quality. We have also
noted in our review that the DEIR failed to discuss potentially significant issues related to
hazardous waste and the geologic setting, including proximity to the Elsinore Fault and
the potentjal for liquefactjon.
1. The EIR Fails to Identify Hazardous Waste Sites
The proposed hospjtal is located within 250 feet of two gas statjons where leaking
underground fuel tanks are the subject of ongoing assessment and cleanup activities. A
Chevron station at 31669 Hwy. 79 is listed as open at the CallEP A "Geotracker" web site
(htto://l>'eotracker.swrcb.ca.!!'ov/reoortslluft.a5IJ ?l>'lobal id=T0606599286&assjmed nam
e=MAINSITEt Contaminants in groundwater are gasoline-related, including methyl
tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-buytl alcohol, (TBA) and toluene.
An ARCO station at 44239 Margarita Road is listed at the Geotracker web site as
undergoing assessment and cleanlip activities
(htto:! /l>'eotracker .swrcb.ca.l>'ov/reoortsl1uft.aso?l!lobal jd=T060659925 5&assi med nam
e=MAlNSITEt As with the Chevron station, contaminants in groundwater include
gasoline-related compounds.
These gas stations are listed by the City ofTemecula in the General Plan as "open fuel
leak cases. In accordance with the City's General Plan:
"any new development that invol~es contaminated property will necessitate the
clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal,
State, and local requirements and regulations. No construction will be pennitted
to occur at such locations until a no further action or similar determination is
issued by the City's Fire Department, Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency."
httn://www.citvoftemecula.onycitvhalI/CommDevDivision/Planninl1ll!DundatelFj
nal%20EIR/5 7%20Hazards%20and%20Hazardous%20Materials.ndf
.
The project is located adjacent to two sites that are listed as open and are actively
undergoing assessment and cleanup for hazardous materials. The EIR does not
acknowledge these sites and their cleanup status. Groundwater is less than 25 feet below
the ground surface at the project location and exposure to the gasoline-related compounds
via the water or vapor pathways is possible during construction and within buildings pot-
construction. Therefore, a full DEIR should be P'~l""OO to identifY potentially
signjficant jmpacts of contaminant exposure to ...v,L"" and hospital staff and patients to
these contaminants. Any pathways of exposure that would result in risk to human health
should be mitjgated prior to constructjon.
2. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project Near an Active
Fault Zone
The EIR does not disclose that the project is located within 2500 feet of the Elsinore
Fault, a fault that has generated a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along its southern segment in
the late 1800s. The Temecula General Plan jdentifies the Elsinore Fault as an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This designation, pursuant to Califomja's Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code, Section 2621 et. seq.) Ijmits the
types of construction and other activities that can occur within the Elsinore Fault Zone to
prevent damage associated with ground surface rupture.
.
A DEIR should be prepared to fully disclose the potential significant impacts on the
project from earthquake shaking and fault rupture. In accordance with the General Plan,
the DEIR should include completion of geologic investigation by a State-Ijcensed
engineering geologist is required to demonstrate that the project will not be constructed
across any traces of the Elsinore Fault. If an active fault is found, a structure
for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back
from the fault in accordance with the California Public Resources Code.
3. The EIR Fails to Identify the Location of the Project in a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone
According to the Temecula General Plan, and as shown in the following figure, the area
underlying the proposed project is especially prone to liquefaction and has been mapped
in a "liquefaction hazard zone"
(J1ttn://www.cjtvoftemecula.orl1lcitvhall/CommDevDjvisjon/Planninl1ll!DundatelFjnal%20
EIR/5 6%20GeolollV''1020and%20SoiIs.ndf_ p. 5.6-4).
.
2
.
F"'I!'I!"!i.6-t
SlifSfuloHd'ard$
........
:_;..~~lc;;.~
iI!--' f~"~J~
:-i!-~~: ~~~:
; :'-~~' :~~~.~.,...
'.:=-&t-~~
-
,;;.
..
'\
(
"
11,..
. ',itA
~~..:
u
.. L~
:H-.:H' l :.w.
;- - ---=-..
-" ~ i.
The EIR fails to discuss the geologic setting of the project and fajls to identity the
project's location within a liquefaction zone. A full DEIR should be prepared to identity
that the area under that proposed hospital is prone to liquefaction and to identity specific
ways in which these conditions can be mitigated.
.
4. The DEIR fails to Discuss 303(d) Impaired Water Body Listing of
Nearby Waters
Twelve miles of Murrieta Creek are listed on the 303( d) list as an impaired water body
for phosphorous pollution. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has
listed sources to include urban runoff and storm sewers, unknown nonpoint sources, and
3
unknown point sources
(httn://www.waterboards.ca.l!ov/tmdlldocs/2002reI!9303dljst.ndfl. Additionally, 18
miles of the Santa Margarita River, the primary drainage course within the Planning
Area, are also Ijsted as impaired for phosphorous from the same sources. The DEIR
states that Murrieta Creek is one of two main tributaries to the Santa Margarita River:
"The creeks drain the inland portjon of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the
Santa Margarita River at Tcmecula Canyon." (pg. 5.8-3)
.
Although the Regional Board's TMDL priority is classified as "low" for Murrieta Creek,
the potential for additional phosphorous contamination from the development project
should be evaluated in the a revised DEIR. Urban runoff typically contains phosphorous
as a main pollution component. Since potential exists for phosphorous contamination to
travel downstream into the Santa Margarita River, further degradjng its water quality, jt is
imperative that mitigation measures as specific BMPs be addressed within the DEIR that
describe how phosphorous contamination will be prevented from entering the Murrieta
Creek.
Furthermore, the DEIR states that flooding of Murrieta Creek banks has occurred during
times of heavy rain:
"Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a number
of channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant damages, and
other water-related problems are caused during major rainstorms, resulting in
increased emergency costs, automobile damage, and traffic disruption. Murrieta
Creek has been altered since the late 1800s and has been channelized for flood
control purposes since the 1930s. Restoration of the natural functions of the creek
is planned, including the banks, channel invert, tributaries and floodplain." (pg.
5.8-3)
.
It is important that this flood potential be mitigated prior to development to protect water
quality of Murrjeta Creek and its tributaries. Flooding of the developed site can
contribute urban contaminates to the creek, which include but are not limited to debris,
oil, grease, herbicides, and nutrients from fertilizers such as phosphorous. Mitigation
measures should be evaluated in the DEIR and implemented upon development.
5. Failure Achieve NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002
Requirements
Applicants of construction projects disturbing one or more acres of soil are required to
file for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No.
99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with
Constructjon Activity (General Permit). The proposed development is thus subject to the
NPDES permit requirements.
The General Permit also requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain:
.
4
.
. a sjte map which shows the construction site perimeter;
. existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
and discharge points;
. general topography both before and after construction;
. drainage patterns across the project.
The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to
protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. The DEIR fails to meet the
NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002 requirements and does not include a SWPPP,
nor discuss specific mjtigation BMPs.
Additionally, the DEIR omits the discussion of post-construction stormwater
management best management practices (BMPs) as required by Sections A of the
SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. Given post-construction adverse
jmpacts on water quality associated with the project's operation, such as anticjpated
water pollution due to increased traffic volumes, typjcallandscaping upkeep, and
equestrian uses of trails, discussion of post-construction stormwater BMPs is critjcal to
ascertain the effectjveness of these BMPs to mitigate such operational jmpacts and meet
applicable water quality attainment objectiveS.
'.
The DEIR omits the inclusjon of water quality monitoring programs as required by
Sections B of the SWPPP in accordance with NPDES General Permit. The NPDES
permit requires that a SWPPP also include a salnpling and analysjs strategy and sampling
schedule for discharges from construction activities that directly impact water bodies
listed on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Sectjon 303(d) impaired water
bodies list for sedimentation. Since both Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita River are
listed on the Regjonal Board's 303(d) list as impajred for phosphorous, a revised DEIR
should be prepared to include a monitoring plan for the establishment of baseline water
quality conditions, prior to construction, to evaluate and validate the effectiveness of the
BMPs, to measure the ,,;r,,~;; veness of the BMPs and avoid further degradation of the
impaired waterways.
6. The DEIR Contains an Inadequate Water Supply Assessment
'.
The project js subject to the requirements outlined by the California Water Code section
10910, also known as SB 610. This law requires that the public water system, which in
this case is the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), prepare a Water Supply
Assessment (WSA). This assessment is included as Appendix G within the DEIR.
However the assessment js jnsufficient according to SB 610 and fails to meet the
following requirements as outlined within the bill:
Groundwater - Basin Description, PWS Pumping, and Sufficiency Analysis
10910. (f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the
following additional information shall be included in the Water Supply
Assessment.'
,
.,
5
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to
comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b),for the past jive years from any
groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied The
description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably
available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater
that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if
either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b) from any
basin from which the proposed project will be.
.
The DEIR explains that additional water supply for the project will be available via local
groundwater sources:
"To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital,
the RCWD intents to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the
following alternatives: (I) Continued practjce of managing groundwater levels
through natural and artificjal recharge via groundwater extracted using existing
and planned RCWD-owned wells. . . " (pg. 4-34)
However, the WSA does not include a "detailed description and analysjs" of the most
recent groundwater usage, including source locations and pumped volumes for the past
five years, or provide a detailed descriptjon of projected water usage volumes, as
mandated by points (3) and (4).
.
Additionally, within the WSA (pg. 7) the following js stated regarding groundwater
volume: "The amount of groundwater which can be produced varies due to such factors
as rainfall, recharge area and amount and location of well pumping capacity." In the
event of a drought with decreased surface water flows the WSA states that "increased
groundwater extractions along with implementation of conservation and other measures"
will makeup the difference. Without calculated projected groundwater volumes there is
no way to guarantee that groundwater can be consjdered an adequate source. The DEIR
needs to quantify the range of variable groundwater volume and then evaluate the most
conservative scenario to demonstrate quantjtatively that water demand will still be
achieved.
.
6
~
....
Sincerely,
. luwKY! {-cv'><./-----
Matt llagernaDII
Lisa cuellar
7
,...
'.' .
"
"'" lj' ,
Mitiik~.: ". 'jt
,', ",',",, " .,'tllJ~
" ,
.~
'~," .....;~..- ", '.ami/L1d rimr~;'~~'~C'/alt1t
"l'll~I)' .. ' , . $U ,,~I."""Vl'" ,
, , ,
',."v." ',.'.. M~..t~~~~..
b1:~~II.JJ~\1\lli.IIl\tlJm..~:te~
Bf4tt1jfi\Ol<ijjl~~fll~~ '
L1tllJJ~~ '
,~~i\Vt_,
~
:~~~,;:,,", , "_'0_.'. ",,, ,'_ ,"
:l\di$';:~iG~iCii:lifomta:Stl@umVlltSiryLOS ~llili,~:Mtiil~;'~A. filM"
.~;~~l1A'lPg}.,.~IiJ*'S~VlliYIl1llity';A~~llli:dA.1911Z< .
'" ';;;;;;.....,;;.;i;,...=,,~~'S ;,..... u'" .' ..'~ "".....Pin 'I"""
"";'~""..;;~_,~,..,_~,' 'l!I.en~.",lIl~tlf:Q."""1W!l.'.."lll'''~'w"""",~,:,
I,
'.'
I'
m~.i"'liiJ.'''!liiimii!_,,
"fii~l;::'>ieh~'" ,.,','oi'~fCl>lji,k .','..,..'.,.j)t~I~~.~~,~d'~~IA$>it~~r~~f$
.~~~!ll~i-aili.,It~;,'~Alllgllt,~el;an.d.dte:teC~tS1ldtnf:teV$Im.!es:Jll'tIit/a~tl<In.and.'
,.~~=~;t~::.:~::=i~7~:~~=:m~~.:J=::~=::.
",'.~.li-.i!~,~l.$;~~Mllli!full.,~~
~'liiliiS;Mli'W~~td:~~: .
) "~lIi~f..mtt~afRe~~~~.SW~
. . '~f;'~fu11l!liIlil,~yst,I;;~X.H2~~~'~
r~~~
.aooul~~:$;~~;!\'qlI
.'. ,...' ;(l\!<iID!~~l\'fl'if6liii>.
}'e "'.' ~~..~!fl~~,l!1i4.:~~\!t
;~."." , ,.
f.
.
..
/.
q~;vtt~
l'
MbftW~~Iih"
~".."Il~atorv<llDa'..itYI~eutal,Anai~t'
Wl.'8Wtdl'E,.MliWHti.lp&~""v~ in1IID4ed:
.' 'Pt"Citr..,.. ""it~'!Oi.Iittii1\ti"u"" " 'il~,j\rcjml~~itIl3m'~l~,(l'(.
'f~::;.=t,~~~.'~~;lltil1ilj~.'~~.and'.~:~f~im..~~,
~t'~llf~ ' ,
eo '~teV#lW~!lf;...;;~,.JIl~lillnti!ler,~rtS'jnI4~g~AAllti.~ ~~tp,;_.)",i$'~.
'Wii~,qiiidlit~'~l~~,
.,' 'Ll~iSOliJo.'~ti\lld:$'~m;~g,WitIl'tl1efr'~tlt~1ll0il%.~O~!ii:J11iitille@jot~iUyd
.atr,'jtchl.tcit~ '.warer..hh~'~,
. " , "...If .,.."",
.\\fIth'~liZO;saeiJce1l1C.~li'&~:incllU!<\4\Nlt6lJo . :
"r~i';i.<mimi'ofii"reJiOit~~-ltt'C ~~f~m<iil!te.~;;::;;.';:~;'~t'Wa$'~'ml...';;,,';".r.b~'~',
:W;~'IlPA~ml-li!t\l~,~.."".;;\;
..,...,~,l'IlS~hilh'lldE.~Of:a:~~e~a1l}'iii~'l:brolIbl_,iifi1\rtllI':t\i~l,
.; ..:~.t:~=-4i!.~ln!)jltQti'l~"q.~~~~li.iLl"i~Ve'cllr~'Of!lllt!iliJlj~
-..., ,r......'''''k:~''':>>l>~,,'''. '".,'"'",.'....,
~r~~~~~
.. :Se1Hbr, .~~Ui ,..,.~ i~ ~\!ll)t\'$ ).~IitiWiije ~; f&~a$. ~aliQn an(.IdrinKil!ll'~
.~,"~..~~
. .
, '!,.;=:;~~::l)<}llll"~d~ Wli<<:t$\\Jl'lljjpJ,tiillhhllYlli~~.Ilt~_itt
:.';=:~~~:~:::=;;:;;;~:~~~"'iu.t;Pa,~~;~,
."=~~~;~:oF~_'ili~ilIlli\mWitlit~~;
.....'.,_....~ ',,' ,
, .t"''':12~~~
.~m~iIl:ttlrr '
'~j~~(J~Qt;~~y;~.Wilt~'M~~,~J(l teflijrtjwatl!t~~1itGtit.'
:_f.;..lleachus;;;;';;';;;;~t""'~-$ ,'o~ 'M,.,......, ,.....~..,ft_, ;;;"ft<l'tlnO-tJf"..>r:"'-?""~'Ill\m'~","--':lit'
,," y. '" , '<, . "...."'.~.,;~\l9l\_ll!'.........._!lf,~......."'.."""_, .,ll8/! '.. ~..__
....i:~1E~a.
......'.I=1S:~i=:=~~==i.
,', .~~~(.b~liliiIi.~' ' , "
.
.
, .
~~;~""jt'lm
..ii~!a~ie;~::==iTJ:$:=='..".
. ~~if'lil~~t~'lls'm~ .
Q\)I@.(.il\JittVi~~ '
'. '
)
;M4ttii~fi""".,;,<.".. .~~
'j""
I
;e
... '
,.,'
'1
,
'I,
I
I:'
1<
I
I
i
I
:e'
I
"
i
I
r
I' ,
I'
1
,
~'-
'.1:
.r-;;.".-
-, ,-
- ;,
..,. 'fi;d.'etrotls:Jo,ii1OlIel.groundWliter' t10w "lidWll'.;;,"'~...tiJinSpllit ,'tiiIS!lmI" aimquai;Yo(lllOlUlbfliit'llil~
. . ." ..,' , : . e,' _".
',l\lld;l!BSe~de4l1\Jp altil1nliliv,e$itotCllll\llltiil\a!$~InlI'Jlt.S9il. illld!lt<l.~W1';
.', '1nI$le!La.~~ ..."...,.;~.1.9r\!!l'-4l\1J\ljPil(>tgll!~...",,~ ..,..,;j~amfl4.L"'_Il\1!lllrsi.B~1Ptli~
&Ses.
ii' 1~~iif.ed,~'iSsm:5;.wrote"teCliiIiClil,,~Cetana'asai\(tlid'il1~y;iuid-'-~/>ifiOOt~.'.
w$onf~llalU;S,BFNWor~liiips;iooli1iifugtileSliP~~;.A-; Te.:lIlli~~ .
$'tlh~.."..",..t,~~'!IIe,~te'9~'f{II\1(llii;'~'d~velOJlll!i~,I,l.tetlt!l!!!i~.:t\l'jIJ.;..,;;:a.e:~~~\iYQf~'
~'.'ro~~llriatioilon'lIie .ij~;;Q~M$:' ,litJ'l,. o.t,b., ',~'.usellJiDlil~i<llil'~~,jjfuJ l\.'~W' SIlfj.W~s9'f;
, ".~i!llY;andlh\f.tcSUl1s~il'a40IlI~~.hM;'\ly{l!ill:81Iile(jHlriWJiii&il<t~, iif.Mii\li,
....-., . '-' - -. .. ---, -'"'. '.'
.=t::=~~~~:~::=~~~='~=~~~::;:,:riW""
.'. "~'lii1;EP'A,:ai:Dl\Ze:'Me'daIfuj(liJ.iCiitlltibiltiOttt\ll!jjd~,"f~'ti~,,,~.fiitihi>'..roflifulbil\.,
rir4th'tlllmIWilfer.
..:rIifa '...~ 'l!iS(;t'S "''''Iill'er'ir ...............t......<~,,~~ waiQrllf' ";j..~~""
, .~l>....;, e' e, ~',""',.'CI'q~'...""prl!.~,;..".."""_".. .'l,Wl1';~_......"""'~y""~
."~!,gililliljjj,~.lIle,'~...~i1~g,Wltl;T.~,,a~l1M;~~,ogi~~~~pii\iIj~;~1jriil'.
,..,.~.ftili1ic~;:~;::...;Jts''j'rilIiilllSldFn~,,1lOwm,~.liiimillnti;i1ill@ftthO.'~~
.~. !=,:;,~":r;:~~:~J:,:~=!=i=~~t~~~iliclnd~,~~
.Ml\it:~"d""ia~yi/ill&eriIQ~t~jlh\;MR.OR'A:.~oU$.WlliI~.;.v~;.;.;;j;.I1~;~#;~i
..'~~.hy<tw~l\ltieill.\!~~~ntlf~lI$VIilSill_'~'~'mm;~~e
"i~~,
'. ,\tf~eWed.~Widtt')j~Cl1.l-~'peCffl1WfOt;tJi~~Ii)f~li#l~~~Ii;iit,
~, ,.~IliJU$tetfR~.Cilit""ti"'.^~U9i,,~.~.lM!!~;Qj'~\ti.~~'llll'4;~.~~~ lllliifi>.!l\i1~t~
,::~;~li6allt~I:t\llil~iilll!lli:it~i1Inillfq!le'<tfuelose;~llMW1tIttJ?AJlPAJ~lc;;jWI!E,
'~':,w.tiffl:;~i:t,~ciff~1fOii$iliidj\l.li~_'ellU~i!;ln\ie~t~'(\t~'8~
wlillil!#! HlI#9~11'#k,~~"':Mli:lJillr~~.~~" ~.~~~;m':..;.;,."..t'" .it.;,&,t\~"",~i~
:_dli1iiidof!wata.litf;iiiclitMllSi\lib:f~~ ., . '
""'~",.:i::=:~~;:::t~~mw"~8iidtbt~;~~~ .
."ii=~~~.'~;'~'b~;:~'4'~""~';;;''::-~ ~.:_,~\~~,,~,,~;~~
:!t_:5~:=:
",~"".=ki~=:=::::::=::::::~t'~~"""
"~\iJ!i#iVlI!il~
MQfibe-'''i';W~~,
fa
tlbItltVl .
~~<SeniOf"",t\lltl'fl~f~~' ~Or;~Pii!icy ~Wll!libe{j;I);'EI1\l;.;",,-.;.....llfl~\\tID~"~
~9.~;;!h'iUO$:futbillll4i~~
"' .~!I~'ll'eiJ,{~l~Wt'liiiclsmlQr~,~~:";""'M"';;'....JIt~'iSstie$. $U!iIl"l$.tIIii..~tt'Iliilit"rotihe
, ....;..d.'._...~WY.'~E"'""",' ,",-_......j--'I"'(;td'ri;>M;illl!<f:dtlil~lftii::t..._U..., ,
:O~lpe.~. ~,.~.n'~...-......'~.~.,"~"~,,~"~J~,~__~ ,"t. '" ..__~,_ _._ '._' ,. _ "... "~y"'"'''!1''.
. ~ed.,i!PJ\!S;ll!!.~~Il):~"',~~.by'~r~illlr9!1'i'{(!~'Il!l\1'lir':~~.$'>.IOe~.
,~'lu!;IltJg'..!()IfiCe 'lf~~~4.....,l1)e~(lllI!'IIt<P!!l7!iclJ!ilJ!l,;~~;"w.-.,,~nnihmlatfun.'liJ!1
Rilsell~N~
of ,fiiltlJ1>'iIelttlulc~!ClI~.gfEM~'~'tl!I1ifil:,3tlli..f\@jl~~~ , ,,'
..~. ,i!/?l\;~_tfDt, ~ AgW:iJ'fgiilil's~>$l!ientM:'lIil'il~:iII:~$iiliill'tlli,\llt
.~J;;';~';:__f~Sep!~.!tIl_~:~~lIil~!lt~%Pfbl9~,~;~J'I~r~ro$t~ .'
.~1\tisDtid'l1!lll.miit'ml'OClll:tot;ilie ".~.;;;....oJiUij~ll1ilt&,~.
, . ",'.,."...',]1 ',-' ,~, """ .....,. "...",
~l " "
_'.i~j.$,l'Qrest~lt<il_'\edJ~OfiftQ ~,lj;ill.IotltSllltii1iti'ijfanmsti~mf'~,
~.>Iltjhe~l'~~,~;~~!lGIiViiia'wm-Miil~
" .~ea'il~~*'t1Ji:;{l~i\!l!!1f~1lt;rlaIpillllilgnlpll!~l~t~~M4'~~~I'~W~
.Ol~l~'jlf~,
" .,' .~,..\:~~"lj;~;~;_~"i\'Ii'i~~'VhOwerli;llOl'l,~;w[Jh~~~ft.~
'>"':.~thIi~~;iIfliA,~l/liit'~StiHlll:_~:\it~~tiil'tIitlml}idf~~;,,' ,.'.
.'~~::~~::~~~~t::=~~mi~'~ .
.,..,..""'..,,""" ~"~",lililn"lJIWi'.fQr;S'(lil;\Ut4. ,"ll!ldWaldf-i-,
..."""I~_......... ' ~"""(~', ,,',' ,. .J,gJ:l! . ~"'"
..~:~~
..' '-liiv ".'. '11-'" "''''''''................flte. ' "ed'tlir"~"..i-._'. '" ."'''''n' 'j'
, ..""....,_,...!Y.....~."""""'......... J!l'Qllj'lS. , ~!/'.!llllll'.""'''''!IlI,
~ " :
t!iii'
....'!ra~~.
;f'~ilt'a'4ISl~tileu\blWf~~ti:l1i\ii_.~te,~:
'. ....,'...1J!a~'im~.j:,.i\~ii'li~Wilt;ij!1~jj{IIiOi;:l>I!i!ll.ViJt~,
~iM~~~oIiR , "
'.~J=~~'etrtiOl1<ifim>~~;~i\i_~'~~;~.
".:~'~~~41~t:_~~~~<W~acw.~"
.,.~~~~t~~i&~'~t~~M'1i:W'~~\w.~ji\~"'~'
.
'~t!t:n~i~'
-4
!~H"';~"",,,,mn ,
,..
.X
.
.~ .
"
~ .
!~..
:.
!'.
L
,1- ~:
I,':"'
I.' "
'\...
1.
;1'.:
Ittr:
~m!ln"'~;;2OlJ;t. N~~t\l'tMA~e~'!:if~.alft3till'll~IiQjL'~
lli:~latitil1,tO;ifie;Cilifotiilli~ly"Niitural Rl:soUl'Ce;J;ij~.
'"i!~M4i,,~~;;~~A~lltWa;rL\!ga~il1 ~WlliCr" Pl'e'$'\riil)tionI6a~MiIie
,N~~r;~..
.g~.,;:;.;;' !Ij~~.;~;,j,1j~:.t'anT<.to1\p~;I\~l9gyof.M.'ffl1t!n(Jr<l\illllwlllW, Pi'~iat!D1ito a~of
!bi!'.'ffli1Qi14I'~mJ!V.'iiilW&#JatlmL
, ;_~_ii)M;iIf\..~.. ~B$~Of!li<ieostto,AiltlieS$MTBli~on'l1l,Gi",~.":"'...-et
~_W.ur_ '~~~:lit.a';;';':C:;;";;.;.f1be,N\illl:>n$Gf~tet'A$SJiliialiGlI.
,l.E.i~~.~~:=;:p~_~=a
,.~liI!iii.:;,2lli!';,1it.<im'W'l(t'l'a,:''ii~tl.lllgy<>f-~jn,~.'ijhpu~~hiillre~
,lt~,MJr. ,1001'. ,~ttdGleiilli41 GO$tfor''M1'aE mct&~t tf~ iis'~!l;'W-aiit,
(;1~~'t~' ',,', ,"',
.r~=~1llll~;"a;;:'~,;;.J'~t9""i~~~ltt;~1rofu'~~~~~~'T:l!illIi;
,. ,
...'..'. .:'.~t~J.=;::.1;~~=;;:~~=~qp!lt~;Ra~W~f1\r~W~,
~~'.~ l\liil"'ll~:'M;F:';1?99;:Wlitet~ilty,~,.it(jhite(:bt(l<Pe'M\ilalWilteroiilllU$a~ '.
'~_...C-"-+-~,nivJsi-,.,~t>1mrSefVill ,t<<~Tri.-rt. '
",.~!'t""""'l...,......"., ",..,.",!'>,..,""""""
.w.-.~;..~;;t9im,'lS,~lm,. ..tJlecSO,utWllw Y<l11i.lOOl1 Iii Niliil>/lliLl'ili'b? 11l~, Geor~it.W-lilgl\IS@il#
.............,;u' ,'. ,L,,=,,"~ "'1J....... n... u_
....__....~,~V1l'll;A''''''';_I)_,
4i~~;!;~;:~,;.~4~'$4:'i99-?i~'Nt~:~r~'\Ii'~ij~Wa,~BfJ~..~A,,'~~~~.,"
W~e.it~~~~\i'~,Iif_da. ' '
..,..'..,,~~~..~R~,~'.~,~,l'9~,;~~~~~~~q#,:lf~it4~~,M~It-,mlM~~filla..
""''''''""",,,,",' .r.....=<' "","'""~"'<.i.>"", '.....-""'=..,.'..ot=""'"'..'''''<."l'~.......
. :~~~.oo.~~~-~~~~~~,~~~~~i9~\~.' :,..~_.;:.~~~~~~.
", '''~~.~~~;4;'~,~\<~IY1?OOt~~Ip.!(~nie
" '=:~~&f~'~~~'I-lil\ViWW.W:~'~Il~i~..M~\ij',
:;1E~1iliF:~=;::~~~~~~nt4~~'~~ "
. '.'.'. ,. ,...... .
,~f;i~m~t'it$ ,
Ml:rtt"~~uM
:$
;f"';'.'
~~I" ~~., liJ.?4~dl'O~t:~\ilr,:ll1idQ_.Q,\ G~g;'~jlillY~l!>.c~i~\\; .
~g~~~~1i4i:lt:~~W~~'~~1\~ '
, - .
,m.'ii,' ","~""""':"''''',' ""''''''';jljjIJ:'sa, "~t""","'''A., '1""..""''Ile,;f..... 'J1:.$\EPkill".ili'eiit,...., ,;i',,,,"~,,,,,-~",,,..__,...i.'-"'_''''''''h''';;,''
...~~~~1J'~. ._ 't.nJ'9,1n; "'.' 7~~~,1W" 0 ~. ",.".' . ,M~. ~~~".l-~~ ~~
'~"':;";"'~'..JI,t..:.. 't....;., :'-Sic.l",~~..........;fum'(IU:"ioo.'''''''Ul....i)'''''''''''''h'o'I'~''.'';-'''i1lIi:r;' "
,.' _",Iq~". ,1>-., ",.1"~,J'>,lo\,,, "".r.....". ,..____,.,""-''''''"''y""
~n;wtt?.; l!l!l~t1.$. :AA~'~ on # !rCf,JmIOlll,~ol!billl1' or fila ;(:JAlii1tij> ~~Ai\1..
,.~ttii~~watet:,.€;illfoniIa~;~'~~.
, "~~~l'~~ 19!12;;"Q~"*~~'P~"'liiqJi:ldi~J!iWtrnl!IAA9"~,*,-:a~ '~""'1~;
"'~!!W:_J'i;...Pt~Iij~~18U~,j,f,~~SUft>li\",,l~M;5Sj
''q~ul\im'~~;
. .. '.
';~,,!~:
Ii
.
.
\.
.
Comments
on
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report
'I
I.
TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
Prepared by
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Leson & Associates
(415) 492-2131
October 27, 2005
'.
"
.
Table of Contents
I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN...............2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL Sn. Hl-lG ARE
INADEQUATE ...........................................................................................................3
II.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently
Described..........................................................................................................3
II.B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis ...............................................4
II.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described ..................................4
II.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts......................5
II.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly
Identified. ..... ............ ................... ......................... ................................ ............6
II.F PM2.5 Emissions Not Analyzed ...................~...............................................7
II.G No Health Risk Assessment Included.........................................................7
.
III. THE DRAFT EIR IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF
MITIGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE...........................................................................................;.............8
IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED .....................:....8
IV.A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates.................8
IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable ......................................................10
IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not
Included..........................................................................................................10
V. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED............................ll
V.A Emissions Sources Omitted.........................................................................11
V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included ..................................12
V.C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle
Emissions........................................................................................................12
V.D Traffic Emissions Underestimated .............................................................13
V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included .........13
VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND
EFFECT IS NOT ANALYZED ...............................................................................14
.
i
.
VII. ADDmONAL MITIGATION IS FEASIBLE ....................................................14
VII.A Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation...........................................15
VII.A.l Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures............................................ 15
VII.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures.......................................... 19
VII.A.2.a CARB-certified Construction Equipment................ 20
VII.A.2.b Post-combustion Controls.......................................... 21
VII.A.2.c PuriNOx....................................... ................................ 23
VII.B Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation.............................................24
VII.B.l Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures.................................. 25
VII.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures.................................:... 27
VII.B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect ................................... 29
VII.B.3.a Reduction Of Standard Paving By 20% ................... 29
VII.B.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products........:................... 30
VIII. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................33
List of Tables
.
Table 1: Project Cons~uction Phases...................................................................................9
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output for 36-month Construction Period and
Vehicle Emissions Target Year 2009
.
ii
.
.
I.
COMMENTS
The City of Temecula ("City") as the Lead Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Report1 ("Draft EIR") for the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital ("Project"). The
proposed Project consists of a General Plan amendment, Zone Change,
Development, Plan, Conditional Use P~rrnit ("CUP"), and a Tentative Parcel Map to
allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula
, and surrounding area.
The Project includes construction of a 408,160-square foot, 2-tower hospital
complex containing approximately 320 beds, two medical offices totaling
approximately 14,000 square feet, a 10,000-square foot cancer center, an 8,OOO-square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, and a helipad. Total building area is approximately
566,160 square feet on the 35.51 acre site. Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will
be provided on surface lots. The Project will be constructed in five phases. (Draft EIR
pp. 3-4 through 3-8.)
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which this Draft EIR satisfies. First,
CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential,
significant environmental effects of a project before any decisions are made. (14 Calc
Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15002(a)(1).) A Draft EIR is the "heart" of
this requirement. (No Oil, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68, 84 [118Cal.
Rptr. 34].) The EIR has been described as "an environmental' alarm bell' whose
purpose it is to alert the public and its responsjble officials to environmental changes
before they have reached ecological points of no return." (County of In yo V. Yorty
(1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810 [108 Calc Rptr.377].) To achieve this goal, an EIR
must contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions. (See Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Calc 3d 553, 568.)
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental
damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. (CEQA
Guidelines ~ 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also Citizens of Goleta Valley V. Board of
Superuisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410, 416]; Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass'n V. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400
[253 Cal. Rptr. 426, 436]).) CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible
mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant
1 City of Temecula, Draft Environmental Impact Report, TemecuIa Regional Hospital,
SCH# 2005031017, September 26, 2005.
Pless, Comments On Ternecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
. adverse environmental impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub.Res.Code !j21081(a);
CEQA Guidelines !j15370.) To effectuate this requirement, ElRs must set forth
mitigation measures that decision makers can adopt at the findings stage of the
process. (CEQA Guidelines !j15126(c).) F9r each significant effect, the EIR must
identify specific mitigation measures. Where several YV;CHtial mitigation measures
are available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one
over the other should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines !j15126(c).) Mitigation measures
should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts,"
"rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines !j15370.) Public
agencies must deny ayyLU val of a project with significant adverse effects when
feasible alternatives and mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.
(Sierra Club v. Gilray City Council, 222 Calc App. 3d 30, 41 (1990).)
The comments below provide an analysis of the Draft EIR's failure to meet
these requirements of CEQA The Draft EIR should be revised to address these
issues and be recirculated for public review.
I. THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The Draft EIR finds a number of significant and unavoidable impacts,
necessitating the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC")
should the Gty certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed Project. (Draft EIR,
p. 1-7.) The City of Temecula's General Plan requires that "air quality impacts
associated with development projects [be] mitigated to the greatest extent feasible."
(General Plan, p. AQ-10, Policy 2.4, emphasis added.) Specifically, the General Plan
requires that the Gty "[aJpprove development that could significantly impact air
quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all
reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact." (General
Plan2, p. AQ-13, emphasis added.) As discussed in Comment VlI, the Draft EIR fails
to incorporate all mitigation measures recommended by the General Plan to reduce
adverse effects on air quality. In addition, as discussed in Comments VlI.A and
VII.B, numerous other feasible and reasonable mitigation exist that could reduce the
Project's significant impacts on air quality. Therefore, the Draft EIR is inconsistent
with the General Plan..
.
2 City of Temecula, General Plan, adopted April 2005.
.
Page 2
.
i.
.
Pless, Cmnments On Temecula Regianal Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
n. PROJECf DESCRIPTION AND ENVffiONMENTAL SETIING ARE
INADEQUATE
An accurate and complete Project description is the heart of an EIR and is
necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of a
project. As explained in the discussion following Section 15124 of the CEQA
Guidelines,3 an EIR must describe the proposed project"in a way that will be
meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision-
makers..." The state court of appeal declared that " [a]n accurate, stable and finite
project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally adequate EIR."
(County of lnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 192 [139 Cal. Rptr.
396,401].) In contrast, "[al curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws
a red herring across the path of public input." (ld., at 197-98; see also, CEQA 515124;
City of Santee v. County of San Diego, 263 Cal. Rptr. 340 (1989).) As one analyst has
noted:
The adequacy of an EIR's project description is closely linked to the adequacy
of the EIR's analysis of the project's environmental effects. If the description is
inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project, the environmental
analysis will probably reflect the same mistake. (Kostka and Zischke,
"Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act," p. 474 (8/99
update).)
As discussed in the following comments, the DEIR fails to destribe the Project
and its environmental setting accurately and completely. it omits key project
features that have the potential to result in significant impacts. As a result,
potentially significant environmental impacts were not adequately analyzed or
addressed by the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR is fatally deficient under
CEQA.
n.A Project Construction Schedule And Equipment Insufficiently Described
The Draft EIR fails to include a detailed construction schedule with the list of
equipment that will be used, the horsepower of each piece of equipment, the hours
of operation, the type of fuel used, the length and timing of the individual
construction phases, and so forth. Further, the Draft EIR contains no information
regarding the expected timing of completion of each of the major project phases as
well as the buildout horizon for the entire Project. This information is typically
provided in an EIR but was not. Without this information, emissions resulting from
3 California Code of Regulations, TiUe 14, Sees. 15000 et seq. (" CEQA Guidelines").
Page 3
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regiorud Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Revort, October 27, 2005
.
construction cannot be accurately estimated. As discUssed in Comment IV.B, the
Draft EIR uses mostly default assumptions to model construction emissions, which
may considerably underestimate emissions.
II,B No Grading Plan Or Cut-And-Fill Analysis
The Initial Study for the Project finds no significant impacts with respect to
geology and soils, relying on a geotecmucal investigation conducted for the Project.
The Initial Study fails to include this study for public review. According to the Initial
Study, the 5cv;c..hnical investigation recommends over-excavation up to 24 inches
below existing grade and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavement.
(Appx. A, NOP JInitial Study, p. 16 through 18.) Yet, neither the Draft EIR nor the
Initial Study contains a grading plan or any other information regarding the amount
of cut and fill necessary for development of the site or the projected amount and
location of spoils, if any. Review of the Draft EIR's emissions modeling suggests that
only some minor amount of material will have to be imJ exported4. This suggests
that the Draft EIR largely relies on balancing the amount of cut and fill of native soil
on site with no additional import of fill material or export of excess cut material. Yet
neither the Initial Study nor the Draft EIR contains any information demonstrating .
that cut and fill can, in fact, be balanced on site. This information is typically derived
from a grading plan- which would ordinarily be provided in an EIR but was not. If
cut and fill can not be balanced on site, material would have to be imported or
exported, which causes additional emissjons.
II.C Mechanical Equipment Not Adequately Described
The Project requires a variety of mechamcal equipment including heating and
air conditioning equipment, emergency generators, boilers, and so forth. None of
this equipment is described with any detail in the Draft EIR. Draft EIR provides only
the following vague statement: " A truck loading area and facilities plant will be
located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides
infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower,
generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area." (Draft EIR,
p. 3-4.) Review of the Project site plan indicates three cooling towers, two emergency
generators, two transformers, and a fuel tank located in the mechanical yard. (Draft
EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3-2.) The Draft EIR's noise impact analysis further indicates that
· URBEMIS2002 modeling assumes 18 vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") for on-road truck travel during
the grading phase, suggesting a minimal im/ _..t'~.; of materials, approximately 2500 cubic yards
based on the t"~b'..m's default values. TIrls small amount of material is most likely export of existing .
pavements, utilities, and other deleterious material that has to be removed from the site.
Page 4
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
the mechanical equipment room, which is proposed to be located inside the Phase IB
hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard, will contain pumps, chillers, and
boilers. Air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and outlet
exhaust systems will be located on the hospital's rooftop. (Draft EIR, p. 4-63.)
This limited information, scattered over several chapters of the Draft EIR, is
entirely inadequate to dp.termine emissions and resulting environmental impacts
frQm operation of the mechanical equipment. A complete and accurate project
description must include the fuel, firing rate, and number of boilers; the capacity for
the two emergency generators; the type and efficiency of the y,vIN~ed pollution
control equipment; the circulating water flow and total dissolved solids ("IDS")
content of the cooling water; the drift rate of the cooling towers; and the information'
required to model these sources, e.g., stack location, height, diameter, exhaust gas
flow rate, temperature, and so forth. Without knowledge of these characteristics, it is
impossible to d<.k'hJne emissions from this equipment and, in fact, they were not
included in the vy<..c..tional emissions estimates for the Project. (See Comment V.A.) ,
II.D Insufficient Information To Evaluate Cumulative Impacts
i.
Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative
impacts of a project" ... when a project's incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable." The Draft EIR finds significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project on air quality and, thUs, also significant and unavoidable cumulative
impacts. The Draft EIR evaluates impacts "based primarily on 21 related projects
identified by the Gty of Temecula." For a description of 17 of these projects, the
Draft EIR relies on a 2002 traffic impact analysis for another project, the Apis Plaza.
Rather than providing a summary of these projects in the cumulative impacts
analysis section, the Draft EIR refers the reviewer to the traffic impact analysis
contained in Appendix 0 for further information. Yet Appendix D does not contain
any information beyond the name and proposed uses of these projects and their
projected trip generation; it claims that the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis is
contained in its Appendix E, but the Initial Study fajled to include this document.
Further, the Draft EIR claims that four additional projects were supplemented, yet it
fails to supply any information on these projects. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1 and Appx. D,
p. 9.) The Draft EIR contains no information for any of these 21 projects, for example
the time period over which they will be constructed, their <..;y<.~ted buildout, or the
air quality impacts resulting from their construction or operation In short, the
information provided in the Draft EIR is entirely inadequate to assess the
cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from the Project.
,
,
'.
Page 5
Pless, Comments On Temecula riegional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
.
II.E Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards Not Correctly Identified
Particulate matter is emitted from two sources, engine exhaust and fugitive
dust. The health impacts of particulate matter depend on its size, and the size
depends on its source. Combustion sources, such as vehicle exhaust, predominantly
emit particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers ("PM2.5"), while fugitive dust consists predominantly of particulate
matter less than 10 micrometers ("PM10").
Historically, health impacts due to particulate matter were regulated through
ambient air quality standards for PM10. However, a substantial amount of
important new research has been published, documenting new health impacts at
much lower concentrations and for different size fractions of particulate matter than
was previously known and reflected in ambient air quality standards. (U.S. EP A
04/96;5 U.S. EPA 03/01.6)
TItis new research documents that the inhalation of particulate matter,
particularly the smallest particles, causes a variety of health effects, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory (e.g., cough, shortness of breath,
wheezing, bronchitis, asthma attacks) and cardiovascular disease, declines in lung .
function, changes to lung tissues and structure, altered respiratory defense
mechanisms, and cancer, among others. (U.S. EP A 04/%; 61 FR 65638.7) A recent
article linked long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution
to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.s Particulate matter is a
non-threshold pollutant, which means that there is some possibility of an adverse
health impact at any concentration. (See American Trucking v. EP A: Unjustified
Revival of the Nondelegation Doctrine, 23-SPG Erivirons Envtl. L & Pol'y J. 17, 26.)
1his new information led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S.
EP A") and the State of California to propose new ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5. These standards are not subsets of the old PM10 standards, but new
standards for a separate pollutant with distinguishable impacts. The new annual
s u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Report
EPA/600/P-95-OO1aF through 001cF, April 1996.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Second External
Review Draft, March 2001.
7 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: I'l.~r~o~J Decision, Federal
Register, v. 61, no. 241, December 13,1996, pp. 65638-65675.
8 A.A. Pope et al., Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary'Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution, Journal of fue American Medical Association, v. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132-1141.
.
Page 6
.
Pless, Comments On Ternecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impad Report, October 27, 2005
PM2.5 standard of 12 I!g/ m3was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
("CARB") on June 20, 2002 and became effective on June 5, 2003, more than two
years before the Draft EIR was published. (Voting on the proposed 24-hour-average
PM2.5 standard of 25 I!g/ m3 has been deferred by CARBY) At the same time,
California lowered its annual PM10 standard from 30 I!g/ m2 to 20 I!g/m3. (CARB
09/0510.) The Draft EIR also failed to acknowledge this new, lower standard for
PM10. (Draft EIR, Table 4-1.) Consequently, the Draft EIR failed to accurately
characterize the regulatory setting for the Project.
I.
,
,
II.F PM2.5 Erriissions Not Analyzed
The Draft EIR does not include an analysis of the Project's impacts on
ambient air quality resulting from PM2.5 emissions. This is a significant and
inexcusable omission because the South Coast Air Basin ("SoCAB"), where the
Project is located, frequently does not meet the federal or State ambient air quality
standards for PM2.5. The Draft EIR should be revised to include an analysis of
PM2.5 emissions from Project construction and operation and resulting impacts on
air quality and human health.
:.
II.G No Health Risk Assessment Included
The Draft EIR identifies several sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the
Project including residential developments surrounding the site; nine primary
schools, two middle schools, and three high schools within two miles of the Project
site; and two parks within two miles of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-21.) Yet the
Draft EIR contains no health risk assessment analyzing the potential health risks for
these sensitive receptors resulting from Project construction or operational
emissions. Potentially adverse health impacts likely result from toxic air
contaminant emissions, including PM2.5, from diesel combustion engines such as
emissions from operation of the emergency generators and the diesel trucks that
access the loading dock. The Draft EIR should be revised to include a health risk
assessment.
9 California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), Draft Proposal to Establish a 24-hour Standard for PM2.5, Public Review Draft, March 12,
2002.
I
.
10 California Air Resources Board, Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter and Sulfates, http:// www.arb.ca.govfresearchfaaqsfstd-rsfstd-rs.htm.. accessed
October 26, 2005.
Page 7
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impad Report, October 27, 2005
.
III. THE DRAFT Em IMPROPERLY DEFERS DEVELOPMENT OF
MITIGATION PLANS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE
CEQA generally requires that all mitigation measures be adopted
simultaneously with, or prior to, project at't'wval (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15192). An agency may defer preparation of a plan for mitigation only when the
agency commits itself to satisfying specified performance standards that will ensure
the avoidance of any significant effect from implementation of its mitigation
measures. Here, the Draft EIR improperly defers the development of most of its
mitigation plans into the future without specifying any performance measures,
including:
? Location of the staging area for construction (AQ-1);
? Transportation Demand Management Plan (AQ-2;
? Landscape Plan (AQ-4);
? Watering Program (AQ-6); and
? Fugitive Dust Control Program (AQ-7).
.
Further, several of the mitigation measures (e.g., temporary landscaping,
clean-fueled vehicles, construction equipment energy efficiency) required by the
Draft EIR are worded ambiguously, e.g., "may require," "when feasible," or
"reasonably possible," which renders them unenIv,,,c,,ble as a practical matter.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-26 to 4-29.) The Draft EIR must specify specific performance
measures and reasons for rejection of these measures if found not feasible or
appropriate.
IV. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED
The Draft EIR finds significant impacts after implementation of its proposed
mitigation measures for ROC and NOx. As discussed below, the Draft EIR's air
quality analysis considerably underestimates emissions from construction activities
and thereby fails to adequately disclose impacts on air quality from Project
construction. If these problems are corrected, emissions of CO and PM10 will likely
also exceed applicable significance thresholds.
IV.A Incorrect Construction Period Used For Emissions Estimates
The Draft EIR indicates that construction of the Project will occur in five
phases as summarized in Table 1. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-7 and 3-8.)
.
Page 8
.
:.
!.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27,2005
Table 1: Project Construction Phases
. Phase
IA
IB
ActivitY
?Grading
? Demolitionof~tingbuildffi~
? Construction of 3 -story, 60,000-square foot medical office
building
? Construction of surface parking
? . Construction of 1-story, 162,650-square foot main hospital
structure
? Construction of 6 -story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
? Construction of associated parkinl!;
? Construction of 5-story, 122,755-square foot bed tower
? Construction of 4 -story, 80,OOO-square foot medical office
building
? Construction of hospital connector
? Construction of 1-story, 10,OOO-square foot cancer center
? Construction of associated parking
? Construction of 8,000 square foot fitness center
? Construction of joggin!l, trai~
Period
10 months
14 months
H
ill
N
. 12 months
(II-V concurrent)
V
Total 36 months
Construction of all phases is projected to last a maximum of 36 months if the
proposed construction phases (lA, m, and II-V) are conducted subsequently. In
contrast, the Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates were based on a 60-month
construction period, stmnng in January 2006 and terminating in December 2010.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-24, Footnote to Table 4-5 and Appx. B, p. 2.) By stretching
construction emissions over a period of 60 months rather than the actual proposed
36-month construction period, the Draft EIR considerably underestimates maximum
daily emissjons and, thus, considerably underestimates air quality impacts from
Project construction. In fact, construction of the Project could even be shorter than
36 months because nothing in the Draft EIR's language restricts the Applicant to the
sta&&G>Gd construction phasing. (See Comment II.A) If more than the specified
construction phases would be conducted concurrently, even greater emissions
would occur.
I ran the URBEMIS2002 model assuming a construction buildout of
36 months and otherwise accepting all of the Draft EIR's assumptions. Results are
included in Exhibit 1. Maximum daily ROG emissions increase considerably from
224Ib/ day to 344lb/ day. Therefore, the Draft EIR failed to disclose the magnitude
of impacts associated with Project construction. The Draft EIR should be revised to
include a construction schedule showing the projected start of the various
. construction phases and their expected buildout. The Draft EIR's air quality analysis
must be corrected accordingly.
Page 9
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
IV.B Model Default Values Not Acceptable
The Draft EIR's construction emissions estimates largely assume
URBEMIS2002 default values, which may substantially underestimate the Project's
real emissions. For example, the Draft EIR assumes the default factor for average
fugitive dust emissions from grading of 0.11 ton/acre-month. By accepting the
default value for average conditions, the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the potential
worst case, as is customary for CEQA analyses. The default factor for worst-case
. condition is 0.42 ton/acre-month. (URBEMIS 04/0511, p. A-7.) Therefore, the Draft
EIR may have underestimated potential worst-case conditions during grading of the
Project by a factor of almost four. Further, use of this default value is only suggested
when no other information is available the area and duration of grading are known.
Typically; for a Project of this size, the amount of cut/ fill would also be known. (See
Comment II.B.)
Another example is the assumption of only 8 hours of construction per day.
This assumption directly conflicts with the Draft EIR's statement that "coru>truction
activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday
and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. (Draft EIR, p.4-53). Although the DEIR
makes this statement, it should be noted that the dOcument contains no enforceable
restrictions on the hours of construction per day and, thus, construction may be
conducted for more than the 8 hours per day assumed in the air quality section and
more than the 12 hours per day claimed in the noise section of the document. An
increase of hours of operation from 8 to 12 hours per day or more would
considerably increase the potential daily emissions from the Project. The Draft EIR
must either contain an enforceable mitigation measure limiting the permissible
hours of construction to the assumed 8 hours per day or it must adjust its emissions
estimates accordingly.
.
IV.C Fugitive Dust Emissions From Wind Erosion And Trackout Not Included
The Draft EIR indicates that grading of the entire 35.31-acre site will occur
during Phase IA, exposing those portions of the site, which will be developed in
later phases (phase ill through V) to wind erosion for an extended period of time.
(Draft EIR, p. 3-7.) The URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling used by the Draft EIR to
estimate Project construction emissions includes fugitive dust emissions associated
11 Software User's Guide: URBEMlS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, April
2005.
.
Page 10
.
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
with grading but does not account for wind erosiori12, which can be a substantial
contributor to fugitive dust from construction sites, particularly in summer-dry
climates such as the SoCAB. Further, the URBEMIS2002 emissions modeling does
not account for mud/ dirt trackout from the site. Consequently, the Draft EIR does
not disclose the full impact of fugitive dustPM10 emissions from Project
construction. Fugitive dust emissions due to wind erosion and trackout can be
calculated using guidance developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
("U.S. EPA"). (AP-42, Sec. 13.2.513; EPA 450/3-88..00814.)
V. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ARE UNDERESTIMATED
'.
The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis considerably underestimates
operational emissions from the Project because it omits emission sources, uses
inadequate trip generation rates, and fails to include secondary emissions from
electricity generation. The Draft EIR finds total operational NOx emissions of
94.5Ib/ day, only 5.5lb/ day below the SCAQMD's significance threshold of
100 lb/ day. This NOx significance threshold will likely be exceeded when taking
into account the omitted emission sources, adequate trip generation rates, and
secondary emissions from the Project. Similarly, PM10 emissions, currently
estimated at 123lb/day, may exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold of
150 lb/ day. As a result, the Draft EIR fails to disclose and adequately rriitigate
significant impacts due to operational emissions of PM10 and NOx. The Draft EIR
should be revised to address these issues and be recirculated for public review.
V.A Emissions Sources Omitted
I
J
The Draft EIR's air quality impact analysis is based on emissions calculated
with the URBEMIS2002 model. The model calculates area source emissions from
traffic generated by the Project and emissions from natural gas usage, hearths"
landscaping, consumer products, and architectural coatings and operational traffic
.
12 The URBEMIS2002 fugitive dust emissions estimates are based on a methodology developed for the
SCAQMD by the Midwest Research Institute ("MRI"). (URBEMIS 04/05, p. A~.) The MRI study
specifically notes that the emission factors for fugitive dust emissions from construction activities do
not include wind erosion or mudl dirt trackout froll! the site. (MRl, Improvement of Specific Emission
Factors, HACM Project No.1, Final Report, March 29,1996, p. 4-1.)
13 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,
Section 13.2.5, Industrial Wind Erosion, January 1995, corrected on April 13, 2001.
,. C. Cowherd, G.E. Muleski, and J.S. Kinsey, Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources, EP A 450/3-88-
008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1988.
Page 11
Pless, Comments On Ternecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
emissions. The model does not include emissions from the helicopter, the three
cooling towers, the two emergency generators, and the boilers.
The Initial Study concludes that "[a]rea source emissions such as heaters, air
condition units and other machines are not considered significant generator [sic] of
emissions." (Nap jInitial Study, p. 7.) This conclusion is unsupported in the text of
the Draft EIR and appears to be speculation. Even if emissions from these sources
were individually small, they may be cumulatively considerable and must therefore
be included in the Project's emissions analysis.
The combined emissions from the helicopter, the diesel generators, and the
boilers, even if small, may result in exceedance of the NOx significance threshold.
For example, typical NOx emissions for commercial light twin-engine helicopters!5
are about 4.0 lb per landing and takeoff ("L TO"), bringing total NOx emissions from
the Project within one pound per day of the significance threshold. (oes 10j()4l6,
p.6-17.)
V.B Emissions From Natural Gas Usage Not Included
The URBEMIS2002 model assigns gas usage rates to different land uses, .
e.g., residences, industrial, hotel/motel, and office, to calculate area source emissions
from the use of gas-fired boilers, furnaces, hearths, etc. The model does not calculate
emissions associated with natural gas usage at hospitals. The Project operates a
number of, presumably natural-gas fired, equipment, including the boilers and
heatingj air conditioning equipment. Emissions from this equipment, which are
likely considerable, are not included in the Draft EIR's area emissions estimates for
Project operations presented in Table 4-6.
V.C Incorrect Target Year Results In Underestimate Of Vehicle Emissions
The Draft EIR assumes 2010 as the target year for operational traffic
emissions. As discussed in Comment IV.A, construction is assumed to start in
January 2006 with a 36 month construction period. Therefore, the target year for
15 The noise analysis stated that the exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been
confirmed but that the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. The
Bell 222, a frequently used helicopter model for emergency transports, is a commercial light twin-
engine helicopter.
16 R Billings and D. Wilson, Data Quality Control and Emissions Inventories of OCS Oil and Gas
Production Activities in the Breton Area of the Gull of Mexico, Final Report, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico oes Region, MMS 200(4)71, October 2004.
.
Page 12
.
'.
e
Pless, OJmments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
operational erriissions should be 2009, not 2010. Because vehicular emissions are
assumed to decrease with every year, the calculated operational erriissions for 2010
underestimate actual erriissions at Project buildout, i.e. in 2009.
I ran URBEMIS2002 for target year 2009 and otherwise assuming all of the
Draft EIR's assumptions. Results are included as Exhibit 1. Erriissions of ROG, NOx,
and CO in 2009 are about 10% higher than for target year 2010. This results in NOx
erriissions exceeding the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance threshold. This
is a significant impact that was not disclosed in the Draft EIR.
V.D Traffic Emissions Underestimated
The Draft EIR's URBEMIS2oo2 air quality analysis uses default trip lengths to
estimate emissions from Project-related traffic. These default trip lengths do not
apply to,traffic associated with a regional hospital. Trips associated with a regional
hospital are typically longer and hence traffic erriissions attributable to the Project
are higher. In addition, an independent review of the Draft EIR's traffic analysis
found a considerable underestimate of traffic generated by the Project, which is not
reflected in the URBEMIS2002 default assumptions for traffic. (See Brohard 10/0517.)
Consequently, erriissions associated with Project traffic are also underestimated. The
Draft EIR's erriissions estimates for Project traffic must be modified to reflect the
Project's actual traffic characteristics.
V.E Secondary Emissions From Electricity Generation Not Included
CEQA requires that an EIR identify direct and indirect significant effects of
the project on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a).) The Project
will require a substantial amount of electricity, which generates so-called indirect or
secondary emissions. The Draft EIR mentions that air pollutant emissions will be
generated due to the consumption of electricity and states that these regional
erriissions were calculated using erriission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook. (Draft EIR, p. 4-24.) Yet the Draft EIR fails to account for these
erriissions in its presentation of regional erriissions associated with the operational
phase of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-25, Table 4-6.)
A considerable share of the electricity delivered to the SoCAB is generated by
coal-fired power plants, which generate substantial particulate matter and S02
17 Tom Brohard, Brohard and Associates, Letter to Gloria Smith, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph &
Cardozo, Re: Review of Tra/lie Portions of the Temecula Regional Hospital Project Focused
Environmental Impact Report in the City of Temecula, October 26, 2005.
Page 13
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
emissions. The Draft EIR should be revised to include emissions from electricity
generation.
VI. INCREASED OZONE FORMATION DUE TO URBAN HEAT ISLAND
EFFECf IS NOT ANALYZED
The Project would develop 35.31 acres of largely open grass-covered land.
The Draft EIR states that lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent
building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape areas.t8 (Draft EIR,
pp. 3-3 and 3-7.) The Project would add several buildings, parking lots, roads, and
roofs, thus increasing the amount of existing blacktop. Black sUrfaces absorb about
85% to 95% of the sunlight that falls on them, becoming one of the hottest surfaces in
urban areas. The hot surfaces of pavement and similarly dark roofs quickly warm
the air over urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." On
a clear summer afternoon, the air temperature in urban areas can be 2 F to 9 F hotter
than the surrounding rural area. The elevated temperature increases cooling energy
demand, accelerates the rate of smog production, and increases evaporative losses of
organic compounds from gasoline tanks of vehicles parked over the hot surfaces.
Conversion of open, grass-covered land to build-out areas would increase .
local ambient temperatures, thereby contributing to the urban heat island effect and
increasing the local formation of ozone. Thus, the urban heat island affect would
exacerbate existing exceedances of the ozone standards in the Project vicinity. The
SoCAB is not in compliance with either federal or State ozone standards. Thus, the
Project would directly contribute to existing exceedances of the federal and State
ozone standards, which is a significant impact. (See Kings County Fann Bureau v. City
of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650].) This is a significant impact
that was not discussed in the Draft EIR and is feasible to mitigate as discussed in
Comment VII.B.3.
VII. ADDffiONAL MITIGATION IS FEASIBLE
CEQA section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures
in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse environmental
impacts of a proposed project. (See Pub. Res. Code 921081(a); CEQA Guidelines
915370.) To implement this requirement, an EIR must set forth mitigation measures
that decisionmakers can adopt at the findings stage of the Y<V~C.DS. (CEQA .
Guidelines 915126(c).) For each significant effect, the EIR must identify specific
18 The Site Plan provided in the Draft EIR suggests a considerably larger percentage of buildings and
parking spaces and lower y<<"utage of landscaped areas. (Draft EIR, p. 3-5, Figure 3 -2.)
.
Page 14
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional HospiIal
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
mitigation measures. Where several potential mitigation measures are available,
each should be discussed separately and the reasons for choosing one over the other
should be stated. (CEQA Guidelines ~15i26(c).) Mitigation measures should be
capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts," "rectifying the
impact," or "reducing the impact." (CEQA Guidelines ~15370.)
By the Draft EIR's own admission of "significant unavoidable impacts" and
as demonstrated in the comments above, impacts from construction and operation
of the Project remain significant after implementation of the Draft EIR's proposed
mitigation measures. Therefore, the City must impose all feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts, which it did not. The comments below discuss the
specific inadequacies of the Draft EIR's proposed mitigation program and propose
mitigation measures that should be implemented to lessen or eliminate the
significant adverse effects of Project construction and operation.
VIlA Additional Feasible Construction Mitigation
.
The Draft EIR finds significant and unavoidable NOx emissions from the
Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) As discussed in Comrrient IV, construction emissions are
considerably underestimated, likely resulting in significant and unmitigated ROG,
CO, and PMiO emissions beyond what is reported by the Draft EIR. As discussed
below, there are numerous other relevant and reasonable fugitive dust and diesel
exhaust mitigation measures contained in the CEQA guidelines and rules of air
districts and other agencies that should also be required for this Project to mitigate
its significant construction impacts.
VII.A.i Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures
Several agencies have conducted comprehensive studies of fugitive dust
control measures to bring their region into compliance with national ambient air
quality standards on PMiO. For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District ("SCAQMD") has sponsored research, passed regulations (e.g., Rule 40319),
and published guidelines that identify best management practices for controlling
fugitive dusts at construction sites. The Rule 403 Implementation Handbook20 contains a
comprehensive list of such measures, which should be incorporated into the
Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. (See Draft EIR, p. 4-27, Mitigation Measure
,.
1. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised Final Staff Report for Proposed Amended
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust and Proposed Rule 1186, PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads,
and Livestock Operations, February 14, 1997.
20 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, January 1999.
Page 15
'Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
AQ-7.) Clark County, Nevada, has also sponsored research, passed regulations
(Rule 94), and published best management practices for controlling fugitive dust
from construction activities.21 Clark County's Constfuctian Activities Dust Control
Handbook contains a comprehensive list of best management practices.22 Similarly,
Arizona has developed guidance to control fugitive PM10 emissions.23
Several of the measures included in these agency guidelines are feasible and
therefore should be considered for adoption here under CEQA Guidelines
~~15126.4, 15091. Examples of such feasible mitigation measures are listed below:
? During clearing and grubbing, prewet surface soils where equipment will
be vy"...ted; for areas without continuing construction, maintain live
yc>e.uJal vegetation and desert pavement; stabilize surface soil with dust
palliative unless immediate construction is to continue; and use water or
dust palliative to form crust on soil immediately following
clearing/ grubbing. (CCHD)
? Grade each phase separately, timed to coincide with construction phase or
grade entire project, but apply chemical stabilizers or ground cover to
graded areas where construction phase begins more than 60 days after .
grading phase ends. (Rule 403 Handbook)
? During initial grading, earth moving, or site preparation, projects 5 acres
or greater may be required to construct a paved (or dust palliative treated)
apron, at least 100 ft in length, onto the project site from the adjacent site if
applicable. (BCAQMD)
? During cut and fill activities, prewater with sprinklers or wobblers to
allow time for penetration; prewater with water trucks or water pulls to
allow time for penetration; dig a test hole to depth of cut to d<-~<-,~Jne if
soils are moist at depth and continue to prewater if not moist to depth of
'cut; use water truck/pull to water soils to depth of cut prior to subsequent
cuts; and apply water or dust palliative to form crust on soil following fill
and compaction. (CCHD)
21 P.M. P",nsioli, PMI0 Emissions Control Research Sponsored by Clark County, Nevada,
F.~_<._Jings of the Air &:Waste Management Association's 94th Annual Conference &: Exhibition,
Orlando, PI. June 24-28, 2001.
22 aark County Department of Air Quality Management, Construction Activities Dust Control
Handbook, March 18, 2003.
23 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Exceptional at\.d Natural Events Policy .
PMI0 Best Available Control Measures, June 5, 2001.
Page 16
..
Pless, Omments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
. ?
r
?
? For backfilling during earthmoving operations, water backfill material or
apply dust palliative to maintain material moisture or to form crust when
not actively handling; cover or enclose backfill material when not actively
handling; mix backfill soil with water prior to moving; dedicate water
truck or large hose to backfilling equipment and apply water as needed;
water to form crust on soil immediately following backfilling; and empty
loader bucket slowly; minimize drop height from loader bucket. (CCHO)24
? For large tracts of disturbed land, prevent access by fencing, ditches,
vegetation, berms, or other barriers; install perimeter wind barriers 3 to
5 feet high with low porosity; plant perimeter vegetation early; and for
long-term stabilization, stabilize disturbed soil with dust palliative or
vegetation or pave or apply surface rock. (CCHO)
? Barriers with 50 percent or less porosity located adjacent to roadways to
reduce windblown material leaving a site. (Rule 403 Handbook)
? In staging areas, limit size of area; apply water to surfacesoils where
support equipment and vehicles are operated; limit vehicle speeds to
15 mph; and limit ingress and egress points. (CCHO)
Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from,
the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively
stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical
stabilizer/suppressant. (SJVUAPCD, ADEQ)
For stockpiles, maintain at optimum moisture content; remove material
from downwind side; avoid steep sides or faces; and stabilize material
following stockpile-related activity. (CCHO)
? When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered,
effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of
freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
(BAAQMD, SJVUAPCD, Rule 403 Handbook, ADEQ, SLOCAPCD)
? Where feasible, use bedliners in bottom-dumping haul vehicles. (Rule 403
Handbook) .
? Empty loader bucket slowly and minimize drop height from loader
bucket. (CCHO)
.
24 The following acronyms are used in this listing of mitigation measures: ADEQ'= Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
BCAQMD = Butte County Air Quality Management District; CCHO = Clark County (Nevada) Health
District; MBUAPCD = Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; SBCAPCD = Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; SJVUAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; SLOCAPCD = San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
Page 17
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
? Clean wheels and undercarriage of haul trucks prior to leaving
construction site. (CCHD)
? Gravel pads must be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of
mud on to public roads. (SBCAPCD)
? Install and maintain trackout control devices in effective condition at all
access points where paved and unpaved access or travel routes intersect.
(CCHD)
? All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
(SLOCAPCD)
? Pave all roads on construction sites. (MBUAPCD)
? To prevent trackout, pave construction roadways as early as possible;
install gravel pads; install wheel shakers or wheel washers, and limit site
access. (CCHD, SLOCAPCD)
? While clearing forms, use single stage pours where allowed; use water
spray to clear forms; use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; use
industrial shop vacuum to clear forms; and avoid use of high pressure air
to blow soil and debris from the form. (CCHD)
? Limit fugitive dust sources to 20 percent opacity. (ADEQ)
? Require a dust control plan for earthmoving operations. (ADEQ)
? Prior to land use clearance, the applicant shall include, as a note on a
separate informational sheet to be recorded with map, these dust control
requirements. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building
plans. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
? The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor
the dUst control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to
prevent transport of dust offsite. (SBCAPCD, SLOCAPCD)
? . Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 24 hrs. (BCAQMD, CCHD)
.
While portions of some of these measures are included in the mitigation
measures imposed by the Draft EIR, the above measures are far more t'.v~c~;';ve and
should all be required in the Project's Fugitive Dust Control Plan. All of these
measures are feasible and various combinations of them are routinely required
elsewhere to reduce fugitive PMIO emissions. See, for example, the fugitive dust .
Page 18
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regiorud Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
control program for the Big Dig (Kasprak and Stakutis 20()()25), for the El Toro,Reuse
Draft EIR 26, and for the Padres Ballpark Final EIR27.
Vll.A.2 Diesel Exhaust Mitigation Measures
There are a number of additional mitigation measures that are routinely
required as CEQA mitigation by air districts and other agencies in California for
construction projects, (e.g., the mitigation programs routinely implemented by the
SMAQMD and California Energy Commission ("CEC") decisions), including:
?
?
?
?
?
?
:. ?
?
?
?
?
Limiting the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/ or the
amount of equipment in use. (BAAQMD 12/99, p. 53.)
Conversion to cleaner engines;
Use of cleaner (reduced sulfur) fuel;
Add-on control devices, e.g., particulate traps, catalytic oxidizers;
Buffer zone between facility and sensitive .c.~':'J:'tors;
Installation of high pressure injectors on diesel construction equipment;
Restricting engine size of construction equipment to the minimum
practical size;
Electrification of construction equipment;
Substitution of gasoline-powered for diesel-powered construction
equipment;
Use of alternatively fueled construction equipment, using, e.g.,
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane, or biodiesel;
Implementation of activity management techniques including
a) development of a comprehensive construction management plan
25 A. Kasprak and P.A. Stakutis, A Comprehensive Air Qu!ility Control Program for a Large Roadway
Tunnel Project, r.u-<<.:.ings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 93'd Annual Conference,
June 18-22, 2000.
26 County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS EI
Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for Jolm Wayne Airport and Proposed Orange County
International Airport, Draft Supplemental Analysis, Volume 1, April 2001, pp. 2-121 to 2-123.
27 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for the Centre City Redevelopment Project and Addressing the Centre
City Community Plan and Related Documents for the Proposed Ballpark and Ancillary Development
Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, V. N. Responses to Comments, September 13,1999,
pp. IV-254 to N-256.
.
Page 19
Pless, Cnmments On Tenrecula RegionJlI Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
designed to minimize the number of large construction equipment
vt'"..,ting during any given time period; b) scheduling of construction
truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions;
c) limitation of the length of construction work-day period; and
d) phasing of construction activities;
? Installation of catalytic conv~.;".~ on gasoline-powered equipment, if
feasible;
? Minimization of construction worker trips by requiring carpooling and
by providing for lunch onsite;
? Lengthening of construction period during smog season (May through
October), so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time;
? Utilization of new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as '
they become available and feasible;
? Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power
generators; and
? Emission offsets if ROG or NOx emissions exceed 6.0 tons! quarter.
.
The following discusses the use and feasibility of construction equipment
certified by CARB, post-combustion controls, and the use of PuriNOx, an alternative
diesel formulation."
VII.A.2.a CARB-('.ertified Construction Equipment
Both the U.S. EP A and CARB have established emission limits on new
off-road engines. CARB-certified off-road engines are engines that are 3 years old or
less at the time of use and which comply with these new low emission limits. This
equipment is widely available in the construction fleet. The use of CARB-certified
equipment should be required for this Project.
For example, the SMAQMD and other agencies require the use of at least
20 F.:.._<.ut CARB-certified off-road engines in the mix of construction eqUipment
operating on-site, or alternatively, setting a NOx, ROG, and! or PMI0 emission
reduction goal for the construction fleet. A similar measure has been adopted by the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") for the Dallas!Fort
Worth and Houston-Galveston areas. (Rennie et aI. 2001.28) The Arizona Department
28 S.G.. Rennie, L. Fiffick, D. Huckabay, and B. Ubanwa, Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Retrofit Programs
as a Part of Houston SIP, r _____lings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94th Annual .
Conference & Exhibition, lune 24-28, 2001.
Page 20
.
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
of Environmental Quality (" ADEQ") has also recommended this measure to address
the air quality problems in the Phoenix area. (ADEQ 11/9/00, pp. 19-24.)
VII.A.2.b Post-combustion Controls
Post-combustion controls, such as oxidation catalysts and particulate filters,
are devices that are installed downstream of the engine on the tailpipe to treat the
exhaust. These devices are now widely used on construction equipment and are
capable of removing over 90% of the PM10, CO, and ROG from engine exhaust,
depending on the fuel and specific engine. The most common and widely used post-
combustion control devices are particulate traps (i.e., soot filters), oxidation catalysts,
and combinations thereof. The many variants of these devices have recently been
identified, evaluated, and comprehensively reviewed by CARB29 and others.30
.
These devices are commonly required as mitigation for construction
emissions, which are similar to Project operations. The Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority ("MfA") implemented a voluntary l'L VOL am in the fall of 1998 which
resulted in retrofitting 70 pieces of construction equipment with oxidation catalysts
(Kasprak et al. 200131) at the "Big Dig," the massive, 5-year, $10 billion-plus Central
Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston's North End and one of the largest infrastructure
construction projects in the country.
These controls have also been wjdely required to mitigate construction
emissions in California. The CEC, which follows a CEQA-equivalent process in
licensing of new power plants larger than,50 megawatts ("MW"), has required these
devices on many projects. The Sunrise Power Project was recently constructed using
this equipment.32 No problems were encountered. Several other 500+MW power
plants have been licensed and constructed successfully using these controls,
2' California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Malter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000; California Air Resources Board, Risk Management
Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000.
30 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control
Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels, Final
Report, June 1999.
31 A. Kasprak, G. Schattanek, and P.K. Wan, Emission Reduction Retrofit Program for Construction
Equipment of the Central ArteryjTunnel Project, r_____Jings of the Air & Waste Management
Association's 94th Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 24-28, 2001. Also see:
www.epa.govjOMSjretrofitjdocumentsjbigdig..case_Ol.htm. accessed October 26, 2005.
'.
32 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Suririse Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 120.
Page 21
Pless, Comments On Ternecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
including High Desert33, Elk Hills34, Pastoria35, Western Midway-Sunse@6,Mountain
View37, and Contra Costa38, among others. (All of the CEC siting decisions are
posted at www.energy.ca.gov under the name of the individual facility.)
Post-combustion controls have also been required as conventional CEQA
mitigation in EIRs. The EI Toro Reuse Draft EIR39, page 2-124, AQ-11k and AQ-11 I,
required the use of particulate traps with a minimum 80% PM10 efficiency and
selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") or comparable technology with a minimum
70% NOx reduction on all off-road construction equipment. The Stanford University
General Use Permit Application Draft EIR40, page 4.11-10, AQ-1, required a range of
measures to minimize diesel engine exhaust, including catalytic converters and
particulate traps. The City of San Diego in the Padres Ballpark Final EIR41 required
the control of 95% of engine exhaust emissions, using, among others, oxidation
catalysts, particulate filters, and "Blue Sky" low-emissjon engines. Similarly, the Port
of Oakland required the use of new engines or post-combustion controls on trucks
serving its Vision 2000 expansion project. The Port's air quality mitigation program
is now partially in place and has been very successful in reducing emissions.42
.
33 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, High Desert Power Project, May 2000,
Condition AQ-3(o), p. 107.
34 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Elk Hills Power Project, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C2(3), p. 123.
35 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Pastoria Energy Facility, December 2000,
Condition AQ-C3, p. 108.
36 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Western Midway Sunset Power Project,
March 2001, Condition AQ-C2, p. 114.
37 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Mountain View Power Project, March 2001,
Condition AQ-C2, p. 34. .
38 California Energy Commission, Commission Decision, Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, May
2001, Condition AQC-2, p. 12.
3' County of Orange, Draft Environmental Impact Report, No. 573 for the Civilian Reuse of MCAS
El Toro and the Airport System Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and F.~ l'Voed Orange County
international Airport, April 2001.
40 Santa Clara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR Stanford University Draft
Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, June 23, 2000.
41 City of San Diego, Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, Ballpark and AnciUary
Development Projects, and Associated Plan Amendments, September 13, 1999 and Draft Subsequent
EIR, May 12, 1999" page N-262, I8.A.89.
42 Port of Oakland, Summary Report #5, Vision 2000 Air Quality Mitigation Program, February 2002.
.
Page 22
.
'.
.
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
All of these post-<:ombustion controls are feasible for construction of this
Project. Therefore, the Draft EIR should be revised be prepared requiring the use of
post-<:ombustion controls on off-road equipment specifying target control levels.
VII.A.2.c PuriNOx
Alternate diesel fuels exist that achieve PM10 and NOx reductions. PuriNOx
is an alternative diesel formulation that was verified by CARB on January 31, 200143
as achieving a 14% reduction in NOx and a 63 % reduction in PM10 compared to
CARB djesel. It can be used in any direct-injection, heavy-duty compression ignition
engine and is compatible with existing engines and existing storage, distribution,
and vehicle fueling facilities. Operational experience indicates little or no difference
in performance and startup time, no discernable operational diff",<",uces, no
increased engine noise, and significantly reduced visible smoke. (Hagstrand 6/0444.)
This fuel hal> been successfully used in heavy-duty off-road and on-road
equipment, including by the Tri -Delta Transit Authority fleet in Contra Costa
County, by the County of Sacramento at the Keifer Landfill and North Transfer
station, in off-road construction equipment at very large residential construction
projects in Sacramento, in truck fleets operated by Pacific Cement in San Francisco
and Ramos Oil in Dixon, in yard hostlers at the Port of Long Beach, in off-r~ad
equipment operated by Hanson Aggregate in San Francisco, and in yard haulers at
the Port of Houston. (Howes 4/0()45 and Hagstrand 6/04.) Six yard tractors have
been operating on PuriNOx at the Port of Houston since April 2000. The Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("lNRCC") has also approved
PuriNOx fuel for funding under Texas Senate BillS.
PuriNOx fuel is available from fuel distributor Chevron Texaco in Los
Angeles and is CVll>t'c~~tively priced at a surcharge over regular diesel of about
10 cents per gallon.46 It has been required as mitigation for construction exhaust
emission impacts. For example, the NASA Ames Development Plan Draft
43 Letter from Dean C. Simeroth. Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, to Thomas J. Sheahan, Lubrizol,
Verification of Lubrizol Corp. PuriNOx Fuel, January 31, 2001,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdieselfaltdiesel.htm. accessed June 18, 2004.
.. Personal communication, Petra Pless/Phyllis Fox with Hep Hepner, Ramos Oil Co., Dixon; CA,
. (916-371-3289, ext. 242) and Bill Hagstrand,Lubrizol (440-347~592), March and June 2004.
4S P. Howes, An Evaluation of the Effects of PuriNOx TM on Exhaust Emissions from Yard Haulers at
the Port of Houston; April 2000.
46 Personal communication, Petra Pless with Bill Hagstrand, Lubrizol (440-347~92), June 21, 2004.
Page 23
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
Environmental Impact Statement,47 page 4.4-34, requires "where reasonable and
feasible, use alternative diesel fuels. See also construction exhaust mitigation in the
Bickford Ranch Final EIR, page 1-24, requiring 10% to 20% NOx emission
reductions, to be achieved by both engine selection and fuel selection. ("Includes the
use of emulsified fuel in non-certified engines... ".)
VII.B Additional Feasible Operational Mitigation
The Draft EIR concludes that after implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, emissions of CO and ROC from operation of the hospital and other
on-site facilities will remain significant. The Draft EIR states that "[e]ven with
measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be
mitigated to below a level of significance" and concludes that "[l]ong-term air
quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable." (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Yet, the
Draft EIR imposes a total of only five mitigation measures that address operational
emissions, specifically, AQ-2 incorporation and encouragement of Transportation
Demand Management techniques ("TDM"); AQ-3 incorporation of energy efficiency
standards for buildings; AQ-4 submission of a landscape plan; AQ-16 enclosure and
cover of refuse areas; and AQ-17 promotion of alternative transportation. (Draft EIR, .
pp. 4-26 through 4-28.)
By the Draft EIR's own admission, these mitigation measures are insufficient
, . to reduce the significant impacts from operational emissions to less than significance
for CO and ROC, resulting in significant unmitigated impacts from Project
operational emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Further, as discussed in Comment V, the
Draft EIR considerably underestimates Project operational emissions of PM10 and
NOx, which likely also exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative daily significance
thresholds. The Draft EIR does not contain any discussion why no additional
mitigation measures were considered to reduce the Project's significant impacts on
air quality. As discussed below, numerous other mitigation measures exist that are
routinely required as CEQA rriitigation and should have been required for the
Project.
For example, the Initial Study for the Project recommends the following two
mitigation measures for emissions from Project vyc..",tions that were not
incorporated into the Draft EIR:
47 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, November 2001.
.
Page 24
.
Pless, Comments On Ternecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 200S
? Electrical powered eqUipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-
powered engines where feasible; and
? Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall
submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew
has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via
incentives or other inducements. (NOP /Initial Study, pp. 9-11.)
VII.B.t Operational Traffic Mitigation Measures
The following traffic rriitigation measures are routinely required elsewhere to
mitigate significant impacts from a project and should be required to mitigate the
Project's significant NOx, ROG, and PMI0 impacts.
.
? Encourage carpoolj vanpool program;
? Provide on-site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria,
bank/ ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc.;
? Provide on-site child care or contribute to off-site child care within
walking distance;
? Provide preferential parking for carpoolj vanpool vehicles;
? Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
? Provide direct safe, direct bicycle access to adjacent bicycle routes;
? Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work;
? Short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute
trips;
? Provide neighborhood-servicing shops and services within Yo mile of
residential areas;
? Connect bicycle lanes/paths to city-wide network;
? Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, e.g., locate building
entrances near transit stops, eliminate building setbacks, etc.;
? Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs, benches,
shelters, etc.;
? Provide shuttle service to food service establishments/ commercial areas;
? Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers;
? Implement parking fee for single-occupancy vehicle commuters;
? Implement parking cash-out program for non-driying employees;
'.
Page 25
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
? Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit
stops and adjacent development;
? Implement compressed work week schedule;
? Implement home-based telecommuting program;
? Provide electric vehicle ("EV") and compressed natural gas ("CNG")
vehicles jn vehicle fleets;
? Install EV charging facilities;
? Install CNG fueling facility;
? Provide pr<.f<.<<.utial parking locations for EVs and CNG vehicles; and
? Charge reduced or no parking fee for EVs and CNG vehicles;
The Lent Ranch Final EIR48, for example, requires most of these measures.
The NASA Ames Development Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
("EIS")49 would implement an aggressive transportation demand management
program ("TDM") to reduce trip generation by at least 22 percent. The Stanford
University Draft Community Plan and General Use Pennit Draft EIR 50 adopts all
applicable Bay Area TDMs. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR51 requires .
that emissions be reduced by 40% by implementing many of these measures. The
Old Greenwood Planned Development Draft EIR52 requires, among others, paying
an air quality mitigation fee to offset PMIO emissions from vehicle exhaust and re-
entrained road dust to zero. Therefore, the above-listed measures should be
assumed feasible unless otherwise demonstrated, and used by this Project to reduce
traffic emissions to a less than significant level.
48 Oty of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Envitonmental Impact Report, for example Table
4.3-21, page 3.0-96, and Table 12-2, October 2000.
49 NASA Ames Research Center, NASA Ames Development Plan, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, pp. 0-11 to 0-16, November 2001.
50 Santa Gara County, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Stanford University Draft Community
Plan and General Use Permit Application, Table 4.11~, June 23, 2000.
51 County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Section 8.3.2
and 8.4, November 13, 2000.
52 Oty of Truckee, Draft Envitonmental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned Development,
pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
.
Page 26
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regianal Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 200S
VII.B.2 Operational Area Mitigation Measures
The City's General Plan contains the following two operational mitigation.
measures that are not required by the Draft EIR:
? Optimize building sites and orientation to take advantage of shading and
windbreak trees and reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling;
and
? Design buildings to optimize natural lighting, provide for task lighting,
and specific high-effici~ncy electric lighting. (General Plan, p. AQ-8.)
!.
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed by the Draft EIR and
contained in the City's General Plan, operational area emissions can also be
mitigated by controlling other sources of emissions from the Project, including
exhaust emissions from landscaping equipment, emissions from natural gas
combustion for heatingf air-conditioning, increased ozone production from the heat
.island effect (see Comment VI), and indirect emissions from electricity generation
(see Comment V.E). In addition, the CEQA Guidelines of other air districts identify
numerous other feasible measures for commercialfindustrial operations. Some of
these additional measures, which are routinely required as mitigation in other EJRs53
include:
? Use electric lawn and garden equipment for landscaping (BAAQMD);
? Use electrically or CNG-powered specialty equipment, e.g., utility carts
(BAAQMD);
? Use propane-powered specialty equipment, e.g., forklifts, utility carts, etc.
(BAAQMD);
? Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
(SLOAPCD54, SCAQMD55);
J
53 For example: City of Elk Grove, Lent Ranch Marketplace, Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Table 4.3-5, p. 3.0-96, October 2000; County of Placer, Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report, pp. 8-20 to 8-22, November 13, 2000; Sacramento C<Junty, East
Franklin Specific Plan, Final EnvironmenlaIlmpact Report, Table ES-1; and Appendix D,
February 2000; City of Truckee, Draft Em :'u._.ental Impact Report, Old Greenwood Planned
Development, pp. 4.5-10 to 4.5-13, February 2002.
54 San Luis Obispo Air PolIution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997.
. 55 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
Page 27
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmentai Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
? Orient buildings to maximize standard heating and cooling (SLOAPCD)
and include passive solar design, e.g., day-lighting (SCAQMD, SBAPCD56,
BCAQMD57);
? Plant shade trees in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD);
? Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce
summer cooling needs (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD, SBAPCD);
? Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioning
(SCAQMD, BCAQMD);
? Use lighting controls and energy-efficient interior lighting (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD, SBAPCD, BCAQMD) and built-in energy-efficient appliances
(SLOAPCD);
? Use double-paned windows (SLOAPCD, SCAQMD);
? Use energy-efficient low sodium parking lot and street lights (SLOAPCD,
SCAQMD);
? Use light-colored roof materials (SCAQMD) and paint (SBAPCD) to reflect
heat; (see Comment VII.B.3.b) .
? Install solar cooling/heating (SBAPCD);
? Install solar water heater for at least 25% of the building floor area
(BCAQMD);
? Substitute materials, e.g., use water-based paint (SCAQMD);
? Modify manufacturing processes, e.g., reduce process stages, closed loop-
systems, materials recycling (SCAQMD);
? Install resource recovery systems that redirect chemicals to new
production t'.~~~.,ses (SCAQMD);
? Use solar or low-emission water heaters (SCAQMD);
? Use centralized water-heating systems (SCAQMD, VCAPCD58);
? Use concrete or other nUB pvllutant materials for parking lots instead of
asphalt (SBAPCD);
S6 Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in
Environmental Documents, September 1997.
S7 Butte County Air Quality Management District, Indirect Source Review Guidelines, March 1997.
58 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan,
Appendix G-94, Guidelines for the Preparation of Air Quality Impact Analyses, October 1989.
.
Page 28
.
Pless, Comments On Temecula Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
? Pay an air quality mitigation fee;
? Secure emission offsets;
? Landscape with drought-resistant species, and use groundcovers rather
than pavement to reduce heat reflection;
? Provide electric maintenance equipment;
? Use ozone-der.truction catalyst on air condition systems; and
? Reduce standard paving by 20%.
Further, some air districts recommend that large projects that cannot be fully
mitigated with on-site measures, should implement off-site mitigation measures, for
example:
?
?
?
. ?
?
?
?
?
Retrofit existing homes and businesses in the project area with ayyw "ed
energy conservation devices (SLOAPCD);
Replace/repower school! transit bus with cleaner vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Construct satellite work stations (SLOAPCD);
Fund a program to buy and scrap older, high-emission vehicles
(SLOAPCD);
Contribute to anoff-site TDM fund (VCAPCD);
Repair smog-check waived vehicles (SLOAPCD);
Introduce electric lawn and garden equipment exchange program
(SLOAPCD); and
Retrofit/purchase clean heavy-duty trucks, construction equipment,
diesel locomotives, and marine vessels (SLOAPCD).
VII.B.3 Mitigation For Urban Heat Island Effect
A number of the above discussed mitigation measures will reduce the urban
heat island effect. The feasibility of two of these measures, reduction of standard
paving by 20% and use of Energy Star roof products, are discussed in the following
comments in more detail.
VII.B.3.a Reduction Of Standard PllVing By 20%
The heat island effect can be mitigated by reflecting the sunlight off the
pavement before it heats up through use of lighter-colored, reflective pavement
materials. These materials reduce the urban heat island effect, reducing the
formation of ozone, arid reducing evaporative emissions from vehicles that park on
'.
Page 29 .
Pless, Comments On Yenrecula :?egional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
and use the pavement, thus reducing traffic emissions. This can be accomplished by
using grass paving or reflective surfaces on unshaded parking lots, driveways, and
fire lanes to reduce standard paving by 20%. lhis measure is widely used,
technically feasible, provides air quality benefits, and is economic.
There are a large number of options that can be used to comply with this
measure, ranging from porous block pavement systems to conventional asphalt
pavements using light aggregate to conventional concrete pavements. Some are
comparable in cost to conventional pavements and have added benefits besides
reducing air quality impacts.
VII.B.3.b Use Of Energy Star Roof Products
Most commercial and residential buildings have dark roofs. Dark roofs
absorb 80% to 90% of the incident sunlight, heating the roof and plenum space.
Because the air distribution system is typically installed in the plenum space
between the roof deck and the dropped ceiling over the finished interior space, this
raises the summertime cooling demand. In addition, heating the roof heats the air
that passes over the roof. Thus, the entire region around a dark roof becomes
warmer, increasing the formation of ozone.
.
As discussed above, dark roofs (and parking lots) quickly warm the air over
urban areas, leading to the creation of summer urban "heat islands." The additional
air conditioning demand created by this temperature effect is responsible for 5% to
10% of urban peak electric demand. The increased power demand leads to higher
emissions from power plants. This increase in temperature causes a 10% to 20%
increase in urban ozone, and in some cases, generates as much ozone as all on-road
motor vehicles.59 Measures to reverse the heat island effect include reflective roofs
and pavements.
Intercepting the sunlight before it heats a building keeps its surface cooler
. and reduces the heat flow into the building. lhis reduces the demand for air
conditioning. This can be accomplished by using light-cplored, reflective roofs. A
light-colored roof can reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling by 20% to
70%, depending on the amount of insulation under the roof and design of the air
ducting system. This is achieved by reflecting most of the energy, rather than
absorbing it. The difference between the roof surface and ambient air temperatures
may be as high as 90 F, while for reflective roofs, the difference is only about 18F.
S9 Akbari H, Cool Roofs Save Energy, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, Pt. 1, 1998; Taha H, Modeling the
Impacts of Large-ScaIe Albedo Changes on Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin, .
Abnospheric Environment, v. 31, no. 11, 1997, pp. 1667-1676.
Page 30
.
Pless, OJmments On Temecu/a Regionlll Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
This reduces peak cooling demand, cooling costs, the size of the HV AC system, and
the rating and amount of insulation required in a building, and increases the lifetime
of the roof. This also reduces air pollution by reducing the amount of external power
that must be produced and the amount of ambient ozone that is formed in the
vicinity of the development from the heat island effect.
Normal asphalt-based roofing products typically have a reflectivity of 10% to
20%. Energy Star-labeled roof products are roofing products certified to achieve at
least 65% reflectivity and to maintain a reflectivity of 50% under normal conditions
for 3 years after installation The program is sponsored by the U.S. EP A and the
Department of Energy. There are currently over 115 manufacturers enrolled in the
program. Reflective roofing is also recognized as an acceptable design option in the
latest edition of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (" ASHRAE") Standards 90.160 aild 90.2 on energy-efficient
buildings.
I.
Energy Star roof products are economical to apply and maintain and can be
cheaper than or comparable to conventional roofing products, which cost from $1.50
to $2.50 per square foot installed.61 Cool roofs come in a variety of styles, including
reflective coatings, reflective membranes, or metal roofs made of galvanized or other
coated metal. Coatings have a consistency of thick paint and cost from $0.75 to $1.50
per square foot installed. Membranes are single-ply, pre-fabricated sheets applied in
a single layer, typically made of PVC (poly vinyl chloride), lPO (tripolymer olefin),
Hypalon, or CPA (copolymer alloy) and cost from $1.50 to $3.00 per square foot.
A reflective roof can be installed or applied over almost any type of roof material,
including directly on a plywood deck in place of asphalt.
The performance of reflective roofing materials has been extensively
documented. At a single family residence in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity
of the roof from 18 % to 79% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling
energy use over the June to October period by 66% and the peak power by 17%. At a
one-story school in Sacramento, increasing the reflectivity of the roof from 8 % to
68% by painting with a white coating reduced the cooling energy use over the June
to October period by 34% and peak power by 32%.62 In another Sacramento study,
:.
60 American Society of Heating, Refri6,,~;;..g and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Energy Standard
for Buildings Except Low -Rise Residential Buildings, Standard 90.1-1999.
61 R.S. Mearts, Square Foot Costs, 21" Ed., 2000, Division 5, Roofing.
62 H. Akbari, S. Bretz, D. Kurn, and J. Hanford, Peak Power and Cooling Energy Savings of High-
Albedo Roofs, Energy and Buildings, v. 25, 1997, pp. 117-126.
Page 31
Pless, Comments On Temecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
.
daily air conditioning savings of 17%, 26%, and 39% were documented in an office,
museum, and hospice with high reflectivity roofs.63
At a one-story, 31,700-square foot Kaiser medical office building in Davis,
increasing the reflectivity of an R-19 flat roof from 24 % to 60% reduced summertime
average weekday air conditioning by 18%. At another one-story, 23,800-square foot
Kaiser medical office building in Gilroy, increaSing the reflectivity of an R-7 flat roof
from 25% to 65% reduced the summertime average weekday air conditioning by
13%. At a 33,OOO-square foot drug store in San Jose, increasing the reflectivity of a
foil barrier flat roof from 18% to 28% reduced the summertime average daytime air
condition by 2%.64
Reflective coatings reduced cooling energy costs by 12% to 18% in two other
commercial buildings in California.65 The reflectivity of a conventional unsurfaced
galvanized ~orrugated metal roof of seven retail stores in a strip mall in Florida was
increased from 29% to 75% with a white coating. This reduced the summer space
cooling energy use by 25%, with a r~ge in savings of 13% to 48%, depending on the
temperature maintained in the shops. Those maintaining the lowest interior
temperatures saved the least on a percentage basis. The cost of the application was .
$O.53/ft2 with a payback period of about 9 years.66 In nine Florida homes, daily air
conditioning energy use was reduced by 2% to 43% and peak demand was reduced
by an average of 22%. The amount of energy savings was inversely correlated with
the amount of ceiling insulation and duct system location, with the largest savings in
poorly insulated homes and those with duct systems in the attic space and smaller
savings in well-insulated homes.67 A high-reflective coating on an office building in
Mississippi reduced cooling energy demands by 22%.68 In addition to field studies,
63 E.W. Hildebrandt, W. Bos, and R Moore, Assessing the Impacts of White Roofs on Building Energy
Loads, ASHRAE Technical Data Bulletin, v. 14, no. 2, 1998.
, 64 H. Akbari, L. Gartland, and S. Konopacki, Measured Energy Savings of Light-Colored Roofs:
Results from Three California Demonstration Sites, :\~___dings of the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 3, no. 1, 1998.
65 S. Konopacki, H. Akbari, L. Cartland, and L. RainerI Demonstration of Energy Savings of Cool
Roofs, LBNL Report 40673, 1998.
66 D. Parker, J. Sonne, and J. Sherwin, Demonstration of Cooling Savings of Light Colored Roof
Surfacing in Florida Commercial Buildings: Retail Strip Mall, Florida Solar Energy Center Report
FSEC-CR-964-97, 1997; www.fsec.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htm.
67 D.S. Parker and others, Measured and Simulated Performance of Reflective Roofing Systems in
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE Il____..:ings (Winter Meeting), Atlanta, GA, 1998;
www.fsec.ucf.edujBldgjpubsonline.htm.
68 C. Boutwell and Y. Salinas, Building for the Future - Phase I: An Energy Saving Materials Research .
Project, Mississippi Power Co., Rohm and Haas Co and the University of Mississippi, 1986.
Page 32
.
'.
.
Pless, Comments On Ternecu/a Regional Hospital
Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 27, 2005
computer simulations of reflective roofs have documented cooling energy savings in
residential and commercial buildings.69 Cool roofs have been widely used in
California, including on the American Airline airport terminal in San Jose, on control
towers at the Stockton and Palmdale airports, at the 300,OOO-square foot Honda
distribution warehouse in Stockton, the 200,OOO-square foot JC Penny warehouse in
Buena Park, and numerous buildings in Silicon Valley.
Thus, this measure would save a substantial amoul).t of money over the life of
the Project and would cost no more than a standard roof. Further, it would reduce
pollution by reducing the generation of power and the formation of ozone from the
heat island effect.
In sum, there are many additional feasible measures that should be evaluated
and required for this Project. The Draft EIR should be revised to include these
additional measures and be recirculated for public review.
VIII. CONCLUSION
As detailed in the comments above, the Draft EIR fails to meet the most basic
requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR fails to comply with the goals of the General
Plan, fails to adequately describe the Project and its environmental setting, and fails
to adequately identify the Project's regulatory setting. The Draft EIR's air quality
impact analysis for both the construction and operational phases of the Project are
fatally flawed and considerably underestimate Project emissions. As a result, the
Draft EIR fails to disclose all significant impacts and fails to disclose the full
magnitude of all impacts. The Draft EIR did not reqUire an feasible mitigation to
mitigate these significant impacts from Project construction and mitigation.
Additional feasible mitigation exists and should be reqUired to reduce these
significant impacts. In sum, the Draft EIRis patently inadequate and should be
revised and recirculated for public review.
6. See, for example: H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, C. Eley, B. Wilcox, M. Van Geem and D. Parket,
Calculations for Reflective Roofs in Support of Standard 90.1, ASHRAE Transactions, v. 104, no. 1,
1998, pp. 984-996; L. Gartland, S. Konopacki, and H. Akbari, Modeling the Effects of Reflective
Roofing, ACEEE 1996 Summpr Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, v. 4, 1996, pp. 117-124.
Page 33
.
.
.
i=. _
___.m__.-.__... _.
.. - ~~._-~,.~._...._.-
Exhibit 1
URBEMIS2002 Modeling Output
for 36-month Construction Period and Vehicle Emissios Target Year 2009
.:,.::_---'"
-." ~.._::~..:~.:;=~~~~.--
.
.
.
.
Page: 1
10/27/2005 10:54 AM
.
URBEMIS 2002 For Hindows
8.7.0
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
C:\Documents and Settings\Petra Pless\My Documents\PP Environmental Consulting
Temecula Regional Hospital
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PMIO PMIO PMIO
*** 2006 ... RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitiqated) 41. 95 283.34 338.81 0.03 129.68 11. 96 117.72
TOTALS (lbs / day, mitigated) 41. 95 283.34 338.81 0.03 53.81 11. 96 41.85
PM10 PMIO PM10
*** 2007 ... RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 13.82 89.14 115.14 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 13.82 89.14 115.14 0.00 3.97 3.72 0.25
PMIO PMIO PMIO
... 2008 ... RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 343.64 227.46 295.63 0.01 9.35 8.83 0.52
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
RaG NOx CO S02 PMIO
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8.39 3.79 4.43 0.00 0.01
! ~RATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
RaG NOx CO S02 PM10
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 92.78 103.76 1,245.27 0.86 123.35
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
RaG NOx CO S02 PMI0
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 101.17 107.56 1,249.70 0.86 123.36
'.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
440 Nova Albion Way
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 492-2131 voice
(775) 254-5849 fax
ppless@earthlirik.net
.
Or. Pless has over 10 years of experience in environmental engineering and science conducting
and managing interdisciplinary environmental research projects and preparing and reviewing
environmental permits and other documents for U.S. and European stakeholder groups. This
broad-based experience includes air quality and air pollution control; water quality, water
supply, and water pollution control; bjology; public health and safety; noise studjes and
mitigation; National Environmental Policy Act ("NEP A"), California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"), and Oean Air Act ("CAN') revjew; industrial ecology and risk assessment; and
use of a wide range of environmental software.
EDUCATION
Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering (D.Env.), University of California,
Los Angeles, 2001
M.S. Biology (with focus on botany/ecology/limnology), Technical University of Munich,
Germany, 1991
.
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
Leson & Assocjates (previously Leson Environmental Consulting), Kensington, CA,
Environmental Scientist/Project Manager, 1997-present
Universjty of California Los Angeles, Graduate Research Assjstant/Teaching Assistant, 1994-96
ECON Research and Development, Environmental Scientist, Ingelheim, Germany, 1992-93
Biocontrol, Environmental Projects Manager, Ingelheim, Germany, 1991-92
REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Air Quality and Pollution Control
Projects include CEQA/NEP A revjew; attainment and non-attainment new source review
("NSR"), prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") and Title V permitting; control
technology analyses (BACf, LAER, RACf, BARCf, MAC1); technology evaluations and cost-
effectiveness analyses; criteria and toxic pollutant emission inventories; emission offsets;
ambient and source monitoring; analysis of emissions estimates and ambient air pollutant
concentration modeling. Some typical projects include:
.
.
i.
..
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Critically revjewed and prepared technical comments on the air quality, biology, noise,
water quality, and public health and safety sections of CEQA/NEP A documents for
numerous commercial, residential, and industrial projects (e.g., power plants, airports,
residential developments, retail developments, hospitals, refineries, quarries, and mines).
Critically reviewed and prepared technical wuuuents on the air quality and public health
sections of the Los Angeles Airport Master Plan (Draft, Supplement, and Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report) for the Cjty of El Segundo.
Provjded technical comments on the Draft and Final General Conformity Determination for
the preferred alternative submitted to the Federal A vjation Administration.
For several California refir,eries, evaluated compliance of fired sources with Bay Area Air
Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") Rule 9-10. This required evaluation and review
of hundreds of source tests to determine if refinery-wide emission caps and compliance
monitoring provisions were being met.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on Draft Title V permits for several
refineries and other industrial facilities in California.
Evaluated the public health jmpacts of locating big-box retail developments in densely
populated areas in California and Hawaii. The impacts of diesel exhaust emissions and
noise on surrounding resjdential communities were measured and evaluated.
In conjunction with the permitting of several residential and commercial developments,
conducted studies to determine baseline concentrations of diesel exhaust particulate matter
using an aethalometer.
For an Indiana steel mill, evaluated technology to cOli.trol NOx and cd emissions from fired
sources, including electric arc furnaces and reheat furnaces, to establish BAcr. This
required a comprehensive review of U.S. and European operating experience. The lowest
emission levels were being achieved by steel mills using selective catalytic reduction
("SCR") and selective non-catalytic reduction ("SNCR") in Sweden and The Netherlands.
For a California petroleum coke calciner, evaluated technology to control NOx, CO, VOCS,
and PM10 emissions from the kiln and pyroscrubbers to establish BAcr and LAER. This
required a review of state and federal clearinghouses, working wjth regulatory agencies and
pollution control vendors, and obtaining and reviewing permits and emissions data from
. other similar facilities. The best-controlled facilities were located in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District ("SCAQMD").
For a Kentucky coal-fired power plant, identified the lowest NOx levels that had been
permitted and demonstrated in practice to establish BAcr. Revjewed operating experience
of European, Japanese, and U.5. facilities and evaluated continuous emission monitoring
data. The lowest NOx levels had been permitted and achieved in Denmark and in the U.S.
in Texas and New York.
In support of efforts to lower the CO -BAcr level for power plant emissions, evaluated the
contribution of co emjssions to tropospheric ozone formation and co-authored report on
same.
Critically revjewed and prepared technical comments on applications for certification
(" AFCs") for several natural-gas fired and geothermal power plants in California permitted
2
Petra Pless, D.Env.
by the California Energy Commission ("CEC"). The comments addressed construction and .
operational emissions inventories and dispersion modeling, BAcr for turbines, etc.
Critically reviewed and prepared technical comments on draft PSD pennits for several
natural-gas fired power plants in California, Indiana, and Oregon. The comments
addressed emissjon inventories, BAcr, case-by-case MAcr, compliance monitoring, cost-
effectiveness analyses, and enforceability of pennit limits.
For a California refinery, evaluated technology to control NOx and CO emissions from CO
Boilers to establish RAcr /BARcr to comply with BAAQMD Rule 9-10. This required a
revjew of BAcr /RAcr /LAER clearinghouses, working with regulatory agencies across the
U.S., and reviewing federal and state regulations and State Implementation Plans ("SIPs").
The lowest levels were required in a SCAQMD rule and in the Texas SIP.
In support of several federal lawsuits filed under the Oean Air Act, prepared cost-
effectiveness analyses for SCR and oxidation catalysts for simple cycle gas turbines and
evaluated opacity data.
Provjded comprehensive environmental and regulatory services for an industrial laundry
chain. Facilitated pennit process with the SCAQMD. Developed test protocol for VOC
emissions, conducted field tests, and used mass balance methods to estimate emissions.
Reduced disposal costs for solvent-containing waste streams by identifying alternative
disposal options. P~.L._.ed health risk screening for air toxics emissions. Provided
pennitting support with SCAQMD. Renegotiated sewer surcharges with wastewater
treatment plant. Identified new customers for shop-towel recycling services.
Designed computer model to predict performance of biological air pollution control .
(biofiIters) as part of a collaborative technology assessment project, co-funded by several
major chemical manufacturers. Experience using a wide range of environmental software,
including air dispersjon models, air emissjon modeling software, database programs, and
geographic information systems ("GIS").
Water Quality and Pollution Control
Experience in all phases of water quality and pollution control, including surface water and
ground water quality and supply studies, evaluating water and wastewater treatment
technologies, and identifying, evaluating and implementing pollution controls. Some typical
projects include:
For a homeowner's association, revjewed a California Coastal Commissjon staff report on
the replacement of 12,000 linear feet of wooden bulkhead with PVC sheet pile armor.
Researched and evaluated impact of proposed project on lagoon water qualjty, including
sediment resuspension, potential leaching of additives and sealants, and long-term stability.
Summarized results in technical report.
For a 500-MW combined-cycle power plant, prepared a study to evaluate the impact of
proposed groundwater pumping on local water quality and supply, including a nearby
stream, springs, and a spring-fed waterfall. The study was docketed with the CEC and
summarized in a journal article.
Evaluated impacts of on-shore oil drilling activities on large-scale coastal erosion in Njgeria.
.
3
Petra Pless, D.Env.
.
For a 500-MW combined-cycle power plant, jdentified and evaluated methods to reduce
water use and water quality impacts. These included the use of zero-liquid-discharge
systems and alternative cooling technologies, including dry and parallel wet-dry cooling.
Prepared cost analyses and evaluated impact of options on water resources. This work led
to a settlement in which parallel wet dry cooling and a crystallizer were selected, replacing
100 percent groundwater pumpjng and wastewater disposal to evaporation ponds.
.
Applied Ecology, Industrial Ecology and Risk Assessment
Experience in applied ecology, industrial ecology and risk assessment, including human and
ecological risk assessments, life cycle assessment, evaluation and licensing of new chemicals,
and fate and transport studjes of contaminants. Experienced in botanical, phytoplankton, and
intertidal species jdentification and water chemistry analyses. Some typical projects include:
For the California Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Estuary Institute, lnvasjve Spartina
Project, evaluated the -potential use of a new aquatic pesticide for eradicatipn of non-native,
invasjve cordgrass (Spartina spp.) species in the San Francisco Estuary with respect to water
qualjty, biological resources, and human health and safety. Assisted staff in preparing an
amendment to the Final ElR.
Evaluated likelihood that measured organochlorine pesticide concentrations at a U.S. naval
air station are resjduals from past applications of these pesticides consjstent with
manufacturers' recommendations. Retained as expert witness in lawsujt.
Prepared human health risk assessments of air emissions from several industrial and
commercial establishments, including power plants, refineries, and commercial laundries.
Managed and conducted studjes to license new pesticides. This work included the
evaluation of the adequacy and identification of deficiencies in existing physical/ chemi~al
and health effects data sets, initiating and supervjsing studies to fill data gaps, conducting
environmental fate and transport studies, and QA/QC compliance at subcontractor
laboratories. Prepared licensing applications and coordinated the registration process with
German licensing agencies. This work led to regulatory approval of several pesticide
applications in less than six months.
Designed and implemented database on physical/ chemical properties, environmental fate,
and health impacts of pesticides for a major European pesticide manufacturer.
Designed and managed toxicological study on potential interference of deIta-9-tetrahydro-
cannabinol in food products with U.S. employee drug testing; co-authored peer-reviewed
publication.
Critically revjewed and prepared technical comments on AFCs for several natural-gas fired
and geothermal power plants and transmission lines in California permitted by the CEC.
The comments addressed avian collisions and electrocution, construction and operational
noise impacts on wildlife, risks from brine ponds, and impacts on endangered species.
For a 180-MW geothermal power plant, evaluated the impacts of plant construction and
operation on the fragile desert ecosystem in the Salton Sea area. This work included
baseline noise monitoring and assessing the impact of noise, brine handling and disposal,
and air emissjons on local bjota, public health, and welfare.
:.
4
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Desjgned research protocols for a coastal ecological inventory; developed sampling .
methodologies, coordinated field sampling, determined species abundance and distribution
in intertidal zone, and analyzed data.
Desjgned and conducted limnological study on effects of physical/ chemical parameters on
phytoplankton succession; performed water chemistry analyses and identified
phytoplankton species; co-authored two journal articles on results.
Conducted technical, ecological, and economic assessments of product lines from
agricultural fiber crops for European equjpment manufacturer; co-authored proprietary
client reports.
Developed life cycle assessment methodology for industrial products, including agricultural
fiber crops and mineral fibers; analyzed technical feasjbility and markets for thermal
insulation materials from plant fibers and conducted comparative life cycle assessments.
Conducted and organized underwater surveying and mapping of plant species in several
lakes and rivers in Sweden and Germany as ecological indicators for the health of
limnological ecosystems.
PRO BONO ACTIVITIES
Management of "SecondAid," a non-profit organization providing tsunami relief for the
recovery of small family businesses in Sri Lanka. (www.secondaid.org)
Technical consulting for Lakota Village Fund, a non-profit organization for environmental
improvement and economic development projects for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota. (www.Iakota-village.de)
.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Association of Environmental Professionals
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Fox JP and Pless P, Cost-effectiveness of catalytic oxidation for the control of VOCS and CO
from power generation faciljties, to be submitted to Journal of the Air & Waste Martagement
Association.
r
Fox JP and Pless P, Fuel and energy penalties associated with catalytic pollution control systems
used in power generation, to be submitted to Power Engineering.
Fox JP, Rose TP, Sawyer TL, and Pless P, Isotope hydrology of a spring-fed waterfall in
fractured volcanic rock, to be submitted to Journal of Hydrology.
Leson G and Pless P, Hemp seeds and hemp oil, in: Grotenhermen F and Russo E (eds),
Cannabjs und Cannabinojds, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential, The
Haworth Integrative Healjng Press, New York, 2002.
.
5
.
.
.
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Leson G, Pless P, Grotenhermen F, Kalant H, and ElSohly M, Evaluating the impact of
hemp food consumption on workplace drug tests, Journal of Analytical Toxicology, vol. 25
(11/12), pp. 1-8,2001.
Pless P, Technical and environmental assessment of thermal insulation materials from fiber
crops, doctoral dissertation in Environmental Science and Engineering, University of
California, Los Angeles, 2W1.
Leson G and Pless P, Assessing the impact of mc uptake from hemp oil cosmetics on work-
place drug testing, Report to the Agricultural Research and Development Initiative
(" ARDI"), Morris, MB, 2001.
- Leson G and Pless P, Hemp Foods and Oils for Health, Your Guide to Cooking, Nutrition and
Body Care, HempTech, Sebastopol, CA,1999.
Leson G and Pless P, What variety? Hemp cultivars for Canada, Commercial Hemp, Fall 1998,
pp.7-8.
Leson G and Pless P, Farming and processing: Technology status, Commercial Hemp, Summer
1998, pp. 5-6.
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Collaborative Bjofilter Project, Technical Report, co-author with Leson G of sections
'Compound Database: 'Design Manual,' and 'Literature Database: 1998.
Hantke B, Domany I, Fleischer P, Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, Depth profiles of
the kinetics of phosphatase activity in hardwater lakes of different trophic level, Arch.
Hydrobiologia, vol. 135, pp. 451-471, 1996.
Hantke B, Fleischer P, Domany I, Koch M, Pless P, Wiendl M, and Melzer M, P-release from
DOP by phosphatase activity in comparison to P-excretion by zooplankton: studies in
hardwater lakes of different trophic level, Hydrobiologia, vol. 317, pp. 151-162, 1996.
Pless P, Untersuchungen zur PhytoplanktonentwickIung im Herrensee (investigations on
phytoplankton succession in an oligotrophic hardwater lake), Masters Thesis in biology
with focus on botany 1 ecology Ilimnology, Technical Universjty of Munich, Germany, 1991.
6
-:I::iIet=-al'J1::i1. ...._~;....___
1_1::1111
____..~.:II"'I""'-.I_._'ElI_.._:l.'1C1=_
18/28/2885 82:55
9516821832
BBK
PAGE 81/87
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
INDIAN WEI..LS
<<7601 See-2S I I
A CAUFORNI" UHITED U4B1UTY .-, ......-.............,P.I"CUJgI~ PROFE83101'fAl.. ~AA~
LAW'lERS
3750 UNl\I'EASnv AVENUE
POST 0FF1CE BOX 10ZB
RlVERStDE. CAUF'ORNtA. Oa~02-1 Oa8
(g61' 68&1450
COB II eS&-30S3 fAX
BBKLAW.COM
WAt.NUT ~K
(925) 74&7300
SACRAMENlO
(Q I e) 32.&--4000
IRVINE
(9491) aCS3--2COQ
SAN DIEGO
<Olg) 92$-1300
OtlTAAlO
19oQ) geo-eeS4
TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION
DATE:
October 28, 2005
To:
NAME
Emery Papp
City of Temecula Plaruring Department
FAX No.
(951) 694-6477
PHONE No.
FROM:
Salvador M. Salazar
RE:
/FlLENO.:
MESSAGE:
IUSERNO.: 1346
I No. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER:
CAUTION - CONFIDENTIAL: THE DOCUMENT BEING TELECOPffiD TO YOU MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION PROTECTED
BY THE A TIORNEY .cLIENT /WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. It is mk:llded only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you arc Dot
the intended recipient or an authorized agent, then tbis is notice to you tbat dissemination, distnbution or copying of this document is
probibited. If this was received in error, please call us at once and destroy the documenl.
IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTY WlTHTHE QUALITY OR COMPLETENESS OF THIS TRANSMISSION. PLEASE CALL
SUPPORTSERVICES (95/) 686-U50. exT. 388.
.
.
.
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:30PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 2
.
.
.
10/28/2605 02:55
PAGE 02/07
9516821832
BEl<
,
INDIAN "NIi:LLS
(760) sea.ze I I
BEST" BEST & KRIEGER UP
A CAUl"OftNlA UfotfTE];:l 1.1At'1ur"I' .PARTNERS"IP I~UJOlNO PAO~~L C ~ -
l.AWtERS
3750 UNIVERSITY ....VENUE
POSTomcEBOX 1028
RfYERSIDE. CAUFDRNIA G2SOZ-I028
(QS 11 ElGlS-1 450
(g" I ) 68&3083 FAX
BBKLAW,COM
WALNlIT CREEK
(925) 7-4Cw7300
...
SACRAMDrnl
(g I e) ~25-4000
IRVINE
(g4g) 2C3~2eoo
SAN DIEGO
(619) "25-1.300
ONTARIO
(909) 909--8584
SALVADOR M. SALAZAR
SAI..V.-.oOR, SAlAZAR@BBKLAW.COM
October 28, 2005
Vja Facsimile aod First Class Mail
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
City.of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE:
COMMENTS ON DRAFf ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
(DEIR) FOR P A04-0462, P A04-1463, AND P A04-0571 (UNIVERSAL
HEALTH SERVICES lJOSPITAL PROJECT)
Dear Mr. Papp:
This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stormon, own,ers of a single family residence
located on the northeast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, directly across the street
from the northerly boundary of the proposed Unjversal Health Services Hospital development
project ("Project"). The Stormons are in receipt of the City ofTemecula's Notice of Availability
of the DEIR for the Project. The Stormons have retained us to assist them in reviewing the
potential impacts of this Project on the environment, their residence and their nejghborhood.
As previously stated in the comments we submitted on April 6, 2005 to the City, the
Stormons do not obj ect to the construction of a hospital on the subject site. The Stormons want to
be assured that the Project does not cause umnitigated adverse environmental impacts to their
residence and neighborhood To that end, the Stormons have attended most of the neighborhood
meetings held by the City and/or developer of the Project for the purpose of working with the
developer and the City to create mutually acceptable Project. They have become quite familiar
with the Project and all of its components. In fact, the Stormons have several times voiced their
concerns about the Project to City staff, representatives of the hospital, and the Planning
Commission during their hearing on the Project on April 6, 2005. Throughout the consideration
of this Project the Stormons have been informed that their concerns would be addressed in the
en\;'v~uental docwnents for the Project. Unfortunately, to date, their concerns have not been
addressed.
RVPUB\5AI,.V AOOR.SI\UZAR\701643.J
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:30PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 3
10/28/2005 02:55
9516821832
BSK
PAGE 03/07
1.AW ames or
BEST BEST 5. KRIEGER LLP
City ofTemecuJa, Planning Department
October 28, 2005
Page 2
.
In fact, the ~~,,,... Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project fails to
analyze the deficiencies in the environmental documents previously raised. Indeed, the,ir
concerns about spill-over traffic using Pio Pico Road Street is not addressed in the DEIR.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the City, as a lead agency, to
incorporate all feasible mitigation measures. The Stormons continue to believe that their specific
concerns about the adverse traffic, noise, and aesthetic impacts iTom the Project may be
alleviated with: (I) a mitigation measure requiring the developer to construct solid fencing along
the Stormons' property frontage (to screen noise, block exhaust and screen light and glare); and
(2) requiring the installation of traffic calrning devices such as signs (No Access to Hospital) or
structures along pjo Pico Road (to slow traffic coming south from Pio Pico Road to access the
northerly portion of the Hospital and minimize V-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single
DePortola driveway entrance to the hospital). Implementation of these mitigation measures
would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the Project. However, none of these mitigation
measures were analyzed or discussed in the DEIR or included in th.e mitigation monitoring and
reporting plan prepared for the project despite the testimony ofthe Stormons and other neighbors,
that increase in traffic, especially the increased identified in the DEIR, will also increase the
existing spill over traffic. In fact, the supplemental traffic impact analysis devotes one paragraph .
on page 17 of Appendix D to refute that any cars will ever use Pio Pico Road to access the
Hospital. The analysis, however, fails to consider tbe statement included in the previous
paragraph that Margarita Road will operate at a LOS E on a daily basis. Common sense, and
existing traffic patterns, would dictate that a driver would choose to use a residential street with
less traffic rather a commercial street which. where movement of cars requires waiting for more
than one traffic cycle.
Consequently, the Stormons continue to believe that the failure to discuss and include
these feasible mitigation measures renders analysis under the DEIR and mitigation monitoring
and reporting plan deficient. We have set .forth, the Stormons' conclusions in more detail below.
DEJlIClENCIES IN THE DEIR
I. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PIO PICO ROAD.
The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate
environmental document. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Monteeito Water Dlst.
(2004) 116 Cal.AppAlh 396.) The supplemental traffic impact analysis contained in the DEIR
(and the original traffic impact analysis prepared as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration)
again inexplicably fail to assign any vehicle trips to Pio Pico Road. Further the intersection of
Pio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the supplemental
traffic analysis. (Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15063 ["State CEQA
Guidelines"].) The supplemental traffic impact analysis assigns 56% of the vehicle trips to .
Highway 79 (South) and 15% of the trips to DePortola Road. (OEIR Appendix D figure 2-1a)
The traffic analysis (original and supplemental traffic analysis) also "evaluated all of the
RVPUB\SAL V ADOR.SALA7..AR\702ti43.l
RECEIVED: 10/26/05 2:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 4
16/28/2665 62:55
9516821832
BSK
PAGE 64/67
LAW OFFICES OF
.. BEST BEST !i. KRIEGER LLP
City of Temecula, Planning Department
October 28, 2005
Page 3
.
,.
intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage
Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and DePortola Road." (DEIR appendix D.)
However, no vehicle trips were ever assigned to Pio Pico Road and the intersection of Pio Pico
Road and DePortola Road was not one of the intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.)
We understand that the traffic engineer retained by the Project proponents' believes that
no assjgnment of trips to Pio Pico Road is necessary because traffic will not use primarily
residential streets to access the hospital. However, there is already a significant amount of traffic
that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City of Temecula that use Margarita
Road and then cut south to Pio Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons
coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to bypass most of
the traffic accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hospital complex
from the driveway located off DePortola Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the
City that a large portion ofits popUlation base is located north of the Hospital with easy access to
Margarita Road as a means to travel south in the City.
Given these street conditions, the Stonnons again request that the traffic analysis be
amendcd to: (1) include a study of the intersection of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road; and (2)
study th,e reassignment of vehicle triPs that would travel south beginning at the intersection
Margarita Road to Pio Pico Road. In the event the City is unable to conduct an amended Traffic
Analysis, tbe Stormons continue to request that a mitigation measure be added to require that a
sign be placed at the intersection ofPio Fico and Margarita and at the intersection ofPio Pico and
DePortola Road jnforming motorists that these streets do not provide hospital access. This
recommendation should be included as :a mitigation measure beca~se there is a significant traffic
jmpact on the to adjoining residential properties. Further, the requested mitigation measure is
feasible and within the City's ability arid authority to impose it. (Pub. Res. Code Section 21004
and Slate CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15364.) As the City is required to adopt all feasible mitigation
measures, if the City refuses to incorporate the suggested mitigation into the Project, the City
must provide a reasonable explanatidn and recirculate the DEIR for an additional 45 day
comment period. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 (a)(3).)
2. THE DEIR IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NOISE SOURCES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PROJECT, BUT OMITS DISCUSSION ON How THOSE IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED To
LESS THAN SIGNIF1CANT LEVELS.
The DEIR notes under page 4-6 'that
"Even with mitigation measureS to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these
impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance because of
I Additio,naUy, we Dote lbat while the City may btilize infonnation ~'o"'Q..J by the PlOject proponent, lbe City must
find that the environmental analysi. reflects the City'. independent juA--nt (See e.g., State CEQA Guideline. <
15074.) "!T-'- " ' ·
RVPUBISAL V AOOR.SAU,ZAR\702t143.1
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:31PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 5
10/28/2B05 02:55
9516821832
BBK
PAGE 05/07
LAW t".'--'--I~ OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
.
City ofTemecula, PlllIlJJing Department
October 28, 2005
Page 4
uncertainty of the exact nwnber of flights per month due to unknown nwnber of
emergencies that will ocCUr ~hin any given month. Helicopter flight noise
impacts will be significant and unavoidable ".
The property that is the closest to the Heliport js to the Stormons' property. The
Stormons believe that an approximat~ use of the' Heliport could be determined by using
comparisons with similar type of facilities to calculate the average number of helicopter flights to
and from the Hospital. The study of similar facilities should analyze (1) the anticipated
frequency of use of the heliport; (2) the. anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; and
(2) the potential noise impacts to surrounding properties. Once this study is completed,
mitigation measures could be identified and recommended so that the significant impacts
identified in the DEIR are mitigated to the extent possible and to allow the decision making body
to make an informed decision and comply with CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15002(a)(I).
The Stormons are recommending that, in the event the City is unable to obtain this information,
the construction of a block wall alo'ng the southerly portion of their property should be
incOlporated as a mitigation measure to; minimize the increased ambient and interior noise levels
cause by the 6 flights per month anticipated and described in the DEIR. (See DEIR page 4-64)
3. FAlLUJIE To PREPARE A. NOISE STUDY THAT DETERMINES THE NUMBER OF .
ANTICIPATED FUGHTS To THEHOSPITAL.
As noted above, the City failed to include or prepare a noise study that analyzes the noise
that could be generated by the maximum number of flights arriving at the Hospital. Without this
flight and noise study the decision m'aking bodies (planning Commission and City Council)
cannot make an infonned decision, and will not be able to incorporate rriitigation measures that
are feasible and capable of implementation to minimize noise significant impacts. Additionally,
we find that the noise conclusions regarding noise jmpacts from the heliport in the DEIR are so
brief and conclusory that jt makes the DEIR inadequate and recirculation is likely necessary.
(See Mountain Lion Coalition v Fish and Game Comm's (1989) 214 CAJd 1043,263 CR 104 [in
which an agency analyzed cumulative impacts in a brief and conclusory fashion which rendered
the EIR inadequate and .~;,~.1lation was necessary].)
4.
IMPACTS
FA/LUJIE To PREPARE: ADEQUATR MmOATION MEASURES FOR AESTHETIC
The DEIR notes that the project will include various buildings and a hospital structure
that includes towers of five and si)( stories (106' in height). It further notes that "[W]hi1e the
project will be visible from various reSidential lots, a less tban significant impact is anticipated
because views are considered private 3ll.d are not considered to be of public benefit." (DEIR at p.
4-5.) However, this statement does not absolve the City from analyzing the aesthetic and visual
impacts on surrounding residential p~operties of constructing a six-story building. There can be
no doubt that the visual character of the area will be significantly affected with the construction .
of 106-foot tall structure jn the immediate vicinity of a residential neighborhood. (Ocean View
RvPUB\S^L V AOOR..SALAZA.R\7Q2643.1
:i RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2: 31 PM; - >CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 6
.
.
.
, "
1B/28/2BB5 B2:55
PAGE B6/B7
9516821832
BEl<
IAN OF1'1CES of'
BEST BEST & KRIEGER UP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
October 28, 2005
Page 5
Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Vist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4'h 396 [concern of
local residents regarding aesthetic impacts may establish substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that a project has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics]; The Pocket Protedors v.
City of Sacramento (2004) 2004 Ca\.App. LEXIS 2074 [lay opinion may be substantial evidence
of aesthetic impacts].) Dismissing the analysis simply because the views are not legally
protected does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15063;
see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116
Cal.App.41h 1099 [stating that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that can be
made about a possible significant environmental effect, even if the project already meets
established thresholds].) The conclusions reached in the DEIR must be based on some evidence
to indicate the basis for the determinations made. (Citizens Ass 'n for Sensible Development v.
County of Inyo (1985) 172 CaI.App. 3d 151, 171.) Failure to base the conclusions in. the DEIR
on substantial evidence renders the DEIR, and the findings and statement of overriding
considerations based on the DEIR entirely inadequate.
5. ILLEGAL DEFElIRAL OF MmGATlON MEASUlU3S FOR AesTHETIc IMPA.CTS
Mitigation measures must be designed to minimize impacts. (pRC Section 21000 and
State CEQA Guidelines, 9 15126.4). In this case the mitigation measures for the Project's
aesthetic impacts fail to minimize lighting impacts to the surrounding properties, including the
Stormons'residence. Deferral of mitigation measures may be permitted only when a mitigation
measure has been defined, but the extent ofroitigation that may be required will depend on the
results of a later study. (Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 4th 1428. See also
Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents ofUni. of California (1988) 47 C3d 376.) In
this DEIR, mitigation measure A -I proposes to defer the analysis of lighting impacts on
surrounding properties. The mitigation measure states;
"Prior to the issuance of a bllilding permit, City staff shall verifY that a
photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed lighting levels. .
onto adjacent project boundaries including mitigation measures.
Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use. - .
shall also be prepared including means to mitigate ".
This mitigation measure fails to inc.,,,t'~...;e performance criteria that can be reviewed to
determine what will be done if the lighting levels adversely impact the surrounding properties
and/or the results are not in compliance with Cjty regulations. Submittal of a photometric planpdoes not and cannot initil!ate an impact if there is no established criteria as to what level of
lighting intensity is acceptable.
Mitigation Measure A-3 states that:
". .. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line
and adjacent residential parcels ".
RVPUIl'SALV AOORSAUlZAR\702643.J
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 2:32PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #401; PAGE 7
10/28/2005 02:55
9516821832
BSK
PAGE 07/07
LAW OrncES OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER UP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
October 28, 2005
Page 6
.
This mitigation measure as well as mitigation measure A-I fails to include a performance
standard describing the level of mitigation needed. A mitigation measure that provides that
"[E]nhanced landscaping may be required" is not a mitigation measure because it does not
specify under the conditions under which the enhancements wiU be required. (Riverwatch v.
County of San Diego (1999) 76 CA 4th 1428. See also Laurel Heights Improvement Assodation
v. Regents ofUni. of California (1988) 47 C3d376.)
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the v...._.;_Jty to comment on the DEIR. for this Project. For the reasons
set forth above, the Stonnons continue to believe that the DEIR does not adequately analyze
impacts to traffic, noise and aesthetics, nor does it incorporate feasible mitigation measures that
would minimize the impacts identified above.
The Stonnons believe the City must incorporate their suggested mitigation measures or
prepare additional studies (noise and traffic) to d~;~.~..:ne what level of mitigation is needed to
minimize the significant impacts identified. At a minimum, if ~e City chooses not to incorporate
the suggested mitigation measures, the Ci.ty must recirculate the DEIR.
Cc; Honorable Chairman and Memb fthe PI
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad & Nicole Stonnon
.
.
RVPUB\sALV AOOR.SA1...A7..AR\702643.1
RECEIVED: 10/26/05 3:56PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #378; PAGE 2
.
..
.
10/26/2005 04:21
PAGE 02/03
9516821832
BBK
IN""'" WEU.S
C7e,01 56B"?-6 I I
BEST' BEST & KRIEGER LLP
A <=^Uf'OfllNIA LJMfTC I.IAf)tl.:lT'I' PARJNIiRSHI~ INCLUDIt<<J pqo"E5S1OtW.. ~~
LAWYERS
37$0 UNlVERSrtY AVENUE
POST 0FF1CE: BOX 1 O~e
RNERSlDE. CAL.JF'ORNIA 0'2""'02-1 028
(95 I , 000-1 450
C9~ I J 688-3083 fAX
BBK1..AW,COM
WAl.N\IT CREEK
a;lI25J 7.4&-7300
:'IACIW<EtITO
'~l e) .325..4000
IRVINE
(Q4~) Ze3-ZCOO
$AN DIE~
(619) 52.$-1300
ONTARIO
(gag) geo-ee.04
S.....VAOOR M. s.uw.R
SALVAOOR.SAL.A%AA@BIIKLAW.COM
October 26, 2005
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Emery Papp, Senior Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE:
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR TEMECULA
HOSPITAL EIR FOR PA04-0462, PA04-1463, AND 'tA04-0S71
(UNIVERSAL REALm SERVICES HOSPITAL PROJECT)
Dear Mr. Papp:
This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stormon, owners of a single family residence
located on the northeast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street
from the northerly boundary of the pi )posed Universal Health Services Hospital development
project ("Project"). '
We have received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for
the Project It is our understanding the public review period fot' the Project DEIR will terminate
on Friday October 28, 2005. The public review period for the DEIR is only 30 days. However,
as you know, CEQA requires a 45 day review time frame for regionally significant projects like
thi$ one. Due to the complexity of the Project, we are requesting additional time to review and
comment on the DEIR. We request to be permitted to review and submit comments, if any, by
ThUISday November 10, 2005.
We understand that the City must balance the ability of the public to respond within the
time frame against the interest of the applicant. However, the additional time requested will not
interfere with the scheduled Planning Commission and City Council meetings of November 16,
and November 22, 2005, respectively.
RVPUBISAL v ADOR.SALAZAR\702616.1
RECEIVED: 10/26/05 3:56PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; ,#378; PAGE 3
10/26/2005 04:21
9516821832
BBK
PAGE 03/03
LlW -w~.._~ OF
BEST BEST & KRIEGER UP
City ofTemecula, Planning D~A'''' y..ent
October 26, 200S
Page 2
.
Should you have any questions please call me. Thank you.
S'
y,
"'"
~
Cc: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad & Nicole Starman
.
.
RVPUIlISAL V ADOR.SAUJ.AR\102616.1
V ARREN D. WILLIAMS
nernl Manager-Chief Engineer
.
,
'.
.
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
951.955.1200
951.788.9965 FAX
www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 26, 2005
hU
"
T~l
i ~ Ii
i1
"
ii
j:
OCT :I 1 2005
Ui.
Mr. Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Papp:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
for Temecula Regional Hospital
Thi~ letter is written in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Temecula
Regional Hospital project. The proposed project is located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
south of De Portola Road, and "l'l'wAimately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, within the city of
Temecula.
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following
comments/concerns that should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
I. Existing District facilities are located adjacent to the proposed project area and may be
impacted. The proposed project may impact the District's Teniecula Creek Line V. Any
work that involves District rights-of-way, easements, or facilities will require an
encroachment permit from the District. The construction of facilities within road right-
of-way that may impact District storm drains should also be coordinated with us. To
obtain further jnfonnatiOn pn encroachment permits or exjsting facilities, contact Ed Lotz
of the EncroachmentPennit Section at 951.955.1266.
2. Page 4-33, Sectjon 4.3 Hydrology and Water Qualjty of the DEIR incorrectly states that
the District reviews all proposed projects within the planning area. Please be advised that
the Djstrict does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use
cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or
provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.
District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specjfic interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other
',regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be consjdered a logical
component or extension of a master plan system, and Area' Drainage Plan fees
(development mitigation fees). Please refer to the previous letter dated August 25, 2005
that is included in the NOP Responses section of the DEIR.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
for Temecula Regional Hospital
-2-
October 26, 2005
3. It is unclear in the DElR where the proposed stonn drain system will outlet. Any impacts
that may occur to the District's existing Line V Stage 2 Channel as a result of the
connection should be addressed. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to,
biological resources, air quality, water quality and potential for increased erosion due to
concentration of flows.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DElR. Please forward any subsequent
environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions
concerning this letter may be referred to Steven Horn at 951.955.1200 or me at 951.955.1233.
TERESA TIJNG
Senior Civil Engineer
c: TLMA
Attn: David Mares
Ed Lotz
SCH:mcv
P8\102972
.
.
.
,
_:t::.eli::.a...=-. ..__...~...... __""""':.1"1
___ .._.::IIlII:::II....I_a_;_~~__.,a'...._
10/2812005 Y3: 21 FAX 9095069491
PECHANGA CULTURAL
~ 001/006
.
Pechanaa Cultural Resource Center
Temeuelo Bond of Lulscno Mission Indians
Pec:hongo ReseNatlon
Post Office Box 2183
Temeculo. C4llfomlo 92593
Telephone: (951) 308-9295
Facsimile: (951) 506-9491
Please Deliver To: fu:(l"',~ Th.pt.
. Fax#: (~I ) ~'N - (f,1.{l},+-
FacsimUe Inf'onnation Paf!}.
Attn:f~ ~S ~~.
From:
PCRC
Total Number oCPages Sent Indudlng this Page:
h
.
NOTICE:
HYou Do Not Recelve Lqlble Copies of All The Page$, Please Call
(\10\1) J08-9Z\lS ASAP aDd ..uk For The Sender.
'~n\P ~i\
~
r .Nr1(f\f'^~"', on \)a.~ FIR Ai- (fft'lt~ :l1~t41
SENT BY:
DAn;: SENT:
RE:
ThIs craosmlllloo I. Inleoded ooly for the use of (be individual or eotity Co glcb Ills addressed aDd
may COlllaln IIlfQflDlllloo that Is prlvlleged. coQOdenClaIBod enmpt from disclosure uDder applieable
Iaw_ H the reader oUbIs _age Is not the Intended recipient, or tbe employee or ageul responsible
for deUverlug the lIIeSSlI&e to the InleJldedreclplent, yoo are bereby notified that 811)' dissemination,
dlsCrlbulloD or photocopyJna: oC this .,..".",.,:' ",1100 Is drIef\y prohlblted. U you have recdTed this
commlUlleaCloo 10 error, please nowy as l1\lMEDL\11!:LY by telepbooe, Bod .. ",." the orlgtoal
message to us at the above addftla via the U.s. POBtal ScnIee. Thllblt. you.
COMl............: .+taal ~ I ,\~\ ~Il;:w ; (\ ~1.
~~f\U Ir.qA-
I ~~^<Yl.r( ~h
i.
ORIGINAL: WILL
WILL NOT
Sl!:ND
2.!t'FffiM RFr.~rm YES
NO
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:33PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 2
10/28/2005 13,21 FAX 9095069491
PECHANGA CULTURAL
Ii!J 002/006
('h:loilJlcr:-on:
(k'nn:nnc ArCTl!h
.
PECHANGA CULTURAL RESOURCES
Temec-ula Band (!f Luiseiio Missioll IlIdialls
VlccChllll'pC'fVlll:
Mury l:kur MagC(."
Pnst Office. Box 21M]. Ten'c~la, CA 9159]
Telephone (951) 30K-9295 . Fax (951) 50(,-9491
Cummlncc Mcmh~;
I{aymlmd Ha.~IIC7, Sr.
hie (icrhcr
Darlene Mil'3.nda
Rridr.cn [lMCCUtl M:rxwdl
ni(\"l"llll,
(f;/IyO\,Rui..
October 24, 200S
Cuun.lillalUI:
I'il\ll!vlill',nru
Emery J. Papp
City ofTemccula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
rllllur:ll ^l\lIly:d.
Sh:plmm.: (;.lnlm
Momtur SUfl4.'f"VI~ur:
Aun'lia MllrTUO'U
Re: Comments on Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Papp,
TIus comment tetter is submitted hy the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio lndiims (herejnallcr, .
"Pechanga Tribe"), a federally recognizcd Indian tribe and sovereign government. The Pechanga
Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code 92 1092.2, to bc notified and
jnvolved in the entirc CEQA environmental review process for the duration of the above
referenced project (thc "Project'').
Pursuant to our discussion yesterday, it js the Tribe's understanding that, in addition to
the condjlions listed as itcIlls 5b and 5i ill the initial study, the City jntends to include as a
condition of approval, to be completed prior to grading, the requirement for a Treatment
Agreement between the developer and the Tribe. As discussed, the Tribc has some additional
items which it will be requesting be added as mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
WhiIc thc Tribe appreciates the City's wjllingness to include conditions of approval for
the project which will protect the potenljal cultural resources on the site, it has a concern about
the City's lack of inclusion of cultural resources in its CEQA evaluation of the projecl.
I am also requesting that the County of Riverside include an additjonal mjtigation
measure that deals specifically with the treatment of remains, ifthey are found during any
grading activjty. The mitigation requirements should also include jnfonnation relating to the
pre-excavatjon agreement which requjres the developer to provjde compensation to the monilors
during thc Project.
.
Sar.r.'d lti The n'J~V 1his((ul lInto (Jllr ('mv ,4nd Wi,h HfJl/nr We Ri,,,e. T,) Th,., Need
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:33PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 3
.
.
.
10/2~/2005 13:21 FAX 9095069491
PECHANGA CULTURAL
~ 003/006
'Pechanga comment teller to thc County of Riverside Planning Department
RE: Commenls on Draft Focused fiR for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Page 2
:rHE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE AND CONSULT WITH THE TRIBE IN ITS.
REVIEW PROCESS
It has bccn the intent of the Federal Governmentl and the State ofCaljfomja2 that Indian
tribcs be consulted with regard to jssucs which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as
other govcrnmcntal concerns. 111e responsjbjlity to consult with Indian tribes stems from the
unique government-lo-government rclationship between the United States and Indian tribes. Thjs
arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of govemmcntal agencies and departments
such as "t'1'",Ial of Specific Plans and EIRs. In this case, it is undisputed thatlhe project lies
within the Luiseiio tribe's traditional territory. Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and
other applicable Federal and California law, it is imperative that the Lead Agency and the Project
lIPplicant consult with the Tribe in order to guardlltee an adcquatc basis of knowledge for an
appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as wen as generating adequale mjtigation measures.
THE CITY INADEOUATELY ADDRESSED CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE DEIR
While a copy of the cultural resources survey is jncluded jn the EIR and the Tribe
understands that a "focused" ElR was intended, there js no scction discussing cultural resourccs
and no mitigation measures specifically addressing cultural resources, despite the fact that the
City and cultural resources report acknowledge that the Project is in a culturally sensitive area.
As the City is aware, there is a highly sensitive cultural site jn close proximity to this Projecl sjte.
While the cultural resources report concludes that lherc wcrc no resources located on the project
site, this is not a conclusive evaluation since no subsurface testing was perfonncd. Because of
the proximity to the olher significant site, the Tribe believes there is a likelihood for cultural
resources to be encountered during ground disturbing activities. Thus, the Tribe believes that
cultural resources should have bccn includcd as a topic of evaluation in the focused ElR.
CEQA makes clear that the main purposes of an EIR is to identify and analyzc thc
environmental effects of a project. (California Public Resource Code 921002.I(a); 14 California
Code ofRegulatjons ("Guidelines") 915126). As currently drafted, the draft ElR does not
provide adequate protection for significant archaeological and cultural sites and does not
adequately follow the provisjons for CEQA and its Guidelines, including Calif. Pub. Res. Code
S21083.2(b) (avoidance as prcfcrrcd method of preservation of archaeological resources), CEQA
Guidelines 9 15 I 26.4(b)(3) (agencies should avojd e/Tccts on historical resources of
archaeological nature), and CEQA Guidelines 915020 (lead agency responsible tor adequacy of
cnvirownental documents). Inclusion of project conditions of approval does not subsljtule for
the City's obligations to adequately mitigate undcr CEQA.
I See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-la-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Gover=nlS and Executive Oeiler of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tnbal
Govemments.
2 See California Public Resource Code ~5097.9 et scq.
Pecbal1ga Clllrural R('som"l'(~.r . 1(/II1(!cllla Band ofLu;S(!11o M;s,'i/'ol1 Indian...
POSI Office Box 1183. Temecula. CA 91592
Sacred Is Tire Duly Tnu'led UnIO Our Care And '}llh Honor We Ri.w;'1u The Nt:ed
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:33PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 4
10/2812005 13:22 FAX 9095069491
PECHAN6A CULTURAL
. ~ 004/006
Pechanga comment letter to the County ofRjverside Planning Department
RE: Comments on Draft Focused EJR for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Page 3
.
In order to approve an EIR the Cjty is required to make finding that it has adopted
mitigation measures that have climinated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the
environment where fcasible. CEQA Guidcline ~ 15092_ Since therc are currently no mitigation
measures addressing cultural resources, the focused ElR does not fully address the required
cultural resources t..~t,,_lions as it does not propose mitigation measures which would eliminate
or substantja1ly lessen significant effects on cultural resources. Bccause there is a potential for
the djscovery of cultural resources and/or human remains on the Project sittl, "t't'.ut'riate
mitjgation must be adopted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21082 and CEQA Guidelines 99
15064.5; 15126.4 and 15151 a Lead Agency should make provisions [or historical or unique
archaeological resources discovered during constructjon.
As detailed below, inclusion of mitigation measures addressing cultural resources are
needed to address the Tribe's cultural concerns and to assure that the Project is in full
compliancc with the Califomja Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its jmplementing
regulations, Calif. Pub. Res. Code 921000 et seq.. and CEQA Guidelines 9 15000 et seq. rt is the
Tribe's position that its proposed mitigation measures will enable the City to make the requjred
findings. The CEQA and jts Guidelines mandate that avoidance is the preferred method of
preserving archaeological resources, Calif. Puh. Res. Code 92 I 083_2(b). See a/so CEQA
Guidelines ~ 15126.4(b)(3).
.
PROJECT IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCE!i
The Pechanga Tribe's primary concemS stem from the project's likely impacts on Native
American cultural resourccs. As was discussed above, the potential likelihood of discovering
cultural resources js very high, due to other known rcsources found jn close proximity to this
project. The most well known cultural site within this area js a hugc Luiseiio village sjte, which
has been previously documented and is known to contain at least fifteen archeological sites
within a one mile radius of this vjllage. Within this village site numerous CUlturoll jtems have
been found jncluding whole metates as well as fTagments, pottery shards and many other
personal and sacred items.
The Pechanga Tribe is concerned about both the protection o[ uniquc and irreplaceable
cultural resources, such as Luisefio vjllagc sites and archeological items which would be
displaced by ground disturbing work on the project, and on the propcr and lawful !reabnent of
cultural items, Native American human remains and sacred items likely to be discovered in the
course of the work. The Tribc would also Ijke to point out that a preferred method of treattnent
for archeological sites according to the CEQA is avoidance and that this is in a6' ""...ent with thc
Tribe's practices and policies concerning culluml rtlSources.
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area js part of the Pechanga Tribe's aboriginal
territory, as evidenced by the existence of Lujsciio place names, rock art pictographs, .
petro glyphs and extensive artifact records found in the vi~initv of the Protect. Further, the
PeclIaJlga Cultural Re.\'ouyC(!j' . leml!('ula Baml olLflis(!/jo Miss;nn Indian.,>
Post ODic'" Box 2183. 1imleclI/a. CA 92.59.7
Sl/('n:d Is The DillY TrJL~red Umo()ur ('areAlId With liQuor We. Ui.\'(! Ih Thf! NCi'd
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:34PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 5
PECHAHGA CULTURAL
iii 005/006
10/28/2005 ~3:22 FAX 9095069491
.
.
.
Pechanga comment letter to the County of Riverside Planning Department
RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for tbe Temecula Regional Hospital
Page 4
Pechanga Tribe believes that ifhuman remains are discovered, State law would apply and the
mitigation measures for the permit must account for this. According to the California Public
Resources Code, S 5097.98, if Native American human remains are discovered, the Native
American Heritage commission must name a "most likely dcscendant," who shall be consulted
as to the "t'luVI',;ate disposition of the remains. Given the Project's location in Pechanga
territory, the Pechanga Tribe intends to assert its right pursuant to California law with regard to
any remains or items discovered in the course of this project. For this reason, additional
mitigation language is requested prior to the finalized ETR being approved.
REOUlRED MITIGATION
Given this Project's close proximity to known cultural sites that were not discussed in the
Initial cultural study, including a known village site, Pechanga request the Conditions of
Approval that were presented in the Initial Study, along with those addresses below, be included
as mitig-.ltion measures as well as Conditions of Approval which are required to be met prior.to
the issuance of grading permits. The following conditions listed in the Initial Study are
requested to be included as mitigation:
1.
The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources.
including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga
Band of Luiseiio Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent
authorized by the law.
2. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontologist, archaeological and
Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities.
The monitor's shall each have the authority to temporarily hall andlor divert
grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The
monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain
remains of fossil inv"",,;'. ~tes and vertebrates.
The following measures should be included as both mitigation measures and conditions
of approval:
3. If human remains are encountered, all activity shaH stop and the Counly
Coroner must be notified immediately. All activity must cease until the
County Coroner has dctcnnined the origin and disposition of said remains.
The Coroner shall detennine if the remains are prehistoric, and shaH nolify the
State Native American Heritage Commission if applicable. Further actions
shall be determined by the desires of the Most Likely Descedent.
4.
Prior to issuance of the grading penn it, the developer shall enter into a
Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address
the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that
may be encountered during construction. The Agreement will further contain
PI'clltl/J~a Cultural R"solfn:es . n''n1cwulo Rand (if r,ui,\'e,jo Mission Indians
Post Office Box 2183' u'm<,c/lla. CA 92592
Sncn~d l\- The DUly Tnu'/r:d Untu Our Om' ,A"d n""th Horror We Rise 'f(1 The. Nt'.p.d
RECEIVED: 10/28/05 1:34PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #399; PAGE 6
10/28/2001 13:22 FAX 9095069491
PECHAHGA CULTURAL
Pechanga comment leller to the County of Riverside Planning Department
RE: Comments on Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Rcgional Hospital
Pagc 5
provisions of tribal monitors and address compensation for the Native
American monitors being paid by the developers.
5. All sacred sites within the Project area are to be avoided and preserved,
iii 006/006
.
The Pechanga Tribe looks forward to working together with the applicant, the City of
Temecula Planning Department and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable
Luiseiio cultural rl;:Sources found in the Project area. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (951) 308-9295 or Laura Miranda at (951) 676-2768, Ext. 2137. Thank
you fOT the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
~~. t /jJJJfi
Stephanie Gordin
Cultural Analyst
._ L..... .
Peclzall~a Cultural Rc!.liOun.:e."i . Teme/:llla Band ,?f1.ui.\'f!/;O Mi...sion Indian.\'
Post Office Box 1I8J . Tell/ecllla. CA 9]591
Sacred It l1re fJrJly 'f'mt1rd {lt1/n OIl" Ciw(' And With Ifo"ol' #-t(, U;-;e To The Nl!(,d
.
.
.
" I
.::~
........-
-
.
] Arnold =;;;;..o~~'"
o ~~~~1~~~
.to
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Alan C. Uoyd, PIt.D.
kiJen<:j SecmlalY
CallEPA
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
October 14, 2005
Mr. Emery J. Papp
City of T emecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
By
NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2005031 017)
Dear Mr. Papp:
.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document:
"A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay
District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to
consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately
408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square
feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness
rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. .
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follow:
1)
The EIR should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
2)
The EIR should identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether
conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment.
A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites. Following are the
databases of some of the regulatory agencies:
'.
. National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
* Printed on Recycled Paper
J .
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 2
.
. Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CaISites):
A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, .
Investigations and Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.
. Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
· The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be
conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should
be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state regulations, policies, and laws.
.
',..
.
.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 3
4) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation should be
conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, including Phase I and II investigations, should be summarized
in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found
should be clearly summarized in a table.
.5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions, if necessary, should be
conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction, and
overseen by a regulatory agency.
6)
If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous
chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated
site, except for a gas station, then the proposed development may fall within the
"Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be
taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone
Property.
7) If building structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas or other structures
are planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the
presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (ACMs). If lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are
identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities.
Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with
California environmental regulations, policies, and laws.
,
8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. land Disposal Restrictions (lDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
9)
Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
, .
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 4
.
10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite,
or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the
facility should contact DTSC at (818) 551-2171 to initiate pre application
discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number
by contacting (800) 618-6942.
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from .
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
14) Ifthe project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be
required to obtain a wastewater disCharge permit from the overseeing Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
15) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease
and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the EIR should
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted,
and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
16) If the site was and/or is used for agricultural activities, on site soils may contain
pesticide, herbicides and agricultural chemical residue. Proper investigation and
remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to
construction of the project.
DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at
www.dtsc.ca.gov.
.
t .
.
.
.
Mr. Emery J. Papp
October 14, 2005
Page 5
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Joseph Cully, Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5473 or email atjcully@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
fff~
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse .
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CEQA #1179
;.
.
?eSb,
~rr. 2f
iverside County
nsportation CJ ......:ssion
Riverside County Regional Complex
4080 Lnnon Stre_~ 3rt! Floor' Riverside, California
Mailing AJJr.ss: Post Offi<- Box 12008 . Riverside, California 92502-2208
Pho", (951) 787-7141 . Fax (951) 787-7920' www.mc.org
"'m~."~
--. I" [F
October 4, 2005
Mr. Emery J. Papp
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
fO) ~ @ ~ 0 ill ~ '\
1li1 OCT 1 3 2005 ~
By
Subject:
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIA) for the
Temecula Regional Hospital Project (SCH No. 2005031017)
Dear Mr. Papp:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) received a copy of the Draft
Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital Project in
the City of Temecula on September 29, 2005 and are providing you with the following
comments:
1. RCTC is concerned about any potential impacts to State Route 79 (SR-79) and
Interstate 15 (1-15). Most of the impacts are. expected to occur at driveways
entering. onto SR-79 and local streets such as De Portola Road as well as other
nearby roadway intersections. Several mitigation measures are listed in Section 4.6
(Transportation) pages 4-93 through 4-95 and again on pages 1-15 and 1-16 and
pages 1-18 through 1-20 of the Executive Summary, which would alleviate
potential impacts. RCTC supports the City's requirement for these mitigation
measures. Please ensure that all mitigation measures are implemented both during
and after construction.
2. Will "Preemption" of local traffic signals be used for emergency vehicles entering
and exiting the hospital, especially ambulances approaching the Emergency Room?
Will emergency vehicles use the main entrance way at SR-79 or will they have a
separate designated access?
3. Will an Emergency Operations Plan be prepared that will outline procedures to
evacuate the facility during a disaster emergency? Would all the evacuation traffic
be forced onto 1-1 5?
4. The Hospital is defined as a Regional Facility. The new MRI, cancer treatment
facilities and Fitness Center will draw patients from a broad area. Have the
cumulative impacts of these potential traffic generators been fully evaluated to
determine that all necessary and appropriate measures are included before final
project approval?
I
Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital
Project (SCH No. 2005031017)
Page -2-
.
5. The Draft Focused EIR indicates that adequate parking will be provided (1,278
spaces lJn surface lots). What about employee parking? Is it included in the 1,278
space total? What measures will be put into place to prevent employees from
parking in the surrounding neighborhood?
6. In the future, the hospital surface lot parking areas could be absorbed by expansion
projects. Will the future parking demand be fulfilled by parking structures and has
any preliminary thought been given as to where these structures might be? Access
and visual impacts are usually significant impacts associated with parking structures
and should be given early consideration.
7. There are many other residential and commercial development projects near the
Hospital project area and RCTC wduld like to see that all of this ongoing effort is
closely coordinated. Coordinate directly with Caltrans concerning SR-79 and 1-15.
for this project. Contact John Pagano, Caltrans IGR Coordinator, at (909) 383-
6327.
This concludes RCTC's comments. Should you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Bechtel Measure "AU Project Coordinator, Gus~avo Quintero, at .
(951) 787-7935. Thank you for giving RCTC the opportunity to comment on your Draft
Focused EIR.
J!'"
l HId"" ~1,:"" Ex.,""," DIre,." RCTe
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Cc: John Pagano, Caltrans 08
Bill Hughes, Mike Davis, Gustavo Quintero- Bechtel
.
M :\Environmental Reviews Non-Project\ 1 00305DE!RT emeculaHospitalProjec.doc
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~.~
j* 1
~.~~~/
. Arnold
Scbwarzcnegger
Governor
Sean Walsh'
Director
Sc.I'~c.",ber 26, 2005
OCTO 3 Z005
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Temecula Regional Hospital (EIR) SCH#2005031017
Dear Emery J.Papp:
We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that it is consistent with
. the criterIa set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for
shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
.
The shortened review period for an EIR shall not be less than 30 days. The review process for
the referenced project will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/28/2005. .
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916)445-0613.
S?~.
. '''1 .
~~' r--
Director
cc: file
,:"
.
1400 """':0. on,,,,,,,, P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.cagov
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
AUTHORIZATION OF SHORTENED PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
45
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
.~.~~
1*\
~ _I
.'-: - .
""'''''~
. Arnold
: . chwarzenegger
Governor
Scan Walsh.
Director
September 26, 2005
OCT 0 3 Z005
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Temecula Regional Hospital (ElR) SCH#2005031017
Dear Emery J. Papp:
We have reviewed your shortened review request and have determined that it is consistent with
the criteria set forth in the written guidelines of the Office of Planning and Research for
shortened reviews, and Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.
'.
The shortened review period for an ElR shall not be less than 30 days. The review process for
the referenced project will start on 09/28/2005 and end on 10/2812005.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Morgan at (916) 445-0613.
Sincerely,
~-- ..1/
c..-----~(r-
~erry Roberts
Director
cc: file
.
1400 ,"'" '0 STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812.3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
I(
Shortened Review Request Form
Form E
(To be filled out and signed by the Lead Agency and submitted with DEIR or Negative Declaration to SCH)
.
To: State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
From: CITY OF TEKECULA
LeadAgCncy:
43200 Business. Park Drive
Address
Temecula. CA 92590
Phone #: (951 ) 694-6400
SCH # ;1005031017
TEKECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Contact: ~i J. PAPP. AICP SENIOR PLANNER.
Project Title:
Project Location:
TEKECULA
City
RIVERSIDE
County
Explain "exceptional circumstances" (CEQA. Section I 5205(d)) for requesting a shortened review:
An initial studv (SCH #2005031017) for this Droiect was nreviouslv released for public
review and comment with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
comment period for. the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was Karch 8. 2005 through
April 6. 2005. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study. The scope _
the project has not changed; however. the City is now recommendi!!g that a Focused EIR be
prepared. The attached letter was sent to agencies requesting their authorization for
a shortened review. The City received no responses to this letter.
List responsible and trustee state agencies, as well as any age~cies that have commented t?D the project (Indicate whether the Respon-
sible and Trustee Agencies have granted approval for this shortened review):".
Native American Heritage Commission 8/15/05 No comment concerning shortened request
Riverside Transit Agency 8/19/05
Pechanga Cultural Resources 8/29/05
No comment concerning shortened request
No coiDment concerning shortened request
As designated representative for the lead agency, I verify, in their behalf, that there is no "statewide, regional, or areawide
significance" to this project.
.Length of review being requested:
30
days
D'Y/U/OS
( .
Today's Date
EKKRY J. PAPP
Print Name
2ft J ~y'f
Revised January 2004
.
'"
I
,
,
'"
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive. Temecula. CA 92590 . Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 . Temecula. CA 92589-9033
(951) 694-6400 . FAX (951) 694-6477
August 2, 2005
Trustee and Responsible Agencies
Subject:
Request for Shortened Review of a Draft Focused EIR for the Temecula Regional
Hospital Project
Dear Agency:
.
The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Focused
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Hospital project. The City of Temecula
is requesting a shortened (30-Day) review of the EIR for this project. The shortened review is being
requested because at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City heard public input and
testimony, the City. determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts identified in the
attached NOP should be prepared for this project. Furthermore, an Initial Study (SCH # 2005(31017)
for this project was previously released for public review and comment with the intent of preparing a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. No State Agencies commented on the original Initial Study.
Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been addressed. The scope of the project
has not changed; however, the City is now recommending that a Focused EIR be prepared.
Pursuant to Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the City of Temecula believes that the project is riot of statewide, regional, or area wide
significance, as defined in Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of. T emecula is
requesting that your agency approve the request for a shortened review period for this project. We
respectfully request that your agency provide written approval of the request for a shortened review
period to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula,by August 15, 2005. If I may be of any
assistance, please call me at (951) 694-6400, or via e-mail at emerv.oaoo@citvottemecula.oro.
Thank you for your consideration and quick response to this request.
Z:' / If
~e~ JJapp, , ~P 'if
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Notice of Preparation
Initial Study
..cc:
(Continued on next page)
-,
Ie U P\2(I()4\04-046 Temecula Regional HospiIaJIShortened Review ReqUest. AgencIes.doc
,
, .
- )
;;
State:
,
CA Department of Fish & Game
. Regional Water Quality Control Board
State Clearinghouse
CA Department of Water Resources
Federal:
.
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management
Reciional:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Riverside Countv:
Airport Land Use Commission
Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Health Department
Planning Department
. Habitat Conservation Agency
Riverside Transit Agency
Transportation Department
Utilities:
.
Eastern Municipal Water District
Inland Valley Cablevision
Rancho California Water District
Southern Caiifornia Gas
Southern California Edison
Temecula Valley School District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Ve~on
Other:
Pechanga Indian Reservation
Eastern Information Center
Lociil Agency Formation Commission
Riverside County Transportation Commission
.
R:\C iJ I'I2OO4'<l4-046 Teme<:ula Regional HospitaI\Shortened Review Request. Agencies.doc
i City of Temecula
Plannin2.Department
,
Notice of Completion
~H # 2005031017
Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital
P A04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive
City: Temecula, CA Zip: 92590
Project Location
City of Temecula, Riverside County
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South,
south of De Portola Road and west of
Margarita Road
. Assessor's Parcel No.:
920-100-001 through 13
Total Acres: 35.31
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP
r IEarly Cousultation
Local Action Type
[ ] General Plan Update
[X]General Plan Amendment
[ ]General Plan Element
[ ]CommunityPlan
r IOther_
DeveL,."" Type
lResidential: Units_ Acres [ ]WaterFacilities: Type MGD
[X]Office: Sq.ft.140.000 Acres 35.31 Employees_ []Transportation
[]Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Mining:
[]Industrial: . Sq.ft._ Acres_ Employees_ []Power:
[]EducationaI: [ ]Waste Treatment:
[ ]Recreatiow1' [ ]Hazardous Waste:
[X]Other:JfosDitaI408.160 So. FI.: Cancer Center 10.000 So FI.: Fitness Center 8.000 So Ft..
Project Issues Discussed in Document'
[X]AestheticlVisual [ ]Flood PlainlFlooding [ ]Schools/Universities [ ] Water Quality
[ ]Agricultnral Land [ ]Forest LandlFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwaier
[X]Air Quality [ ]Gealogic/Seismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]Wetland/Riparian
[ ]Archeoiogical/HistoricaI []MmeraIs [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise ~ [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing
[ ]Drainage/Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]Toxic/Hazardous [XlLand Use
[ ]Economic/Jobs [ ]Public Services/Facilities [XlTraffic/Circulation [XlCumulative Effects
r IFiscal [ ]RecreationlParks r IVe~etation r ]Other: Li~t & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
General Plan Use: Professional Office
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Peimit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDQ-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
edical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
65,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eiQht (B) lots into one (1) parcel.
Mail 10: Stare Clearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street SacrlImenlo, CA 95814 (916) 445-0013
ContactPernon: EmeryJ.Papp
Title: Senior Planner
Phone: (951) 694-6400
Within 2 miles
State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Airports: N/A
Waterways: Temecula Creek
Railways: None
Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under
construction)
[ ]Negative Declaration []Supplement EIR
rX]Draft EIR r ]Subsequent EIR
[ ]EIR (Prior SCH #\
r IOther
[ ]Specific Plan
[ ]Master Plan
[ ]Planned Unit Development
[XlSite Plan/Plot Plan
[X]Rezone
[ ]Prezone
[XlUse Permits
[X]Subdivision of Land
[ ]Annexation
[ ]Redevelopment
[ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]City Development Project
Type
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
It:\C U 1'12004\04-0463 Ternecola Regional Hospital\NOTICE OF COMPlETION PEIR 09.26-05.doc
I
Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
APCD/AQMD
California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB:. Water Rights
...I. Regional WQCB # 9
Y onth & Adult Cv.. ~~;';ons
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy ComIDission
Native American Heritage ComIDission
Public Utilities ComIDission
SaIlta Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land ComIDission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture .
Health & Welfare
l Health Services
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
'.
;
Resources Agency
BoatinglWaterways
Coastal ComIDission
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
...I Fish and Game
Forcstty
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
J:. WliterResources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing
...I. Aeronautics
l California Highway Patrol
l Caltrans District No. -L
...I. Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
_ Housing & Community Development
Other
-. State & Consumer Services
General Services
...I. aLA (Schools)
...I.
...I.
...I
.L
Public Review Period:
Starting Datltember 28, 2005
Si~ature J~*-
] .
KEY
S=DOCun1ent sent by lead agency
~ X=Doc. ument sent by SCH
T =Suggested distribution
(
)
.
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Date
September 23, 2005
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
. Clearance Date
Notes:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP
Phone (951) 694-6400
I
I
f Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc.
I Address 367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
.
R:\C U 1'12004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallNOTICE OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc
?
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.11
NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT EIR
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
46
'_-:::- -~. .:.L..,..___~ ',._"
DATE:
September 26, 2005
.
TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETION/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF
A DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
PROJECT
The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of this EIR is required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers, public agencies, and the general public
with an. objective and informative document that facilitates a basic understanding of the
proposed project, including direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects. The EIR also
identifies feasible mitigation measures to mitigate significant environmental effects. The City of
Temecula will use the EIR to obtain permits, agreements, and approvals from necessary
agencies to implement the portions of the project under their respective authorities.
.
Pro Dosed Project
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan
Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently
limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to
change the zoning from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9
allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. The Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of
hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres.
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
Proiect Location
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west
of Margarita Road (Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13) City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California.
Sianificant Environmental Effects of the Proiect
The Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the project indicates that
approval and construction of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in unavoidable
significant impacts with regard to Air Quality, Noise (related to helicopter flights), and Traffic and
Circulation. Implementation of mitigation measures specified in the Draft Focused EIR will
reduce significant issues related to Aesthetics (light and glare), Noise (hospital operations), and
Transportation. Impacts considered in the Draft Focused EIR but found to be less than
significant include: Aesthetics (visual character or quality), Air Quality (odors and consistency
with adopted plans and policies), Hydrology and Water Quality, and Land Use and Planning. In
all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no impact or a
less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 150879(c)(6) of the CEQA guidelines, no site
in or adjacent to the project location is listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List).'
.
1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List).
Located at hltp)/www.dtsc.ca.pov/Calsitesl. August 28. 2004.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOA 09-26-05.doc
Public Review Period
The Draft Focused EIR is available for public review and comment from September 28, 2005
through October 28, 2005. All comments on the Draft Focused EIR must be in writing and .
should be sent to Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, CA 92592. Mr. Papp can also be contacted by phone at (951) 694-6400, by
fax at (951) 694-6477, and bye-mail at emerv.oaoo@citvoftemecula.ora.
Copies of the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report are available at the City of Temecula
Planning Department at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, and available for public
inspection at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula.
.
.
R.\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOA 09.26.05.doc
2
.-City of Temecula
,
Plannin2Department
Notice of Completion
#2005031017
Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital
P A04-0462, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit; and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive
CitY.: Temecula, CA Zip: 92590
Project Location
City of Temecula, Riverside County
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South,
south of De Portola Road and .west of
Margarita Road
. Assessor's Parcel No.:
I .920-100-001 through 13
Total Acres: 35.31
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP
r lEarly Consultation
Local Action Type
[ ]GeneralPlan Update
[XlGeneral Plan Amendment
[ ]General Plan Element
[ ]CommunityPlan
r lOther_
Development Type
]Residential: Units_ Acres [ ]WaterFacilities: Type MGD
[X]Office: . Sq.ft..t40.ooo Acres 35.31 Employees~ []Transportation
[]Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees_ []Mining:
[]Industrial: . Sq.ft._ Acre' Employees_ []Power:
[]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment:
[ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste:
rXlOther:JI()spital 408.160 So. Ft.: Cancer Center 10.000 Sa Ft: l"itness Center 8.000 Sa Ft.
Project Issues Discussed in Document'
[XlAestheticlVisual [ ]Flood PlainlFlooding [ ]Schools/Universities [ ] Water Quality
[ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [X]Water supply/groundwater
[X]Air Quality [ ]GeologiclSeismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandlRiparian
[ ]ArcheologicaJlaistorical [ ]Minerals [ ]SoiI Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]Coastal Zone [XlNoise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing
[ ]DrainagelAbsorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ ]ToxiclHazardous [X]Land Use
[ ]EconomiclJQbs [ ]Public ServiceslFacilities [XlTrafficlCirculation [XlCumulative Effects
r ]Fiscal r lRecreationlParks [ ]Ve/(etation r ]Other: Lildit & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned DeveLy...~... Overlay (PDO-8)
General Plan Use: Professional Office
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-9)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Peimit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
edical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
65,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
Mail to: State Oearinghouse. 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento. CA 958t4 (916) 445-0613
Contact Person: Emery J. Papp
Title: Senior Planner
Phone: (951) 694-6400
Within 2 miles
State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Airports: N/ A
Waterways: Temecula Creek
Railways: None
Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under
construction)
[ ]Negative Declaration []Supplement EIR
rXlDraft EIR r ]Subsequent EIR
[ ]EIR (Prior SCH #\
r ]Other
[ ]Specific Plan
[ ]Master Plan
[ ]Planned Unit Development
[XlSite Plan/Plot Plan
[X]Rezone
[ ]Prezone
[XlUse Permits
[XlSubdivision of Land
[ ]Annexation
[ ]Redevelopment
[ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]City Development Project
Type
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
l!:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOTICE OFCOMPumoN FEffi 09.26-OS.doc
1
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
"
,.
KEY
S=Document sent by lead agency
X=Document sent by SCH
T=Suggested distribution
Resources Agency
BoatingIW aterways
Coastal Commission
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
...I Fish and Game
Forestry
Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
...L WalerResources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing
...L Aeronautics
L California Highway Patrol
L Caltrans District No. -L
...L Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
_ Housing & Community Development
Other
-. State & Consumer Services
General Services
...L OLA (Schools)
Environmental Affairs
Air Resources Board
...L APCD/AQMD
...L California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
...I SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB:. Water Rights
...L Regional WQCB # 9 (
Youth & Adult Cvu",~;';ons
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
l Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Commission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture .
Health & Welfare
L Health Services
)
.
Public Review Period:
Starting DaZtember 28, 2005
Si~ature J~/"\~
, I.
Ending Date: October 28, 2005
Date
September 23, 2005
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
For seH Use Ouly:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date to SCH
. Oearance Date
Notes:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Emery J. papp, AICP
Phone (951) 694-6400
Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc.
Address 367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, P A 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
..
R:\C U 1'1200411>>-0463 Temecula Regional Hospilal\NOTICE OF COMPLETION FEIR 09-26-05.doc
2
.
D-8 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28. 2005
THE CALIFORNIAN
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
DATE: September 26, 2005
TO: Responsible Agencies,.. '": "..,. .', Parties, and Org~nlzatloils
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF COMPLETlON/NOTlCE OF AVAILABIUTY OF A
DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE TE~ECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJEcr:
The ~of Temecula Is the: Lead Agsl'9' for a Focused Environmental lr:nP3ct
RePQ JA)for the P/'ODO.Sed Temacula Regional Hospital Project. Preparation of
this EI ' is required by the CaUfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA}.
"' . . .1.
The pu~ of an EIR is to provid . akers, public agencies.. and the
general public .with an objectIVe and menl that facilitates a basic
und~rstandl!lg of the p'roposed . indirect. and cumulatlye
~,,' ,.J~"","L;a1 ~flects. ll'ie EIR iiUgatlon-measures to mit-
l!)ate significant environmental ecula will, use the EIR to
Obtain P.9rm~l agreements, and approvals from necessary agencies to implement
the portions 01 th& project under tfielr respectiVe authQritl6s.
Proposed Pro~ect . . '.
The" orop':ose _ project-includes a General Plan Amendment,Zone Change
(PDO-9) Deve opment Plan, Condlt/oilal Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map.
The General Plan Amendment Is a lltQU6st to eliminAte the Z2 overlay area from'
the General Plall. which currently limits the height of bUlIdinas a.longfllghway 79
to 2 stories. The ,Lone Chan~e Is a rectueslto change the zQnfi:!g from Prols$slonal
Office and OePortola Road,'?laMed Qave!QPrMm-()l{erle.y {PDO-8\ \0 Temecula
Hospital 'Planned DevelOP.ment Overlay (PDO-9). The p~ed POO-9 allows a
height up to 115 feet for 30%" of the roof area Of the hOspitaL The Oevelooment
Plan and Conditional Use Pennlt Is a request to construct appro.ximateIY5~,260
~uafe feet Gt hoSDi\a1 medical office cancel cen\ef and a 1i11iess cente'(SD8!(e on
35.31 acres. The ieniaiive Parcel Map Is a request to consolidate eight (61 lots
into ol1e (1) pal'C9l. ." -
ProJect Locatl(m' , . '. ' -'
l1:te' propQsed frOlect Is located north of HIghWQY79 $QUth south of De'Portala
Road and was ofMalJl~r1ta Road (Assessor'S ,Farcel No.: ~2o..100-001 through
13) City of Temecula, RiversIde County,'Califonila. . .
Slgn"lcant Environmental Effects of the Project .
. TfieDraft Focused Env(ronmentanmbSCt Report. (DEIR) ~pared fO!".the Pl'Qj9l;j
'Indicates that. and construction ot.the'Temecut8. ReaIooaI ~ WIll
. result In una significant Im~ wIUl ~rd to Air Qu8litv" No~ (related
to helicoDter- ,andTrafflc 81:1d Circulation. Implementation of.mitlgation
measureS I n'the Draft Focused EIR will reduce significant Issues rliI"lated
to """ 91"'\, NoIse\"""""'" _a\~). and "....,.....00.
Impacts in the Draft FocusOO EIR but found to De less-than sIgnificant
InClude: (visual character or 9lUll ), Air Qua!!.tY (odo_r's.and conSIstency
withadop "nsimdpollclas),Hvdrol IWaterOWiJ~andLanduseanC:l
Plannl!'Q. In.aII o\her a.-eas of imW'on cem, lhe roject was,tounjj to
re5un in ~ither no'impact.or a less tha nUmpact. ul'Suant to Section
'50879(c (61 01 the CECA ~'d'Un.s.o' adJacenllO the prolect location
is listed" 'the CaHlorijll;t rlmen -OJdc Sul::iStances.Coritiol Hazardous
W~ste and Substances-ust ,I, rtese
Public Review Period .' .
The Draft FQCQSfild'EIR-/s avai'able for publil;; revlew:e.nd commenUrom Se~m-
ber 2&, 2005 through Octobe128, 2005. All comments on the Ol8ft'Focused EIA
must be,In.writing and should be sent to Emery J. P@P, Senior Planner, CIty: of
Temeculs, 4$200 Business pa.rt.'g~tlemeaula\ CA 92592. Mr. P.app can also
be contactel1 bv p~ a.t {951')'J:~, b'J fax a: (951)004--641?, and by e-mali
at emery.papp~c~tyofte~~Ia.org. . , .
Cooles of the Draft Focused .:..".. ...." ,..........lmPad AePQit are available at the City,
ot Temecula P\annl~ Department at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, ana
available for p:ubllc InspeCtIon at the Temecula Ubrary,located at 41000 County
Center Drive, Tem.ecuJa. ' - ,
PUB: september 28, 2005'
,
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC II ~ 16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORT11-16-05 v2.doc
47
S TAT E. OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~.,~
;~
( .J
.~..~.
. Arnold
I Set." ...",_..e:gger
Governor
Sean Walsh'
Director
Notice of Preparation
August 3, 2005
',' .~, ~',
:',
AUG 1 1 Z005
To: Reviewing Agencies
Re:
Temecula Regional Hospital
SCH# 20050310 17
Attached for your review and coonnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Temecula Regional Hospital draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Responsible agencies must transmit their coonnents on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific
information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 davs of receiot of the NOP from the Lead AQencv,
This isa courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to coonnent in a timely
manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concems early in the
environmen~l review process.
.
Please direct your comnients to:
Emery J. Papp
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research, Please refer to the SCH number
noted above in all correspondence concerning. this project.
Uyau have any questions about the environmental docwnent review process, please call the State Clearinghouse 2.t
(916) 445,0613. '
'-'~;q-71(r--
Scott Morgan
Associate Planner, State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Lead Agency
.
1400 U,..,U1 "''''''''<ir P,O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-ll613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr,ca,gov
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
2005031017
Temecula Regional Hospital
Temecula, City of
.
Type NOP Notice of Preparation
Description A proposed General Plan Amendment. Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District).
Tentative Parcel Map. Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital
Facility consisting of a 32o-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office
buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566.160 square fet. located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Emery J. Papp
Agency City of Temecula
Phone (951) 69+6400
email
Address
City
Project Location
County Riverside
City T emecula
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
Fax
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecula
State CA Zip 92590
N. of Hwy. 79 South I De Portola Road I Mar9arita Road
920-100-001 through 013
Range
Base
Section
.
Proximity to:
Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S
Airports N1A
Railways None
WatelWays Temecula Creek
Schools Sparkman ES. Rancho Community (private school under construction
Land Use Vacant
Z: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
GP: Professional Office
Project Issues
Reviewing
Agencies
AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Water Quality; Water Supply; Landuse; Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Other
Issues
Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game. Region 6; Department of Health Services; Native
American Heritage Commission; Department of Water Resources; Office of Historic Preservation;
Department of Parks and Recreation; Caltrans. Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans, District 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 9
Date Received 08/03/2005
Sfart of Review 08/03/2005
End of Review 09/01/2005
.
Nnh:o" RI::.nk~ in rt:lt~ fip.lrf!; result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
:- 2-
-- c:
,...,. 0
:::> (.)
>.
.... ~
Wm
_ ~(.)
." "'0
::> :;::5;
.. iijll:
.. c:-
0"0
.;z "am
Q) 0
lI:fIl
U:
:J:
t.)
I/)
<0
U
:s
~,.,
-'"
Ou>
-:;
"a.
Co
~l<
"'c
..m
UO
u.
ts
-
,.
C
o
~ Iii
il .!!.
~-
..
~
;;iu>
::J~
""
--'
:Dc
""
ll.l<
>>
..
~
::I
o
)
o
o
.. ...
c c
o 0
a "ii
" ..
0::" 0::
E~ E ~
co 0 ca..El
06: o:g
oG't: oa:E
.J:lD .&: Q)
.!!'8 .,~
!Llr ~~
00
,
.
Q
j
"
t.
: <l:
o '"
. ai.
I ~
::J
o
'"
m
M
o
C
o
Iii
..
E
E
o
U
.. 0
"'c
C-c
m m
-'(/)
.!c
m m
-"
U)~
.
c
o
c-
o'"
u> "
"I>:
,,-
....rm
IDCO
u:EU
a-.c
::.:5t
>mo
o::uz
o
0>
-
.g~
i~
Om
.;~
cl>:
e~
"',.,
mm
UC>
co
~
U
'l:
.
em
';5
;0
~E
o~
o
'"
c
C
c
m
ii:
"iiccw
Co."
~ a:: 5-
g't=. M
I>: ,."
3g~
.c""
~~t3
o
'"
c
o c
CD g
.. m
0: C:
.."'''
E.E en
<<I3:{5
,,-go
06t539
-;ai
.LL DI
o
,.,
"
C
"
Jf"
..!?
.. m
~~
00>
.."
.. m
o::z
n
a:
c
o
0>
"
I>:
,.,
m
ID
8
c~u>
N 1D00
mE16c
o c.E l!!
ogt'u.
3:~8;
a::WOID
"
"
E
is
o
o
s
o
~
~
U
'l:
.
Co
- ~
l!o
~o
-'C
..m
u::<
o
o.
c
'iij
::J
o
I
011
'"
c:
'"
~
-
o
c
o
Iii
~.~
~~m
CI) 'S Q)
cmI
U) co c >-
~ :2 e.-g
.!:: o~~
'"
~,.
E
l"
'"
e
a.
E
l"
'"
o
Ii:
c
o
'" '"
~CD~
...c "
EB '"
mC
m C> 0
elmU
oGc:m
.&:;::~
.!!-g.g
u.C>I
'"
c
.!!
II 0
~
m
~
.!l
m
3:
'"
'"
o5c
t;g
Oc
ID.c
_0
0,
":'0
a.>
" m
00
.. '"
';j 13
.. "
8glL;
ftII"i <{
E-!~
oc.o
==E~
08ffi"
n
o
N
~
U
'l:
.
e.c
a.
-"
l! i3
~,
"'.0
mo
UID
o
'l!c
m m
.8E
~~
ZE
0:;;:;
.go::
mu
2e
0."
UC>
n
12:
c
o
0>
"
I>:
iii
m
..0
IDU
u-
ag
3:;
o::u
<(
0..
W
iij
.(.)
c
.2
~
!!ii CD
<0 i!!
c 0
o U
m lii
~ :0
G) c~
i~ 0
o<(cE
oIS ,>.~ ~
.c E -... CD
"J! ~ g,e
I.LJ-.f:ll...
n
o
~
c
o
a. 0>
0"
.cO::
.!!l",
..,.LD.,!!
IDC"
u~g>
01U<
.3: c '"
a::~.3
o
..,
~
m
o
ID
..
~
"
o
~
~
:liD
'" ~
0"
"E
2'3
Il.E
,,-
o~
e-
<(
'"
c
C
c
mo
0:>
o
'0
..c
c"
mil.
:E"E
m"
UI-
e
1ii
0.
,.,
m
~
.c m
~ 1)
:J:~ll
1l:I.5..Cf)
"E lD_
SO ~
:t::cu
.co '5 fE
U,O
ts ~ c
Q) 'E 0
'0':::1 en
Q: E "5
E i5
8;: ~
~E-6~
C)~{J 0)
CO-c
W-;Z"iij
:3>m:::J
o GJ fh o.
::I: C::J I
II 0
:;;
..
E
m
el
'"
.J:05
.!:ge>>
u.","
_-I>:
0""
...; ~c
o.o-c
....m
OC>::<
o
c
,g
m
1: ~
...2
..,.,
c"
01-
U..
_c
Oc
'~ ro
-"
a.",
"0
01>:
,.,
l!'
~c5
Wo'"
ca'ii.E
E.!!~
o E'Q;
:=Ee>
mOo
UUI>:
n
!iI
~ .Q ~
- "'IE
5 r!20
OJ >-13
(I) u..!! c
0::: ",15 e
>- m>m
1Il~ ~f! g
m> .~t:81
o~ 'a::~U:
0_
3: cO
.a::~
o
s
o
.~
e
0.
c ..
ge
~"
oe-
a.m
",l<
c"
l" "
I-l<
o
o
lJl
-
c:
OJ
E
t
ro
c
OJ
o
~
OJ
.c:
60
e
iL
'"
E'
.. g
e ~
Oc..
u.o.o
"E:g~
';CDc
g-e::g
Oll.<{
n
tJ
~a.
~ 2
n.-
..
(ij=
"E~
u> "
-5=
05::<
e
.3
:;
o
.C
l! :if
.a -g
:i. ro
o~u
"t:~o
"'mo
<{.cu.
oaoo'O
-g~i5.
0$ II)
U.(/)O
"'
~B
BIE
g>0
o::.c
,.,g
0::i1ll"
"'mID
ID> '"
O~.5
O...D
>cu
>.."
O::UI>:
o
o 0
o
" c
1: g
.2 '0
.!!:5~
%"0
-mo
o.~ m
B:5.
lEero
Oil.>:
.
"
<.>
_IE
~O
c.c
@:. .2 g
c > g'e
o oa:::lD
~ CO S ~.
~ U c ~
a) u.. 0.0 5
m c. 3:.cts
~~ a:j5
~jD
o
'0
~
.. 1:
. 0
m U
3: ::
"'0 ~
oS ~ :II
.. m 0
~ 0 '"
g-m ~
E 1: ~
-.. ~.
mE"
CID~
.e ib
~i~
U:;;(/)
c:
c
~
t
o
c
'"
c:
'"
~
r-
-
o
ci
OJ
o
o
..
"
o c
-0
1:",
.. 0
<n2
-iii
l!g
~U
..-
el8
- .c
00
.(/)
"0
m_
o.:iS
.."
00.
c
o
U
"
[/)
'"
..
o
.~
..
;; en
~ -
.. ,.,m
i 8:'E
C) <D. <D
_ooE
01:;: e
';'0)>
a..o c
8~w
'"
CD
"
~
"
<n
o
c
.!! a.
1ii ~
e t'
~. ~
"'c"
oa co Ci5
.. E-
~.cs
~ "'c
ca i= <D
0. E
_.c c.c
~~e.Q
a.z > 0
CP .c Q)
cmwU)
.
..
~~
"c
~ ~u::
.!l -
ca ~o
;:'085
CDC.:I:-
-m m E.!!l
_ 0 .2:
(1)m=;o
~
u
;:
.c
-m
OE
IIfTI
Cm
~,
"'x
m"
UI>:
o
II
n
€
c
o
0>
"
0::
c
Ui
'"
ID
~
"
>
..0:'
IDO
u"
o~
~8
o
"
o
c
.!'l
'"
Ui
'"
<{
e ~
1: ~
<3 ~
: ro ~
I:! ~ (ij
" "
o C; 0
: ~:gs
a:: E::> <<I
.... CD c~
.; Ego
3:ucllg
1Di::<Dq:::-
!~2i~
U)menQO
o
NN
-"
illS
- c
.. 0
ec>
- 0
"'c
c-
~o;
-e
rom
u::<
:E
"'"
;:.c
~1Q
Ow
-"
..c
C-c
l" "
_ .c
"i1U
u'"'
o
~
"
1;;
~
..
.. '"
" c
! ~
(Q~5
.c,,:c
=E-
rGmro
:!a::~
o~o
~ei5.
..""
0>0
'l!
m
o
ID",
c"
.f!5
1ii~
E"
.!!~
""
.."
0::0
'"
c
,g
..
1:
..
.. . E
cEm
oEu
U 0C'i
i;'()~
m-.; <D
. ~> >
I.I.:CD$
<nO(/)
n
e
c
o
0>
"
I>:
<0",
ID:t
u'"
0_
3:c
0::8l
o
o
..
"E
ro
o
fIl
.;
c: 6
~.(;j
c: '"
~ 'E
Q) E
"0 0
.5(.)
e
c
o
0>
"
I>:
0>0
ID'"
u2
00
3:ffi
O:(/)
iii
..,
~
m
o
ID
'0
~
1:
o
U
.. '"
.. :c
o .2'
6 I>:
.. ~
~e-m
....(g~
S4l-
mIO
;:c.a
.s~]!
m,,>
UiCi5B
o
..
:g
<;;
i3
-"
~:a
e8l
'" E
ili=
'"
~
.!!~
Ot:
-"
i!!::<
l"u
=>
mm
uo
o
C
o
Iii
..
E
E
o
U
C
.!!
tl,.,
.!l"
0'0
~w
a.,.,
m.o
"'.0
" "
00
o
o
..
"
I:!
"
o
'"
~~
C
~"
~~5
;:81~
'DeO
.wg~
0.",'0
""m
oa:z
.
'0
~
1:
o
U
..
..
"
c
s"
..-
.oC
" "
<nU
,,'"
_c
1li5
I-l"
-I-
~~
..w
ou
iii
'"
-
"
EE
.!!~
0.0
-cr
~ ~
c-
mID
,:,e
..m
u::<
o
o
'"
..
o
~
..
<n
,.,
o
c
..
I!'o
..=
EE
wgJ
'Ou
...!!l
oC
5:;
00
'"
c
C
c
..
ii:
-
o "
CD ..
" "
E ~
o '"
~."fi -E
~ ~ m
Om"
flU
.... "
l;a::~
CJclJCi5
o
~
c
'"
C:
..
'"
c
o
U
n
..
-
"
:S:ai
.!t~
On.
.;.
c~
f!~
=:<D
...c
UU
~
"
:5
o
o
c
o
'ii
~
'"
~
..
..,
u
'"
..
..
...
'0
-
c
."
E
1:
..
a..
..
o
o
..
Cl
S
;:
..
:I:
c ,.,
m m
" ;<
'l: '0
.. m
~ ~
CDE.!!
~E:8
mO"
zpo
.
""
E
'"
C)
"0
c:
ro
.c:
i!fl
C
o
Ui
>
.. i5
E '"
m B
el l'
'" ..
.c (/)
.!!. 'ii
u. "
o:EE
t:ii:e
~=-
CD8~
Ornw
n
'"
Q
o
N
..
o
"
o
'0
..
1;;
'0
a.
::J
-
'"
m
-'
~
c
o
~
0::
e"fi
mo
ell<
"':2
.c'"
.!!5
u.0
N
C
o
0>
..
0::
"",
E"
m "
elu
"',.,
.c'"
.. C
_m
...ID
n
n
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Preparation .
To:
Distribution List (Attached)
Subject:
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consulting Firm:
P&D Consultants
800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
Contact:
Phone Number:
Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
(951) 694-6400
Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP
Phone Number: (626) 304-0402
The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental
impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope
and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities
in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency
when considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached .
materials. A copy of the Initial Study elL is _ is not) attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Emery Papp at the address shown above. We will need the name for a
contact person in your agency.
Project Title:
Temecula Regional Hospital
Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project Description: A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development
Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permitto consider
a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in
size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot
cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately
566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west
of Margarita Road.
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
Date
.
l:\env\8300s\8302 _ OO\IS\NOP .doc
.
.
.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital
DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 2,2005
CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ................................... ( x )
Fire Department..................................... ( x )
Sheriff .................................................... ( x )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD)................... ( x )
Planning, Advance................................. ( x )
Public Works.......................................... ( x )
STATE:
Caltrans ................................................. ( )
Fish & Game.......................................... (x)
Mines & Geology ...................................( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ........ ( x )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)........... ( x )
Water Resources................................... (x)
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ...................... (x)
Fish and Wildlife Service ....................... ( x )
Bureau of Land Management ................ ( x )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ............ ( x )
Western Riverside COG ........................ (x)
l:\env\8300s\B302 _ OO\IS\NOP .doc
Agency Distribution List
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission............... ( x )
Engineer................................................ ( )
Flood Contro!......................................... ( x )
Health Department................................ ( x )
Parks and Recreation............................ ( )
Planning Department ............................ ( x)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ( x )
Riverside Transit Agency...................... ( x )
Transportation ....................................... ( x )
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ................................................ ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ........... ( x )
Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... ( x )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve... ( x )
Southern California Gas. . .. ....... ... (x)
Southern California Edison.................... ( x )
Temecula Valley School District............ ( x )
Metropolitan Water District.................... ( x )
Verizon .................................................. (x)
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... (x)
Eastern Information Center ................... ( x )
Local Agency Formation Commission... (x)
RCTC ...................................................(x)
Homeowners' Association ..................... ( x )
Los Ranchitos
Santiago Estates
County of San Diego, Planning Dept..... ( )
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment)
.
Lead Agency:
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consulting Firm:
P&D Consultants
800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270
Pasadena, CA 91101
Contact:
Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner
Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP
Phone Number:
(951) 694-6400
Phone Number: (626) 304-0402
Issues to be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional
Hospital, as determined by a scoping session held on April 20, 2005 include the following:
Aesthetics - Height, massing, and view impacts
Air Qualitv - Construction and daily operations
Hvdroloav and Groundwater - On-site drainage
Land Use and Plannina - General Plan and Zoning Amendments are required
Noise Issues - Operations related to helipad and patential for increased traffic related noise
Traffic/Circulation Issue~ - Potential neighborhood street impacts
.
Proiect Alternatives
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
INITIAL STUDY FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temccula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-STAFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
48
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
"roiect Title
I Lead AQency Name and Address
. I Contact Person and Phone Number
I Project Location
I Project Sponsor's Name and Address
I General Plan DesiQnation
Zoning
Description of Project
.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
-
Environmental Checklist
Temecula Regional Hospital
City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Eme.rv J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400
North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and
approximately 700 feet west of MarQarita Road
UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA
19406
Professional Office (POl
Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8)
Proposed: Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9)_
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative
Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request
to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The
Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories
within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the
zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for
30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to
construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical
office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad
space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a
request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the
hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall
project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning
Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are
under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the
extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation
Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits
are intended to applv only to the non-hoseital facilities.
Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family .
residences to the south, single-family residential to the north,
professional office, commercial and educational to the west
(currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to
the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south
and Interstate 15 is located approximatelv 2 miles to the west.
Other public agencies which may require approval and/or.
subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Departrnent of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside
County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC),
California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health
Department.
R:IC U P\2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
e
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I X Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
X Air Quality
I Biolooicai Resources
i Cultural Resources
I Ge%ov and Soils
I Hazards and Hazardous Materials
X I Hvdroloov and Water Quality
X I Land Use and Plan nino
I Mineral Resources
X Noise
I Population and Housino
I Public Services
I I Recreation
I X I TransportationlTraffic
I i Utilities and Service Systems
I X I Mandatory Findinos of Sionificance
I I None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prel?ared.
I find that.although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n~ot
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
the proiect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X II find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analvze on Iv the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothino further is reauired.
bt~ f 'f'(
S/~/05
Date '
Emerv J. PaDD. AICP. Senior Planner
Printed name
For
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospllaNn~lal Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
2
.
....c.:I~~.i:;0i1^~,;i~;:~:I':I.i~E~tJ~~~l~i;,i~g~~1~~~if~~~~"';
.-:; < ,,;.:.> > ~ues,-QJJ\.I"Jl.l~~ n ommuoB~umi8'&'~'l'~'0.J::"'Y'"f'}~;'.';:;;"~')...:~N~':e_'!{';~;~ v"
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X
within a state scenic hiohwav?
I Substantially degrade the existing visual character or I X
qualitv of the site and its surroundinos?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X
area?
.
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
I a.
b.
.No
.,.liripacL
X
c.
d.
Comments:
1. a.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or
near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista.
1. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The residential areas to the north of the project site currently maintain
views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two hospital bed towers
that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that views of Palomar
Mountain will be impacted as a result of the project. The current City of Temecula General Plan Land Use
Element indicates a Specific Plan Overlay exists on the site that requires all buildings constructed at the
proposed location be limited to one or two stories. The tallest portion of one of the proposed hospital be~
towers is at more than 100 feet high with the eave line of the top floor at approximately 85 feet. As a resul.
there is a General Plan Amendment as part of this project that would eliminate the Specific Plan Overlay for
the site, leaving the underlying Professional Office zoning district to determine .the maximum height
requirement. The current Development Code calls out a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Professional
Office zone. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) is also being proposed for this site
only to allow the proposed height bed tower height.
The current underlying zoning designation does allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. If the General Plan
Land Use Element Specific Plan Overlay were eliminated on this site, the hospi~1 could be constructed to a
height of up to 75 feet under current zoning. Impacts to views in the area would not be additionally impacted
by allowing the bed tower to exceed 75 feet. It is recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment to
remove the Specific Plan Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) be
evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address the impacts to surrounding properties
resulting from the proposed height of this project.
1. c: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the
south and very low density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The project site is currently vacant.
The residential area immediately north of the project is an area with large-lot single family rural and equestrian
homes. The current General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Overlay on the subject properly was put in place to
protect the residential area from large scale commercial development. Highway 79 South and Margarita Road
in the vicinity of the subject project site are commercial corridors. This properly is considered to be a suitable
location for the proposed project, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project in the community.
However, the impacts to views and other aesthetic impacts created by the mass of the proposed buildings
must be analyzed in a focused EIR for this project as it will require a General Plan Amendment and a ZOning.
Amendment to obtain approvals for the proposed height.
Rt\C U 1'12004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hosplta~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
3
1. d.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or
glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital
and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to
comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance
.55. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code
and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one-
foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot
candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down
and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has
proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition,
the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded.
The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval,
all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing
and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires
all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655
requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of
glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00
P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 :00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late
evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar
Observatory.
The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval that are recommended as a part of the
proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is
mitigated to a less than significant level:
.
a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded,
directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be
shut-off by 11 :00 P.M.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the
proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive
light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate.
c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for
General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in
parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at
project boundaries.
d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain
glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is
emitted.from the upper floors.
e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or
greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include
berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the
project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any
walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern
property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts.
.
R:le U Pl2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnmal Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation asa
an optional model to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: .
,
..
"':"<'J~~~~ '.
""- f:~Jmoaot..
a.
, ' <,
, " "
:' ,,~"".';"'~--,...~;.,;,('-:,;~, <.'.
"., .',.':,.;~ssue'S:1i'hd:SUD~ .
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aoricultural use?
I Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a I
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-aoricultural use?
x
lb.
x
c.
x
Comments:
2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15-
20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the HistoricaVArchaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech,
September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However,
the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable.
agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. Thi
property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State
Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve
changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause
other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural
uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses
other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered
a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego
County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth
of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Ternecul. Region.1 HospitaNnili.1 Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
5
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
. management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
c.
. . c:,.e:;;I~~~i;~s~~j1~tllili~~~~;~'i~f;~l~\i'I.""'.0'.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air guality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin!:! or I?roiected air guali!\, violation?
. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non.
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed Quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
I Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant I
concentrations?
I Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number I
of people?
r~J.JJ:H"~~~,,
I a.
lb.
x
x
x
I d.
Ie.
x
x
Comments:
3. a. . e.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is not able to meet the thresholds established
by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for clean air standards in the region. The realization of the
~roject will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan goals, but is likely to b.e in conflict
with the policies established in the Regional Air Quality Plan. The City of Temecula has identified a need in the
community for ihe proposed project and will carefully analyze the merits of the project and weigh them against
the air quality goals and objectives for the region in a Focused EIR for the project.
An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional
Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004. The study identified two primary areas of concern that
may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions.
The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project.
Table 1 Dailv Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibslday)
ROG NOx CO PMlO
I Construction Emissions I 42 266 353 363
I Miti~a!ed Construction I 42 266 353 184
EmiSSions
SCAQMD Significance I 75 100 550 150
Thresholds
Exceed Thresholds? I NO YES NO YES
.e NOx and PMlO emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the
Ox and PMlO levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated
to a level much less than without mitigations.
R:\C U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional HospilaMnnial S1udy DRAFT No. 2.doc
6
The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project.
Table 2 Dallv Operational Emissions
I Emissions Source
I
ROG
I Area Source Emissions
Vehicular Source Emissions
0.4
81.1
Total Unmitigated Emissions
81.49
I
I Unmitigated Area Source I
Emissions
I Miti.ga~ed Vehicular Source I
Emissions
Total Mitigated Emissions
0.4
76.46
76.86
SCAQMD Significance I
Thresholds
I Exceed Thresholds? I
55.0
YES
Pollutants (Ibs/day)
NOx CO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.83
101.64
105.47
3.83
95.13
98.96
55.0
YES
2.51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1071.46
1073.97
2.51
1002.98
1005.49
550.0
YES
PM10
,
I
0.01
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
115.4
115.41
0.01
108.01
108.02
150.0
NO
Table 2 above identifies ROG, NO. and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. nA
primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions sud~'
as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions.
The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project
would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the
exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts
are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10.
The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental
Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as
either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The
primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an
"extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone
and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM10.
The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is
0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the
Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO)
are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter
(PM10) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic
meter over 24 hours.
The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the
Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as lJa
reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, Decembe_
16,2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospnaNnfiial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
7
to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula
generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County.
The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative
. ~odes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature
trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to
the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the
proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation
Demand Management (TOM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative
mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and van pools, offering flex schedules to
employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TOM practices are
designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures.
The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will
provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RT A and Caltrans
to finalize the location and design of the bus stop.
The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which
the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regard to the immediate
surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air
Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as
having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the
Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located
within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants
considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of
Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. .
.he City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General Plan
Update. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant
level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the
General Plan" on April 12, 2005. The Final EIR includes a statement of overriding consideration for these
impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of
overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The
application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a
change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses
allo'i"ed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the land
use designation within the current General Plan, but is inconsistent with a current Specific Plan overlay for the
site which limits development to one or two stories. As a result, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to
remove the Specific Plan Overlay designation from the General Plan for the project area. The project is,
however, consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) found in the
Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%.
The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot Coverage of 15.7%
(242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not
proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be
769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square
feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio
permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies
within the General Plan.
The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors.
.e proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and
uld potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed
project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors,
R:IC U P\2004104-o463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnniaJ Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
8
dust and/or other pollutants. The exceedance of thresholds of significance for short-term and long-term air
quality impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated in a Focused EIR
that will be prepared for this project.
The following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into t.
EIR and placed on the following entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map):
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air
Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction
of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department.
b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the
state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and
subsequent use.
c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be
discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous
waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health
Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of
the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered
at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/fro.
the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative
transportation.
f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for
the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City
of Temecula Planning Department.
g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the
hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car
and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the
facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital.
h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project.
The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards.
i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-
resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100
days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula.
may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion t
be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense.
R:\C U PlZOO4\04-<l463 Temecula Regional HospitaMn~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
9
.
.
.
j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the
Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative c1ean-
fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and
deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably
possible.
k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent
fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in
the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be
watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during
construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best
management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading
and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel.
m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust
on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
project construction. .
n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the
load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or
from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections
23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks,
including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent
runoff, to reduce/eliminate' soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area.
o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a
ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the
contractor via incentives or other inducements.
p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site
limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500
feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast
corner of the project site).
r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active
portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent
fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application
of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering
shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and
evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include
complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to
time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at its sole cost.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
10
s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant
at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and
roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading .
excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establi
and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to
prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the
Applicant.
t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent
streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping
of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the
end of each day of grading and/or construction.
u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent
properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by
the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City
Engineer at his sole discretion.
v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of
Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement
of grading and excavation operations.
w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater
than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of
dust. . .
x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and
construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by
the City.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 T emecula Regional HospitaNnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
11
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
_'l~~~&';iJ,~,,~~,,",~.i}~~~~l~M~~ffHltf~"Jf~l!~I~~ff~ff2[~l :'J'
a. . Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption. or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
'.' Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? .
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
. .a!!!y,' ,.". ." .. "T".' .,~,.". ,..
:_Q!lJ~~~ ~~t~~ii1'a'R~J ~,;;--;;;;:.',,;'.
..,.._,~" '~"'sPg.'~ifi~%'\;."~ 1'" ""N:;"
n,,'~'.1<~!~"; 1-(1.. -~-:v-,.'.-.t-.:,.:
.t'.'dm '. . .<"'1""''''' .' .. ....,"'-~q'" .
e l,":"r'", :_,,,,>~, moamI.;,;,," <'(,UIIUa....,-:,..!
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
4. a. b. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site
(Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a
manmade flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian
vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes
have also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be
jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition
of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may
require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially
clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel
may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental,
Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed
alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts
to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified
biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In
addition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between
April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine
A presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
'l/lllf!mpidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the construction of the
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospilaNnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
12
bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete
their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation
Measures.
4. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery site.
The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including
area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been
grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord.
8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the
site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site.
4. f.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP.
The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as
slated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a
habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September
14,2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing
Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits.
The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project and enforceable
pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned:
a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city
Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the
flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site.
b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are
required. .
c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing
activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive
or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols.
d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel.
e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the
bridge across the channel.
f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place from April 15 through July 15, the
applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event
either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules)
and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their
reproductive cycles.
g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is
imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require. further
environmental review.
.
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnttial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
13
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
~~~~~2~'('~':: )\:"~~,.'~.2J;.~;~;.~;,':;\;i8'i&~~.~i~i~;lti:f!iI!~)~~itW~;;~~~~.f;~
'''_''''>'>0''':''''"' },X.'" _.;,. -'., -'~"""-"'_'_ JssuesaOO;sU[lDOrtmailnf6rmatfOns.oiit~"';'''':'w,_;~_",:<>;.:,,,,_,;<, ;;;'_:..l:;A,:-c,-",..:),~~:1
I a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
lb. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of I
an archaeoloQical resource Dursuant to Section 15064.5?
I c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological I
resource or site or uniQue QeoloQic feature?
I d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred I
outside of formal cemeteries?
I
I
I X
X I
X I
I X
Comments:
5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (HistoricaVarchaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital
Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not
identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for
historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact
that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not
known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within
close proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site
.r paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required.
5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The
project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the
project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as
enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation
agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and
disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site.
b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological
artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment
and disposition to the extent authorized by law.
c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring
during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost.
d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided
arid preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the
Mitigation Measure a above.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospilaNnitial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
14
e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the HistoricaVArchaeological Resource
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004
and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures.
i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tri.
monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the
authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or
large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain
remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
Ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate
fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently
preserved.
iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent
retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment.
iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion
of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the
Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to
the palentologic and archaeological resources.
v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of
Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older
sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended
mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnilial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
15
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
.......,"".,......,_....,........,' ''''.'-''''-''''WlA:,;,.,',h"'''''''M.
",_e,_' '''''''_'' - ."~" """":" ", < 'Ie .. . 'T .. ".~'.,:i;,' <>;:;,"-z.''1,:,'~'':,
;:;~~:~1J!dfti~\';::a .,~~e;~~~~~iJ~~~it'. "f'
a.
'"..'..'..". M. . "'. ,. '"~.''' ""."". '_'~""'''')~ .
?'~i~~:~~t~T~$~~o/! ~?~.X~~
". "',..~",""..j.'r.".",~ ""S''''''~\lAAt ':;!
~<~tl1tJ:~;;1~~t:l~i~%lt~rt~t~cffJtt~ is;
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvinQ:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. I Stronq seismic Qround shakinQ?
iii. I Seismic-related Qround failure, includinQ liquefaction?
iv. I Landslides?
I Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? I
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or oft-site landslide, lateral
spreadinQ, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
.~'" .. .
~:~~~,:'
x
x
I
I
I
lb.
c.
x
X
X
X
X
d.
X
.
X
Comments:
6. a. i-iv and c:Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the
proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14,
2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the lake Elsinore Fault. The
proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the
project site. The lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large
magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the
event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes
subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of
structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the
study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of
building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to
concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a
moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs
should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and
seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to a
level that is less than significant and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
.
R:IC U P\2004104-o463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnmal Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
16
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration,
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
i.
All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should tA
removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend _
minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical.
Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The
depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-
grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a
heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly
above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method 0157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork
should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
ii.
ili.
The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be
adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill
materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials,
have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of
less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill.
During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches)
may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill.
iv.
Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned
to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly
mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should b.
tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequen
lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior
to sloping.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral
support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure
excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with
consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design.
In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified;
moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction based on Test Method 01557. The upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the
initial grading operation.
As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As
such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with
conventional earthmoving equipment.
All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
(Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
- 17
6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion
.ontrol and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
emecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate
to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies
the soils on the project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004.
6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and
waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the
public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and
waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility.
.
.
R:le U P\2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
18
..~:~;"'issll,J~S~~i~iiti~I~~,~~;;~:;~?0j;:;1~;jJ ~::~~6
a. . . Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
. disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
.hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
Quarter mile of an existina or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workina in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workinq in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
'"'" ".'('\.%iJr".7,"[]"F~
-~~~f!jff;'~'~?~it):'\'f~
"Sig~nl." ".. ,'No .',
, ;tt1Mn6ti~':-:~~iffioaa:.,:
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
x
x
x
x
x
x
r
x
x
Comments:
7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project
consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The
proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed
project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated,
September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County
Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnilial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
19
7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
e. e.: No Impact: The proposed projeci is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project.
7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include
a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities.
As a oondition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical
and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency
response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project,
which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event
of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires; No impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project:
.
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage
and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling,
storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
20
c.
.- '; ~ ~::~-~: '1,:.:,~tr;~~~~~:~?tPi.l;~~i ,~~ ~~:: ~~{ ;~0 '~:~~~t~~:~;~{; ~:~~
, ';", ,.. >.'.'.<..,~; , v,'i%i;;fdi1'0':, ' i' ,
'7"' - }:d~~si8ffifSll~QIjftlfiQ ~~'~~wtfu~t
, Violate any water quaiity standards or waste discharge I
reauirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which Dermits have been arantedl?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resu'lt
in f1oodino on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
eolluted runoff?
I Otherwise substantiallv deorade water qualitv? I
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
maD?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures I
which would imDede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
.injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mud/low?
'.
r:.S~J~~' "
C;iiilo1tci ;:
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: ,
I a.
b.
x
x
x
d.
x
e.
x
f.
g.
x
,
x
I h.
i.
x
x
;.
x
Comments;
8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National. Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if
the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of
dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the
appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge over/across the flood control
channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of th.
proposed project. .
R:\C U P\Z004\04-o463 Temecula Raglonal HospitaMnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
21
8. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
. volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local
aeevelopment standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and
WIllround water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water
District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. The City has instructed the applicant to contact
the RCWD and request that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for this project. RCWD has not provided
any comments of immediate concern at this time. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project
8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not
alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site.' The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount Of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because
the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and
maintained by .Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the
proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works
Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-
site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant
.mpact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
. ~. e.,f.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project will add a significant amount of impermeable
surface area on the project site. As a result, there will be an increased level of runoff during a rain event. The
Hydrology and Drainage Analysis for this project indicates that the project would not create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. The project
will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts caused by runoff and
will be required to implement mitigation measures that are proposed by responsible and trustee agencies. The
City recommends that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for this project and that impacts related
to drainage and potential for polluted runoff be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this
project.
8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Hate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. h. i.: No./mpact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown
in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements to Temecula Creek have
resulted in a new 100-year and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the
primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The
dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements
~d dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood
urance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November
, 1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area.
R:\C U PI2OO4\04.{)463 Temacula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
22
The proposed project site was is located within the Vail lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of
Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail lake Dam and has submitted to the City
a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. ...
additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergen.
Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The
FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the
event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail lake Dam. The proposed project will place
structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996).
The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated
to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address
flow and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail
lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail lake
Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A
revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam
Inundation Area.
A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted
floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge
capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and
letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year
flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail lake is a 51,000 acre-feet
facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top
and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation a
1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in parti.
flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss,
however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of
structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from
Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of
additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood
insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula
Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the
updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of
Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:le U P\2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
23
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
'i'~~;1~;;(;'f;"'\~:~:,,~';,s~j~il~l~~1li~~liit~~il~t~f~~~~I
I a. Phvsically divide an established community?
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
I c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or I
natural community conservation plan? .
x
x
x
Comments:
9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use
is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding
commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an
established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is
planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the
community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation
plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The
~oposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to
ceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General
Ian Amendment is approved.
9. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations.
There are three lots that abut De portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will
change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan because
the project site is within the Specific Plan Overlay which restricts height on the subject property to one or two
stories. A General Plan Amendment has been proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay on the property
to allow for the proposed height increase.
All the permitted uses within the. current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary
change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof
area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO
as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The
project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be
impacted as a result of the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment will bring
the project into compliance with land use policies and development criteria. Compatibility issues will be
analyzed in a Focused EIR for this project.
.
R:le U P\2004104.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
Z4
~;~~~;;.. ii;;,;',;.E;ii~~~~;'~>.~i~':i:~~il~,~,,;',:~:~~j~~~fi~'~!il:~
a. . Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
lleneral plan. specific plan or other land use plan?
""., , .. .. .,.... '
;.';<"~'''j:." ':.J::.'. ..e
};r,OAeSBJ~~al1,~ ~ "-. . .: .'
, ., bl"'I~~".'I. . N'
,_2" '; l'~4;-ltP'l~P~:~., ;"',0,"'"
loa"." ,;;;.Ifiti1a61ii..., ,dRloaa. ..
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
x
x
Comments:
10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are
considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally-
important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain
such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospltaNnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
25
~lJfI~ri;;'i;~'!'i'~',':;:l\~;s,a~Jt,~,~l~~':~'f'~' .\~lil~~'.
~"';d;<.:-~:..J"'':>'_c:,~,::~:~.,..,_-;><.-"_,~,,!t>.,..,,dssuesant:I:SU on:SB1{l'tEis;-:,;-:;.."..,,">, h _
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
aqencies?
I Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive I
qroundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
!?roject?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
proiect area to excessive noise levels?
1.
11. NOISE. Would the project result In:
C,'-,',;
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
e.
x
x
. .omments:
11. a.-c..:Potentlally Significant Impact: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De
Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and
Margarita Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway
forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities
in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following:
.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or
designated public or private primary, secondary or high school.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured
property line to property line).
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future
assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with
hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance
shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot
setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties.
R:\C U P\2004\04.Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
26
Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and
constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor
blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic it
inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter.
Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences.
The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction).
Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is
approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol Park, which is
approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho
Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The
helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet
away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding
lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11.
The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling
approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the
medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story.
The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site.
The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior
areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal
commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this
area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest
proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 7.
South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South.
The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which
will buffer some of the noise.
The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the
hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows
per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double
paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will
mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be
temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during
construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated
with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's
noise element in the General Plan will be enforced.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General
Plan in 2005 when they approved Resolution 05-43 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of
Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General
Plan". The General Plan EIR included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant
impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural
resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information is contained
within the current General Plan which was adopted in 2005. The City of Temecula has been consistent with
land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is deemed reliable. The
Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approval
of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be binding requirements of the.
project approval.
R:IC U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaMn~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doo
27
There is a potential that the proposed use will have an influence on vehicular circulation patterns and that the
potential exists for additional vehicular traffic to be experienced in the residential areas north of the project site.
This potential for increased noise on residential streets will be addressed in a Focused EIR prepared for the
_roject. .
11.d:Potentially Significant Impact: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area
that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level of 65 CNEL is permitted
for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The
primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to
construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on-
site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and
equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and
includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent
property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the
maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities.
The following conditions of approval will be required as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated
in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan
Final EIR:
,
a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes,
bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained
mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to
issuance of grading permit.
.
b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous
barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound
blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties
abutting the project site.
c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going).
d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors,
including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units,
ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or
structures such as walls for acoustical shielding.
f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for
service and maintenance.
g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from
residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to
the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM.
h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within 14 mile of the hospital site unless
required to allow for emergency access.
.
i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless
required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel.
R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 T emecula Regional HospitaMnftiaJ StUdy DRAFT No. 2.doc
28
j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies
detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the helipad. .
k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of
construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically
Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an
occupied residence.
Monday-Friday
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday
No work is permitted on Sundays or FederaVState Government Holidays
11. e.-f.:Potentiafly Significant Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and
there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. However, the project
proposes to construct a helipad used for transporting patients to trauma centers at other locations. There
is no method available to quantify the number of helicopter trips related to the hospital operations as a
result of trauma. Noise impacts on neighboring residents and equestrian uses should be analyzed in a
Focused EIR prepared for the project to determine the effects of helicopter noise on the surrounding area.
.
.
R:IC U P\2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaMnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
~e:ji~~"?::i:f:~:;i:,~;'~ti?
la~':~~M"'." .,..lgs~,rI(lS.ODO
a.
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
I Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the I
construction of replacement housinQ elsewhere?
x
b.
x
I c.
x
Comments:
12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional
medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in
the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth
(residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to
induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20
years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
12. b.-C.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
_oject site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential
es are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or
remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
I
.
R:IC U P\2004104-Q463 Tameeula Regional HospilaNnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
30
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
~;:::';,,~X;J~~';:~;';'..V..""'.';ii~i~j,~~~~~~l;~l~~;~I~~~~~\k;,~~~l~w:
');:<::::.:'/i"'".'q:" ,
eaif": ,;::t@ss~iIllill'!'1l{1:', ,'" "
~'A:;' . :', .. ",','>i:ir<'l.' : J;. ":"0 ,'" ~
7. : ,..Al,gnifii lill:" .,.NO.. i
~"'_"',", ".._~,<;."';(_. ,>,'M_, ,
oratecbh:::' ,:,>(~,tlltjD'aC&,.'. ,! _:'~hiiPact",,:
a.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
I
I
I
I
I
x
Fire protection? I
Police protection? I
Schools? I
Parks? I
Other public facilities? I
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or
result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide
additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better
emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provi.
public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to
the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made
aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to
obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the
surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal
Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and
the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge
volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all
hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital
flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is
responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated
connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of
$3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU I.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development
fee is approximately $120,000.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospilaNnnial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
31
14. RECREATION.
tt~;~fl~:~;~2f;:c:,,~,~/C;')ii~~;;",~~~;~~~i~ri~ii~~!~i!~,~\fi~;i~~~ttr'
0':<J...^;~~~~~'-;\'<~_'g.'~r"""~'_":":'(,",^J.-:;_'ISSUes:aiid'SUpportinQ.ilnf8rmatilfrl'SoUr~s;,,>::A..""''':~;'''v.v;;;,,~;;.,~":~,,~_,,~o~ :~
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
" f~~k~~
x
x
Comments:
14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project
will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes.
The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result
of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project.
Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
.
R:IC U PI2OO4104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnnial Study DRAFT No, 2,doc
32
...~~::h~1~~'~~r~~~~r0~~
>,., '0"_.':' 'lssiies.~aricfSuDOO!ti
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads. or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
manaQement aQency for designated roads or hiQhways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.Q., farm equipment)?
e. I Result in inadequate emerQency access?
I f. I Result in inadequate parkinq capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
,".~Z^,",.I
"'h/...
;:1 i:~~~~~' ~
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
Comments: .
15. a.-C: Potentially Significant Impact: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have
been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law &
Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004).
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260
square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer
center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will
generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865
vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact
analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway
Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and.De Portola Road. Phase
one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square' feet of medical office space. Phase
one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak A.M.
hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were
assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road.
As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study.
The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in
several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA. The TIA has identified several roadway and
intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area
intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in a Dartolo Road connection, which could
reduce the impacts to each road and intersection.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaMnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
33
The f~lIowing Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project:
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I:
Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way
signal to a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South.
Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South.
Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional
eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed.
Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road.
Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study
area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II:
1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road.
2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study
area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of
the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for
mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects.
.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned
Above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of
~e state CEQA Guidelines. Even with proposed mitigation, Level of Service on Highway 79 South and
Margarita Road will be operating at a LOS of D or worse during peak periods as a result of the construction of
this project. An analysis of cumulative impacts that considers recently approved projects and projects currently
being processed along the Highway 79 South corridor must be analyzed in a Focused EIR.
15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or
modification of any traffic pattems that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish
incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve
intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or
traffic patterns.
15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has
been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius
templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles.
15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking
spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
15. g.: No Impact:. The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop
facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RTA. No impact
is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
F!:\C U Pl2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnitial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
34
a.
... c .c.. .". '::E;:;I;i~:,~t~~~]r~i{~;i~~f~~~~ti{~j~i
,.~, ;flstues~an(isunDortiiiCJ~rntk"s^OO~i&:~t*ii~b~>~~~~)-<
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Reoional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or . expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
I Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to I
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
I Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and I
reoulations related to solid waste?
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
, ....
-l~Q'.: .
Jiliir."Ct ~
I
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
e.
x
1.
x
I
e
g.
x
Comments:
16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project
will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is
required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if
any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from
EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to
provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less thim
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems
are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater.
16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The
project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground
storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or
expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control has
reviewed the proposed plan and has not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District
Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded watea
entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have arw
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided "water
R:\C U P\2004\04.Q463 Ternecula Regional HospilaNnitial Study DRAFT No. 2,doc
35
available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the
applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a domestic well near that project site,
owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not
_notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also
~onsistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies.
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
16.1. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hosp~aMn~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
36
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
~~;:tW~'J;~;~:<:'-;(~~~l>~:.;~~;:~;~~t~;~:~~'~Y$~I~!1;~~JJ(::~/0~~rL~!0~rti"~~~):i~'.;::.~
;;;""'i<.;o,r_~A':,:' . _," .",~^.\;!::.>$r .~~-~ ":0f,-"-T', i; __ ,",i -,S,,'-""':- ">"t.t;:.._,~.}.. ~1 {i....,<:::.'." '<>,;'tI"4-;~~"':l'i~~
<C,' '4$; .t"':'" ",(: ~.':h:~~~ ,'>~-'~':,,; ',__{t~,,(<," ,:.--:, :":4 :yzr~';;,',~,~ ""- ~,,-,/.- C.- ~4},~1~~H4.;i ,
~t~t~~:&-~/;_~:',;,g:lijs~;a1K1rs~DDOrii11&'llliO' <*-n~ah~$.0~~M~A.t~~'i,,~~~~~ ~,
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo[V or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
Qroiects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
.c..,.".....
);~.:~'j.:. "
:t.: :>~ffNo\-" ;',
&Irilil"ct,\;
x
b.
x
c.
x
Comments:
17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or ~
the vicinity of the project because proposed Mitigation Measures are expected to reduce the impacts to leve.
that are less than significant. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits
including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearance from the
State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was
reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures
to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan.
17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant
with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as
potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the
South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the
City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 05-43, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air
quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution
05-43 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of
the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures
in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code,
and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact.
17. c.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed
consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to
reduce impact to a less than significant level.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaNn~ial Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
37
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
.egative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
lon attached sheets.
I a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitiQation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,'
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified
technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result
of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were
made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and
inspection.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnnial Study ORAFT No. 2.doc
38
SOURCES
1.
City of Temecula General Plan.
.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4, 2004
4. Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004
5. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17,
2004.
6. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004
7. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004.
8. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC
Company), November 2004.
10. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16,
2004.
11. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004.
12. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996. .
13. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John
W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX, dated January 25, 1996
14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975.
15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc.,
December 16, 2004
16. City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993.
17. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH # 2003061041), March 2005.
18. City of Temecula Resolution 05-43, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecufa Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan," Adopted
April 12, 2005.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnltiaJ Study DRAFT No. 2.doc
39
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 20, 2005
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
49
.
r~
'.
,
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, April 20, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent:
Commissioner Olhasso.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 20, 2005.
2' Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 30, 2005.
3 Director's Hearina Case Uodate
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March, 2005.
R:IMinutesPCI042005
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice reflected approval with the exceotion of
Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from March 2, 2005
4 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0393. a Develooment Plan. submitted bl/ CurrY Brandaw
Architects. to construct. establish. and ooerate a three-storv senior conareaate care facilitv
c::<:>nsistina of 115 units on 2.1 acres and an exceotion to the develooment standards to
r~<:il.JG~ the onsite oarkina reauirements bv 13 soaces. located on the southeast corner of
Villaae Road and Townshio Road within the Harveston Soecific Plan
Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as written).
..'
In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Mr. Harris relayed the following:
. That if the three retail components listed in staff's report (Beauty Shop, Barber Shop,
and Home Health Care) were not to work out, other retail-type uses could be utilized in
the spaces
. That the proposed redesigned project and the apartment building would be comparable
in height.
.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and thorough
staff report. Mr. Alhadeff noted that the proposed project would be a permitted use and that the
concerns of massing and elevation, architecture, and the retail component have all been
addressed by the applicant.
Mr. Garth Brandau, representing the applicant, noted the following:
. That at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has eliminated the fourth
floor resulting in a substantial reduction in the overall height
. That the applicant has incorporated retail uses into the facility; noted that the intent of
the applicant would be to incorporate a Barber Shop, Beauty Shop, and Home Health
Care Center, but that if this were not possible, the applicant would have the ability to
acquire other tenants into the facility
. That in regard to the concern of architecture, the applicant created a more traditional
looking style that would emulate nearby buildings within the Village area
. That in addressing the massing issue, the roof lines have been further broken up and
lowered along both the Landings and Township Road elevations; and that the widths of
the columns have been reduced and four separate color schemes are proposed for the
elevations to further segment and break up the building mass. .
R:\MinutesPC\042005
2
i
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the large hip roof and the view the residents on
the corner of Township Road and Harveston Drive would have.
Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern, Mr. Brandaw noted that it would be possible
to break up the hip roof.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a
condition requiring the breaking up the hip on the roof of the proposed project.
Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, representing Lennar Communities, spoke in favor of the proposed
project; advised that in regard to the lease of the four live/work units of the apartment building,
the owner has received interest from four specific uses; and noted that although the Welcome
Home Center will be utilized by Lennar Communities for another 18 months, it would be the
intent of Lennar that after that period of time, the facility would be used for retail uses.
For Ms. Rauschenburg, Chairman Mathewson noted that he would like to see the live/work units
come to fruition.
The following individuals spoke against the proposed facility for the following reasons:
. Mr. Anthony Reiter Mr. Spencer Simm
. Mr. Jeffrey Duhaney Ms. Shelley Moon
. Mr. Roger Logan Mr. Mike Bender
. Mr. Larry Bales Ms. Stormer Simm
'. . Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Mr. Kristopher Williams
.
That the Isabel Barnet Elementary School will be completely overshadowed by the
proposed three-story senior apartment facility
.
That three-story buildings or higher are not compatible in the Harveston Community,
they belong along commercial corridors with similar size buildings
..
That the value of the homes in Harveston Community will depreciate if the proposed
project were allowed
.
That the amount of emergency services that will be created due to the proposed project
will be a nuisance to the residents of Harveston
.
That the applicant has only made minor changes to the proposed project
.
That Lennar never advised that a four-story senior congregate care facility would be built
in the Harveston Community
.
That the proposed retirement residence will not be favored by the residents
That the residents of Harveston are desirous of what was originally promised by Lennar -
retail and small town Americana Main Street, U.S.A.
. . That the proposed project is obtrusive, too tall, unsightly, and unwelcome.
.
R:\MinutesPCI042005
3
/-
( I
Clarifying for Mr. Bender, Commissioner Telesio noted that he had previously mentioned that if
the initially proposed project were not redesigned in a fashion that would be acceptable to the
Planning Commission, the applicant may not be the right applicant.
.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, noted the following:
. That the use is a permitted use under the Harveston Specific Plan
. That the proposed project will meet the Development standards in terms of lot coverage
and setbacks;
. That retail will be provided as spelled out in the Specific Plan
. That the applicant has made the requested changes as requested by the Planning
Commission
. That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that would impose breaking up
the long ridge roofline as requested by the Planning Commission.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for their efforts in making the requested changes
and noted the following:
{ )
. That the proposed facility was part of the intent of the Harveston Specific Plan
.
. That there is a need within the Temecula area to house seniors
. That the applicant has addressed the issues that were a concern
. That the proposed project is a congregate care facility, not an assisted living facility; and
that, therefore, emergency response times would not be the same
. That staff will ensure that Lennar Homes will provide was originally proposed
. That the Planning Commission would request to change the rooflines.
Commissioner Chiniaeff offered the following comments:
. That the current four Planning Commissioners were a part of the development of the
Harveston Specific Plan and that at that time, it was the vision of Harveston to include
residents of all ages including seniors '
. That the applicant has made great strides from the time that this project was originally
submitted.
In closing, Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he would be of the opinion that the applicant has met the
intent of the Specific Plan.
.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
4
~
'.
.
Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that age, medical
conditions, race, color or creed are not factors on which housing choices could be based.
For the Planning Commission, staff and the public, Commissioner Telesio noted that he has
been a part of two ad-hoc committees and has also worked with the applicant and is of the
opinion that there have been significant changes from the original plan.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the retail
spaces would not be useable for any residential spaces and that the Specific Plan imposes a
number of different retail uses on the project.
Thanking the speakers for their comments and the applicant for all their revisions, Chairman
Mathewson relayed the following:
. That the building has been reduced in height
. That onsite parking will be provided
. That retail uses have been incorporated into the facility
. That as long as the retail uses are consistent with the permitted uses, the applicant
should be the one determining what the uses would be.
Mr. Mathewson commented on the applicant's efforts to address the massing and scale of the
proposed project and that based on what is being proposed to the Commission and subject to
additional modification to the rooflines, he would be in favor of supporting the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the proposed project subject to the
addition of a condition, imposing that additional roofline variations shall be incorporated into the
building design to reduce the mass and overall height of the ridgelines and that modifications
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning; that 1,650 square feet of
retail space within the facility shall be used exclusively for retail commercial purposes in
perpetuity; that the specific type uses shall be consisient with the Harveston Specific Plan; and
that the applicant and the Fire Department shall jointly develop a lights and sirens protocol for
emergency response vehicle and that the protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Chief and the Director of Planning. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice
vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
At this time, Planning Commission took a five-minute break.
A:IMinutesPCI042005
5
,roo
\ I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-022
PC RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA04-0393, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 115-UNIT
SENIOR CARE CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH THREE
RETAIL SPACES ON 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP
ROAD WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
ALSO KNOWN AS APN 916-170-027
.
Continued from April 6, 2005
5 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment.
Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan and Tentative Parcel Mao
submitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hosoital facilitv and
helioad. two medical office buildinas totalina aooroximatelv 140.000 sauare feet. a 10.000
sauare foot cancer center. and an 8.000 sauare foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling
aooroximatelv 566.160 sauare feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiqhwav 79
South and south of DePortola Road. aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road
,-
)
Senior Planner Papp presented a brief staff report (of written record), noting that based on the
issues that were discussed and presented to staff via letters from Best, Best, and Krieger, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and area residents, it was staff's opinion that a focused Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project to address issues stated in
staff's report.
.
For the Planning Commission, staff, and the public, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that although
he was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2005, regarding the
proposed project, he has listened to the Planning Commission tape and has reviewed all
documents that have been presented and understands the concerns that have been raised.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that tonight's Planning Commission meeting will de dealing
with noise, aesthetics, traffic, and hydrology.
Chairman Mathewson also relayed that once the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is released, there
will be another opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the NOP and that once the
focused EIR draft is released, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on that as
well.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Senior Planner Papp relayed that it would be
his opinion that the proposed hospital will not have any need for underground tanks but will
have above-ground oxygen tanks; that there may be underground storm drains; and that there
will be one large back up generator that will be located near the oxygen tanks (east elevation of
hospital).
.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
6
i
.
.
For Senior Planner Papp, Chairman Mathewson relayed his desire for the scope of the
document to not address the source of the leaking tank in great detail.
Clarifying for the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that CEQA would address
the impact of a project on the environment, not the environment on the project.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
. Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Mr. Brad Stormon
Mr. Don Stowe
Mr. Raymond Bennett
. That the narrow residential roads of Santiago Ranchos cannot handle the delivery
trucks, trash trucks, ambulances, and patients with appointments
. That the Planning Commission consider the request of not approving any plan that
would contain any regular open ingress/egress for the hospital site on DePortola Road
and any building over three stories
. That the traffic impact report on Pio Pico Road must be prepared and should be
addressed with the EIR
. That a sound wall be installed to protect the residents of Pio Pico Road
. That impact to equestrian uses in the area be addressed
. That the Planning Commission ensure that the emergency room will not be upgraded to
a trauma center at any time.
. That the dead-end (southern) portion of Pio Pico Road has not been adequately
addressed; that it is the desire of the surrounding residents that the dead-end portion of
Pio Pico Road (southern end) be abandoned or sold to the adjacent neighbor.
Chairman Mathewson noted that the project description does not include a trauma center.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that an Environmental document assesses a project and
that although the concern of the dead-end (southern end) portion of Pio Pico Road would be
valid, at this time, circulation is not being planned, advising that this concern would be handled
in a different forum than in the EIR.
Clarifying for the public and Planning Commission, Commissioner Telesio noted that all of Pio
Pico Road south of DePortola Road will be addressod in the traffic/circulation portion of the
project.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
R:\MinutesPCI042005
7
{-)
For the Planning Commission, Chairman Mathewson queried if staff's report was adequate or if
there were any other issues that the Commission would want addressed.
.
For Chairman Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that it would be his opinion that staff's
report is adequate but requested that staff include the storm drain issue that would run through
the proposed property and the impacts if a trauma center were incorporated into the proposed
project.
Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and is of the opinion
that staff's report is adequate and does reflect the concerns previously rnentioned.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the Commission does not need to vote on this item;
that staff will move forward with the Cornmission's comments and that there will be many
opportunities for the public to comment.
It was the consensus of the four Planning Commissioner's to receive and file this report.
, )
New Items
6 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0561 a Develooment Plan. submitted bv STDR Architects. to
construct and ooerate a 7.380 sauare foot restaurant. located on 0.42 acres. penerallv
located aoproxirnatelv 800 feet west of Maraarita Road. at the northeast intersection of the
Temecula Mall LOOD Road and the Mall Access Road that is an extension of Verdes Lane
.
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record) and recornrnended revisions of the
following Conditions of Approval:
That the language: As rnay be due and pavable bv the Develooment Aareernent. be added
to the end of each of the following Conditions
. No. 45 DIF
. No. 46 TUMPF
· No. 50 TUMPF
. No. 90 Public Art Ordinance
That the cover sheet of Draft Conditions of Approval be revised to as such:
MSHCP: Per Developrnent Agreement
TUMF: Per Development Agreernent
.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
8
"'----.
, )
.
'.
.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the
architectural consultant has not reviewed the proposed project and that if it were the desire of
the Planning Commission, the proposed project could be forwarded to the architectural
consultant for review.
Responding to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Associate Planner Fisk noted that the tower
elements would be closed windows.
Commissioner Guerriero also noted his concern with the parking and queried if there would be
additional access to the restaurant's parking lot from the street or will patrons be forced to travel
to the access road and utilize the primary entry.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Fisk relayed that through a shared agreement
for the entire Power Center II, available for EI Torito as well as the other uses within the Power
Center II, there will be adequate parking for the entire center and that when the Power Center II
was initially approved, it allowed for a larger restaurant than was is currently being proposed.
Commissioner Guerriero stated that it would be his opinion that none of the restaurants in the
Promenade Mall and Power Center II have adequate parking and relayed a safety issue with the
pedestrian traffic crossing the loop road.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the side of the building where the service
doors are located, advising that there is an open space with no landscaping and queried if there
would be landscaping incorporated.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that there is an
easement in that particular area on the side of the building and was not sure if it will be
landscaped.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Real Mex Restaurants and EI Torito, offered a 3-dimenstional
PowerPoint presentation, noting the following:
. That the proposed project will reflect Temecula's old style and new style
. That the proposed project will be vibrant and exciting
. That the Plaza area will be fun, exciting, and inviting
. That the proposed project will offer many angles
. That the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval as presented by staff
. That the Planning Commission consider the deletion or fulfillment of Condition of
Approval Nos. 17 and 18
. That the landscaping will be landscaped up the applicant's lease line.
R:\MinutesPC\04200S
9
f'
1.
Mr. Mark Turpin, representing Real Mex Restaurants, offered the following comments:
. That the entire premise of the design of the proposed project is based upon the
company's commitment to authentic Mexican food; that the intent with the design would
be to create an image of a traditional Mexico or California surrounded by bold colorful
shapes that would be found in new construction within Mexico
.
. That the proposed architecture will combine elements of traditional and contemporary
Mexican architectural style.
Mr. Mike Chico, architect for the proposed project, noted that the applicant would only be
obligated to landscape to the easement line and that the proposed landscaping was designed
as a desert landscaping theme to tie along into the new architecture of the building.
In response to Commissioners' query, Mr. Chico noted that although staff would have preferred
that the building design be either traditional or contemporary, it was the opinion of the applicant
that combining traditional and contemporary elements surrounded by bold colorful shapes would
be new and exciting.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fagan relayed that he is unaware of whose responsibility it
would be to landscape the easement but would discuss his concern with the property owner.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following:
.
. That it would be his desire that the back side of the proposed building be landscaped
before moving forward with the project
. That the east elevation (yellow wall) be dropped down to show some life and color to
the elevation which would allow a view into the patio area versus a long flat wall; and
expressed his support of the use of bricks and trellis
Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the bold colors and the overall contemporary
architecture and would prefer it be the traditional style.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the EI Torito coming to the City of
Temecula and noted his appreciation for the 3-dimensitional PowerPoint Presentation.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's change of the yellow wall (east elevation) but did
express his desire for the original architecture.
Nothing his appreciation for the 3-dimentional, Chairman Mathewson relayed that it would be his
opinion that the proposed project will be under parked and that the architectural consultant
should have reviewed the proposed project for direction.
Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Mathewson, expressed concern with pedestrian
traffic crossing the mall loop road as well as the lack of parking spaces.
.
R:\MinutesPC\042005
10
i
.~~
,
.
Commissioner Chiniaeff directed staff to have the landscape architect review the concern of
landscaping on the easement.
Understanding the concerns of the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Fagan noted that the applicant
would be agreeable to a condition that would require the applicant to work with the property
owner to address the landscaping easement issue.
For the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that if it were the desire of the
Planning Commission, he will forward the proposed project to the architectural consultant along
with the concerns of the Planning Commission.
For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Fisk requested from the applicant that the design
be either the traditional or contemporary but that the applicant expressed desire to combine
elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural styles.
In response to Mr. Fisk's statement, Commissioner Telesio expressed his support of either one
style or the other, not a combination of both.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue the item to the May 18, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting; requested that the landscaping at the property line be addressed; that
parking be addressed; and that the design of the proposed project be forwarded to the
architectural review. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
7 Plannina Aoolication No. PA05-0047. a Develooment Code Amendment. amendinq the
Municioal Code to allow automobile and truck dealershios to conduct weekend oromotional
activities with an aoorooriate oermi!. increase the number of allowable minor temporarY use
Qermits from two to four oer vear. and make a modification to the allowable size for
freestandina tenant identification sians
Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record).
In response to the Commissioner Guerriero's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
the lumes of the proposed signs would be consistent with what is currently being used.
Clarifying for the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the signs would be internally
illuminated and that they would not be a spot light illumination.
For the Planning Commissioners, Associate Planner West relayed that if the applicant were to
exceed the number and size of the canopies and banners, that would be one way to determine
the program's effectiveness.
Given the small scale of the program, Principal Planner Hogan was of the opinion that the event
would hardly be noticed.
Planning Director Ubnoske stated that the item will be forwarded to the City Council.
In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. West noted that the size of the banner would
be consistent with the current sign ordinance (32 square feet) and that the maximum height of
the banner would be 3 feet with a maximum height off the ground of 6 feet.
R:\MinutesPCI042005
11
~.
\ }
Chairman Mathewson expressed concern with such activities becoming an every-weekend
event.
.
Addressing Chairman Mathewson's concern, Mr. West stated that the Sunset Provision will
provide an opportunity to evaluate the Ordinance; that the intent would be that each dealership
would need to apply for a Master Temporary Use Permit and indicate on its site where each
canopy, banner, etc... would be located so that it could be enforced by Code Enforcement to
ensure that they are in compliance.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Isaac Lizarraga, representing Temecula Valley Auto Association, spoke in favor of the
Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct
weekend promotional activities.
For the Commission, Mr. West noted that the proposal would be for new car dealerships only.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff will work with the language to include two events
at the Mall and two events in area B.
Commissioner Guerriero noted that the dealerships in Temecula have been very supportive for
special events in town and would be supportive of the proposal, noting that after 18 months, he
would be willing to expand the time.
/-
)
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation and to allow for
two banners. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval
with the exceotion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.28 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR WEEKEND
PROMOTIONAL EVENTS AND TO CHANGE THE MINOR
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE
AUTO MALL AREA, AND TO ALLOW LARGER
FREESTANDING TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR
AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA05-0047)"
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
Commissioner Telesio requested that Code Enforcement explore the furniture store and noted
that there are quite a few banners on the two twin buildings that indicate "coming soon".
.
R:\MinutesPCI04Z005
12
i
)
.
.
, ,
In response to Commissioner Telesio's concerns, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she
will have Code Enforcement explore his concerns.
Commissioner Telesio also expressed concern with the home on the hill behind Old Town,
advising that they have a large for sale banner and could perhaps be in violation as well.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinfl to be held on Wednesdav, Mav 4.2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:IMinutesPCI042005
13
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 15
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET
APRIL 20, 2005
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTl1-16~05 v2.doc
50
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner
April 20, 2005
Issues to be Analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report for the
Temecula Regional Hospital
SUBJECT:
A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District),
Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Plan were submitted for review by the Planning
Commission on April 6, 2005 to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed
hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately
140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot
fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north
side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The day of, but prior
to, the Planning Commission hearing for the hospital project, staff received comment letters
from the law firm of Best, Best and Krieger, representing Brad and Nicole Stormon who own a
home across the street from the proposed project, and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Stormon's do not object to the Hospital being located on the proposed site, they
feel that the following issues, as outlined in the attached letter from Best, Best and Krieger need
to be further analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report:
. Lack of traffic impact analysis on Pio Pico
. Lack of analysis concerning impacts to equestrian uses in the area
· Noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation is not adequately addressed
· Lack of analysis concerning visual and aesthetic impacts
The letter from Best, Best and Krieger goes on to state that:
. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate for the project
. A Water Supply Assessment is required and has not been prepared
. Mitigation Measures need to be more definite and certain
. There are analytical gaps in the MND
The letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (attached) states that while the subject
property is not located within a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Criteria Cell, MSCHP
policies still apply and the MND needs to include the following:
. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for unavoidable
losses of riparian habitat due to bridge construction
. Per MSHCP Species-Specific Objective No.5, a focused survey must be conducted as
part of the project review process
. USFWS recommends a more thorough habitat analysis be conducted for the burrowing
owl, and depending on the results of the survey, on-site conservation measures may be
required
The City Attorney acknowledged the receipt of these and other letters from area residents and .
stated the City's opinion that we agree that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared
for this project. The staff report of record was then presented and the pUblic hearing was
opened. The following represents a combined view of issues identified by public speakers
during the hearing:
TraffidCirculation Issues:
· Increased traffic on OePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
. OePortola Road should not be four-lanes wide
· Access from OePortola is not wanted by area residents, if required by City it should be
gated for emergency access only
. Access from Oartola should be in Phase I of the project
. All of Pio Pico south of OePortola should be vacated
. Emergency room should be relocated
Noise Issues:
· Increased traffic will lead to increased noise levels
· Helipad and helicopter use will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
. Provide sound walls to mitigate traffic noise
Aesthetics:
. The hospital towers are too tall and not consistent in the area, views will be lost
· Windows will reflect too much light and create glare
.
Hvdroloav and Groundwater:
. Due to increased runoff resulting from this project, a storm water plan should be
prepared
. Contamination from underground storage tanks may pose a threat to groundwater if the
contamination plume is moving. Once paved or built upon, this will be difficult to track.
These and other issues will be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report that will be
prepared for this project. The EIR will include the full project scope, Alternatives to the
proposed project, discussion of impact areas, responses to all public comments received during
the public review period, Mitigation Measures, and supporting studies.
.
S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~..~
,,~"to
[ *~I
$.'-.lIJ/A .9
">. -.,.
~1tDFe>>Jf~-
. Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Governor
Sean Walsh'
Director
April5,2005
_----\_.::1~
-, ' nfl \r' !
I' \ r';-:J f,' 1,- 1,1 I"~; \i.l !\"\
"~ r \ ',I I _, " i '.:'. 1\ {
\1:1: !\!;
[I ':, APR 1 1 2005 i'; ':\
I:::! ,..-1;
fU .1
l~:.iV --::-. :;-::=:-.:";=:=-=-,=-:_-::.--:::-::..:.:.:::-.~
Dan Long
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Planriing Applications Nos. P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDO-X);
PA04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and P A04-057 I Tenta
SC1I#: 200503]017
Dear Dan Long:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Deciaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on April 4, 2005, and no state agencies submitted conunents by that date.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (9]6) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named projec~ please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
.;:;~
Terry Roberts
Director, State Clearinghouse
.
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CAUFORNIA 95812-3044
. TEL (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.cagov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH#
Project nUe
Lead Agency
2005031017
Planning Applications Nos. PA04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (PDO-X);
PA04-0463 Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit and PA04-0571 Tenta
Temecula, City of
e
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-X) Development Plan,
Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a request to
eliminate the specific plan area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings
along Hwy 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change)he zoning from Professional
Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overtay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed PDO-X allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof
areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Permit is a request to
construct approximately 565,260 sf of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness
rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight
lots into one parcel.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Dan Long
Agency City of Temecula
Phone (951) 694-6400
email
Address
City
Fax
43200 Business Park Drive
T emecu/a
State CA Zip 92590
Project Location
County Riverside
City T emecula
Region
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township
N. of Hwy. 79 South / De Portola Road / Margarita Road
920-100-001 through 013
Range
.
Section
Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1-15, Hwy. 79 S
Airports NfA
Railways None
Waterways Temecula Creek
Schools Sparkman ES, Rancho Community (private scliool under construction
Land Use Vacant
Z: Professional OffICe and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B)
GP: ,Professional Office
Project Issues AestheticIVisual; Air Quality; ArchaeoJogjc-Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Landuse;
Noise; Other Issues; PopulationfHousing Balance; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil
Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality
Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Department of Parks and
Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of
Emergency Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 6;
Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Callrans, District 8; Department of Toxic
Substances Control; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
.
Dale Received 03/04/2005
Start of Review 03/04/2005
End of Review 04/04/2005
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
REC~IVED:. 4/ 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 2
'.';
, .
. '
"
\
. ~
':'.1'
, ,
,
"
,
.
'. 1
,.
,
:
"
,
1
"
"
,
i
r
~
,
i
,
."
!)
k
l
t
I.
f
APR-06-2005 14:06
BEST, BEST KRI EGER
909 682 1832
.
. ;
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
A CAUf'CIlIIHIA. UMITED UUlUT"t ~~~IP INCLUDIMO PR0f'E83ICtw. CO"f'OAA'TlOHB
lAWYERS
3750 UNIVERSI1Y' AVENUE.
POST oma: BOX 1020
RIVERSIDE, CALlFORI'rlIA 02502-1028
(9511 &B1I5-1450
(Q51) 88&.3083 "AX
BBKlAW.COM
SACRAMDm)
(D I 0'3260.4000
IHDIAN WELLS
c7eo) 50S-ae I I
SAN Draw
te l;in 5Z5"1 300
ONTARIO
ceoQl Q09-BSe4
OIWlGE COUNTY
'040) 2e3-Zeoo
(,
ls.u.vAllO?l M. s..&.AzAR
!,SA~VADO~.S""""""@BBKl.AW.COM
:'
i
~
,
April 6, 2005
I
{
I
(
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Dan Long
Associate Planner
City ofTemecu!a Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
,
i
1
j,
i
I.
,
t
RE:
COMMENTS ON JruuAL STUDY AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA04-046%, PA04-1463, AND
PA04-0571 (UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, HOSPITAL
PROJECT)
Dear Mr. Long:
This law firm represents Brad and Nicole Stonnon, owners of a single family residence
located on the northeast comer of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road directly across the street
from the northerly boundary of the proposed Universal Health Services Hospital development
project (''Project''). The Stormon's are in receipt of the City of Temecula's Notice of Intent to
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and have retained us to assist them in
reviewing the potential impacts of this P(oject on the environment, their residence and
neighborhood.
While the Stormon's do not object to the construction of a hospital on the subject site,
they want to be asS]1fed that the proposed deviations from the existing general plan and zoning
designations necessitated by the increased intensity of the Project do not cause unmitigated
impacts to the environment. To that end, the Stormon's have attended most of the neighborhood
meetings held by the City and/or developer of the Project. They have become quite familiar with
the Project and all of its components. In fact, the Stonnon's have seven! times voiced their
concerns about the Project to City staff and representatives of the hospital. Although they were
informed that their concerns would be addressed in the environmental documents for the Project,
they have reviewed the Initial Study and found it to contain significant gaps in information or
inadequate analysis.
RVPUB\sALV ADOR.SALAZAR\690947.3
P.02
RECEIVED:' 4/ 6/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 3
" "
":',~ :
'.1, l'
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
9139 682 1832
APR-B6-2005 14:07
(
,
, LAW OffICES or
i BEST BEST lit KRIEGER
I
}
!
j,
i
;
LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 2
I
"
:.'
I
!
(
I
While the Stormon's believe that their specific concerns about the adverse traffic, noise,
air quality and aesthetic impacts from the Project may be alleviated with: (1) the construction of
solid fencing along their property frontage (to screen noise, olock exhaust and screen light and
glare); and (2) the installation of traffic calming devices, signs or structures along Pio Pico Road
(to slow traffic coming south fromPio Pico Road to access the northerly portion of the Hospital
and minimize U-turn traffic by drivers who miss the single DePorto]a driveway entrance to the
hospital) none of these mitigation measures were identified or discussed in the Initial Study or
included ,in the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan prepared for the project. Failure to
discuss these feasible mitigation measures renders both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
mitigation monitoring and reporting plan deficient. We have set forth, the Stormon's
conclusions in more detail below.
,
~.
;.
i'
i'
)
DEFICIENCIES IN THE INlTI~L STUDY
f
"
;
!
.'
;
I
I. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PIO PICO ROAD.
I
r
f
The failure to discuss potential environmental impacts may result in an inadequate
environmental docwnent. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Momecito Water Diat.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4d1 396.) The Initial Study notes that the Project will generate 11 ,458
vehicle trips per day with 865 trips oecuning during the A.M. peak period and 929 trips
occurring during the PM. peak period. The Initial Study and Traffic Analysis assign 78% of the
vehicle trips to Highway 79 (South) and 22% of the trips to DePortola Road. (Initial Study at p.
33.) The Traffic Analysis also "evaluated all of the intersections on Highway 79 South between
the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road
and DePortola Road." (Initial Study at pp. 33.) Inexplicably, however, no vehicle trips were
assigned to Pio Pico Road and the intersection ofPio Pico Road and DePortola Road was not one
of the intersections studied in the Traffic Analysis. (Sect. ]5063 ["State CEQA Guidelines").)
We understand that the traffic engineer retained by the Project proponents! believes that
no assignment of trips to Pio Pico Road is necessary because traffic will nol use primarily
residential streets to access the hospital. However, there is already a significant amount of traffic
that comes from the residents in the northerly areas of the City of Temecula that use Margarita
Road and then cut south to Pio Pico Road. These conditions will be exacerbated because persons
coming from the northerly portions of the City to the Hospital will find it easier to bypass most
of the traffic accessing the Hospital from Margarita Road and instead enter the Hospital complex
from the driveway located off DePortola Road. Indeed, it appears from looking at a map of the
City that a large portion of its population base is located north of the Hospital with easy access to
Margarita Road as a means to travel south in the City.
i
.l
i
~
j'
I
,
I
~
1 Additionally, we nOle thai while the City may utilize information prepared by the Project proponent, the City must
find that the environmental analysis refleclS the City's independent judgment. (See, e.g., Stare CEQA Guidelines, ~
15074.)
RVP\JB\S.ALV ADOR.SAl.AZAll.\6!lO!>47.~
P.03
'. ~"(['
(~\Ir..'l~
. 1~~.",lLl
, ~/,~~: ,
. '1,1'1\~ ,~'
:.I.~.'"
\: ',ff;',
. ',~', .
.',:'AIt"" .
:.1,'
..~ / '
";:I'~'~~
:;','\i!!!l
,"y,,'
," \ll"~'
, r(>',"
'r I~~::';"
",:l",:'~,
k'r,~.- 'l
I\'~."~~"
'; ';~~,;lif~f I
' .... ~ ,':' ;
~lr,t" I
. iJl:"',)
I .1:'.,,\ i:
;".;~;...:~~~
" .... .
. :"~'{~.J
.'.~~ ,i'~S~
~. .v', .
. ,f:...... '~'r
"(,"(\.:].1
,.."r.,.. ._....
...':'1.( 1
::..t;;:..,: .;
,< ..",~ I - _j
~ '. 'i~';"'~'i 'W
"...J',(I\
. .~~I~\~j
" ~'.\:/.~'
. """'I!!i
,~ . n:;v:~'\~ .
" ,j~' ,
".'" \
r....I..'f.j ,
. ;,i'h...,
'. I~\'"
. t'~':",,,
. ,. ~
:....'
. .:.;.~,w
,>~;(;,~ ~
':"{~2~:t:1" -..-
, . ..-..",
, . .'>"">',
:'. Jt:/~"I
.'," I'"
, "'JJ"
" ,':""7",..-
, ,":,'(w it,...
, .' ::l"~. ::;;
. ,:.;,:f::r'~,J ~
~.,;.; ,.~., '"
I 't.~~, : I "J
,,'1\;'''11~, r.-.JI
"''''.,': .
:~.:.:' I ~
,. :'1:; "
,,,,,,'/11.1.
." 11""'1
, .' ,), '~",
.. ~,l ,I,,~~
. ,I' ~ I' ,,"'"
"'d"" 'tj"~'
, '~.;."..'~"
. :1,' ;:~ ,.tt.'j '-
..~ . "I' '...
. ",.~ ',. r. ;;
. ,1":..
. :1,"
.', .
:: .
,,'
, ~.:/t l(
, r':,'~{:
. .' :'~'\I'
:to ....
" " ';.,':.l'
'" . :<'/~.1.1..
'. /. ! ~ '
"/"'"
. '~, ~.t..
, ,~. , " .
,.f;!I~ o!~.- -
. '.,:,',:\'i:
:1'::1';(,
';"I.~I'~r:l
:,.," ilJl
" '.',n
'. "-'~
REC~IVEO:' 41 B/05 2:02PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 4
: j,
ei
, 1
I,
\
!
i:
. ,
el.
i
,
.
-
'. .
APR-06-2005 14:07
BEST. BEST KR IEGER
909 682 1832
. LAW OrncES Of'
; ,BEST BEST &. KRIEGER LLP
,
City ofTemecula., Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 3
..
.
Given these street conditions, the Stormon's request that the Traffic Analysis be amended
to: (1) include a study of the intersection of DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road; and (2) study the
reassignment of vehicle trips that would travel south beginning at the intersection Margarita
Road to Pio Pico Road. After the Tmffic Analysis is revised, at a minimum, the City should
recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration for an additional comment period. (State CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15073.5.)
2, THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING IMPACTS TO THE EQUESTRJAN USES
PeRMmED IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
;
.
i
:
j,
,
,
(
.
As you know, the Los Ranchitos Property Owners Association maintains several
equestrian trail easements for the use of property owners in the area surrounding the proposed
project. These trails constitute an established land use that serves to connect communities which
may be adversely impacted by the Project's construction and operation. One of the trails is
located along De Portola Road. The De Portola trail is accessed by a north-south trailloeated on
the east side of the Stormon's property. While these equestrian easements are not identified as
"equestrian trails" in the City ofTemecula's General Plan, they exist through recorded easements
and are frequently used by local property owners. In addition, the City of Temecula has
implicitly recognized the importance of these trails by requiring the Project to construct a trail
along the westerly portion of the Project. The Initial Study, however, fails to identify the trail
access as an issue and lacks any discussion of impacts to the use of these equestrian trails from
Project-generated traffic, especially traffic using Pio Pico Road to access the north side of the
Project.
3. THE INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FROM NOISE SOURCES
AssOCIATE/) WITH THE PROJECT, Bur OMITS DISCUSSION OF SOME SOURCES A/'lD DOES NOT
IDENTIn MITIGA,110N MEASURES 1'0 REDUCE THE NOISE FROM OTHER SOURCES TO LESS TlL4N
SlGNlFIC4NT LE'/IELS.
"
,
..
i
,
.
I
.
The Initial Study notes that the Project will include a heliport. (Initial Study pp. 26-27.)
The Initial Study also identifies development standards that are applicable to the installation of
heliports. However, none of these development standards include specific noise standards for
heliports. Further, the Initial Study does not discuss: (I) the anticipated frequency of use of the
heliport; (2) the anticipated noise levels associated with the heliport; or (2) the potential noise
impacts to surrounding properties.
In addition, the Initial Study notes that "there will be temporary noise levels in excess of
the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during
peak traffic periods." (Initial Study at pp. 27) While the Initial Study notes that these noise
levels will be temporary in nature, there is no discussion concerning how the City can permit
noise levels in excess of those identified in the General Plan. CEQA defines a "significant effect
on the environment" as "a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any physical
conditions within the area affected by the project including... ambient noise...." Temporary
I-
i
,
,
.
i
.
/.
1
r
f.
.
RVPUBISALV ADOR.SAl-AZ/o.RI690!l47..
P.04
RECEIVED:' 4/ 6/05 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 5
"
..'
APR-06-2005 14:08
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
j'BEST
~
LAW .........-..... OF
BEST 5. KRIEGER LLP
I
!
\
City of Temecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page ~
!
l'
i
.
1
.,
r
,
.
impacts can be significant adverse impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR if mitigation is
not implemented. (No Oil, Inc. v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,85 ["Although the duration
of an environmental effect is one of many facts which affect its significance, nothing in [CEQA]
suggests that short-term effects cannot be of such significance as to require an EIR."].)
Permitting noise levels in excess of those authorized in the City's General Plan would constitute
a "significant effect on the environment".
!
,
.
"
l
,
Finally, we note the discussion on page 27 of the Initial Study which appears to
suggest that because the City Council adopted a Statement of Oveniding Considerations (SOC)
for noise as part of the adoption of the EIR for the 1993 General Plan, the SOC can be used to
override any noise impacts from the current Project. [We note also that this same discussion
occurs with respect to significant air quality impacts.] First, the City cannot rely on a statement
of overriding considerations prepared for another project. The court in Communities for a Better
Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 126 Cal.Rptr.2d. 441, clearly held that,
"[e]ven though a prior EIR's analysis of environmental effects may be subject to being
incorporated in a later EIR for a later, more specific project, the responsible public officials must
still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its
significant unavoidable impacts." Thus, a public agency may prepare a negative declaration that
tim off of a previous EIR; however, a negative declaration is in"""..."riate where any of the
project's impacts are significant and unavoidable. If any of the project's impacts are significant
and unavoidable the agency must prep arc an EIR and adopt a statement of overriding
considerations specifically for that project.
,
,
\
~
I
I
Second, this "{".v..ch is inapplicable where, as here, the project is not consistent
with the 1993 General Plan. Indeed, the Project requires a general plan amendment and zone
change in order to develop the Project in the manner and intensity proposed. For your reference,
we point your attention to Section 15162( e) of the CEQA Guidelines which provides that
"[TJiering shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the I!eneral plan and
zoning of the city ... in which the project is located...." (CEQA Guidelines, ~ 15152(e).)
Therefore, it is inappropriate for the City to use the SOC from the 1993 General Plan EIR to
simply override the noise and air quality impacts identified for the Project.
j'
i
1
,
4. THE LACK OF ANY ANALYSIS CONCERNING VISUAL AND .A&uu:,uC IMPACTS TO
THEIR PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN 11lE NEIGHBORHOOD.
1
,
"
The Initial Study notes that the project will include various buildings and a hospital
structure that includes towers of five and six stories (106' in height). It further notes that
"[W]hile the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is
'.
, The City is cunently in the process of significantly revising its General Plan yet it appears that this Initial
Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared tiering off of the 1993 Ge.nenl Plan IllR. The Sronnon's
are very coneemed about the City's use of that EIR as it would be inappropriate to tier off of an environmental
document that is no longer accurate. Additional analysis should be conducted to derennine wbether Or not the
Project 1$ consistent with the new GeZ1CraJ Plan.
.
.,
t
}
, RVPUBISALVAPOJl.5^U\ZARI6\lO\l47.3
P.05
" "'\"
.. :~. ~JI'"
. I''''ir.
.: 1,'::..':/
" \: ..,~
~ l~ v:.t. "
,'If lit "
, . {~:~
. J~'~t
. :"~..'I,.
1 -"11"\",\:
. Jr',"f,
" '''~''''''
'....i,"~
.,;0,",',
, ,:), (11
, '( 1>,',
: ,,:l;-'ru~,
1 :"'~"; ~~
",1")1 I,
.. V" I ,~~
'. ",,1'
.' ..\ :'~'i~.
. "~">'",: t:
,\t,):. ,
, :; "~"'~.'
".,,"., :~'l';
.. ~,:' ','"
'....\,'Ir,..l!
I <:;~"'.
, . '''~
II",.
I ....-Z
,,'!'!..:.".i:'"
: ".:' ;':X'~ .
. '::1.~:~ ~~, f
j~'1\:;~~ -
I' " . ~.. 'I
, "'\Jt,"I.".t.:=:I
, "', .. ...lI
"'J' .;r.l!U _
; V..::i ...
. :!.,': .'~'.
.: :','~~i') ~
~':'~~''''\ ~
\ ,\ .t',' :.~ ..
....v;tH...
AI" ,'~{; ."..
...,.}t'~..} ~
., . ,f.~,,, 'lI
_ I '.','l\l:I-
. lit \. '.~,>rH-~
,~, _,,_, ~-
"".\ :1,', J~
.,' ,.
.: .~, ~ ~
.' v, "t;r.,..,
. ,/1."1", ..,
. ,:', ~""....#,'Vi
~"1JIj
I .ff,;
," .
,t;.:~:;'4}' ~
.~I 7"", oj
:\ :-;.~,~ ..
'::'.I~I"~.::'
I ',f;i~. -
" i','"
. '1,:1,'.y.
'. "~l'..'..,:!...
'I ':.;I.~~'f'
, , ~:!~~ ,/J
. ...it"A~
. ,':~.:tl:! =t
",I \~ k'..
....,10 . ~-!,'
. " .;....;\0;.
',\,'..tIP:
,"',...! :'
..,~:..:~~';
'~':.''''A.lll -
'.:.\~f"l'~
. ,'p J'j"
\~.,1!;.,,~'
. .' ." (~tf~ ~--
, ,\ ,\ , "
.,''''' \ ~ :1, :
.'../" '
~";~.'I:t~I'I,.
......'.\.1
.,' :-I"H'
. :' \ t.~, "~
, .~,l,.l,.;;
'iJ'1o,,:' ')-
.. ',,:,...
, ;":':"\"'-'
,~, v. ':~ j
'I' ;.; '.'''' q
..,oJ '" _"'lI
.' .1 .1.1;, ~
. . ~1\(,'II~' .
" t. "'1""~~'" '"
, . 'I >:'iLf. :
, 'ftl\;.r~. ~
"",..l: 'I"
. ....,',
:,'.,
"I, ~
. '.
,\'. '1';1
, , :~~, .
.{ .: 1/ ,~
.,....
':V ~:jj
.: ,,,, 'H', ~,;. ~~
I' 1\oI',~fl'
"..,,(~~ ",J, "
..... ,,,'
REC,EIVEO:, 4/ B/OS 2:03PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; 11814; PAGE e
,
I
I lAW OFI'ICES OF'
I, BEST BEST & KRIEGER
:.~,
"
,-
l'
,
I'
,
i
-
APR-06-200S 14:08
BEST,BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Deparnnent
April 6, 2005
PageS
anticipated because views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit"
(Initial Study at p.3.) However, this statement does not absolve the City from analyzing the
aesthetic and visual impacts on SUJTOunding residential properties of constructing a six-story
building. There can be no doubt that the visual character of the area will be significantly affected
with the construction of 106-foot tall structure in the immediate vicinity of a' residential
neighborhood. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Montecito Water Disr. (2004) 116
Cal.App.4lh 396 [concern of local residents regarding aesthetic impacts may establish substantial
evidence to support a fair argument that a project has II significant adverse impact on aesthetics);
The.Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 2004 Cal.App. LBXIS 2074 [lay opinion
may be substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts).) Dismissing the analysis simply because the
views are not legally protected does not comply with the requirements of CEQA. (State CEQA
Guidelines, ~ 15063; see also Prolecl the Historic Amador Waterways v. AmadoI' Water Agency
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4lh 1099 [stating that the lead agency must consider every fair argument that
can be made about a possible significant environmental effect, even if the project already meets
established thresholds).) The conclusions reached in the initial study must be based on some
evidence. (Ibid.) Entries on a checklist or other fOIm should be briefly explained to indicate the
basis for determinations. (Citizens iss 'n for Sensible Development v. County of lnyo (1985) 172
Cal.App. 3d 151, 171.)
In addition, the discussion concerning the mitigation of glare impacts does not discuss
whether the purported mitigation measure requiring all windows above the second floor to be
glazed and/or tinted will in fact reduce the impacts of glare to less than significant levels.
,
).
(
I
!:
;'
I
I
1
,
"
I
I,
1.
,.
RVPUBISALV AOOR.SALAzARl6m47.3
P.06
RECEIVED: 4/ 6/06 2:03PM; ->CJ:TY OF TEMECULA; 1#814; PAGE 7
f,
y
,
"
,
,
.
i
I
,
,
;
.
!. i
I
,
l
,
.
:'
!
I
i
i
I.
I
I
L
1"-
,
I
i.
'.
.
i
I
I
!
.
.:
,
I
I
.
t
(.
)i
.
\'
f
APR-I'l6-2005 14:08
BEST. BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
lJiNI Y'- .-..........i 0"
. BEST BEST 5. KRIEGER LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 6
,
r
'i
I:
i
!
P
f
CONCLUSION
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study for this project. For the
reasons set forth above and additional reasons listed in the attachment to this letter, the Initial
Study does not adequately address the proposed impacts from the Project. In other cases, the
Initial Study is missing significant infot'lllation required by law or identifies significant impacts
without mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. Ai; a result, the
City of Temecula should consider preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR.) for the
Project.
. alazar, AICP
ST & KRIEGER lLP
SMS:mxm
Cc: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director
Brad & Nicole Stot'lllon
RVPOlllSALV AllOR.SALAZAR\690947.3
REC~IVEO: 41 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 8
APR-06-200S 14:09
BEST.BEST KRIEGER
909 6821832
, LAW OFRCES OF
j BEST BEST & KRIEGER
.r
. :
, l'
~
1
,
I
;'
i
I'
!
.;
, .
,
j
I
,
.(
. .
i,\' }' ,
~ ,~. "
";".f_, .
LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 7
I,
~ '
I.
:-
,
,
I'
.
,
EXHmIT TO LETTER TO CITY OF TEMECULA
,
,
~
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcr REpORT
,
i
The California En\.;.v.uuental Quality Act (CEQA) generally requires preparation of anEIR.
when it can be fairly argued, based on substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that a
project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal.Code of Regs. T.itle 14, Division
6, Chapt. 3, Sect. 15064.) If substantial evidence of significant impacts is presented, the lead
.agency must prepare an Em., even though it may be presented with other substantial evidence
that a project would not have significant impacts. (Ibid.)
1. MND Not Annronriate For The Proiect
CEQA Section 15070 (a) states that
,
I
f
.
:
I
Decision to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration of CEQA
requiru thaJ an MND may be prepared when the initial study
shows that there Is no substantial evidence. in light of the whole
record before the agency. that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
Section ISa-c of the City of Temecula Initial Study for this project indicates that the Traffic
Impact Analysis has identified several roadways and intersections improvements that when
implemented could result in a Level of Service (LOS) of D or better in the study area
intersections. As stated in the Initial Study, a LOS of D or better mayor may not be achievable.
However, the roadway intersections upon implementation of the mitigation measures may still
have a significant effect on the environment.
"
"
,
,.
2.
Water 8unnlv Assessment Reauirement:
,
,
;
The Project does not comply with the water supply assessment requirements of California Water
Code section 10910(a). Sectionl0910(a) provides:
Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in
Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act. . . unde,. Section 21080 of the Public ResOurces Code shall
comply with this part.
California Water Code section 10912(a)(2) further provides:
RYl'l.I1l\SALV AOOJl.SAV.ZAR\690947.J
P.08
. .,r....
'.:.1,;.. II,
,''f'l':t't
",.";(". '
'A'\',,,: *'
.' ~ ' ."
,,' '''''ll
. .~.,'~M
4.d.,,)V~;
. ..,.t",
"':""1
'jtl,~"
: '~:'>..~r.~.1
""!I(.;r,1
.:.:~' :t..,
, ,,' 'I~'
It,,""
'.' \~ ,'" l~
. '~I', 4:~.'tt;f
. ~. \.' tJ!l
". I. ,
, 'I.'
',.;.(','t
, . ,'Il': '(tJ_
. " 't.i:-
..,I 'o,
'1"\ .:,'
: :\t;\t" .
, ,.
. \ \~ ::.f'l~ ..
~ ' ': . ;"'/.
. ' 'l.t~'J!~
" "fl,'
. ~ {.;.j'/" ". -
.~\,... ~
,. '::,r~l,l'':~
. " ~...,'~
: ). 1'\I~.',
;. ~;j:..~..t ~.'
.. """'1
'::':"';'1
.',' "~'."~' -
......j..
. ,',':.,. ~f., " -
: ..,'.:-:; l"~
t' ';?"~' .
, ',,,'" "~I,'" :'II
I, "')'~:JI ~
':.' "'f{'f,;U
. ",'''~'~!i ./II
, , ,\"'... I-~
....:\:1"<.. .1
, 'd '. ;:l!
, ....,.'{,,:')I'.:I
," I '''i"~ '
.1, '- ~l' r "
".\,'J:t-. 4
. ll', ~.. ~....
...:,:,)!~~~'~ ."
,<I:',.ll
'. 'It ,"It '
" .:~~::.\",
,', ' ''''l:;1 ,
....1..,,:>)~..
'~" ,~1.',
~.",
, (~"':,o; ,''': ~
,"\!'r..~
, /11";.1"
, ': t{.1':~' .
:'.,\/t:,..... {.'
> ..''1''
'. . ...:'!'II.".,: .
.' '1";'> '~,.. -
:,~:~...,.. .
.'~' 1
,:' '.~, I ~
.\. ,'''.
, ;,:. ?~;::e'~.
, ......~:'l
'J, .J~""'." ,
"ili;l:~~ .
. \' ",,"'l~-
, ., 'c'...~'
,'..J. ,6,':
. I;"";~~"I.;I
,.,.,,,,:,,,.t< _]
> >,.,,,t..,, :Jj
.,'.,:'.".. -;
I ~ \.', '! .
',','~,,:,:' "~ .tt
"':':i,7-~"''!
'\~':,~~" , .i
,.,,' QJ
. ~ ~ .:r:t"-~
. ',." .
.1,";" ,~l if
".' ;k~ '3.
, .""1"'"
, '\,-3
," "llll
. '.,V, ~
I ,,' '~~ :,'; -iJ
,::\,.,(,(,. .,
........~l!1l ...
. '~ ~.,t f~ 'j
, "nj~l".t.. iii
"'-\'1t.: ~
, '.'Ii,~~ . ,i' ?
. , .... ~,~I~'-;::
.'(r~ -l~::.. Yl "1
"V', '"...
. ,,',/"'11'"
," f "~ -' '..
...'17,
. . r" ;,\ '{, "":!
.'..' '~t ":':'~:i :
.. {'" ,I. .
.c :.(',,,-;
. > ~:.;,.\U ~,-.i
, ~" I~:; ,r'-:',i ~
: >:;:, I:\,;",;;'f(~ .:
RECEIVED: 4/ 6/05 2:04PM; ~>CITY OF TEMECULA; #814; PAGE 9
APR-06-2005 14:09
BEST.BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
I LAW OFPICES OF
. BEST BEST lit KRIEGER LLP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 8
i'
~
\
,
f,
1-
l'
!
t
,
~
"Project" means ... A proposed . . . business establishment
employing. . . having more than 500.000 square feet of floor
space. (Emphasis added)
According to the Initial Study, the Project proposes the construction of "....~"..;...ately 568.000
square feet of hospital and office commercia/land uses. Therefore, a water supply assessment
should be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study notes that a ''will serve letter" will be
submitted for the Project. However, such letters do not indicate whether there is sufficient water
supply to meet the long-term needs of the Project. Only a water supply assessment can provide
that infollllation. Additionally, the water supply assessment must be included in the
ell\;'~_ental document. (Wat. Code, ~ 10911.)
I
;.
I
:'
3. Mitil!ation Measures Must be Definite and Certain To Reduce the Imnacts
i'
I
,
I
l
I'
I
f
"
.
,
(
"
I
California courts have consistently held that studies cannot be deferred. Moreover, standards
and criteria to be met in carrying out mitigation must be articulated at the time of project
'"J:'l'w..al. (See generally, Sundstrom v. County ofMendonclno (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, and
Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado (1990) 225 Cal. App.3d 872.) Several
portions of the Initial Study indicate that future studies will be prepared to identify the mitigation
m............that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. However, the Initial Study does
not identify the criteria or performance standards that these future studies must meet. For
example, the Initial Study notes that future studies will be prepared on the following items:
A. Page 2 Section I.d. This section refers to outdoor lighting and its impacts to the
adjoining residential properties. The Initial Study proposed as a mitigation
measure that a photometric plan be prepared in the future to determine the
adequate lighting levels for the entire site. This photometric study must identify
means to mitigate light. However, in the event the mitigation measures cannot
mitigate the impacts identified it will be too late to redesign the project to reduce
the impacts because the project would have been substantially completed.
Page 2 Section l.d.e. This section is recommending, among other things, the
installation of a solid wall with acoustic attenuation in on:ler to screen aesthetic
impacts. This acoustic solid wall may have an even greater negative aesthetic
impact than impacts it seeks to mitigate because the height and location of the
solid wall could be as high as 10 or 15 feet in order to attenuate noise generated
by the project.
Page 9 Mitigation/Condition of '"J:'I"U /alletter J. This condition indicates that the
applicant shall verify in writing that all earth moving equipment are properly
tuned. However, the condition fails to indicate when and how often such
verification should occur. Additionally, this condition indicates that the
RVPUB'SALV AIlOR.SAU.ZAIl\690947.3
r
P.09
REceIVED: 41 6/05 2:04PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; *814; PAGE 10
APR-06-2005 14:09
BEST, BEST KR IEGER
909 682 1832
, LAW OFl'lCES OF
t BEST BEST lI. KRIEGER LLP
.
,
, . t City ofTemecula, Planning Department
, . ~, April 6, 2005
Page 9
;
~1
" l'
;.. )'
I,
.
,
J
i,
.
f.
, ..
:. ,I
"
. ,
, "
, .'
"l' Q
t
t
~.
construction equipment should be deployed considering the lowest emission
factor. This condition is vague and does not identify the ........_...:ate party that
would decide what should be the lowest emission factor.
\
.
i
!
D. Page 13. Section 4 ic. This section requires a focused survey to determine
impacts to the Burrowing Owl. This study should be prepared prior to the
......'_ ,'a1 of the Project. However, in order to have a successful passive relocation
the owls must have an area where to relocate. Therefore, we recommend that the
focused study determine the areas where the owls would be relocated.
Furthennore, Page 12, sections 4.a.c.d. This section incorrectly refers to the
California Department of Fish and Game as the US Department of Fish and
Game. Further, this section indicates that a focused survey following standard
protocols shall be performed to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bells
Vireo. This requirement defers the survey until after Project approval and is
m...,...u...:ate because the Planning Commission andlor City Council will not be
able to make an infonned decision concerning impacts to the Least Bell's Vireo.
The City should prepare and EIR and consult with the Deparnnent of Fish and
Game as required in State CEQA Guidelines section 15086.
.
..
,
"
~
I'
;
,\
.
"
.
4. Analvtical Gans in the MND
\
f
Page S, section 2(0), This section states that "the proposed project could, because of its regional
significant cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use." This
impact is significant unless mitigation is identified. (See, e.g., Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine
(2004) 119 CaI.App.4t11 1261.) There is no explanation for 1he conclusion that "the conversion of
these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project:'
Page 7 Table 2. Vie are unclear as to whether the air quality analysis also considers emissions
from helicopters?
Page 14. The Initial Study fails to discuss whether ilie Project complies with S.B. 18. S,B 18
requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan, the City must conduct
consultations with Califomia Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified
places, features, and objects that are located within the City's jurisdiction.
Page 17, section 6(a)(vii). Mitigation measure vii should specific how the air quality impacts are
reduced.
l
t
i
j
~
i'
.
~
-
;
'!
Page 18, section 6(e). The Initial Study fails to specify which sewer system will be used for the
Project. In addition, the Initial Study does not indicate the existing capacity of the sewer system.
There is no analysis to support the conclusion that the current sewer system and waste ;"~..;"..ent
facilities are adequate to acco~odate the Project.
Page 19, section 7 (a), (b) and (c). This section indicates that the Project is not anticipated to emit
RVPUBISALV ADOIUALAZAR'490947.~
P.10
....J..,.!
"\)'~'"
',' ~:\~ "1
1.1,"',i1ij.
""~'h'
, ~~' .'"
""."
'. t!,~' . r
. .:~'\~tr,i.'
"i-~ ~.~
" "'M
"~
/",' .Of
, " 'rl~ '
.\',; ":'i.r~" .
, ',,,.,,-l
. ~ ",I, ~C'...
"""::"~II'
" \ :"I~''t-ti -~
" I ~ \ II' ,I'i
, "', _.'~-
'. '0'.\'';'1.
., :''1''('1''
.....\:;~I:'
"-'l"" -
,'"lo.lr.
\,I.',..
,,_'1' '~
1..\"'.;'.
. .' I. "'f~' . _
\ '),~ .t~ ... "
. '\~' 'L.~,'
'r' ""fie
..'.,.. "'~' .
, "11':,"
'J' "I....lll
~~ ',I?:
.~. ,';r~ ~".
" /:':'':'',..'1~
. . ',::.... ~,~ .
".t"t.
.-: ;:':f~
.1.':....'-
. '.. -.:~ -
", '.,'v'f: .
, I, .,J",'"
. " '..:'..~~.: -
, :,",}.'1':"
?,.t',:i;. -.
, ".1'1'.'
~ .~. .'
',\\'\f."
:. \,'U::~
',.I.:'~,:1:1 -_
'''\'''f'
. ,.....4:',,:
. ~. .!~~t"'jI~ -'
':':'".11,',
,~,t, 'l~~'~
.. ',,\ ~ -
'.""1,1',,
.~. ,~;
'. .b~. .r
..' rl '\i
. 1'~rt'l
. ,~"I.,~~..,'~--
',' ,'~'"
. : l'~' y .'
.' .\ ~,...' ~',
. :~. . ! I~. -
" ,,'" .~, i~' J
;". 'I'''''~\'
l.,/",j,; .
I.'" ~.' .
. '1', I' ..',-
'~. \'.t~
~"" -"".
,', ~. ~~l~l.i
. ,ti;.,....if.i-
'.''''''1'1., ,iii:
.".....'..'.1 '
, .'1,1.,...
~,'" ,\ .:'1:
: I :~;l.~'
. t . ~I'" ..1'!t.:
. .~ ~ ':-"~1;-
',r, h"t "
1".,,, '''I
:", :~I~'
":"'''~' "
.. ,~....t
. '.~::~!,,:;
':""I.r,
.. ", :.....I\~ .
. .',,~ \t .,
, ': ''''4'\
':1':'
, ,'~ : 1~; ,
. r,.i : J~\
\.,"::'1:"
~' .""t<'
, . ~::.;1IJ\t
" '," ,1
',"'('l- -
, \' ':',~;":II ",
: " ~..;,t -
\,\".
': ";1" .
:! ~':~n> l'
',"1,1", .
,.1.., " '. l~!'"
". " ~., ....
".:0"'}.;"1
. ""I/~r qr .
. . <,:1, '.J
1-'....;.'1\/
.t'l."'!~:":N'
, . "'1 ~ iSl) -
. ' ,,.:";:.:. I: -
; ':...\'~,,:,/
L'(. "':t,
,;. t '1f.'\~t~~r.:, -
..
,
l
t
(.
~
.
"
,
I
, ,
. :..
','I."
" .
'J.,'. ':,
I': ,
" ",
:.~:' ~ '"
AEC~IVED: 41 6/05 2:05PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULAi #814; PAGE 11
APR-I36-2005 14: 10
BEST.BEST KRIEGER
909 682 1832
f LAW.................,,;.... OF'
f BEST' BEST & KRltGER
"
"
"
i
r
:
UP
City ofTemecula, Planning Department
April 6, 2005
Page 10
,
..
"
.
!
,
"
substantial emissions or have any impacts from the use of hazardous materials. However, the
disc:ussion fails. to indicate what are substantial emissions or whether the
storageJhandlingltransportation of hazardous materials is only for the hospital or whether the
hospital would become a regional facility for the disposal/storage of hazardous materials.
Additionally, the mitigation measure indicates that the applicant is required to submit to staff an
approved hazardous materials storage/transportation plan. The analysis does not identifY which
staff member is the responsible party and whether they are qualified to make this determination.
Page 24, section 9(b). This section indicates that the proposed Project is consistent with the
General Plan because the site is designated for such uses as hospital and medical offices.
However, the analysis does not address the fact that the t"~I'~.ed project is 300% larger than the
hospital and medical facilities that are pennitted under the current land use and zoning
designation. This analysis is inconsistent with the with the City's adopted and Draft General
PIan.
I,
"
r
.
.
1,
.
!:
.
Goal I of the current and Draft General Plan states that the City wants a complete and
inte~.....,J mix of residential, commercial. . .land uses. The Policy, which is the implementing
mechanism for this goal, requires the City to review all proposed development plans for
consistency with the community goals, policies and implementation programs of the City's
General Plan. Further, 1able 2-9 which is the mechanism that guides the policy, currently notes
that to achieve compatible/complementary commercial and residential uses all projects in this
area shall be limited in height to one or two stories to be w"'I'"Jole with the existing Ranch
Style residential projects in the area. Deleting the height restriction under Table 2-9 docs not
make the project consistent with this General Plan policy.
I
\
..
I
,
t.
~
I
Page 26, section 11 Noise generally. This section indicates' that noise will not be an issue
because the State Highway ronns a separation barrier between the Project site and the residences
to the south. However, the analysis does not indicate how the impacts to the residential
properties to the north would be mitigated.
Page 37, section 16(1). There is insufficient information to support the conclusion that the
Project will have a less than significant impact. The Initial Study does not identifY where fill and
construction materials will be disposed of, or which landfill will construction material be taken
to. The Initial Study does not identify the disposing landfill's current capacity or the Project's
anticipated capacity during construction and operation. Regarding the disposal the Initial Study
does not identifY the routes that will be used to transport the material. To the extent these trucks
pass any residential areas, noise and air quality impacts will be significant.
"
"
"
i
f'
i
~
RVPUBISALV AOOR.SALAZAll\690~7.3
I ':
P.!!
'"
'"
, ..,~,
',' ~.,t'.... :
:', \0'\";',1 ~
.' ',u,'
\ ""I
., ,,). '....
, tz,,1,,
~ ' ':'~t .
'~1: ,/',. ..:.
;' '/. ~'!oJ
.,,' ~,. i '.
. "" \'f~l
, '1> l~ .~'
tl'';l''Jl.,lr
, ',\ 'i~ I!f. ~
,"o I'...::i
,"~':".~I'r ~
,I.,t..,.::oj
. '.~z...:~,t.. ~
,n,." ~.\:,!' -ii
'''I'"," -
',',t: "~: ..
.I,,'p' :!lJ
, .' ~"~';'tl .
, ", 1"''1: ,;
. t . ,-
:i':V~,i.\\<j
.~t~.lh:I~~
~, ,u, ~
, , \',...1, "i
, ',I, .'
, r : '.1,1 .j
.,' ',,,,: it
. , .",.
. I" .
. . ."f, l
\'IJ~ -
" I"" ~
'I. h.d
. ,,.3, .:It
\ 1 ,.,~
':, 1':....t::::il
"~i' ,:,,~f,r.' -
',' ",,'.l~':~'f: ~
, ";~' '/:~,l:', ~
"I., ,\ot ~
. ' .\r'd,.t~' .4
'" :':I:~'J!~ ~f":' ~
,';',
. "o'l3.
. ,\' c..,
, "'"1\\\
""1'
. ,'\,''fH~
/):;.,'1....,
1 /',..l""-J.
'. . ....~~..,f,I,., "
. '"t ,.,.;~ .
'!:7'H''')~''':' I,
'.\'''1
.1....'. .. 'hi.
AEC~XVED: 41 6/05 2:09PM; ->CXTY OF TEMECULA; #815; PAGE 2
04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638
US FISH AND WILDLIFE
~ 002/003
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND Wll.DLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidderi Valley Road
Carl.bad, California 92009
'~..
~
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-WRN-4430.1
APR 0 6 2005 '
Dan Long
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Temecula RegionaJ
Hospital, General Plan Amendment! Zone Change P A04-0462, Development Plan!
Conditional Use Permit P A04-0463, Tentative Parcel Map 32468, City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California
Dear Mr. LOng:
e We have reviewed the information provided in the above-reference Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) that we received on March 4, 2005. Implementation of the proposed project
would result in the development of approximately 35.31 acres into 565,260 square feet of
hospitaJ, medicaJ offices, cancer center, and fitness center. The proposed project site is located
north of Highway 79, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita
Road, within the City of Temecula, Riverside County, Caiifornia. We offer the following
comments pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 ueS.C. 1531 et
seq.), and in keeping with our agency's mission to work "with others to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people."
On June 22, 2004, we issued a section lO(a)(I)(B) pennit for the WestemRiverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP establishes a multiple
species conservation program to minimize and mitigate babitat loss and the incidental take of
covered species in association with activities covered wider the permit. We are providing the
following comments to assist you in your preparation of an MSHCP consistency finding and
adoption of a finaJ MND for the proposed project.
e
Although the proposed project site is not located within ,the MSHCP Criteria Area, other MSHCP
policies and procedures are applicable to the t'<vt'v.ed project. Specifically, these include the
Protection of Species Associated with RiparianlRiverinJ Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP
section 6.1.2 pp 6-20) and the AdditionaJ Survey Needs ,and Procedures (MSHCP section 6.3.2,
figure 6-4).
i
TAKE PRIDE.~
INAMERICA~
RECEIVED: 41 6/05 2:09PM; ->CITY OF TEMECULA; *815; PAGE 3
04/06/2005 14:07 FAX 7609180638
US FISH AND WILDLIFE
JaJ 003/003
Dan Long (FWS-WRN-4430.1)
,
The initial study states that the proposed project site co*tains riparian and riverine habitat that
will be disturbed by the proposed action. However, the:MND does not address how the proposed
project will comply with the MSHCP Protection of Spebies Associated with Riparian! Riverine
Areas and Vernal Pools policy (MSHCP section 6.1.2).: We recommend that the applicant
submit a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or SiJperior Preservation as described in
section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (pages 6-24 and 25) for retiewby the City and the Wildlife
Agencies for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat due !o bridge construction.
The ...w...u.ed project site is located within the Burrowillg Owl Survey Area (MSHCP section
6.3.2, figure 6-4). The initial study states that grassland,habitat wbich is potentially suitable for
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) occurs 0'1 the proposed project site and focused
pre-construction clearance surveys for this species shall be conducted one month prior to the
initiation of ground disturbing activities. The initial stt,dy further states that if burrowing owls
are found during clearance surveys, they will be relocatp.d. However, MSHCP species-specific
objective # 5 for the burrowing owl requires that focuse :I surveys to determine the ...........00 of
burrowing owls be conducted as part of the project revi :w process and that the locations of this
species (determined as a result of survey efforts) be conrerved in accordance with procedures
further described under this objective (MSHCP Volum~,II, pp B-65). (please note that focused
surveys are required to determine burrowing owl pres~C?C and address consistency with the
Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. and the speci9~-specific objectives; whereas, pre-
construction clearance surveys are intended to prevent <firect mortality of owls.)
I,
I
We recommend that a more thorough habitat assessmer t be conducted to determine whether
potential habitat is indeed suitable for the burrowing 0\11. H it is determined that suitable habitat
occurs on the site, focused surveys for burrowing owl \1 III need to be conducted according to
California Department of Fish and Game accepted prot( eols and the results addressed in
accordance with the MSHCP species-specific objectiver Depending on the results of the survey,
t!J.e ...........sed project may need to in~...........;... onsite cOlfervation measures for the burrowing
owl consistent with species-specific objective #5. The~fore, we recommend that surveys be
conducted prior to project .........u ,aI. ,
i
We recommend that the aforementioned MSHcP CODsi~fencY issues be fully addressed prior to
the City of Temecula's adoption of the MND or approvIU of the project. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the subject MND. H you h2 (te any questions or comments regarding
this letter, please contact Heather Reading of this office ~t (760) 431.9440, extension 357.
Sincen ly,
{)~lJfJ~' t
/ V""" Karen \. Goebel
co: 0 Assistart Field Supervisor
Leslie MacNair, California Department ofFish and G~b, Ontario, CA
2
.
.
.
,<
OffIcers 2004-2005
President, Larry Markham
Vice President, Neal Ziff
SecretarylTreasurer, Rebecca Weersing
Architectural & Environmental Control, Don Stowe
P.O,\
Phone (951) "
,omeq~~~rs Associat~@': r: . \-D\f: If: \~\
,-- \\."
593' , APR 0 6 2005 , "
otmail.com\ '_~ ,@= .-~
\ 'I _. __.-------
~-_. -
.
Dlrectom 2004-2005
Jeffrey Tomaszewski
Dee Messing
Kathleen Stowe
Ray Bennett
April 5, 2005
Dan Long, Associate Planner
City ofTemecula Planning Dept
Temecula, CA 92589
CC: All Members, City of Temecula Planning Commission
The ... .....ed hospital project has proved to be a moving target with respect to ongoing reviews by our association. In our
initial meetings with hospital representatives, including an association sponsored community meeting, those representing the
hospital made it very clear that one of their priorities was to address concerns of homeowners within our community with
regards to any ....~:.ed negative impact that might be caused by the hospital project. While many residents of the Los
Ranchitos community questioned the proposed location of the hospital, they also appreciated the advantages of having an
acute care hospital located in Temecula. Based on the commitment of the hospital group to worl< with our local residents,
many retained an objective attitude as discussions continued.
.
The ...:......; responsibillty of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners board of directors is to monitor and protect I'.o..~,':es
located within our association boundaries. To this end, our preliminary efforts were concentrated on the potential impact of
this project on the Los Ranchitos parcels that were purchased by the hospital group for inclusion in the project, additional
,,'O,,'H:es adjacent to or near the project, and any changes in traffic that would impact our community,
In our original meetings with the hospital representatives, as well as early discussions with .~..."""u"":ves from the Planning
Commission, the plans presented and subjects discussed reflected the following positive results:
1. The use of Los Ranchitos parcels purchased for use by the proposed hospital consisted ofa green belt, walking paths and
single story structures to be used for -.Ji... rehabilitation. We felt this was an acceptable use of these parcels, subject to the
required association approval of an amendment to existing Los Ranchitos CC&R's,
2. Hospital representatives agreed that is was "rr- "r-:ate to buffer adjacent properties by creating raised landscaped berms
along the west and north boundaries of the hospital site, including the extensive use of _""~. trees. This effot'\ would
contribute to the preservation of the rural atmosphere of our ..~.....::/. They further agreed that this landscaping worl<
would be done at the outset of the project. Additionally, the hospital representatives agreed to provide the continuation of
existing equestrian tratls along the west and north boundaries of their project.
3. Based on the hospital plans originally submitted, the only traffic access to the hospital were two entrances on Highway
79, We felt this would resu1t in minimal traffic and noise impact to the Los Ranchitos community.
4. In subsequent meetings with the hospital group and city planners, there was agreement on the value of providing an
additional access to the hospital property by extending Dartola Rd, which would facilitate traffic .......o...hing the hospital
from Margarita, thus reducing traffic on Highway 79 and providing an emergency .~_~... in the unlikely event that 79 was
blocked due to an major accident
With regards to the proposed 5 and 6 story buildings to be located on property outside the boundaries of Los Ranchitos,
residents of Los Ranchitos ~^t'....w concerns regarding these high rise structures. However, based on the 45 foot height
limitation in the General Plan, and the Planning Commission's historical record of .......:..., excepti,9ns to this limit (Le.
. rejection of the four level parking structure originally submitted by the Rancho C """.,.',", Church for its new project
.
.
located on Highway 79 just a few hundred yards from the ..._.._,ed hospital), we felt the Planning Commission would
reduce the height of these buildings to a reasonable level.
.
Since these early meetings, the following negative elements have developed, which have alienated local residents who were
inclined to wort< with the hospital group and city pI~_.. to see if their concerns could be mitigated:
I. The city has demanded access to the hospital ..' _,._n} from De PortoIa, which will cause a significant increase in traffic,
noise and safety hazards on Ynez, De Portola and Pio Pico. This negative impact will affect the residents of Los Ranchitos,
Santiago Estates and Santiago Ranchos.
2. The Planning Commission has initiated no action to reduce the height of ..._.._.:<1 buildings, which we believe would
result in the tallest structures in the city of Temecula. The height of these buildings would have an extremely negative
impact on the existing view of all residents near the proposed project, and change the prevailing rural atmosphere to that of
a high rise commercial en ':. . _,ent.
3. The hospital group and city have indicated !hat they will require Dartola access only if and when the second phase of the
project is undertaken. Despite the fact that this access would provide an alternative to Highway 79 access, the city continues
to demand access from De Portola, and Mr. PaIks was recently quoted as saying that if the hospital project is approved, the
developer will be required to widen De Portola in front of the hospital site. There is no specific time fiame for establishing
this critical Dartola access point, and the negative traffic :....,..4.:., to our community without this access point would be
significant. Additionally, the traffic patterns established without the Dartola access would likely continue even after it was
opened, if and when the second phase of the hospital project was completed.
Based on the transition from a...,::':, e attitude of c.", ...,jse to the city's _...."-,,_; rigid position with regards to many of
the negative aspects of the ,." ..ed project, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association felt compelled to make an in
depth review of the environmental study undertaken for the proposed hospital project. Our review has raised some very
serious concerns about deficiencies in the city's environmental study, and a summary of our findings is attached for your
review. We 1rust that you will give serious consideration to the elements addressed in this study, and we look f", ,,~.; to
your response.
In conclusion, many residents of our c .",,,, ,... ity feel it would be more ......_...:ate to have the proposed hospital located in .
an area not adjacent to one of the city's only remaining rural equestrian communities. However, we welcome the
.r..Oo ",,';; to meet with the members of the hospital group and city planning personnel to explore potential changes that
might make this project mutually acceptable at the proposed location.
R_~;dYi
~we
Director, Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
Enel.
.
.
.
.
Aprl13,2005
Mr. Dan long, Ass. .,"-:.. Planner
CIty of TemecuJa, Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
temecula, CA 92589-9033
The City of T~.". .JIa prepared and cln:ulated an Initial Study and. proposed NegatIve
Declaration for the Universal HeaIthSelVlces " .".' . ,. II to .. "I... tCt a new 1/2 million + square
foot hospitaL The site Is located north of Hi ~. I ".' 7950uth and south of De Portola Road,Just
west of Margarita Road. ThIS IS a dew/op/ng area with limited retail commercial and
p. .: """":_1 office uses, bounded on the north of De Portola Road by high quality, Jow~.,;jl)'
residential 115eS. The referenced residential area IS one of the older established ,~J. ~ . . Ilal
. . IIRIties In the CIty of T' .,. .., Co, . and tills comment letter Is being sutlmitted on IleIlaIf of
the Los Ranchltos Home Owners Association (lRHOA). Based on the current desIcn and the
levef of Intrusion that the,. '. \. "., d ho&pitaJ C ,,,......... on our eJlisllng residential communltJ_
LRHOA II, ",'~, ...,.." lIS the cunenl cJesJgn of this hospitaL The comments provided below
demonstrate that an r:~ '., . mental Impact Report (EIR) is required before the City of
Temecula can consider this ," ,.:, .1, and the LRHOA ,,' "i~,/ believes thatsudl an tlR is
required because a detailed evaklatlon of all. . .;;!es, Indudlng allematiYe locations and
altematfve designs is required to address unavoidable significant adver&e.. .'. mental
eff~ from ilnPJementIngthe p,." ,;~d project.
Detailed c:omments on speclfac sections of the InitialStudy are provided below, but there is one
fatal flaw thel pervlldes this dOcumenl. In many sections, the analysls and su ,..."., ,:~ ,Ion In
the Initial Study IeIy upon findings In the r "'" _JIa General Plan BR. 1ben! are two reasons
wily this Is a fatalllaw for the . .'... . ~ . J '-PItal proje(;L FiIst and most ... ",;,i. lIS, this project
In..,, ",,:esaGeneralPlanA ,., ..llanclZoneChange. ItIs~thatthlS., I;, .tls
a radical InIeflslf .;,.' \,' of land use at the IlI"Ojecl site. As a result, none of the data In the
General Plan SR can be reIfed upon 10 substantiate lheffndings In this Initial St1Idy because
the adoptedGener81 Plan EIR does notlndude the " ". " ".Ild land use as part of ltsevaJuatlon.
Therefore. all findings lhalclle the General Plan SR analysis have no factual basis of support
and must be evaluated on the ".' ,~. projed's 1r1, .,., ,ent merits, Indudlng potential
Impacts of the proposed CL , ,,,,I Plan A. , ,.".1Il and Zone Change.
Second, and equallyim,. ...1, the Initial studJpt", , ~." to rely upon a 12-15 year old General
Plan ElR. This ElR was certified In j,993. and much of the data were deYeIoped prior to this .
date. When citing a previous ElR, the City must co .. \ with the requirements in Section
1.6j,62 of the State CEQA GuIdelines. Sec:tIoIl15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: (a)
When an ElRhas been .....8"...,OI'a. ,...i ,decIatatfonadoptedtofaptD.Ject. nost.~."".rent
EJR $haN be prepared for lhat project unless Ih8t Ieed agency detennlnes. 011 fire basis of
substantial evideno& In the l/gIIt of tile whole record, one or more of the following:
a. Substantial changes are " ",,' ,_" J In tIJe projec:t which wIU require m;Vor
reW5Jons of the previou$ EIR 01' Negaff1te DeelsratJon due to tile InvoIII8ment of
new sIgnItIcant _ . ,: ... """." f etreds 01' a substantfal L _, '...->8 in the seWlrity
of prerioU$Iy Idt...tified significant effects;
b. Substantial cIrantes occur with. '........1 to tile ci/'Cl", . ....~." ". ,.... under which the
" ,.I"., is IIIICIerl8Ifen whk:h will require major revisions of the ." "I' ,lIS ErR or
IVt.jfafh.J DecIatatlon due to the inVOIMtmeIIt of new significant emfronmentaf
..ffe.b 01' a su6stantiall....,,_,.~.. In the _rlty of ,"" .:.JSIy identified
s1gn111cant effeds; 01'
Co New', . . L ".., ,-lJIIofsubslantiaJimporlance, which was notlmownand could not
halle beeIIlmown with the eICeI'CIse of I'8S$OfUIbIfj dmgence at the time the
previous DR was .....liIlI#fI as complete 01' fire ~I,,;,,~" , Deda,atlon was
..., "I"'" J. ahoMIs any of the following:
a.
The proJect will haW one ormore~nt ,If.. j"", not discussed in the
~U5ErROI'NegativeDecla.".~'. .,
.
b. Signifkanteffects" .,. ...,JJSIy..... ,,;. ":wi1lbesu~.J_",,Ja/lymore.., ,;
than shown In the previous ElR;
Co A.IUWouOn m~PV'IVS 01' attematiwes prerioU$Iy found not to be feasible
woutd In fact be feasible, and would subsbJntlafly reduce one 01' more
SIg/I, :'" ", L,':i. .:.., of the project. bur the ptqject" 'j" rIeIJts decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternatlws; or
d. lIif,];!, . Ii,. ... .' 1e'llS 01' &11., .. "I,' _".. i\ lI5Iy whfcIJ are COfISIderably
dJffetefIt li'om hose an~ In the ,.. , i\ lIS EJR would lSUbstantlally
reduce OI/e or more slgnlflcant efi'ectI on the etMronment, bUt the
." ,]\.t proponents declIne to adopt tile mntgaffon I, ......J'e or
alfllmafllle.
2
.
.
.
.
It should be obvious that dramatic changes in the background conditions ha~ changed for
almostalltheenvlronmentall!lsu." ,,'lIedlntheEnviron '" I Checklist Form. However,
the Initial Study doesllOt provide JHJ3! detailed d:"'w-dn of the changes that have occurred
over tile InterVening 12 year . , '~. . since the General Plan E1R was certified. Relying on 12
year old data Isa "..:' flaw In the project's initial StudyjNegatlve Declaration ~ such
data are either clearly different In 2005, or require an analysis In the E1R to demonstrate that
such 12-15 year old data can be relied upon as "adequate" substantiation for findings In the
Initial Study,
Ignoring the following described inadeql ",.f .....' in this Initial Study, these two flaws In the Initial
Study clearly demonstrate that at a minimum the Initial Study needs to be rewritten lInd
recirculated or, more reasonably, needs to be rewritten and an E1R, with possible focus on
certain Issues, must be prepared. llowever, It Is the LRHOA's position, that a :1,12 mlllion+
square foolllospital should be examined as part of a fun scope E1R because of the elttent of
Impacts that this project wHI have on the local neighborhood and tile City as a whole.
SDedflc Commenls on the Initial study
The following comments are focused on specific . ..",.~ and Issues as presented In the Initial
Study.
fllte 1.. r~ ~-":...d!n: This project (j.... ". tion, like much of the analysis, does not provide any
desc:r/ptlon of the hospitals operations or construction activities. For example, how many
patients may visit this faclIIty each day on average. How many of the patients will arrive dally
In ambulances? How mllny em" j,. '" ,... will work at this hospItaJ and how many will be onsIte
durfngeac:hshlft,assumingthatthishospitaht.'ft ".'''' :,.24-hoursperday? Does the hospital
have emergency generators that will require onslte storage of fuel? If so, how mucll fuel and
where and what Idnd of storage sy$tem Is. ".' ,..ed? What will be 00/18 with .. "."" inated
medical wastes generated by the hospital? WID this hazardous material be transported
through our neighborhood orwDI it be In .;I "",:1 Were emisslonsfrom an Incineratororthe
emergency generators provided in the Initial Study, we dld not see these data? Will there be
a wastewater pre~ "": '. ..IIt unit on the hospital site? If so, where?
Asyouc:ansee from these questions, the projec:t description contained In tha InitiaiStudydoes
not provIdeanyofthe _.., ,:laldata requlredtornakea comprehensive Impact forecast based
on substantial ewldence. There are poobatlly 60 more questions that need to be address,
rangln,~ '.".. adcquac:y of utilities cunently avallableatthe projectslte(foreumpleadequDCy
of the exIstIngwatersupply In:',,~" ".', Ire and adeqUllC)' otwater pressure In theeJlistlngwater
11_ to support fire fighting requirements for a 106-toot high structure when the a~OYed
~ Plan allows buildings of only 45 feet) to h" - . .', let """ .1,,;', ,.. to the hospital and
hazards this may ~ to Sla'roUndlng land uses from an accident. The project description Is
3
clearly InadeqUate to meet the requ- .". " .,; outlined in Section 15124(d) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, which states: A general.",.... :)tlon of the ptOject's cedrllloal, ... , .,.. Jo, and
etWitoIJ ,..".. I ~_.W..... CXHJSIdetf"g the principal engl, .... Oi ,g propoSals if ilny ami .
suptlOftlng public sewice facIJ1tJe$. The project d......~(...~ utlfazed In the Initial Study does not
meet this minimum requf '''' . ., t and Is clearly Inadequate.
SImilarly, the Initial Study .. ,,"118 no information regarding the construction of this project.
What equfpment Will be required onslle during the different phases of project construction?
WIll pile driwlng be required for the foundations? How Jongwlll c:onstructlon last? How many
construction,., , ',. "'. . ,." will be requlnld at any given t1me.? How many trucks wID be required
todellverequlpmeiltand matedal to the pi oject site? A .." ..~...l . constnIctIon scenario
must be l/>eIo'ded In the, . j . .. d ,_.. , , lion for 8 project of this complexJty to ensure that all
..' ". :,.11 ",.,,:", are identified and to "'1" rtthelmpactf....,..:..foraUofthell6ueslnthe
EnvlronmentaJ ct.....hlst Fonn. The fundamental purpoSe of the california EnvIronmental
QuaIty Ad (CEQA) Is to ,- '.. decIslorHnakets the ~ pubUc and the general public.
The cunent Initial Study woefully falls to meet this simple test of CEQA compliance.
Palfe 3. AesItI8tk:so. The teld: dlsal5sJon In this....:..: .., . ~. ... 1$ to be playing with WOfds In an
effort to avoid ackn. I.., ,~ingthe.. [" ....... effect on the_Ie VISta from 0... hOmeS alOng De
Portola. The text flISt states the project Is not J.. ...~..4 near a scenic YIsta.. this is a false
..taMt.leIlt as acknowledged later In the dIsct,"'o'l "these views are private", There Is no
distI .:, InCEQA be, "" publlcand " - " "YIeWS. Blbera_lcvlsla exiStS or It dOeS not.
The text , . ., .. Jges tII8t views to the south from the exIsIIng ., Ii. I dICeS wID be" ,.eo..1y
impacted. This Yiew Is a _Ious scenic: VISta of Palomar Mountain and the complex
L " "". ,hytotheSOUth. 1heI1Ilf-.thelllllllyslslnlhlSsectIonlsslmplynottrue. Scenlcvlews
will be r. ". .,.ld. The 1.06footstruc:ture wID totally alterthe-*VleWto the south for most
of the residences lOcated to the north. FwthennoIe, YieW$ from the south to the pastoral
C,...L.,~ ,lnournelgh,. '" .willaIsobetotallyaltered. AstheprojectlsCl .'.OI', ~'.'... ....J,
there wlU lnevftably bea"Sl ~~:. ." .lfal adverse effect on a sc:enlc vista", This Is undeniable and
the City should not attempt to bide SUdl an obYiousimpact beIIlndratioll" :\.,. : . ",tbatarenot
supported by fact.
.
The fact that _Ilomes _ .. ,.' at higIlerlhan the blIseofthe ,.... ~" I does not mitigate
the Impad of this massive stnIc:tures and installation of landscaping wID not hide nor
I, '. ,_.. ,...,. the buIldingS effect on scenic wIstas. It would take 150 feet tall ., ..,.. planted
like a forest to hide this structure ancl &en"aI hundred yea.. for them to read18UCh beIght.
To .' . ", , " addreSs the ,.',.. IiaI -i '.'.'" on scenic: vistas aad Ylsual dearactation of our
ne/IhbOrhOOcf, the CIty must.,. ."...'. Ylsual simulations fnIm pertinent YIews In our .rea. ThIs
wIB propedJ chara.:tedZl&lhe Is!ue. but it Is our position that the ~'s Impact on scenic
YIstas ancl .....:. resources wII be ullllYOidable and slglllflcant, as there Is no real way to
mitigate this structure's e.rreds on our eJdstIng scenic views.
4
.
.
.
.
Pa.... 4. &- We have some.., .,.. ." regarding the hospital lighting, both because of
local vtsual degradation and possible confIIcla With Palomar. In the InlUal Study It IS stated
that-... ofllle Clty's conditions may be supercecled by the State "",' :Jngboth engineering
anddeslgn IssUes. this...:...... thequ .~ :', regardlngwhetllertheStete may requIre more and
diffinent I1ghting than the CIty or COUnty would ellow under (l, .'., ce 656. this issue needs
to be clerlfled, Rke &0 many other Issues. For example, mitigation measure b. requlJeS future
submittal of a "photometric plan, Including evaluaUon of helicopter and embulance lighting
reql /. ,... '",.J. However, there 1& no .' .' ';, .. "" . .. standard established for this f8cIIty, SO this
'" .' Jre actually defers mltlgt.lIun to the future. this Is not " . _. _. ~, We under CEQA because
the ~Ion mTasures. ,,""'" esmay have al".. .".. \ ,..lsthat need to be .".l~ared
by l , . :.. ". " kets and the public.. The p' .". . '" ". plan must be submitted end evaluated
as part of tile Initial Study before tile NegatIve DecI"... ,:, II Is adopted, or a set of spedfIc,
, .", . _stendardsestabllslled by the City to assure that noadverselmpectWilI_, as
claimed In this analysis;.
PuB 5. Al!riculture: Two Issue$ under this secIIon ere of .... .. .., to us. Arst, tile telct $lates
that the property Is not considered "prime" farmland_ However, no attempt appears to have
been made to de,. ;" whether the solis are considered to be prime agrIculturel solis. The
point Is these solis have been productive for agriculture purposes In the pest. and part of the
r,. . . ,'1m ".,,1 by the decIston-makers Is to undo ,.~,,,d the possible Io8s of prime
agrfcu/tura18OHs/land. ThIs doc:ument,~ ,',_. the Issue.. The second Issue of c:oncem Is
confusion ..' ,.. "J by text uncler2.c. Pleaseexp/llln how "a fIIp1d period of~ precluded
tile II .. ,~. J project.. TIlls does not make sense. What Is meant by ibis sentence?
fI8 6_ AIr Ouallhr, The air quality analysis for this project Indicates that it will result In a
project specifJc end cumu/atlYely signltlcant unavoidable air quality Impact. The Inltlal stuCIy
attempbito utilIZe the General Plan BR as the basis for concluding that it Is ok to" ,'.' , ., this
project based on a "'";1' ,1 en, .~",.~: "'.. Thislsagraveenor. First, as the City Is aware, thIs
projectlncludesa~P/an amendment, which means that the potentIallmll8ClS_ not
ack:.".~,..J In the Genelllll Plan 8ft. Second, there Is no effort to dIscuSs the dIC.. '"., ,. In
emissions" .'... ;" ~,Jwiththis", 'I,' ....lld proJec:t. Third, there Is no evaluation of the cbange
in emissions within the City, Induding , . " .: II lOCalized air quality Impacts, relative to the
f.. ........l contained In the GenenII PIa.. 8R. As a result, the data In tills section 1& . ,,,. ,..'
flaw8dandf ,.",....I8t8. TllerearealsoOll!lllestat'" " , source ..\.,.:\J1Stbetmayhftebeen
... ... J by the air quality evaluation. 1be air quality report IndiCateS S/lP'Iftcance. and tIIere
Is more than a fair 8flP ..... " "thatthe Implementation of this project has a , ,.. 1Iel to cause
sJgn/flcant, unavoidable 8l;Iver$e air quality Impacts.
-- 12 and 13. RiftklUJi......~ The biology ". ",. t anaJysis Is fraught with &0 many
ertOIS that It Is hard to Jcn_.m.e to start. First, sulVeyll for en(" . 1;,1' ,J species ~. .. , , be
defemld. Eilherthe~.. ..1.... are there or they are not. SUch stuclJes cannot be defem!d until
s
sometime after the protect is approved. second, the dillc:lmion at the top of page 13, the
aDIIJrsls tgnores the 1_ of 1Iabitat. TIle WOfdIng selected In this analysis atlempls to play
down the riparian values on the site but they cannot be Ignored. Further, there Is no
consistency analysis relative to the riparian habitat which Is required as part of the Clty's
commitments comply with the Multiple Species Habitat C , '.'" .'atIon Plan (MSHCP). The text
under 4.b-e actually 4"_';''''dk:ts the previous cIIscuseIon end the mitigation required relative
to riparian habitat on the project sIte_ As noted. future studies are required, a total failure to
present data to the public and declslon-makers. ~n measures a, b, C, f and g defer
mJtIcetIon to the future which ill h,...~_ bible. The aty must define What Is acceptable
mitigation from It's perspective now. not later. T1lls allow& the public and de "\,~. makere to
determine whether the mitigation Is sufficient to Offset the Impacts..
e
Palfe1A GeoloCYandSolls: One ofthedH 5 lcf8iluresof envlro . ..1aldoc:umentslsafallure
to evaluate the potentIaIlmpads of mIllgation measures that wi. be' '..' ,.., ,) by a projectto
achieve a less thanslgnlflcant environmentill:, ;,' .1. The text cf'V'-es and Jef....~......the
l.I',,;"':, 1C8111'.., ~'" .:.." ......... ..Lled wfth the project and identifies I ".. ",Ungthese measures
as a condition of " " .'.'. ,; I (M 5111ure a.). HowiP'er, consistent with the rest of the analysis, the'
Initial Study does not evaluate the Impacts from Implementing these measures. A classic
example would be a requirement for pile driving to provide the building with sufficient
protection against earthquakes. Another is over excavation which results In a longer period
of... ...~.lCtionnolseand~tugitiwedustenf"u~. -'. ,"-, ". ,r.d', " ,1sare',~.. ,_1
and the aty must consider them before approving this project. These Impacts must be
evaluated.
Pal!e 2.7 _SolI EnlUm; Without anyanaJyslsor .,.; ,. ,., ., to specific standards, the Initial Study .
concludes "Tbe project wII not resutt in substaI.llal soli erosion or loss of topsoD. There Is nOt
definition of the, type of ,..:.11 control measures or their potential effectl\ ~."....... No
discussion of aty standards, end as far as we undlll5t8nd, there are not NPDES (, ".". :... .1~
the standard of com,,, 1.... Is that establlshecl by the San Diego Regional water Quality
ContIoI Board. There is no discussion of the Roald'. construction and post." ",; JCtIon
(occupancy) standards and the abiIlt)' of the best man',;I' ,M prac;tk:e$ to meet these
..", ,\, ~~. The analysis of this Issue Is .:: _" "~,,I flawed and ineffective.
PaM 1.9_ H..,...,";"" 1bIs paJe contains the statement "the 8.. ",- ,,' .Is required to submit to
lIIaff anapploved hazardousmaterlal storage and transportatlon plaD-" Theatycannotdefer
kk1l11r,:..gand evaIU8tIngthe hazardous materials. tr; '.,. rtand waste Issues. ...... .io,.:',,; with
the hospIt.aI, both construcIion and _..tIOl1S. There ere resU" ., ,., directly '. ;~" . ,_,tto the
hospftaIthat have a right, no must haYe, these data to protect themselves. We do not have
I., '4' ,:. lIS waste deIiYeffeS In our neigh, ., . .1 at present. TIlls project will bring these
,,'''., 'Ills, albeit In a ",.' "'; ~.., _ner, Into our neigtlllorhood. We must know what lh_
materiels ate; we must I j,. ~'" II '-the hospII8l plans to manece U- material; and we
6
.
.
must knowhowto,,; , 1;..1" I ~J ". ifan,; .i~.. ,.occurs.. The CIty appears to be Ignoring the
Imposition that allowing this hospital Into our neighborhood will create for ,,::.< I, 1 ,; residents,
either because the CIty trusts the h.....C...1 or 1I.;....~a It does not care for residents and
"" ...Ire to theSe new c.........:DUS materials. The CIty Is required to pnwfde a list of the
cI1 . ' ,: ..18 U5ed and other hezanIous activities that may be allow8d into our community; and
the CIty must evaluate thelmpacls and public health risks from these c:' '. " .. Is. The CIty
should be asha.ned of Ignoringthis c:ritlcaIlssue andfaRlngto giveour neighborhood residents
sufflc:lent " '. IItIon to unci _ ~~, ~ this Issue; prepare comments on those Issues that cause
e major ., ' . _ . and ensure that we are. .." red to deal With ~ents that may , ' .', ,..
our health. The CIty failed both CEQA and Its exiStIng residents with the c:ryptk: evaluation
.... ,- . IIn the Initial Study. This is s c:ritIcaf. . ..... ,.II issue for whk:h the neighborhood
resldentsctemand an adequatedata baseJorlhe CIty Council and ourselves to make Informed
decisions.
PaM20_ "-nkThecom .. ...' regardlngevac:uation routesand w". ";9111:y response plans
I.J. ,,' .., the nature of the propDsed project. 11Ie irony IS that with a [ ,.~ :~,.1 nearbY. dealing
with _ .. 111. ' .Jes c:oulet be easier. The n ..".;,.- .. side of this iSsUe Is that the hll5pital will be
akeycom.. ., tofsny, _ l~llIICyresponseplanintheCity. Theadjac:entresldentscleserve
tOL~..",.:tandhowtheCity'se .. ,;/_ ,cy'....... ,,~~planwlllbererisedandexactlywhatlOle
the proposed hospital wm play In this rewised response p1an_ By definition en e" _ I;/.ncy
, """ .', ; ,.,. plan inVotJeS the movement of " .. ; . I' J to a hospital fcIr treatment. What c;an we
anlldpate? Could there be dn:umstances where we c:ould not 8(( e Sf our homes. such as In
a majorearthqu8ke as a result of ..' "lIlI1gaH.........routestothehospltaL Thlslnfomtatlon
Is required to unci "' .~~, , "d the fuR conse~., .. .,...., of p/aC/ng the hll5pitalln our neighbortlood.
. Pae :>1 HvdJOlcN!V. .',. Oualllr., The CIty ~ww.',"; confused, as there are 110 NPDES
standards. only a requirement to submit a Notice of Intent to !he state Water Resources
Control Board. As Is the case witfI any mltfgatlon, the CIty cannot defer idelltiflcetion of
, ; ,.... Jre to ,..",11 with IlOft1)OInt source water quality discharge requirements without
Identllyingthem and r ... .-' - ,J suff'1Cient best management practices (BMPs) to fuififI ~
requIremenIs. SImply rete ,. ~;. 'J; them wIIh no definition does not . ... ". I!l the nMewer with
sufficient Info ''',:\ to evafuate, .'1;. :'!If compliance, or the effeds of imp',. , . ,ling the
required BMPs. For 8lQHIJ()Ie. what If the proJect assumes that a detention basin with 8 filter
tletob....nuystem will be instilled on ad[. .;" . " , orty. WIthout Io-'ng this proposal. it Is
not possible to evatuate the Impacts of such fac:IftUes. Impacts may be minimal, but until
defined and 8VlIIuated this fact cannot be ~
The project analysis does not identify potendal ope,,;, ,,' pofk___..:..., "", ~", Imt
requirements; or any other statJonarysources of water pollution. However. a IlospItaI cIeMy
gen. ","", contaminated wastewater and it Is essential that the constituents of the waste
water Is defh.ed. If a p.;. ,.;.. '.. 1 system Is required. what happens to the residual
7
.
.
.
.
.
April 5, 2005
rD~ ~ @ ~ 0 m~"'
"ill APR 06 1005 ]
Mr. Dan Long
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
RE; P A04-0462 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change, P A04-0463 Development
Plan/Conditional Use Pennit & PA04-057I Tentative Parcel Map - Applicant:
Universal Health Services, Inc.
Dear Mr. Long:
I am an adjacent property owner. I have many concerns about the proposed zoning
change. Here are my three concerns for the record, I would like the opportunity to meet
with the City on these concerns.
My nwnber one concern is about the eight (8) lots being made one parcel. The
City would be treating the Hospital development with preferential treatment, by allowing
PDO-8 to be divided up. This is a move by the hospital to build higher buildings but
they will stick out like a sore thwnb if the lots to the east in PDO-8 are not afforded the
same zone change. The hospital's three (3) lots are closest to the ranch community of Los
Ranchitos. I can see no reason why all the existing lots in PDO-8 would not be changed
or none at all as there intended use is the same, office medical; they are all adjacent to the
hospital. If the City proceeds with segregating the existing PDO-8 lots any confonnity in
the planning of the entire block from Margarita west will be lost and this is not in the best
interest of the community. The hospital's lots (3 in PDO-8) are the farthest removed
from Margarita Road. The balance of the current PDO-8 lots are adjacent to more
commercial development near Margarita Road and in my opinion they would blend in
just as easily. I am in favor of blocking any change to the PDO-8 that separates and/or
divides the six (6) lots that are currently under the PDO-8 zoning.
Secondly, tall buildings mean more parking requirements and better access to
those parking lots and buildings. I purpose parking lot access on the south through the
present DPO-8 lots (map attached). This would benefit all owners and future
development, which all have medical developments of some type planned. Pulling
everyone together for joint planning ideas may be in everyone best interest.
My third concern is we have a flood plain on DePortola Road and I have concerns
that the City along with the Hospital developers will abundant the flood issue only to pass
it on as someone else's problem. At the present time the drainage channel crosses the
natural drainage course across Deportola Road and is undersized, see map attached. This
drainage channel was put in place many years ago before city hood, Many developments
.
have been given the green light including Sparkman School, Paloma Del Sol and other
developments upward (north) from DePortola Road. Many other developments down
stream have also been approved as well before and after city hood. I believe it is time for
the city to act on necessary drainage channel improvement and upsize this culvert to an
acceptable size as was done under Margarita Road when Sparkman School was
developed. This negative impact in my opinion is not the responsibility of down steam
homeowners (like myself) or private party developers but is a tax payers/'public use'
issue and the city needs to act on it soon.
.
Regards,
Don L. Rhodes
31625 DePortola Road
Temecula, CA 92592
(951)302-3554
.
.
.
.
,
o
~
,-rA
,
I
April 5, 2005
.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Regarding April 6, 2005 Agenda Item 4, PA04-0462 HOSPITAL ON 79 SOUTH
Dear Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Olhasso, and
Telesio
, As Vice President of Santiago Ranchos Home Otners Association, I am bringing
, to your attention three problems with the current flite plan for the new hospital
and also requestirig a change in the phasing of apcess construction. Santiago
, Ranchos is an equestrian association comprised lof 2 % acre' parcels on narrow
i rural residential roads immediately to the north at the proposed hospital site.
, Santiago Ranchos would also like to be on record as in support of Los Ranchitos
H" , HOA in requesting a modified three lane arteriaJtOaddesignation for De Portola
Road.
Like Los Ranchitos, Santiago Ranchos has tried to be a good neighbor in
accepting a proposed hospital,in concept. Howeyer, three aspects of the plan
"'tfefore yOLl threaten to severely and negative'l>' imp'8ct bOth associations.
1. Driveway on De Portola cannot be open to routine traffic: When the three lots .
on De Portola were rezoned by this commission from rural residential to
commercial last year, the deal with Los Ranchitos Home Owners Association, in
order to release the parcels from the association's CC&Rs, was that there would
be NO hospital access from De Portola. The City Engineer has since determined
that an emergency alternate entrance for ambulances is necessary should
gridlock completely block 79 S. Fine, make it a true alternate emergency
entrance by requiring it to be a left-in only, one lane entrance only, with a security
gate to which the Fire Department and the Temecula PD hold the keys.
Ambulances would always have access in a true dire emergency but daily routine
hospital traffic would not. Pia Pica is a narrow rural residential road without
sidewalks. It cannot handle the delivery trucks, trash trucks, employee, and
patient traffic that would inevitably use Pia Pico as a cut-through to any open
entrance on De Portola.
2. Emergency room is poorly sited: Locating the emergency entrance on the
NW corner of the building, thereby forcing an ambulance coming in the main
entrance on 79 S to circle a medical office building, then wind its way through the
parking lot, makes absolutely no sense. Place the emergency room on the south
side of the building, move the office building further west, or realign the main
entrance, do whatever you have to do to make emergency room access a
straight shot. If you allow the current plan, the hospital will be coming back to
you at some point to request a new site entrance near the emergency room at .
.
the intersection of Pio Pico at De Portola, You can avoid that future fight now by
simply requiring the emergency room be near to, and directly accessible from,
79 S.
3. Six story building violates Temecula zoning height limits: Our current zoning
restrictions are designed to protect the quality of life and general ambiance of our
residential neighborhoods. Three stories, as has'been approved elsewhere
along 79 S, might be acceptable, but a six-story building is totally incompatible
with nearby residences, especially horse properties. If you allow this exception, it
will irretrievably alter the character of southern Temecula. Also, once you have
. set this precedent, every future applicant with a financial incentive to do so, is
going to come up with absolutely compelling rea~ons why you must grant him a
special exemption, too. Once you let the horse dut of the barn, there's no going
"' back and the Planning Commission and City Coqncil will be hard pressed to
, prevent even higher rise buildings in the future. jfhere is no compelling reason
for a six-story exemption on this site other than U.niversal Healthcare wants to
._ ___us~Jha_samebuH(lin(] de.sign th,Clt WQOss well forthemjr'HmQtb~Ls~!:lte.___.____ _,
- Unfortunately, the planned building will forever destroy the feel andcnaracter of
the adjacent residential neighborhoods and shou'ld not be allowed.
. Finally, I would also request that the order of C1ccess completion be changed. If
~ - -,- -"'1ffenoopjraf'consTructTorTTspnass-Z1h1iriif'ltJre1S"f10neecfrorail alteiiia[e--~-n.
emergency ambulance access from De Portola until phase 2. Conversely, the
Dartolo entrance will be needed for patient access to the phase 1 medical
buildings. Therefore, whatever approvals you grant should be conditioned that
. the Oartolo entrance be opened as part of phase 1 and that any De Portola
, access be postponed until phase 2.
.
.. .::-", ~-""-~.:~~":"=;-;~:","":;~"
Thank you for your consideration in protecting the interests of Temecula
residents and the quality of our long established neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
~~"-'~~
~ - -:/;~~ ~~--?
~
Kenneth G. Ray
Santiago Ranchos Home Owners Association
31647 Pio Pico Road
Temecula, CA 92592
951-302-1035
(-;
.
(,
,
-.
.'
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 6, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, April 6, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present;
Commissioners Guerriero, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson.
Absent;
Chiniaeft .
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None at this time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
. 1 Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION;
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 6, 2005.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 2, 2005.
,2.2 Approve the Minutes of March 16, 2005.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of
Commissioner Chiniaeft who was absent.
R:\MinutesPCI040605
,
1.
)
..
COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Items
.
3 Plannin!] Aoolication No. PA04-0594. a Develooment Code Amendment for Supolemental
Alcoholic Beveraae Sale Reouirements recommendinp that the City Council adoot an
ordinance reoardinp supolemental reauirements re.aulatina the sale of alcoholic beveraaes
for certain Noes of businesses and to orovide locallv aoorooriate criteria for State-reouested
Findinas of Public Convenience or Necessitv
Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of written material).
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's report, but requested the following modifications:
. That the requirement No beer or wine shall be displayed within 10 feet of cash register
or the front door be changed to 5 feet.
. That a requirement be added imposing that sales staff be trained by or through the
Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) prior to approval of a Conditional use Permit (CUP).
Principal Planner Hogan noted that a condition could be added that requires staff training by or
through the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of the business.
Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hogan offered the following
comments:
. That the proposed requirements as stated in staff's report would not be imposed on
existing facilities
e
. That if a temporary church and a business selling alcohol were located on a Commercial
or Industrial Zone, the 500 foot requirement would not be applied.
. That if the sale of hard liquor is the predominant product sold in a store (50% or more), it
would be classified as a liquor store; if not, it would be considered a convenience store
. That previously imposed requirements regarding the sale, of alcohol would be replaced
by the proposed four requirements in staff's report.
At this time, the public hearing was opened but due to no speakers it was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approves staff's recommendation subject to the
two following conditions: That no beer or wine shall de displayed within close proximity (no
closer than 5 feet) to the cash register and front door and that sales staff receive training by or
through Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) prior to the opening of a business. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of
Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
.
R:\MinutesPC\040605
2
i
;~
.
"
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.08, 17.10, AND 17.34
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE
LIQUOR STORES AND SIMILAR USES AND TO FURTHER
CLARIFY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESSES
SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (PLANNING
APPLICATION 04-0594)"
4 Plannino Aoolication No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment
Zone Chanae, Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan and Tentative Parcel Maq
submitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hosoital facilitv and
helioad. two medical office buildinas totalina aODroximatelv 140.000 s~lUare feet a 10.000
sauare foot cancer center. and an 8.000 souare foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalino
aooroximatelv 566.160 sauare feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiqhwav 79
South and south of DePortola Road. aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road
Assistant City Attorney Curley stated for the Planning Commission, staff, and the public that the
proposed project will be subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); that the public
hearing will be opened to collect specific concerns that wauld need to be addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and that as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
process, there would be another opportunity for public comment and review on the
environmental document at another time.
Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of written materia!), noting that staff has
worked closely with the applicant, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association and City Council
sub-committee comprised of Councilman Naggar and Mayor Comerchero and that Condition of
Approval No. 11 should be modified to impose that the applicant shall work with the emergency
\ p;oviders in local areas to reduce the use of sirens within the vicinity of the hospital and within
~sidential areas. .
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In response to the Commission's query regarding Pio Pico Road, Director of Public Works
Hughes stated that the lower (southern) section of Pio Pico Road will be needed for the
proposed project advising that the City will be vacating the southern portion and that the City will
be retaining the upper (northern) portion of Pio Pico Road, noting that it would not be the intent
of the City to develop the upper portion (northern) but that this portion will remain on paper as
an access.
It is the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that the horse trail on the southern end of
Pio Pico Road will still be useable.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Long noted that the applicant will be required to coordinate with
local emergency service providers to minimize the use of sirens near the hospital and residential
zones.
A:\MinutesPC\040605
3
r--_
'{ )
)
.-
Public Works Director Hughes commented on the need for the Dartolo Road extension, advising
that because of timing and cost of this extension, it was approved as a Condition of Approval for
Phase II; that the DePortola Road connection will be valuable to the hospital; and that the
Dartolo Road/Margarita Road signal is extremely close to SR 79 South and may hamper, at a
future time, the ability to move traffic through the Margarita Corridor.
It was also noted by Mr. Hughes that the DePortola Road driveway access will be full-turning
movements with the exception that the left-hand turn out would be restricted, noting that one
could turn left in but could not turn left out to go westbound.
.
For Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Long noted that the project has been designed to be compatible
with the rural residential character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, and landscaped
buffers as conditioned along DePortola Road.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Pyskacek, Vice President of design and construction from Universal Health Services,
representing the applicant, offered the following comments:
. That the hospital is vitally needed in the community
. That the project will not include a trauma center which would be a much higher level of
service
. That currently there is no definite timing between Phase I and Phase II; and that Phase II
of the project would be planned to accommodate future City needs.
e
The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons;
. Ms. Dee Messing Mr. Del Ross
. Ms. Rebecca Weersing Ms. Charlottte Gust
. Ms. Pauline Nelson Mr. James Gust
. Mr. George DiLeo Mr. Tim Nelson
. Mr. Brad Stormon Mr. Jerry Hizon
. Mr. Sal Salazar Ms. Angie Canales
. Mr. Neal 2iff Mr. Jeff Tomaszewski
. Mr. Don Stowe Ms. Theresa Hizon
. Mr. Jack Williams Ms. Dee Dee Polzin
. Mr. Raymond Bennett Mr. Kenneth Ray
. Ms. Kathleen Stowe Ms. Carol Charnock
. Mr. Gilbert Schultz Ms. Linda Doucet
. That increased traffic on DePortola will make it unsafe for equestrian uses
. That noise sources, noise impacts, and noise mitigation has not been adequately
addressed
. That access from DePortola Road would not be desired by area residents, if required by
City, it should be gated for emergency access only
.
R:\MinutesPC\040605
4
.-
~/'~ .
.i I
. .
.
.
.
.
That access from Dartolo Road should be included in Phase I of the proposed project
That all of Pio Pi co Road south of DePortola Road should be vacated
That the hospital towers are too tall and not consistent with the area
That the proposed site is not an appropriate site for the proposed project
That a helipad and helicopter will create noise impacts and will frighten (spook) horses
That due to increased runoff resulting from the proposed project, a storm water plan
should be prepared
. That the rural country atmosphere must be protected.
Mr. Dennis Grimes, Los Ranchitos resident, spoke in favor of the proposed project.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that it is his opinion that
the sub-committee assigned to the proposed project is in full support of the proposed project
and conditions as presented.
I
.
Commissioner Telesio noted that it is his opinion that the use of five helicopters a month should
not create a significant amount of noise.
Commissioner Olhasso noted that until issues of litigation are resolved with the proposed
project, she will not be able to work with the Equestrian Preservation Group.
In regard to the focused Environmental Impact Report, Commissioner Olhasso stated that the
following issues must be further investigated
.
That staff explore the construction timing of Dartolo Road improvements versus
DePortola Road improvements
.
That staff analyze the impacts concerning equestrian uses in the area
.
That staff study conflicts on DePortola Road
.
That issues with the regard to height of the proposed project be addressed
.
That emergency room relocation be considered
.
That potential noise with regard to flight path be addressed.
.
Considering public testimony, Chairman Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission and
staff will be consolidating issues/concerns and will be returning to the Planning Commission with
a recommendation as to what the Environmental Impact Report should be addressing.
R:\MinutesPC\040605
5
/,--',
)
, )
~
MOTION: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the Item to the April
20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she will be emailing her
a response as to whether or not the Code Enforcements Reports are in working order.
In response to the Commission's query regarding stone versus pre-cast concrete at the Bel
Villagio Center, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that she would need to explore the iSSUE!.
Chairman Mathewson expressed his concern with the Rebel Nail Salon at the Promenade Mall,
noting that on the weekends the Salon uses 40 to 50 advertising signs and requested that Code
Enforcement explore the issue.
For Chairman Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she has made phone calls
in regard to the mining issue on Rancho California Road but that no one has returned her calls,
but advised that she will continue to pursue the matter.
Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he will also explore the mining issue on Rancho
California Road.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with bottom dump trucks traveling in the fast lanes
at high level of speed on Rancho California Road and queried on the possibility of restricting
bottom dump trucks from the fast lane.
.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that he
would explore his concern.
Commissioner Guerriero requested increased traffic officers to patrol the Rancho California
Road.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske reminded the Planning Commission of the luncheon with the
architectural consultant, telecommunication consultant, and landscape consultant being held on
Monday, April 11, 2005, at 11 :30 a.m.
Ms. Ubnsoke also relayed that Associate Planner Long will be leaving the City to pursue a new
endeavor.
The Planning Commission wished Mr. Long best wishes.
.
R:lMinutesPCI040605
6
r-
i~
'~
,
.
,-
ADJOURNMENT
At 9;10 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to ~he next regular
meetina to be held on Wednesdav. Aoril 20. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dave Mathewson
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:lMinutesPCl040605
7
.
.
.
-'7,
ATTACHMENT NO. 16
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET
APRIL 6, 2005
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC 11-16-05\PC-ST AFFREPORTll-16-05 v2.doc
51
. <?~-
~,,--
:~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
April 6. 2005
Prepared by: Dan Lonq
Title: Associate Planner
File Number PA04-0462
P A04-0463
PA04-0571
Application Type; General Plan Amendment/Zone Change
Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
Project Description: Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the
Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction; a
zone change to change the zoning of the project site from Professional
Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt section 17.22.200 through
17.22.206, including the PDO text and Development Standards; a
Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320 bed hospital facility and
helipad; a Development Plan to construct a 408,160 square foot
hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000
square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160
square feet on 35.31 acres; and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468)
to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel, also known as
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-
080-007 through 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 and PA04-
0571).
Recommendation;
D Approve with Conditions
o Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to;
r8J Recommend Approval with Conditions
CEOA;
D Recommend Denial
o Categorically Exempt
(Class)
D Notice of Determination
(Section)
D Negative Declaration
r8J Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC.ST AFF REPORT.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
.
Applicant:
Universal Health Services, Inc.
General Plan Designation:
Professional Office (POl
Current Zoning
Designation;
Proposed Zoning
Designation:
Professional Office (PO) and
Planned Development Overlay District 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8\
Planned Development Overlay District 9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9)
Site/Surrounding land Use:
Site:
North:
South;
East:
West:
Lot Area;
Total Floor Area/Ratio
Vacant
Very low Density Residential (VL)
Highway 79 South, low Medium Residential (lM), Community Commercial
(CCl
Professional Office (POl, HiQhwayrrourist Commercial !HT), PDO-8
PDO-6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay)
35.31 Acres
.36
.
Hospital:
Medical Office Building No.1:
Medical Office Building No.2;
Cancer Center:
Fitness Rehabilitation Center:
408,160 square feet
80,000 square feet
60,000 square feet
10,000 square feet
8,000 square feet
TOTAL:
566,160 square feet
landscape Area/Coverage 33.3%
Parking Required/Provided 633/1278
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
On June 3D, 2004, Universal Health Services, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. These
applications comprise a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding two
story height restriction of the Z2 overlay from the land Use Element of the General Plan,
change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay District
No. 8 (DePortola Road PDO-8) to a new Planned Development Overlay District No. 9
(Temecula Hospital PDO-9), including the new PDO-9 texl and development standards,
construct a 320 bed hospital facility, a helipad, two medical office buildings, a cancer center
and a fitness rehabilitation center totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres. .
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC>STAFF REPORT.doc
2
.
On November 4,2004, the applicant submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (32468) to consolidate
eight lots, including a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way (South of DePortola Road) into one
lot.
Staff prepared an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the proposed project. The Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review
period beginning on March 4, 2005 and ending on April 6, 2005. Because the proposed
project includes a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change, Planning Commission
review and City Council approval of all applications is required.
The applicant has proposed the project in Temecula, citing rapid growth in population
throughout the region as creating a need for additional medical treatment facilities. The
applicant currently operates two facilities in the area; one in the City of Murrieta and one in
Wildomar, both of which are operating at, or near, maximum capacity. During the last four
months, the Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar has operated at 95% + of its capacity of
80 beds and Rancho Springs has operated at 88% + of its capacity of 86 beds. While both of
these hospitals have future expansion plans, the anticipated population growth in the region
will require additional hospital and emergency medical services beyond the capacity of these
existing hospital facilities. No other hospital facilities exist within the immediate area; the
nearest hospital facilities are located in Fallbrook, Riverside and Moreno Valley.
.
The proposed project is located adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Staff has worked
directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and representatives of the Los
Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify key issues of concern.
In addition, a City Council Subcommittee (Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar) was
formed to meet to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the
applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11,2004. Staff met with the Santiago
Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on
December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home
owners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners
were in attendance.
The primary issues of concern that were raised through the various meetings with staff and the
public include the following:
. Traffic and circulation (access points)
. Building height and views
. Compatibility with residences
. Noise
. Helipad (location and number of flights)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
General Plan Amendment
.
The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction from the Land Use Element for the project site
(Figure 2-5, page 2-36 and Table 2-9 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan). The
proposal will amend Figure 2-5 and page 2-36 and Table 2-9 to eliminate all references to the
Z2 area. The elimination of the Z2 overlay modifies the building height limit on this site and
would have reverted to the underlying PO zoning limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has
R:\C U P\2004\04..0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
3
submitted a PDO document with the zone change application, which will modify the height limit
to 115 feet.
.
Zone Chanoe
The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and
Planned Development Overlay District No. 8 (DePortola PDO-8) to Planned Development
Overlay District No.9 (Temecula Hospital PDO-9). The PDO document prepared with the
application effectively raises the building height limit for this site to 115 feet. However, the
PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height as follows:
"The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall
apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area
of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The maximum
building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed
115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof
above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines
the roof area".
Conditional Use Permit
The underlying PO zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for hospitals and
helipads. The proposed hospital will be a full service facility operating 24-hours a day, seven
days a week. Services provided at the hospital will include emergency treatment, outpatient
surgical services, inpatient surgical services, acute care inpatient services, intensive and
cardiac care services (ICUlCCU). In addition, comprehensive departments of radiology/
imaging, cardiology, laboratory and other outpatient services will be provided. The project will .
not include a trauma center. The helipad is located on the north side of the hospital, on the
eastern portion of the site. The applicant has stated that the helipad will be used to transport
patients to other facilities requiring specialized treatment and they expect 5-6 flights per month.
Develooment Plan
The Development Plan consists of a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two (2) medical
office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000
square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31
acres.
Access/Circulation
There are two primary access points, both of which are located along Highway 79 South. The
primary access point along Highway 79 South aligns with Country Glen Way and will require
the installation of a traffic signal (Condition No. 90 a.i). The other access point along Highway
79 South is located further west and will be a right in-right out only access point. A secondary
driveway is located at the northeastern portion of the project site connecting to DePortola Road
and will be designed to prohibit left turns from the project site (right-out only). Staff has
conditioned the project to provide another access point from the project site to Dartolo Road,
with a bridge to be constructed over a floodway (Condition No. 91 a). The project site will also
have internal access connecting with the Rancho Pueblo PDO to the west.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
4
.
.
.
Based on the Development Code parking regulations, the site is required to provide a
minimum of 633 parking spaces and 1278 spaces have been provided. The parking lot will be
constructed in phases to coincide with the development of each building.
Site Design/Architecture
The hospital building will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will include a single
story structure and six (6) story tower housing approximately 170 beds. The second phase
includes a five (5) story tower housing the remaining 150 beds (320 beds total).
Medical office building NO.1 (MOB #1) is four (4) stories, 80,000 square feet, and located
immediately to the west of the hospital. Medical Office Building No. 2 (MOB #2) is three (3)
stories, 60,000 square feet and located immediately west of MOB # 1. The cancer center is a
single story, 10,000 square foot building located immediately to the east of the hospital. The
fitness rehabilitation center is also a single story structure, approximately 8,000 square feet
and is located north of the hospital, along DePortola Road. The helipad is located on the
eastern portion of the site, north of the hospital building.
The project proposes a Spanish style architectural design for all buildings. The building design
features the use of earth toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian red
tile at the base. The hospital towers are divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The hospital,
medical office buildings and the cancer center each include a porte-cochere covered entry.
The hospital building is required to obtain building permits from the California Office of
Statewide Health and Planning Development (aSH POD) and is exempt from City structural
review and building permits. The two medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center will be required to obtain building permits from the City of Temecula
Building Department. Therefore, staff has modified the timing thresholds of the hospital
building for the implementation of various conditions of approval to coincide with OSHPOD
submittal requirements.
Landscaping
Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25 foot wide bermed landscape planter along Highway
79 South, consisting of 24" box and 15 gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and
assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of 24"
box and 15 gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50 foot wide planter along the western
property line of assorted street trees; and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees
along the eastern property line. The overall site will include 20% 36-inch box (approximately
176 trees), 30% 24-inch box, and 50% 15 gallon trees.
Tentative Parcel MaD
The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eight (8) legal lots into one contiguous
parcel. Included as part of the Tentative Parcel Map is a request to abandon the southern
portion of Pio Pico Road. The portion requested to be abandoned is not built and will not result
in any street closures.
Environmental Assessment
Staff determined the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts and an
Initial Study was prepared. The environmental factors that were studied were aesthetics/visual,
air quality, archaeological, flood plain, geologicaVseismic, noise, population/housing balance,
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFFREPORT.doc
5
public services/facilities, sewer capacity, soils erosion/compaction/grading, toxiclhazardous
wastes, traffidcirculation, water quality, land use and light and glare. Staff required technical .
studies be prepared to address each of the identified potential impacts.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment
The proposed General Plan Amendment to allow for increased building height is consistent with
the following goals and pOlicies of the General Plan:
Goal 2 on page 2-10 of the Land Use Element:
"A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are
protected and co-exist with newer urban developmenF.
Goal 1 on page 2-9 of the Land Use Element:
':4 well balanced community provides a broad range of land uses that are
planned in desirable patterns and intensities. By providing for a balanced
mixture of land uses, the City can achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a
range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents
and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities,
and adequate public facilities and services".
Goal 8 and Policy 8.1, respectively, on page 2-15 of the Land Use Element:
.
"A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns".
.Provide a pattern of land uses that maintain and enhance the viability of
neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and counties of Riverside
and San Diego though compatible uses and Iinkages'~
The amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 Specific Plan overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction as currently shown on Table 2-9. of the Land Use
Element. The current General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (PO) will not
change as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Through the Development Plan
review process, the project has been designed to be compatible with the rural residential
character by including multi-use trails, split rail fencing, landscaped buffers, and single story
buildings along DePortola Road.
Zone Chanae
The proposed zone change to PDO-9 will not change the use matrix of permitted uses for the
project site. The proposed PDO-9 includes language allowing portions of hospital structure to
exceed the 75-foot height limit. The proposed PDO-9 text modifying the height limit for the site
is acceptable because it provides proper flexibility for the hospital building only (and only 30% of
the roof area is permitted to exceed the 75-toot height limit). The proposed PDO-9 will not allow
additional offices or other areas of the hospital beyond the proposal to exceed the 75-foot height
limitation.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
6
.
.
.
Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is required for the hospital and helipad. The purpose and intent of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is intended to allow an establishment of uses, which have special
impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot be
determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular location. A CUP provides staff
and approval bodies the means to review the location, design, configuration of uses, potential
impacts and compatibility with the surrounding area.
In order to make the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, staff analyzed the following concerns
and identified conditions and mitigations that should be applied to the project.
Traffic and Circulation (access points)
The primary issues raised during the community meetings included traffic impacts upon the
adjacent residential streets such as DePortola Road and Pio Pico. The initial project did not
include an access point to/from DePortola. Staff required the applicant to provide secondary
driveway access directly to DePortola. Staff felt that alternative access points are necessary due
to unforeseen closures along Highway 79 South, which have historically and may again in the
future close down Highway 79 South. By having additional access points that are not located
along Highway 79 South, the ingress/egress of emergency vehicles remains functional. This
DePortola access point is a secondary driveway designed in a manner that will not permit left
hand turns from the project site. This will require all traffic leaving the project site onto DePortola
Road to travel east towards Margarita Road, away from the residential area. Staff has also
included a condition of approval requiring a bridge over the floodway connecting the site to
Dartolo Road on the eastern portion of the site (Condition No 91 a). The bridge will allow the
future connection to Margarita Road.
Building Height and Views
The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views, include the two towers
that are five (5) and six (6) stories. The applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is
primarily based on internal function relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the
building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment
facilities, equipment as well as elevators, stairs and window placement. With the form follows
function concept in mind, the design of the building is severely limited in what can be changed in
regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. Recognizing
that the nearest tower is setback approximately 210 from the nearest residentially zoned parcel
and approximately 630 feet from DePortola Road, and that extensive perimeter landscaping and
landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided, staff can make the findings of approval.
Noise
A noise study was prepared for the project to assess the potential impacts on adjacent
properties. Staff's analysis focused on short term construction noise, daily operation noise and
noise associated with the helipad. Staff determined that the noise study adequately addresses
all of the noise impacts associated with the project and mitigation measures have been added as
conditions of approval (see Mitigation Monitoring Program).
Short term construction noise will be mitigated by the implementation of measures such as
sound blankets (barriers that resemble a blanket draped over a fence to deflect noise) along the
R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
7
northern property line between the construction activities and residences, hours of operation and
properly tuned equipment. .
Daily operational noise will be mitigated through the design of the project and conditions of
approval, which include landscaped berms, orientation of mechanical equipment and loading
areas away from residential areas. As a mitigation measure and condition of approval, The
applicant is required to coordinate with local emergency service providers to minimize the use of
sirens near the hospital and residential zones. -
Helipad noise will be minimized because the sound levels will only occur for periods of 15-30
minutes for each flight; and the flight path is restricted to the Highway 79 South and commercial
corridors, unless environmental conditions do not allow for such path of travel (CUP Condition of
Approval No. 10).
Light and Glare
Staff required the applicant to locate all ground mounted lighting as far away as possible from
the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot is consistent with the setbacks set
forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. All lighting is conditioned to comply with
Ordinance 655, which requires all exterior lighting to be shielded, directed down and utilize low
pressure sodium. In addition, staff has added a mitigation measure for all windows above the
second floor (medical offices and the towers) to include glazing or tinting to reduce the amount of
glare from the upper stories. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant is required
to submit a photometries plan showing light ,levels for the project site and at property lines
(Development Plan Condition No. 36).
Hazardous Materials
.
Medical facilities typically dispose of hazardous wastes and low level radioactive materials. The
handling and disposal of this type of waste is regulated, monitored and enforced by the Riverside
County Environmental Health Department. Prior to occupancy of the hospital, a Hazardous
Materials Management Plan is required to be submitted and approved by Riverside County
Health Department (Condition No.4 and 129). This plan is kept on file and is accessible by the
Fire Department.
Develooment Plan
Access/Circulation
The access and circulation of the project will not adversely impact the adjacent roadways. The
following improvements are required to be installed and operational prior occupancy of any
building in phase I: Installation of traffic signal at Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way,
including a dedicated right turn lane along the westbound lanes and restriping of through lanes
and turning lanes at this intersection; DePortola Road access point and roadway improvements;
Highway 79 South and Redhwak Parkway (Margarita Road) southbound and eastbound right
turn signal overlap; and improve Dona Lynora with half street improvements and restrict
movements to right in/right out vehicular movements. Prior to the certificate of any occupancy
for any building in phase II, internal access from the project site shall be provided to Dartolo
Road.
.
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\PC-ST AFF REPORT. doc
8
.
.
.
The project is consistent with the parking standards as set forth in the Development Code for
hospital and office facilities. There are a total of 1 ,278 parking spaces proposed, only 663 are
required. There are also 3 bicycle racks providing a total of 40 spaces, 34 spaces are required.
Site Design/Architecture
The site design and architecture, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The project site is designed in a manner that complies with the development
standards. The architecture meets the intent of the design guidelines. The colors and materials
are consistent with the Spanish architectural style proposed by the applicant. Each building
maintains the three components required for each building, including a tile base, stucco body
and Spanish roof. The applicant added a band below the fourth story windows of the towers to
break up the massing, which reduces the blank wall appearance. In addition, the abundance of
windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. A decorative rotunda between
the towers, adds interest from Highway 79 South and reduces the massing by providing a
separate feature between the towers. The entry of the hospital, medical office buildings and
cancer center all include a decorative covered canopy. The covered entry defines the primary
entry for each building as a focal point. The applicant has also proposed a decorative boulder
water feature at the main entrance of the hospital to further accentuate the entry. As a condition
of approval, all roof mounted equipment is required to be screened as determined acceptable by
the Planning Director (Development Plan Condition No.8).
Landscaping
The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and
Design Guidelines. The project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33%
proposed). The applicant has proposed and/or is conditioned to provide landscape berms
adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included conditions of approval to
further buffer the residential area from the project by requiring berms and mature evergreen
trees such as Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees between the project site and residential
areas to the north (Condition No. 35 i, j, and k).
Tentative Parcel Mao (32468),
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the Development Standards and
Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes to consolidate eight lots into one legal lot. The
proposal is consistent the lot width, depth and lot area for the PDO 9 District. As a result of the
recordation of the final map, a portion of the Pio Pico right-of-way extending into the project site
would be abandoned.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
i:8J 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
- . ~.
Aesthetics
m'
Cornpiy with Ordinance 655, Fu'lIy shielding of lighting fixtures,
directed down, landscaping with mature evergreen screen trees,
glazed/tinted windows above 2nd floor.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\PC.STAFF REPORT.doc
9
Air Quality
Biological Resources
I Cultural Resources
I Geology and Soils
I Hazardous Materials
Noise
TransportationfTraffic
Comply with AQMD regulations, construct pedestrian paths of travel, .
maintain waste related enclosures, comply with health department
hazardous waste regulations (Hazardous Materials Management
Plan), construct RT A stage area, plant native drought resistant
landscaping, watering down site during grading for dust control
(SCAQMD Rule 403), 15 MPH zone for on-site construction traffic,
FUQitive Dust Control Plan is required.
U.S. Army Corps Permits, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and
Game clearances, Focused Burrowing Owl study 30-days prior to
grading, bridge construction shall utilize supports outside the flood
channel, focused studies for construction between April 15 and July
15 (Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Flvcatcher).
I Pre-excavation agreement with Pechanga, Monitoring for cultural and
paleontological resources.
lOver-excavation and 90% recompaction, grading shall comply with
1997 UBC.
I Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required subject to
approval of Riverside CounD' Health Department.
Provide a 6-foot high (or higher) sound blanket between project site
and residences abutting project site, submit maintenance records of
construction equipment, staging and stockpiling areas shall be
located away from residential areas, muffling, screening and buffering
of mechanical equipment, emergency generators shall be used for
emergencies and servicing only, truck arrivaVdeparture for loading
shall be limited to 7;00 AM to 7:00 PM, sirens for emergency vehicles
shall be shut off no less than 14 mile from site, helicopter flight path is
limited to commercial corridors (weather/safety permitting), comply
with Section 21661.5 of State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration.
Modify traffic signal at Country Glenn and Highway 79 South to 4-way
signal, install sidewalks and street lights along Highway 79 South,
install left turn pocket (dual left turn lane) at Margarita/Highway 79
South intersection, provide access driveway to DePortola, pay DIF
and TUMF, pay fair share contributions, connect Dartolo Road to
Margarita (including vehicular access bridge).
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has identified various issues of concern. In
addition, staff has prepared an Initial Study, which has identified potentially significant
environmental impacts. Staff has included conditions of approval and has prepared a Mitigation
Monitoring Program which addresses these concerns and reduces the potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve Planning
Application Nos. PA04-0462, PA04-0463, and PA04-0571 based upon the findings and the
attached Conditions of Approval.
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaN>C>ST AFF REPORT.doc
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
The proposed project provides a multitude of benefits and services that are needed within the
community. The project is considered an economic benefit because the City will now have a
regional health care facility that will attract additional medical services, medical offices and
related uses anc;l facilities. In addition, quality health care is a desired element that is sought
after by companies looking to establish themselves and/or relocate to the City of Temecula.
FINDINGS
1. General Plan Amendment
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
2.
Zone Change
a. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General
Plan of the City of Temecula in which the use is located, as shown on the Land
Use Map. The proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan
Amendment, the site is physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in
this area, and the proposed zone change would further the City's long-term
economic development goals.
b. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of
the General Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide
the diversity of uses desired in the General Plan and will create a balanced
community with additional public services available to the community.
3.
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320 bed hospital facility and a
helipad, is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan
and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix
of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses; (Goal 1)"
"a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are
protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and "A City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns (Goal 8)". The
proposed project provides a regional use that needed in the community and
surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the
community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The proposed project integrates public medical facilities necessary
for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed
to mitigate various potentially significant impacts via an environmental
assessment in which circulation, noise, light and glare, biological and air quality
has been reviewed the conditioned so the project can co-exist with the
surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT-doc
11
d.
b.
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In
addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the
Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9),
including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The
site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable
for the type 'of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent
with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and
conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent
uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared, which
identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic,
air quality, noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level.
For example, access points have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic
leaving the project site towards residential areas by eliminating left turn options
and focusing the primary access points along the State highway. Additional
landscaping and berming are included in the Conditions of Approval to screen the
height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height;
this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets
are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving
and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state highway corridor
rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens
no less than 14 from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use
as has been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner
that will reduce any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood. The building and the site is designed to respect the surrounding
area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings
or structures.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Development
Code and required by the Planning Commission, or City Council in order to
integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The conditional use is a
request for a 320 bed hospital and he/ipad on a 35.31 acre site. The project has
been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance with the
development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting,
lot coverage and height. The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use
trail between the project site and the adjacent residences to the north, which will
extend a future trail to be constructed in the near future. The site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting
the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is
c.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORTdoc
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
e.
for a 320 bed hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because
the proposed project is providing a service that is needed in the community and
region and it has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts, including
health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community. The proposed
project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the
issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and
Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and. Fire Department will review the construction plans for
compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section
17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from
parks, school and residentially zoned parcels.
4.
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F)
a. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and
policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of
Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed and
conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all
applicable zoning ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
b. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been
designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
because the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon
the surrounding neighborhood and the project has been reviewed and conditioned
to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
5.
Tentative ParcelfTract Map (Code Section 16.09.1400
a. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and
the City of Temecula Municipal Code because the proposed subdivision map is
consistent with the development standards within the Development Code,
Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment;
b. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land
is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract;
c. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
d. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC.STAFF REPORT. doc
13
are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not
affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In addition, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the Application;
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems;
.
e.
f. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
g. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which
are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be
provided;
h. The subdivision is a commerciaVoffice project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plan Reductions (Under Separate Cover) - Blue Page 15
2. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Mitigated Negative Declaration) - Blue Page 16
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
PC Resolution No. 2005- _ (General Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 17
Exhibit A- City Council Resolution 05-_
4. PC Resolution No. 2005 _ (Zone Change) - Blue Page 18
Exhibit A - City Council Ordinance No. 05-_
3.
.
5. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Blue Page 19
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
6. PC Resolution No. 2005-_ (Tentative Parcel Map) - Blue Page 20
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution 05-_
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
14
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
R\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
15
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
16
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL," GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462,
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; 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 at the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001
through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, which applications are hereby
incorporated by reference and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines (Project);
.
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was
prepared for the project as described in the Initial Study, including, in the time and manner
prescribed by State, local law and CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Program on April 6, 2005, at 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;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended City Council adoption Exhibit "A" a Resolution of
the Planning Commission recommending the City Council adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "A" subject to and
based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Recommend Adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
.
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temeoula Regional Hospital\Draft pc Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
1
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 2005
ATTEST:
David Mathewson, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula,
California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted b~
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6
day of April 2005, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS;
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN;
Debbie Ubnoske,Secretary
R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 T emecula Regional Haspital\Draft PC Resa Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION)
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temeeula Regional Hospllal\Draft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
3
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462, PA04-0463 AND PA05-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. Universal Health Services, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan; and PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code and an initial study was prepared in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and,
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the application of the Project and environmental review, at
which time the City staff and interested persons has an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter; and,
D. 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. 2005- _, recommending the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
E. On , 2005 and. 2005, the City Council of the
City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons
interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters.
F. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it
adopted Resolution No. 05-_;
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
R:\C U P\2004\04-D463 Temecula Regional Hospitaf\Draft PC Resa Mitigated Nag Dee.doc
4
that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial .
Study, Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by reference.
B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of
the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the
documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Planning
Department, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589.
C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments
received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on . 2005.
D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA.
E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a
significant effect on the environment.
F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and
analysis of the City Council.
G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared in accordance with law.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated .
Negative Declaration for the Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
Project as set forth on Exhibit A. attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference
together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this _' day of
,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST;
Susan Jones, CMC
City Clerk
SEAL]
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC Rasa Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
5
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of
, 2005 by the following vote of the Council;
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS;
COUNCILMEMBERS;
COUNCILMEMBERS;
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004\04-D463 T emeeula Regional HospitallDraft PC Reso Mitigated Neg Dee.doc
6
City of Temecula
Plannin2 Department
Notice of Completion
_CH # 2005031017
Project Title: Temecula Hospital
P A04-0462 a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; P A04-0463 Development Plan
and Conditional Use Permit and P A04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Lead Agency: City of Temecula
Street Address: 43200 Business Park Drive
City: Temecula. CA Zip: 92590
Project Location
City of Temecula, Riverside County
Cross Streets: North of Highway 79 South,
south of De Portola Road and west of
Margarita Road
Assessor's Parcel No.:
920-100-00 I through 13
Total Acres: 35.31
CEQA Document Type
[ ]NOP
[ lEarly Consultation
Local Action Type
[ ]General Plan Update
[X]General Plan Amendment
[ ]General Plan Element
[ ]Community Plan
[ lOther
Development Type
[]Residential: Units_ Acres [ ]Water1'acilities: Type MGD
[X]Office: Sq.ft:l40.000 Acres 35,31 Employees_ [ ]Transportation
[]Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Acres Employees _ []Mining:
[ ]lndustrial: Sq,ft._ Acres_ Employees_ []Power:
[]Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment:
[ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste:
[XlOther: Hos1)itaI408.160 SQ, 1'1.: Cancer Cent~r~Q.OOQSjll'l,.: Fitn.ess CJlJlter 8.000 So Ft.
---
Project Issues Discussed in Document
[X]AestheticNisual [X]1'lood PlainfFlooding [ ]SchoolSfUniversities [X] Water Quality
[ ]Agricultural Land [ ]1'orest Land/Fire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [ ]Water supplyfgroundwater
[X]Air Quality [X]GeologicfSeismic [X]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandfRiparian
[X]ArcheologicallHistorical [ ]Minerals [X]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife
[ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing
[ ]Drainagef Absorption, [X]populationIHousing Balances[X]ToxicfHazardous [X]Land Use
[ ]Economic/Jobs [X]Public ServicesfFacilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [ ]Cumulative Effects
r I1'iscal r lRecreationlParks [ ]Vegetation rXIOther: Light & Glare
Present Land Use: Vacant
Current Zoning: Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8)
General Plan Use: Professional Office
Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (PDO-X)
Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment is a
request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits Ihe height of buildings
along Highway 79 to 2 stories. The Zone Change is a request to change the zoning from Professional Office
and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-B) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and
tt medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately
565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitatio.n center space on 35.31
acres. The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to consolidate eiqht (B) lots into one (Hparcel.
Mail to: Slate Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacrnmento, CA 95814 (916) 445'()613
Contact Person: Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
Phone: (951) 694-6400
Within 2 miles
State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 South
Airports: Nf A
Waterways: Temecula Creek
Railways: None
Schools: Sparkman Elementary, Rancho Community (private school under
construction)
[X]Negative Declaration []Supplement ElR
[ IDraft ElR [ ISubseQuent ElR
[ ]ElR (prior SCH #)
[ lOther
[ ]Specific Plan
[ ]Master Plan
[ ]Planned Unit Development
[X]Site Plan/Plot Plan
[X]Rezone
[ ]Prezone
[X]Use Permits
[X]Subdivision of Land
[ ]Annexation
[ ]Redevelopment
[ ]Coastal Permit
[ ]City Development Project
Type
Mineral
Type
Type
Type
R:\C U Pl2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallNOTICE OF COMPLEfION-Hospital-l.doc
I
REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST
Resources Agency
BoatinglWaterways
Coastal Commission
Coastal Conservancy
Colorado River Board
Conservation
...I Fish and Game
Forestry
i Office of Historic Preservation
Parks and Recreation
Reclamation
S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission
Water Resources (DWR)
Business, Transportation, & Housing
i Aeronautics
L California Highway Patrol
L Caltrans District No. -L c
i Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters)
Housing & Community Development
Other
State & Consumer Services
General Services
i aLA (Schools)
Public Review Period:
KEY
S=Document sent by lead agency
X=Document sent by SCH
T=Suggested distribution
Environntental Affairs
Air Resources Board
L APCD/AQMD
L California Waste Management Board
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Delta Unit
...I SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
i Regional WQCB # 9 ( )
Youth & Adult Corrections
Corrections
Independent Commissions & Offices
Energy Commission
l Native American Heritage Commission
Public Utilities Commission
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
State Land Commission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Food & Agriculture
Health & Welfare
L Health Services
.
Ending Date: April 6, 2005
Starting Date: March 8, 2005
Signature ~~
~
~
Date March 3, 2005
-
Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable):
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Dan Long
Phone (951) 694-6400
Applicant: Universal Health Services, Inc.
Address 367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone (610) 768-3300
For SCH Use Only:
Date Received at SCH
Date Review Starts
Date to Agencies
Date tQ SCH
Clearance Date
Notes:
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\NOTICE OF COMPLETION-Hospital-l.doc
2
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
PA04-0462 General Plan AmendmentlZone Change
PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map
Universal Health Services, Inc, 367 South Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406
North of Highway 79 South and south of De Portola Road, approximately 500 feet
west of Margarita Road. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 004 and
007 through 010.
PA04-0462 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; The project site is
located in an area identified as Z2 in the General Plan. The Z2 area is located
between De Portola Road, a residential area to the north, a state Highway to the
south and Professional Office (PO) and commercial uses to the west and east. The
current language restricts the height of buildings within the Z2 area. The proposed
project is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation. The zone change is a
request to change the zoning from Professional Office (PO) and De Portola Road
Planned Development Overlay Zone-8 (PDO-8) to the T emecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay-9 (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 allows a height up to 115
feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals.
PA04-0463 A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct
approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical offices, cancer center and
fitness center space on 35.31 acres.
PA04-0571 A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight (8) 10,ts into
one (1l parcel.
The City of T emecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above.
Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that this project
as mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning
Commission intends to recommend the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are
included in the project design, conditions of approval and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is
attached to this notice will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at
43200 Business Park Drive.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaoer.,?5., PostinR the Site. !. Notice to Adjacent Prooertv Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions conceming this project, please contact Dan Long,
Associate Planner at (951) 694-6400.
~
.
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
.
Prepared by:
Dan Lona. Associate Planner.
(Name and Title)
(Signature)
.
R:\C U P\2QlM.\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Notice of Intent-Hospitall.doc
1
Vicinity Map
I
,
.
l\.:\C U \1\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Notice oflntent-Hospitall.doc
2
.
.
.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency Distribution List
PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA04-0462 General Plan AmendmenVZone Change (PDO-9)
Planning Application No. PA04-0463 Development Plan/Conditional Use Permit
Planning Application No. PA04-0571 Tentative Parcel Map (32468)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: March 3, 2005
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety .....................................( )
Fire Department.......................................( )
Police Department ...................................( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD).....................( )
Planning, Advance ...................................( )
Public Works............................................( )
.........( )
STATE:
Caltrans ...................................................( )
Fish & Game............................................( )
Mines & Geology......................................( )
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........( )
State Clearinghouse ................................( )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)............ (X)
Water Resources .....................................( )
.......( )
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers........................ (X)
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................ (X)
.........( )
.........( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ..............( )
Western Riverside COG ..........................( )
.......( )
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning...................................................( )
.......( )
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Notice of Intent-Hospita11.doc
3
CASE PLANNER: Dan Long
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Clerk and Recorder's Office ....................( )
Airport Land Use Commission................. ( )
Engineer .................................................. ( )
Flood Control...........................................(X)
Health Department ..................................(X)
Parks and Recreation .............................. ( )
Planning Department.............................. .(X)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..(X)
Riverside Transit Agency.........................(X)
...... ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District .............(X)
Inland Valley Cablevision ........................(X)
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve .....(X)
Southern California Gas ............:.............(X)
Southern California Edison......................(X)
Temecula Valley School District ..............(X)
Metropolitan Water District ...................... ( )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation .................(X)
Eastern Information Center .....................( )
Local Agency Formation Comm ..............( )
RCTC .....................................................( )
Homeowners' Association (2) .............. (X)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Proiect Title
lead Ag~ncy Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
. Zoning
. Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
~
I
I
I
I
Environmental Checklist
, Temecula Regional Hospital
City ofTemecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dan lonq, Associate Planner (951) 694-6400
North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and
apPJoximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road
UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA
19406
Professional Office (POl.
Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8)
Proposed: Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9).
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative
Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request
to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The
Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories
within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the
zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for
30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The
Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to
construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medica
office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helip.
space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a
request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel.
This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the
hospital and related medical office buildings. While the overall
project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning
Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are
under the sole control of the State of California. As a result, to the
extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation
Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits
are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities.
Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family
residences to the south, single-family residential to the north,
professional office, commercial and educational to the west
(currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to
the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south
and Interstate 15 is located approximatelY 2 miles to the west.
Other public agencies which may require approval and/or
subsequent permits include; U.S Army Corps (USACE), California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside
County Flood Control, Airport land Use Commission (ALUC),
California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Heal.
Department.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital~1.doc
1
e
I
e
.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I X Aesthetics
I AQriculture Resources
I X Air Quality.
I X BioloQical Resources
I X Cultural Resources.
I X Geoloqv and Soils
I X Hazards and Hazardous Materials
I X HvdroloQV and Water Quality
I Land Use and Plannino
Mineral Resources
X Noise
X Population and HousinQ
X . Public Services
Recreation
X Transportationffraffic
X Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory FindinQs of SiQnificance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be-prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the proiect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be orepared.
II find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the prooosed oroiect, nothinQ further is reauired.
Signature
Date
Dan Lona. Associate Planner
Printed name
For
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
2
. ..' - -
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
I Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
qualitv of the site and its surroundinas?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
:g1t~~;:~
""~!!!\A,,,.
"..rlni~lfCl;'
I X I
X
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: '
I a.
b.
I c.
d.
X
X
Comments:
1. a. and b.: No Impact According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located
on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. The
surrounding residential areas of the project site maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain.
The proposed project includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4
stories. It is anticipated that some private views will be impacted as a result of the project; however these views
are private and not considered a public impact to the community. The surrounding residential areas are higher
in elevation than the pad elevation of the proposed hospital (see Section 1.c. below for elevation analysis).
The difference in elevation will reduce the view impacts because the proposed buildings will not appear as tall.
In addition, the view of the surrounding areas from the project site will be impacted due to the propose.
structures on the site. The project site is a private site and does not include public views that are considered.
public benefit.
The project site is not located on a- defined scenic highway. The project site is currently vacant with no
structures, significant trees or rock outcroppings on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not
substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Due to the fact
that the project site is vacant with no scenic vistas or known resources, the project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings. No impact is anticipated as
a result of the proposed project.
1. c: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located between a State
Highway (79 South) to the south and very low, density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The
residential area is elevated above the project site. The elevation of the project at the nearest footprint of the
towers is approximately 1,053'; the elevation of DePortola Road is approximately 1,065'; the elevation of the
midpoint of Pio Pico Road is approximately 1,101 and the high point of the hilltop residences to the north of the
project site is approximately 1,223'. The proposed project includes a 60,000 square foot, three story medical
office building (60' height), 80,000 square foot four story medical office building (73' height), a 408,160 square
foot hospital structure including two towers of five and six stories (106' height), a 10,000 square foot single
story cancer center and an 8,000 square foot, single story fitness rehabilitation center. According to the City of
Temecula General Plan, the project site does not include any scenic resources and is not known for its visual
character. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is considered an in-fill development site.
There is no public viewing areas in the immediate vicinity that would be impacted as a result of the proposed
project. While the project will be visible from various residential lots, a less than significant impact is anticipated
because the views are considered private and are not considered to be of public benefit. The applicant i.S
proposing numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks and Silk Trees along th
perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospilal-1.doc
3
buildings. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation
of the pad areas. The building height, therefore will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the
residences to the north.
.1. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or
glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital
and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to
comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance
655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code
and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one-
foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot
candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down
and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has
proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition,
the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded.
The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval,
all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing
and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of T emecula requires
all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655
requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of
glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11 :00
P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11 ;00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late
evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar
Observatory.
The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval and are required as a part of the
~oposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is
."itigated to a less than significant level:
a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded,
directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be
shut-off by 11 :00 P.M.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the
proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive
light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance
light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate.
c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for
General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in
parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at
project boundaries.
d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital andfor medical office buildings shall maintain
glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is
emitted from the upper floors.
.
e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or
greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include
berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the
project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any
walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern
property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources ar_
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Lan
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a.
. . .
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aqricultural use?
I Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-aqricultural use?
x
b.
x
c.
x
Comments;
2. a. b.; No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15-20
years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for
agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech
September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800's the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. HoweveA
the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuabl'"
agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This
property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State
Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve
changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
2. c.; Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause
other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural
uses in the City's sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses
other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered
a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego
County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth
of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
5
I a.
lb.
c.
I d.
Ie.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementaiion of the applicable
air (lualitv plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an exil;tina or proiected air auality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed auantitative thresholds for ozone orecursors)?
I Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
I Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number I
of peoDle?
I
I
x
x
x
x
x
Comments;
3. a.-e.: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was
.repared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16,
_00. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts;
construction emissions and operational emissions.
The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project.
Table 1 'Dailv Construction Emissions
I Emissions Source Pollutants (Ibs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10
Construction Emissions I 42 266 353 363
Mitigated Construction I 42 266 353 184
Emissions
I SCAQMD Significance I 75 100 550 150
Thresholds
I Exceed Thresholds? I NO YES NO YES
The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the
NOx and PM10 levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated
to a level much less than without mitigations.
.
R:le U P\2DD4ID4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospital-1.doc
6
The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project.
Table 2 Dailv ODerational Emissions
r Emissions Source I Pollutants (Ibslday) ,
I I ROG NO. CO PM10
I Area Source Emissions I 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 I
I Vehicular Source Emissions I 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4
I Total Unmitigated Emissions I 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41
I I
I Unmitigated Area Source I 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01
Emissions
I Mitigated Vehicular Source I 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01
Emissions
I Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02
I SCAQMD Significance I 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0
Thresholds
I Exceed Thresholds? I YES YES YES NO
Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. The
primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions SUCh.
healers, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions.
The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project
would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the
exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts
are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10.
The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental
Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (OJ), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as
either "Does not meet the primary standards", "Cannot be classified", or "Better than national standards". The
primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an
"extreme" non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone
and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM1O.
The State standard for Ozone (03) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is
0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the
Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are
9 ppm and 9,5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PMlO)
is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter
over 24 hours.
The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the
Temecula area. The closest stalion to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as a
reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December
16,2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that d.
to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temec~
generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitamniUal Study ORAFT-Hospital-1,doc
7
The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative
modes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature
arees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to
Whe project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the
proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative
mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to
employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TDM practices are
designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures.
The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RT A) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will
provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RT A and Caltrans
to finalize the location and design of the bus stop.
The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which
the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regards to the immediate
surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air
Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as
having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the
Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattem. While the project site is located
within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants
considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of
Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below.
_he City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General
Jan. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level.
he City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 93-90, a statement of overriding consideration for
these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of
overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The
application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a
change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allowed,
floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with land use designation
within the current General Plan and is also consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor
area ratio) in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor
Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot
Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital
project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site
would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059
square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio
permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies
within the General Plan.
The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors.
The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and
could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed
project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors,
dust and/or other pollutants.
The following Conditions of Approval andfor Mitigation Measures will be incorporated on the following
&titlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan,
~onditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map);
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospital-1,doc
8
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air
Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfacti_
of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department.
b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the
state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and
subsequent use.
c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be
discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous
waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health
Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department.
d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of
'the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered
at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal.
e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from
the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative
tra nsportation.
f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for
the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the Cia
of Temecula Planning Department. _
g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the
hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following; encouraging car
and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the
facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital.
h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project.
The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards.
i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-
resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100
days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula
may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to
be conducted at the Applicant's sole expense.
j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the
Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large
equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-
fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and
deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonabja
possible. _
R:\C U P\2004104-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study ORAFT-Hospital-l,doc
9
.
.
.
k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
I. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent
fugitive dust and erosion, in the moming before grading and/or before construction begins and in
, the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be
watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during
construction and/or grading activities. to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best
management practices (BMP's). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading
and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel.
m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust
on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this
requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the
project construction.
n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the
load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or
from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections
23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be
sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks,
including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent
runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area.
o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a
ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the
contractor via incentives or other inducements.
p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site
limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500
feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast
corner of the project site).
r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active
portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent
fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application
of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering
shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and
evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include
complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to
time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at it's sole cost.
s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant
at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and
roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or
excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish
and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to
prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the
Applicant.
R:le U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospilal-1,doc
10
t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent
streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping
of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the
end of each day of grading and/or construction.
u. During periods of high winds (Le., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjace_
properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the
Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by
the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and
operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City
Engineer at his sole discretion.
v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of
Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement
of grading and excavation operations.
w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater
than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of
dust.
x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and
construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by
the City.
.
.
R:\C U PI2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaNnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
11
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
-
Have a substaniial adverse effeci, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califomia
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
4. a. c. d.; Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: A habitat assessment study was
prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004).
The study identified a man made flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site,
which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including
cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is
likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a
condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road,
which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood
channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth &
Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any
streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas.
However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the
habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of
the bridge. In addition, if activity within the channel (or for, preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to
occur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided
a, detennine the presence/absence for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern
Wlillow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
12
construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow
the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
project with Mitigation Measures.
4. b. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nurse.
sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan,
including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has
been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord.
8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the
site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site.
4. f; Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The proposed project is not located within a
criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals,
or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP
guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study
prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential
habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading
permits.
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to
the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned:
a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city
Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the
flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site.
b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances ar~
required. ,.,
c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing
activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of T emecula shall be notified and passive
or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols.
d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel.
e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the
bridge across the channel.
f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place between April 15 through July 15,
the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event
either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules)
and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their
reproductive cycles.
g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is
imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further
environmental review.
.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-1.doc
13
t:;:URAL RESOURCES. Wool.'" pro)oct
r~X~~~J~t;~t~~
x
b.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeoloQical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uniaue QeoloQic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
x
a.
c.
x
I d.
x
Comments:
5. a.; No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital
Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not
identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for
historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact
that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not
known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within
...ose proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site
....r paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required.
5. d.; No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The
project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the
project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains.
The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as
enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project:
a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation
agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and
dispOSition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site.
b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological
artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment
and disposition to the extent authorized by law.
c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring
during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant's sole cost.
d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided
and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the
Mitigation Measure a above.
.
R:IC U P12004104-G463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
14 .
e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource
Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17,
2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures.
i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and PechanrA
Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) sh7
each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow
for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of
sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.
ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be
identified and permanently preserved.
iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with
permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires
alternative treatment.
iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should
be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include
a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and
inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify
completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological
resources.
v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city
of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older
sedimentslresources are discovered, a program shall be prepared wilJii..
recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. .
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study ORAFT-Hospital-1,doc
15
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
.
.
a.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvinQ:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geologv Special Publication 42.
ii. I Stronq seismic ground shakinQ?
iii. I Seismic-related Qround failure, includinQ liQuefaction?
iv. I landslides?
I Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreadinQ, subsidence, liQuefaction or collal?se?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or propertv?
i Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
x
x
x
X
x
lb.
c.
X
X
d.
X
Comments:
6. a. i-iv and c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A Geotechnical Investigation has been
prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI,
Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the lake
Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the
boundaries of the project site. The lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to
produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe
shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition
includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a
combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial
soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for
support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with
respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has
a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs
should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and
seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater.
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project and will be established as
enforceable conditions on the entitlements:
a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration,
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation.
R:le U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
16
i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be
removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a
minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. .
ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The
depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on-
grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed.
The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a
heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly
above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(based on ASTM Test Method 0157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork
should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical.
iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be
adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill
materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials,
have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of
less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill.
During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches)
may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill.
iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned
to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly
mix~d into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be
tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent
lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings Pri.
to sloping.
v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral
support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure
excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with
consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design.
vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified;
moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95
percent relative compaction based on Test Method 01557. the upper 12-inch densification
should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the
initial grading operation.
vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As
such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with
conventional earthmoving equipment.
viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI's Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
(Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards.
6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of tOPsO_'1
The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including Nation
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
17
control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate
to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
a. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not
located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies
the soils on the project site as 'very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report
prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004.
6. e.; No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals
from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and
waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the
public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and
waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility.
.
.
R:IC U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitalllnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
18
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
'$'"<'1<,', I
~,.,~~-
~o/1Jl!il""~,,t
':'~lI ,''t~~",
~ .., O.......~':.
eM, - 't,',.,i' ^~",'
\a~ fOacf;':;"..
a. ' Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances,or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
guarter mile of an existinQ or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workinQ in the project area? '
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
x
x
Comments;
7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project
consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The
proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed
project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated,
September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and
transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County
Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Reg!onal Hospitanlnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
19
7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
e. e.; No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project.
7. f.; No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a
private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As
a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and
safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. g.; No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency
response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project,
which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event
of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire
hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project:
.
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials
storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling,
storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal
regulations.
.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
20
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
b.
. ...
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
reouirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which Dermits have been qranted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in f1oodino on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
I Otherwise substantiallv deorade water Quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
I Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
I Inundation bv seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
c.
d.
e.
1.
g.
I h.
i.
t i.
x
x
x
x
x,
X
X
X
X
Comments;
8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management
Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution
Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if
the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of
dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the
appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge over/across the flood control
channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project.
R:\C U P\2Q04\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
21
.
8. b.; No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local development
_tandards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water
echarge. Th~re is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD),
adjacent to the project site to the northeast. RCWD has been notified of the proposed project and no
comments of immediate concern have been received at this time. No impact is anticipated as a result of the
proposed project
8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not
alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because
the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and
maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the
proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works
Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-
site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
.. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices
(BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination
Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. A less than significant
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. f.: No Impact: The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality because the proposed.
project is not considered a significant pollutant generator and will not include excessive fertilizer application or
other similar materials that could degrade water quality. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project
8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown
in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements of Temecula Creek has resulted
in a new 100 and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. The Temecula Creek, which is the primary
drainage course in the immediate area was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of
Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and
dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance
Rate Mate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20,
1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area,
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
22
The proposed project site was is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of
Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail Lake Dam and has submitted to the City a
Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An additional
study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency:
Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. ThA
FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in th~
event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will place
structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996).
The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to
impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow
and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation conceming the failure of the Vail Lake
Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail Lake Dam
Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised
Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation
Area.
A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted
floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge
capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and
letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year
flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet
facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top
and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation of
1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial
flOOding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure 10llA
however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss .,
structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from
Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of
additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood
insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula
Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the
updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of
Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No
impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Ternecula Regional HospitaNnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1,doc
23
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
I a.
b.
,- ,
PhvsicallX divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
~!l(~~~')1Z{
_"ol;JfBath,'
X
X
I c.
X
Comments:
9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use
is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding
commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an
established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is
planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the
community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation
plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject-to additional studies or review. The
Mroposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to
wxceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General
Plan Amendment is approved.
9. b.;: Less Than Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations.
There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development
Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will
change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned
Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan because the project
site is designated for uses such as hospital and medical office facilities.
All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary
change that would take place as a result of the PD~ is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof
area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PD~
as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The
project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be
impacted as a result of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Ternecula Regional Hospita~!nitial Study DRAFT-Hospita!-1,doc
24
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
~ ... .".. .
Result in the/oss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
Qeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
',,-,.,..,.v' ..~"'.,~ '.
t~ ~r~~j~ i~~~~:~::~~~,;
~, ~~~~~~~{~;;::tt~,;'\~~
1, '.,; ,;;.~LlmDact_t.'C, "..liripadr. t
X
b.
X
Comments:
10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are
considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally-
important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain
such resources as shown in the Final ErR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a
result of the proposed project.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospital-1,doc
25
Exposure of persons' to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
around borne vibration or Qroundborne noise levels?
,
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
proiect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the oroiect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
oroject area to excessive noise levels?
.omments:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
11. NOISE. Would the projectresult in:
x
x
x
x
x
x
11. a.-coo: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project site is located north of
Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office
uses between the project site and Margarit!;l Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De
Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the
south.
The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities
in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following:
.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or
designated public or private primary, secondary or high school.
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured
property line to property line).
Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future
assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with
hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance
shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot
setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties.
R:le U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitanlnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
26
Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and
constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor
blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free.
The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic __
inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter.
Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences,'
The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction).
Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is
approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol park, which is
approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho
Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The
helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet
away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding
lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11.
The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling
approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the
medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story.
The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site.
The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior
areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal
commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this
area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest
proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway z.
South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 Sout
The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which
will buffer some of the noise.
The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the
hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows
per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double
paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will
mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be
temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during
construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated
with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's
noise element in the General Plan will be enforced.
The City Council of the City of T emecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General
Plan in 1993 when they approved Resolution 93-90 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council for the City of
Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and adopting a statement of
overriding considerations for the General Plan for the City of Temecula". Resolution 93-90 included a
statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library,
noise and transportation and circulation. The information within the current General Plan (adopted in 1993) is
considered valid information, which forms the basis of this initial study. The City of Temecula has been
consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is
deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initi.
study and the approval of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall .
binding requirements of the project approval.
R:\C U P\20Q4\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
27
11.d: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The General Plan noise element identifies
the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level
.f 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial
nd offices uses. The primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed
project is required to construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the
noise impacts on-site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from
generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a
residence and includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level
at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above
the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities.
The following Mitigation Measures will be incorporated as enforceable conditions of approval as a part of the
proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004)
and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR:.
a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes,
bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained
mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to
issuance of grading permit.
b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous
barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound
blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties
abutting the project site,
.
c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going).
d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors,
including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units,
ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In
addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or
structures such as walls for acoustical shielding.
f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for
service and maintenance. v
g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides. include a roof or cover, and face away from
residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to
the hours of 7:00 AM - 7;00 PM.
h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within Yo mile of the hospital site unless
required to allow for emergency access.
i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless
req uired in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel.
.
j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation
Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies
detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the helipad.
R:\C U P\2004\04-D463 Temecula Regional Hospitanlnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-l,doc
28
k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of
construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically
Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of ~
occupied residence. .
Monday-Friday 6;30 a.m. - 6;30 p.m.
Saturday
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays
11. e.-f.: No Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport land Use Plan area and there is not an airport,
public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. There for the project will not have a negative impact
on surrounding persons or airports because of noise. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project.
.
.
R:\e U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospila~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospllal-1,doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
. -
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the I
construction of replacement housinq elsewhere?
x
b.
x
I c.
x
Comments:
12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional
medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the
surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth
(residential and commercial) since the mid 1980's without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding
community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to
induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20
years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
12. b.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
aProject site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential
W'ses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or
remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
30
13. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a.
>-~~~;f~-:.i
".";>..'-'-.-
?fffi~ _
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
I
I
I
I
I
x
Fire protection? I
Police protection? i
Schools? I
Parks? I
Other public facilities? I
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or
result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide
additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better
emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies.
The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to Provi.
public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for
new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to
the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities.
The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made
aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to
obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the
surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would
result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal
Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and
the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge
volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all
hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24" vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital
flow is discharged to the existing 15" VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is
responsible for payments of EMWD's sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated
connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of
$3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU I.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development
fee is approximately $120,000.
.
R:IC U PI2004\04-Q463 Temecuta Regional Hospila~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
31
14. RECREATION.
a.
. ~.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
x
b.
Comments:
14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone~ The project
will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes.
The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result
of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project.
Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnilial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
32
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
. ~~~i~~:~t
.."l!(-\'c,- .
~~~/.A
~"llTfdi:ich:/
a.
. .
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (I.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ration on roads, or conqestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
manaqement aqency for desiqnated roads or hiqhwavs?
... . -
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.q.. farm eQuipment)?
I Result in inadequate emerQencv access?
I Result in inade9uate parkinq capacitY?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)?
x
X
X
X
b.
X
c.
X
d.
X
e.
f.
g.
Comments:
.
15. a.-c: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip
generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula
Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill
Hughes, November 23,2004).
The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road. Highway 79 South is currently subject to Caltrans jurisdiction. The proposed
project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000
square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness
rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases
and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the AM. peak hour and
929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the
intersections on Highway 79 South between the 1-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the
intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the
hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately
6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak AM. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M.
hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were
assigned to De Portola Road.
As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study.
The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in
several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA The TIA has identified several roadway and
intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study are'ia
intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in the Dartolo Road connection, which shoulW
reduce the impacts to each road and intersection.
R:IC U PI2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
33
The following Mitigation Measures are required as a part of the proposed project:
.Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I:
1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a
three way signal t6 a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from
Highway 79 South.
2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South.
3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional
eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been
completed.
4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road.
5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF).
6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the
study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II:
1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road.
2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the
study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA.
3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees
(TUMF).
.
4.
It should be noted that if the project's DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact
fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair
share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17
cumulative projects.
The City of T emecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned
above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of
the state CEQA Guidelines
15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or
modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish
incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve
intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections. curves or
traffic patterns.
15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police
Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has
been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius
templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles.
15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces
are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
R:IC U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
34
15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop
facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RTA. No impact is
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
.
.
.
R:\C U PI2004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
35
I a.
b.
If.
~.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
c.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable ReQional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the .
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
I Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to I
accommodate the proiect's solid waste disDosal needs?
I Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and I
reQulations related to solid waste?
x
x
x
x
d.
x
e.
x
x
Comments:
16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project
will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is
required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if
any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from
EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to
provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems
are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater.
16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The
project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground
storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or
expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control RCWD
has reviewed the proposed plan and have not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District
Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
_16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water
titlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an
cremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided "water
R\G U PI2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitantnitial StUdy DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
36
available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed projeCt, provided the
applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a water well near that project site,
owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not
notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is al.
consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policie
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
.
R:\C U PI2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study ORAFT-Hospilal-l.doc
37
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
;'II~~
Does the project have the potential to degrade the Quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California historv or prehistorv?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directlv or indirectly?
x
x
x
Comments:
17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not degrade the quality of
Ae environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable
~tate and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Anny Corps. of
Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis
has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming
devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan.
17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant
with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as
potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the
South Coast Air Basin, which is designated "extreme" non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the
City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 93-90, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air
quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution
93-90 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of
the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures
in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code,
and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact.
17. c.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not have environmental
effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be
designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures
are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level.
.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
38
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR..
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
I a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analvses and state where thev are available for review. I
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitiqation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7,4.10,4.11,4.12,4.14,4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified
technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result
of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were
made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and
inspection.
.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospitaf\lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-1.doc
39
.1.
2.
.2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3.
4.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4,2004
5.
Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004
6.
Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17,
2004.
7.
Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004
Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004.
Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC
Company), November 2004.
8.
9.
10.
Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16,
2004.
11.
Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2,2004.
Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996.
Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John
W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX, dated January 25, 1996
Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975.
Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc.,
December 16, 2004
City of T emecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of T ell)ecula Certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the General Plan for the City of T emecula, Adopted November 5, 1993
R:le U PI2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT -Hospital-l.doc
40
.
DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
.
.
R:IC U P12004104-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~lnitial Study DRAFT-Hospital-l.doc
41
.
.
....
.....
I/)
E 9
I'll I/)
... 0
Cl <C
o_a.
!t.1!!~
.- c
ClD.1'll
C Ul
.- 0 ~
.......M
0'" co
:!::I'll"it
c-o
o :::l I
"""u"it
""'CI)o
cE<C
OCl)a.
:o:n-N'
~ co
._ "it
::: '9
== "it
o
<C
a.
.
~
o
C;).!!!
::I III
.. .-
ca;t:::
en':
~
III
0..
Q)
::c
'w
c
o
g,
tIl
Q)
0:::
-0 '"
c -
'" 5i
g'o>E
.- <:: t::
c.- '"
<::-0
'" = 0.
_:JQ)
D.IOO
-0 '"
<:: -
'" 5i
g'o>E
.- <:: t::
2:Cca
ca == a.
_:JQ)
D.IOO
-g J!l
'" 5i
g'o>E
.- <:: t::
<::.- '"
lij ~ 0.
_:JOl
D.IOO
'5
-g2l
'" <::
'" '"
<:: :J
J!!~~
0..- E
.~ .9 Q>
-l:::;~a.
OlE.Q 0>
~ <::
o 0.._
_<::-0
..2 ro':;
0. 0..0
~ t>>1i)
E.5: <E
.01::0)
c7J .2>;;
<::
'"
0._
_ 0> ~
cct;::::
<<J ~ Q)
-..c:..c:
0. 0>_
0=="-
'i:: ""C 0
"Q)cQ)
E"'o-
c: C'-
.s",,,,E
o-:::J L..
..c a. (I) Q)
0.- '" 0.
"'.-
:'!::oog>
E"i:: +-".-
.QoL..:g
:JOl.Q.-
en-~:J
Ol 0..0
~-E 0
lL '" 0 0
u)uu--a..
cccoJ:
.!!! '" .l!l.;:: en
0. '" '" 0.0
0<::0>
"t: J2.s: ~.9
OiQ.:CEcn
E 0> 0>= <::
oc:=oro
-+:;Q)~c..
o..c:_
-crnco""Cc>
0.= .... co C
rJ) 0.'-
:t::::"OL..:==
E '" 0 Ol'-
.0 o.-..c: E
== ""C .c
:Ja>c'-::J
en..c:",,EUl
>.
-0
:J
Ci5
'"
;l
'c
>.
-0
:J
Ci5
'"
;l
'c
>.
-0
:J
-
en
'"
;l
'c
-0 Ul
<:: -
'" 5i
g'o>E
.- <:: t::
<::.- '"
<::-0
ca==Q.
_:JOl
D.IOO
o
-
~
<::0
.Q '-o.~ 0>
- <::
(.) V).-
2=3:1
..... co.-
Ul - '"
<::Ol.o
0-0_
(.) :> ~
--;:>t;::
o.gOl
>'<::..c:
0..- __
0::.....
O..c: 0
ro:t:::: Q)
:t::::3:g+-i
E Ul ",'E
..oC:::JL,..
:J"'UlOl
en o..!Il c.
>,
-0
:J
-
en
(ij
;l
'c
~ 2 +-' g> G>0)"af
~""CQ)= ~ Q)~C:_ 5~Q)E -0
EQ).c~ E .~~Qca L..:E: 2~
-- - -.E m= c
o..c-;;;cn a. :Ja.caCD <::'___ __0
(I)~u O-C'" -c: w -0
"'..c:O> _"'Ol<:::J_ _-..c: ~~lll
~~V)~ m~~-~~ ~~V) 0.-
- +-' > a>..cwo-rn Q.Ol-+OO _'0 L..
"E 2 g>..co> Q) c: (.) CD (.) -- 0>"'0 C CD -g N 2
:30)== oO>._>c""O ca>ctJc: camco
o.o..cQ) ro~~~.~c: +:;~.2+:;~ uSE
:2 = .2> > 3 01... CJ)"::' co ..co> 12 c...co> Ol Ol Ol Ol>
ca-'- oOl......cncU>OlU> .....0..-
b..c-~ U+=i Q) ==ca<==~ N>_
C(l)~L.. E~L....c""C~ coQ)Q)E"O coot>
gg>g>~ ~.5~.2>&E :t::::E&I-..c::JE~ C)~~
();;320 (j;cE ~Q) 1;) ""C mwe
Ol.!:L... . '0"02 ~C) -E>.Ul-:~roc. 1iiSP'!'
Clea'~ ._(/):Jwc: ~- c..........
~=o.E~ >,'" EOl- "'~-OE= -0
'" _ D. :!::: <D 0>._ l:; -0. _ '" '" Ol .- -0 <::
L..=-O -,' U ex \U:= U) co.c: Q.Q).c: co 0_
~<c~o Q)~~Ero~E.~ .c:~i€L.. .c:Ul~~
'-lri",oo ..c:'Ul-O> '-".,,,, Ul::..c:-o,E
~~cU)~ -Q)="'O"'O~-"'O - ~~m
.c:ID~~~ .r::.o-ccococ cm5~U) roc.c:
~Q)o~> = ~cooE~ ~~~o~ .~oU)
::0-0",.0 ::-of::E _.;::0 =(ijUlX - Ul
.c~~~tt:: ~~Q)E:J~a.",_~o ~-o~2~ ~~~
nc-~9 nO) E~ <m-oO.~ <00
.. E'- oOl ,_.. E-o E'- '" "'.!!?.. Ol.9-<:: <:: ",.. Ol-o-g
~OEL..~:JNoooE_Q)OM -co-cr~ ~.-
~OO~2~~OOOE2roa~~~~E~~~~~
o
o
"0
t......
~
o
Eo
11
0>
e
0.
0>
C
'C
.9
'2
o
:0
c
o
"'
..
g
~
"'
-l1l
is.
w
o
:I:
"iij
c
o
'5>
"
a:
..
a
"
E
"
?-
M
co
...
~
~
o
o
S:l
0.
::>
y
0'.
-
~
o
en!!
~IO
~:e
illS
~
Q.
1Il
'Z
"!
o
!
\
~
Q)
€
(0
ar
o
Cl
C
'C
~
0:
CI)
'S
"0
!
()
III
a
~
%
E
~
g
.Cl
Q) c .5
(/)~"O
'(3 0.. t\1
!,G>o
0.0.(0
-g~'O
(0 -0 Q)
_co
-a,(Oc
:;:) - (0
0-0 :;:)
....cen
(0 (0 !!l
.... Cl 0
.- c~-:::.
E,o....E
-ge.ga>
III Cl 0. 0.
8
%
III
~
:a
lJ)
<ii
:.;::;
.~
Q)
$
i
~
c:
o
~
:f}!
$:
~
0....
:=::c
.QQ)
ct€
. (0
~o.
Q)Q)
ClEO
.5 -t:: en
C(O-""
co.....
.!!lQ)g
0..07
....
C~
0'-
~O
0'5.
:SQ)
en~
C_
SO
::=$.
(0:;::::
10-0
Q)~'~
....enO
:a -!5 '5. Q)
(Ot'Q) ~
E~~(O 0
-0 ....
c"C~-01J
(O~....~Q)
EC~~:DO
Q)~E'iii~t)
.Q(O.C.... .Q)
~Q)Q)'-'en.'::;
w.... Q)Q)O
:::::: tj) o...-.--e
(O....Q)eQ)
1h 0 -G 0. ~.~
.s~cQ)eE
1ij .S o.s 0-!1
.r;;.~-CC-Oo..
en C'l .$ Q)Q) ~ Q)
...., ~ (\1 S;
cenQ)~l?t....
COQ)~Q) ~
g Q) Cl.Q <ii 0
o..~o-o~ro
~cccQ)~
(!)oa)"O'-
.nQ)e:::::O.l'W
j..r;;.o(O""'Q)
G.,\-"'cn(/)~
--
.
~
Q)
E~
1ij~
0.0
CIl>~
0,gQ)
~:a E-
.- :;:)-t::
c 0.. (0
C -0 0.
~cQ)
0..(00
~
Q)
€
1Il
%
o
~
'C
c
.!!l
0..
en _ Q) 'i>
~r.c ro :s ~
....cI-ClQ) 0.
e(O~E:S :s
.;:O~!:;-O 0
c~c 0
~.;Q)-O(O O?;-
?Cl)oZ:'en '0""'
_0(/)0.(1) '0
o""eno.en .$(0
CIl "" CIl <tl (0 <tl-
o .-::_.r;;. 0--
c~:e(ij 0. . ~~
(0 E u.. .r;;. c -0 ~ '"5-
:>Q)-ol/loQ)Q)l/l
~ o..C c:o::1'O'O,$
._ (GOO'- .....
oo>....:.;::;~O'OQ)
-:~%~(j)!~.s
.g:::: Q);e C*""'C '-
o..~oE-S'OC\.,g
~
:>
US
<ii
'.;:l
.~
~
~
<ii
:.;::;
.~
..,'-0 CIl.r;;.(ii-o <>>'ffi.$<tl~~~.s
<tl~C (ii~cc ~.r;;.$'O""O'iii'-::
:;:)1Il lIl3:'lijlll (0 en en _'0....""
.r;;.W ~ 3:Z:'Cl'6 3:l/l .S<iiti\~(O-'
"" g (0 %:15 ~%~~:a~~~ ~
3:?;-- cS~:S 01ll:;:):>~.r;;.Q)-~
~8 - enen -o3:8~.r;;.-o~$~
:>c $-oCC .~ - Q) C-
~o. i~Q)S ~.~.s!~EIQ)
E....~ .-::cnOCl ~C'3""0....~ecO
O'-\:: ~Q)""c IQ) ._....0.-0
04.0 ,...:.;::;en'C .Q.ClQ)~,g<tlC''::;c
o __-:;:) .Q 0- <tl~-
%~ct l~~' ~~~~2'~&~
.r;;. c.g ~ '5. -g 13 .g .~ .$ %:.;::; a ~ ~ '00..
l/l.-.!!l _ _1Il 0 .$eno.!!l:>.pE.o;::.!!l
:>~ __ c~ lIl<tlo:>O:>Q)-CIl:>
cnCl~ wenO~ E3: Cloen 0
~'6Ia> ~~11~ Q)S!O"'W€%
5~,...-% 'C ~'Slii ~ ~.~-o e'02 ~ ~~
'~-O'pQ) ~-uQ)~'C .gCll~CIl l/lEQ)_
o.C 0 _CCll"",Q) _l/l....~.$....l/lOO
<tlQ)-oCll o.Q)....en:;:) (O_~_(OC-
~ ! 0 g--o $ -0 Q) ~ ~!!l -0 g ~.~ ~'""'o
<0(0"0 CIlenQ)en .r;;..-'O-~,,",Q)-
"Q)oo..CIl~Q)~ -.Q~ "0 -o-t::o.~:>Q)
~F,~~~F.~~.~~~~.~~e8~
~.
\
€.
i
0.
~
g
~
8
\
:e
\
t
..
~
~
t
~
....
~
'%
51
g
~
0.
::>
9
ii
.
~
o
0.!!
:l III
.. -
J!~
(I)':;
~
III
D..
CIl
:c
'ijj
c
o
Q.
(/j
CIl
0::
-
C
lD
E
t
III
a.
lD
o
01
C
'c
C
III
a..
-
C
lD
E
t
III
a.
lD
o
01
C
'c
C
III
a..
.
CIl
'3
'tl
CIl
.c
U
(I)
C
o
:;::
,fl
C
CIl
E
CIl
ii
.E
lD
_.c
~;::
<;::0
lD.2!
.c '_
--
O~
~:;;
CC
III III
::l_
",.-
.!!! E
~,f
-; 0>_
+-'.S: 0
...." lD
O-'~
"c::"5 e
a.. CO a.
C
- 0>
l:'!'-
.,.... (IJ Q)
~-.c
lDllI-
.cco
_0_
......n"o
OlD.l!l_
Q)L.._C
U'-.- lD
c"OEE
1lI1l1..o_
::J ~:J L..
tJ).~VJro
"'E a.
.- L.. C1> Q)
lDlD..oO
.c 0.=
- 1lI0>
o ~.c:.5
-._ t/J C
L.,"'O c: C
.Q=1lI1l1
....::1_-
0....Q no..
Gl
l:!
:l
o
(I)
>.
"0
::l
(j)
a;
:;:;
'c
>.~
"OlD
.3c
(l)lD
-(9
III C
:e"gro
EllIo..
'"
-c
o
SOl'"
.2.51:
:OClD
::lCE
o...!!!t
.0.. III
f:5 'U a.
o::liic3
E -0
C -
eo III lD
O>~ ., ..c: 0
cc:m-U>c
.- 0 C III '" III
"0:;:;._ C lD ::l
~m"Eu:oct)
U 0 .- '"
'::>!E 8 ci. ~ '0
o~ Ben.....
Q):>~(I)......o
o Q)._:;::' 0._....;
C,,;;: ::l C Q.'-E
1lI._ 0 0 0
::J>.cC'-"O(j;
~e(l,)s...1iiQ)a.
.- a...... .3 C :!2
o ......"'.->01
-~!i:::l E e.!:
o E ..c Q) 0.:2
"t: Q) Q) L.. Q) Q)'S
a.. a.-ES"O.c..o
C
III
a..
~
lD
C
lD
(9
U'"
'- -
-C
.oCl)
~E
"t
c III
ilia.
lD
0>0
C
'- '"
C-c
Co
~S
-
'f 0> '"
0)..0.5 <<J .5,-
C ::l ;;: 01 .c 0
.-001:: ......-=:c
'U=.c'Q. 0;;:0
f!!m(l)('O !::c:;j:j
o>.c C U '" 0 CIl
'" - '" ", Ill:;:; 0.
III _ -'" "0 L.' lD U E
.....c:a.c~L.2
o III III 0 III 0
a>.2~::; 0.....1;) 0 ui
Oo.m c EoE c lD.~
Co.omQ)Olo.c:~
(0 ro V) L..."'c 0->
::J "0 Q) >,,_ L.. '0 :.;::;
"'CIlcoc'Oo 0
.!a.t:tt1-caQ).......tn(0
--- 0>-0>-.....
o...;-..c:cn(f)w(O.....
-:'E-:g 01 III 0 c".5
o -_::J--oco"O
'C:: Q.; u.. e CD >.~ 0 f!
a.. a. III "0 ;;:.c a.~ 00
C
III
a..
~
Ql
C
lD
(9
"OQ)V)Q)Q. ~WQ)O +-Ic C ~
w..c:mL..::::J ~cO- , ~
C/J-m::J I ~O> co ~ .s2'-c ::
o I;.. .... ~ ..u .- 0 c: (J) o..r:. co () _
~Olll~~ ~"'~~ ~.Q c lD~.c Ql~~
c-Q) a. "- ro- 0. <<i- mOo+-' "C'-"O
Q)_oo1i)o> o~S~ <~u5 a.~ roe~.~_~~
>.~~"O.!; :6 Cu.(/) Q) c: 0 <I' r:: i3 ~"O 0 O>c.~_
~F&~~ [80 5e~c~.~Q)E "O~EE.Q.~~
1D::J 0"0 .... 0(0) . ~~ c: St ~ ffi+:;~~o ~5
-(J)~o_ Cts~t::"""c .t:Q)c..:;..,'c-oCl> _CO' 'L.:,::::J<tlE
a. Oca. (i)-Ill E"OIlI....~ I-- _C"'o>~....
E -- '0 Q) Q) 13 "'C 0 >,.Q ~ .- ~:::> "'0....... co: en Q) Q) U) 0 co:
00(1) 0 ca- (])~a .0)0 CeO> Ca.Q)
OOL.:,CX m~~~~ nQ)__m2>~ ~~~E8E~c
_~BCO:(l) ~cU)~o C>>.~U)!~~.()_ <<J~e; Q)_.Q
...... .c: ~ '0'--0)0. ca:cm..,Q. .....0 Q).......o-lD..
..o'OOJ'-"'-" ._"olD._",._ m oa. 'E-a..3.c lI>OCI
Q)c~.Q)ro >~Q)Ic ~Q)-~Q)~<<JQ) ~ro-C>>~::::JL.
-;;; ....Ql.-.s: E > 0 0 ~ m '5 .c ~ OJ'~o.c ..0 0 E E c'5"O a: I
\V C;> 0 ....c(/) ~ -COm m'-'::10 ,_",
~ > c:;; a.,_"'C - ..c.c () 1;) 5. c 0 C t/) c: ~ 0 c tT t::"t::
C/) 8 ro 'tJ - E - 0 C Q) \f- - ._ _ Q) _'_ C J:: C ~ 0 c:
en a: ~ m ~ (ij ~ ~ co..2: 0'3 -g '0 ~:; "'0 E ro .2.2 en '5> >. __ .::'
co m Q)'i\i1U2 "Vi ~::J ~m ~2 ro Q)-::: ~~ai ~'wE ~~ mE g>~
e ~c ~ -~n"'CE cm?~o Eo. --Q)Q.u li-c
rom '-"'01 c~ roQ) (O'c~__~c Q) cOenmcctJro_
Q)~~~~~ ~i~&; ~~~~2~~o ~'~~Q)m~~~
(/)~- ~~ ~u- Q) ~o-m.~mwo ~~-02g"'C>
iE~28oE iREIlI~ S8~c&~2~ iClli!!Ei~
..'- '-=:g.. eEE"0'-==5.Q>L..~=c..",.c.cn El--lD-
loo:::t "0 a.co-o to Q) -.... oeD co...... CJ) 0._ co CO,..... ......-.-0 "0"0
I = C o....c c E I ..c ""0 --...0 0 '- 1 'i::.c C) Q) Q.::::J.c _ 1 .c: 0 ~ 0 0 \f- C C
CO<l:IlIIl1"'IlI:;:;OOI--~_o..QOOo..w<l:"OIlIIlI",o..OOI--_""~OOIllIll
.
e
:l
(/j
III
Gl
==
C
o
:;::
III
CD
E
==
I
"
"
"0
t'"
~
<;>
E
I!!
~
ll.
0)
"
""
.9
'"
"
::;;
"
"
1il
0)
'"
~
<=
J!l
'5.
'"
"
:I:
n;
"
"
g.
0::
'"
1i
"
E
"
?-
M
co
g
.,j-
o
<t
o
o
!::l
ll.
~
9
Ii
III
-;
o
U;III
::1m
.. .-
S;!::
II),E
~
III
D.
Gl
:g
'iij
c
o
Q.
III
Gl
II::
-
C
CIl
E
t:
'"
a.
CIl
o
Ol
c
'2
C
'"
0-
-
C
CIl
E
t:
'"
a.
CIl
o
Ol
C
'2
C
'"
0-
..9!
::I
'tI
Gl
.s::;
U
II)
C
o
:;:::
III
..
C
Gl
E
Gl
Q.
E
Ol ,
.5i"fi ro55
""Ceo ..._l+- (ij
f!! CIl 0 0 Ol'tl '52 ='
.... CQ)...a.
elL.. U) Q)'-~ ro en
",J2 c1ii~'-E (I) 0
......-co C) ~ (/).L:.
o:!::'a.tt="c..ccocn
(I) E Olt.r: ijl.r:o..r:
O"-c:O> 0 -
C:O>.-oma>c'Q
",0.:1;: (1).00
:J Ol'E- ro L...=+' c
(l)c: ""OorooO
CI).-.o -.....-.....+:1
'-"O::J "---....
Q)==(J)ca>.(I)J:;~
.r:.o:J .OOC~(I)
- ~O C '" a.
0_0l "'-0.000.
-~ca..a. >.
.... E:O:c :J:2.r: ~='
0....=(1) 00 0.-'0
it ~E 0 g I- Sl 8,,f!
Ol
.~ -5 CO
"0 CO .....---
~Q)o'oC)Q)
0l....-"'G>.5..c
o -"0-
"'_ C B=m'tl Ol "'.r:
...-cot;::::J..c:cc ......0
o:!::: o..-.c UJ CO "2 0 (Q
l'lEOl"5l-5E~lij l'l~
c(I).!:o",mCll- cJ2
",o.:I;:"'(I)~'>O- "'~
:J'- ~, (I) :J
Cl)C>E-c"-OL..Q) CI)~
U).5.oc:J25,L..= f/)E
'-"'O::::Jro- 0 _'-L.-
a> == en ~ >. Cl'+-:' >. c: 'Q) Q)
.r::J -0 0 C'tI.o (I).r:O-
.....0- C'i::Q)-E- ~
o - 010 '" "':I;: g! 0 Ol Ol
- ~ c a.. Co.!:'- 0 t -.5 c
L..E:O:r:::::J(/)EL..~L.."'C:O
.2 L.. == ,'" 0 Q).o a. (I) 0 == ==
L.. Q) :J"'~ 0 "0 :::J a. "C::J:J
0- 0..0 0 0';:: '" '" 0 0- CO .0
Gl
l::!
::I
o
II)
C
'"
0-
f!!
Q)
C
(I)
(!)
~
Q)
C
(I)
(!)
C
'"
0-
l!!
::I
III
III
(I)
:!;
c
o
~
Cl
:;:::
:i
Q) 0)....;:>.1-
.c "'C Q) .5~Q).o~
~_ - ~;O> -= -o-G-o-o
....u_ ~ o'c c ..c: C:"" .:::; C Q)
~::iEc>> .... -:;:10)0....0 0 -'OCt
:JOe: ""CC)""C--o~ c: .0+:100
o~~ 2.5U)~""C-O.Q ""C~~a.5
g~::::J~~~~~~~.~~co~ ~~2~
Q) C:""C'coo= O:::J o'E L.. 0... L.. a;(;) U)
'tI(1)~'tII-CIl~'tI~ o.coCll ~>C.'(I)'"
cE .0 (I)._'O....OCllO' ~ ~
a:I Q)E CD ..... ~..c:'C3::1.9 0 0 0 .-- 0.0 >
..c:>'o Oro(l)oL..ca> ~~o_~
CIlOlCll-~C'tIIII_CIl(l)O"'.r: .....oCll=C
10 ~.2 ~.o.... Cm (1)>< Q)..o.!::::::: :J --. en:J ..c 3= 0)0
~.j~~~L..~5~O.~.~~s roU):~.5
Q...::::: > -m ro L.. ~..c C>> L. __ "0. ~ mOm
O",oC>>"U~a>C,)~OtJ).58.IDOtJ) o:;;~
OCC00.'tI0l'tlCEC ~CO ID0E'tI'"
.5 cu.o cu tJ).2.5 c.2 cO)o cu..c o~ co.... ~..>
_E~=oo~m-~~.5-~u c- -
cu~u~..c~~tJ)~CJ)~uo~c cuB~~
..cO~~ID=~~meQ)~"~oro ~"-L.~L.
tJ) C L. ~ = ~ 0 0 g-~..c 0> ~O tn ~ C. C. 0.9
E"2~c~tJ)g..c~..c~rou~~ ~~~~~~
B~~Otntnm~.Eg~~~~E ..cQ).C _C
=~~~cQ)'.~Otn"U =0 -..ccuccQ)
c.o~oo~CJ) CJ)~Q)~tJ)cu_ 0-..cm8E
o.m~~~~.~.5~~o>c~~B _JtJ)Q) Q)
-tJ)coc~.~o~02ro.>-~.- L..~'tIID.o 0
'.Q)c..c Q;..co~ a.~.-t::uo>ot::.-tn:J
or..c e 0 5 0. 0 =:t: ID e a.tnt) ID m I"i:: Q) L. ro IDu
m~~2oo22o=c.ro"~cuOEm~c.m..c=~
.
-
C
ID
E
t:
m
a.
CIl
o
Ol
C
:0
'S
CO
C
m
0-
~
CIl
C
CIl
(!)
"
o
iv.
o
E
i!!
0>
e
a.
Cl
c
-.:
$I
C
o
::;:
c
o
""
<II
0>
""
~
J!l
15.
'"
o
J:
i'ii
c:
o
1
<II
1i
Q)
E
Q)
....
'"
<D
..,.
~
~
o
o
~
a.
:J.
y
Ii.
>....... .q-
OON
C ID
Q) .~ Q)
.- 0;:;
u L.._
a= 0.1-
Q)Q)"(;)
>.~2
~oro
IDea;
c"_ ..c
ID'<t_
CIlN.r:
- -
cu Q)'-
'- +:J ;:
0'-
e-I- .?:>
8>-0.
.oE
.5u 8
_CIl
-c=
"'c;: '"
.r:ID.r:
"''0 '"
Ewe
'" '" '"
o o.
"- en "_ U)
a. "E Ci "E
Co ro c. CO
oocuucuu
OIDCIDC
~..cS..c19
C01-01-",
-
~
o
'iilll
='lG
1=
(J).$
~
0.
~
.D-
.-
III
c::
o
Co
III
&
.
.
~
<Il
~
ro
aI-
o
0>
c::
'c
c::
]!
0.
GI
~
GI
~
(J)
c::
o
1
c::
GI
E
GI
%:
-
~
'0
<1l
~
0>
ro
i5
8
c:
~
'"
!!l
<Il
-5
g~
~E
.g -
0.8.
8
...
='
o
(J)
c:
5l!
0.
ro
Qi
c:
~
GI
...
='
!II
~
':i
c::
o
i
0>
:a
':i
g> '0
'0 !IIQ)
e <Il 8,-5
';;-5 _~~i5
..,JwQ>tU
i5'- <Il.r=. <Il
E-o....-oo
G),,-'_(l)Q).li
o<ll>C:"'O-
c:o..e+:t~.&;
~g>0.~Q)0
(/) ._:=::._.0 ('G
",-oro-ooQ)
._:::::s;C~-
G> .5~''::-c.g.c
-5 c:C:<Il<ll<ll
>><1l<ll<= <=
~ ~g ~.g.~~
0-0 0.1i\ :l Qi 2
&. ~~ti ~~ 'a)
~
....
c:
<Il
E~
-c~
ro 0
al-3~
o.!a <Il
0>::0 <=
.5 :l -e
c:: 0. <1l
~-oO-
_cQ)
O-roO
->-'
c:
Q)
~~
roo
\it3~
o .!a Q)
0>::0 <=
.5 :l -e
co. ro
~-o aI-
o:~O
0>
c:
'0
ro
0.
ro
i5
8""
~E
::>~
",Q)
",0.
.- 0>
~.s
....-0
o:-=:
....:l
~.c
.g -0
o.~
c:
5l!
0-
e
Q)
C
<Il
(!)
tij
0-
ro
...
III
C
Q)
(!)
C _;>:00> -o.;Q)-o-oc-o-otil5'
5l!~~ ""s-'" ~.-s~~gll<1lC
o..r=.~ Oo."'~ "" ""::>.r=.~<Il
<Il!<1lG <Il~::>c ""Zo~ -0 ",g~
~e~' 6~~~ .~e5~~~~!~
o-o.....-s'" - Illo. III o>oc -Q)....
~Q)_ ~gi>O- o.coSE3S~<=0>~
_>"'Ill-C--Ill~ _.... .r=.cc-
c-Ill~ ~~~- ~.~.r=. ~",&~Qi
.Weg'02~o.<Il _~7C>>- ::>IllC
_c::_ce->-'~-o-S ~~ %Qi~~~~1ll
~ g> e ~ 0> ~ 8. ~ tii a, ~ .5 - 0.'1ii 15 ~ "iii
~.::>h<llOE->-' 0 roe.Ecoolll
rorotiiKEOQ)"'-o roo~....o.EIll-o.r=.
",,~Eg.i5->-'~% _~~ro Q)>~-oO>
E 0.-0 .r=. Q) "" e _ :l 0 ro III -5 III -0 2. III E
.c~co-SC:~o-o -> ~Illlll->>
::>0 C - C Q)O ~roo_"'o-o
",cro~E~O'~O 0 _C ::>IllCo.C'
=_~GOSe30 ~~!Ill....~~8Q)ro:
<1l..~~I>><=1ll ::>.",gc~c -0",-
..S~~..i. ..'. ...~
_.....E.. ..~aEI.:.IO
cQ)"" o.c<1l.r=. I Ill-oro<ll& 0- roo.
BW,~]!ro3-~CIll -slllgo~~<Il=~-~
=~_.c1llQ)0Q)-~ .r=.- -->Q).... .c
o.O-C ....1ll(.)8~ O....%""Q)S.-(.)~ro
O-Q)mti!.E::>~~ ...."""'S ro<1lIll.~C
~.~~C_O... <<_c C.~C...o
Q)__~CE~e-01ll o~ c",,_illl"'-'"
~~~~~o8 C~~~::>Q)5l!~ro.....r=.Q)Ero
~~..~E .S..~~.6~.E"."
-oQ)
~(6
~;;::.
"5~
Q) '"
.cQ)
-o.s
3""
OC
.r=.Q)
'"
-c'i
Q)~
EQ)
.9- ~
:l0-
0"
Q)Q)
-o,s
Q)O
~ '"
~~
o
0-_
_0
ro .
(.) III
." 'S ::1:5
<'> (.) Q)'O;
~ (1)~ ro
chUi.~~
<>
o
"<!>n
~
0.
\
0:
g>
."
.B
~
"
o
\
'"
~
~.
3
:lO
1<i
5
-a.
&.
\
~
...
\
~
i
=>
9
ii
.
~.
~
en.!!
::I III
10~
... ,-
UlE.
.
i
Q.
Cl)
:is
Ui
c
o
c..
tII
~
I)
=1:
.aQ)
.rE
-ot::
COl
Ole.
Q)
010
c
.- '"
~-C
",0
a:~
Gl
'S
-a
Gl
.s:
U
Ul
C
o
:g
...
C
Gl
E
Gl
Q.
E
01",
c:
:.a~
~EQ)
OIQ).o
lIS 0.= '0
o o>l! c:
.5", '"
~~c~
e :> (11._
(11.0->
:> a. Q)
U) ~ C L.o
III c: ". ..
.- "'::> 0
Cl)"'Oo~
.s: '0'0
........ C 0) c:J)-
o"'e:l;:(II
......-.-.- >
.- .. E 0
~~~.g2:
.... a.::> '" (II
"
o
i~
o
~
~
Q.
g>
~
j
"
o
'\\\
'"
'"
~
J!l
Q.
"
o
I
'"
"
o
'g-
oo
..
"3
"
~
....
~
'"
"
'"
'"
~
Q.
::>.
9
Ii
2$
..
::>
o
Ul
>-2!
'Oil)
.ac:
(/)4>
c;; C) c
E-gc:u
E.roii:
G)
..
::l
tII
'"
Gl
:i!E
c
o
;;
III
01
;;
:i
(])+-'CDCrnQ>ClO)(]) ""O""""(1)=Q)
J:: C L"..--'-.o c c oCt) c rn.s;:. co.o~
.....0>0--- ,__"-:::10_(1)_ <J)
>..... ..., ""'_"0 '- .q- "".c ,-
_",<I1c:c:-_::I'O .s:-=~
(I)..........co.-<<S-......Q) ........"-_t:
Q)5.~ 'O.s:o~...~lIl-o.<::O.EO
III 0l~~"'e~0:>~2:> lIlj!!
~.a.S'- t>>Q)~ c:.....,,&. O-.s-g Q)
a. c:!?'...:!:O~Olll.s: <I1oo~-oe.
..L-\VornC ...... _.....c
0> C 0 .a _ ~-o .!!! .- 0 0 ~'5 Ol -"='
.S ~ E c:-gtl gj ~~~:2 "'<( e 6
-g '0 <11 ,g '" .~ E ~ 'fl ~a ~.--:-. a. ~ >-
0>'O.s g c: ... ~ :: Ol E <( '" -'" Q) E!.a
. 0) c: ....Q 0.", 00 :J a.. .a a. 01
= ~._(j)t5 Q) c: Ol~O(f)-g~ .E
'" _ _ c 2.s: '" ,C .- _ .- CD = C 0
"'O~58~r.c2-gro~Cf)-~~~
c ;>._ VI.- CD '-.J::._ co (/)-- 0 c
"'1Il:3 0)5 >-lIl > OIl1l Q)"'20
c.cm~o~~<Doc:E(])gc:v;E
o "' --0- 0".00C:0
+;;="O.a8t1>oc:"'O~J::"'e!~o:o
g~c_c-5C01S= (1)0..(000
.... UJ to 0 0 c:: \V o."t;:: co s:: .~
_ _ '- c.v,.....t:
~ 2 ~ -g g>.E ~ .~ 5 '" 6 ~ 1fi .E -g ~
00.u;'O lIl'c 0)-0 E....o- 1Il 0 E c: III 0
--0 .r:..Q)~Q)._......
o)+-' Q) Ol~~ CD 0 21- >~ 0> 0>t5
~c~Z~Q)~~E~ .~~<<s~E~
'c~~~ E- c~'a~co"OB
~~ern~Q)o~(])o~~~m~~~
coO 0.02 o>.s o~.s o-ou.!l!:: E III Ollll
.
.
~
::s
o
l1J
>-~
1:>Q)
.aC
l1JQ)
-Cl
.~ ""C C
:t::'cco
E<IIIl.
(J
o
~l'
~
o
E
f!
0>
!l
Q.
0>
<:
.<:
B
'"
o
::;;
<:
o
""
'"
Ol
""
~
-
]i
1'i
U>
o
I
n;
<=
o
g>
'"
'"
"5
fll
E
"
I-
~
.,.
o
,j-
o
""
o
o
~
Q.
::>
9
li!
l!!
::s
I/)
l'Il
CI)
:!:
c
o
:;:;
ell
Cl
:;:;
~
Q) 0 - s...
..0-'-"0 cn cno 0.....
=ro'8wC'OC:Uc .m~ co
= =, t: ro.c"C Q) C C ~ ~ 0 Q) .....
l'Il S!.Q.r:: I/) Q)-O Q)>- C.EEc
-"'0 "'- c.<II""<l= <II <II
CI)"C WffioVJoQ"O 'Q;E=+:i.~
Q)Q)2>-E_>-l'Ill/)~~>oroOc.
+::(1,)-<<1 =0. a>cQ)o.c.....
"50 U) ;:_'0 ro E co a'";;: C Q) U) Q) a.
U ~5"U m~c 0 Q) (1)$ Q>"O"Q) E<(
roQ)o~~EQ)~5Q)ro~~C+:i~
~ -Q)~ =E-1:>E>:>:ucE_
c ro:5 Q) vi Q) a e Q):.p 0>"0.5 go>.
:0 "E::\t-:!:::: ::J.Q L.. '-.eM C 0>= 1..........0
~ 2 0 <r"C >."5..e = c 'cQ)- ~ jg ~ ~ 1::
<II"'CQ)'-CC""CCOCO ....Q)
~EcO Q)c.r::.r::>Q)"'~'u
= 0 1:> :E; lJl.... ro '" - Q) .0 ~.- E E
ro"O~Q)~cnocno>~"O=.co"O~
0>2 0 > ::J Q) C - C cD c co c . C Q)
croa.ca~oo.~~-ro~2Q)co'-
"::;:> a._Q)+:::L-Q)oo>UJm~-
>caQ)cccm2-ccL..;:(I)~co
Oo.~:JQ)_OmCO ._0> Q}OC
= x 0 > 0 = E:S: "5 E ro >-.r::.- 0
SGl_O>Q)cc. .ao~=-~'-'
\uC'-_C.c' :>ro\t-"O~-
"O-g"C:.oc.::JCtlo.!B -E"OOoc"O~
croc::>o.o -""roC:- Q) .Q)o-ou
co roo- - O>co"C co C>>E Q) c>U co
0)"0 _ c"O Q) C N o..cn.5._:o ro Q) Q) Q)
..cQ)cn._Q)"o'C~ocn"Oro._'-_'-O
LO 'C "0 co - -= :J Q):.o L..c. ~ ::J ~" U) Q) "(i) "5 rJ)
~ cca>Q)W-- ....-....W> I
,:JL-L.._a>ocomQ,woQ)OQCucn
mOc>co~~~;:~mc.5~a.oo~~
-
~
0
-<n
~-a
~:e
II)!:
i -c
(\)
€~
0- al 0
\ g-~ -c
o.~ (\)
01- €
0 .5: -g
li ~ 0.. al
& al -0 g-
_CO
o..al
01 (0 -% 01
C~$
.- al al
.5: .c 'c -0 .c'C
2 -ou>o- ~(f)o.
eco 0Iu>0
~ OItll'" toca.
_0-
.s "6 0- % _!1o.
o 0- tll
~(\)(\) 8(\)(\)
-6.c
II) cc'" c.s-:S
C ~o:S ~c-6
0 *2'3 u> 0'-
;p .'!! $ 3'
l! .- 0
(\)c:-oc (\)o-oc:
-6al~g .cc(\)O
(\) ~co:2~
e oJeb<<S o ::>al
2 ": 'E 0. E ....""'OE
- E a-
0. 0... 0 0... 0
E 'c Q) Q) C 'c (I) <S>.....
0.. 0..0 .- 0.. 0..0 .5:
::>:iO ~e
-olii -;l(\)
CD ,ac: W~
(/)<ll
U ro<9 ro<9
l3 ._ -0 C ._ "'0 c:
0 ;0;:: C QJ ~c(O
II) 'sale: .EtllO:
Q)
~
~
\%
~
c
o
i
01
;p
~
ell (\)"'ii) III '>>'>>iO......-o... ell ell "6
......~I...WZ- ..... ·
~~_.-t~. _.~" p~'" ~ · ~.
~~~g.%~Z~~~~~~ gg8~$~~~ ~ .E~
III ellu>E~U>Oc:3'O~ellell S:~!B(/)g~~Sg!lgc:
~ ~ , .68.. . :'. ~ ,,~.z" - - · - z ~ · ~ -~ m- 0
...WI.--.. ... .-zo~.- .....~
.gg...~-.~~.8. ~~~*~.~~,%..g2
z 6. . . ~ ~ !l.ll . 6 ... - "..' >- -, ~ ~". $.
....111..."'.~~ o~....~...>..
I .....al: ..~. ..-.E~~._..~.B
.-ellU>.Q .o...tIl c:(\)ell'-"" .ge-(/).c:;og.;e:%~~~~ogell
~.....o..o.,>> ...0. --..--.~
.. . ~.g. ~" 8.~ ~. ~ 'i _ · -.- e ~ ~ -- . · ~ · -.
-. ...- ..--- - ~~..I'~.$.-~..
~1.'l\\1~~..1P9JlI \i'.". _,,$~.l!.i\~
.. __- >.. ~.. ~.._._.'w-.(\)ell
_ . .. . .. _ . ". m. ... _ · > a...
_ _ > . . . _ ~ _ _ ~ . . ~._ _. _ ,,_ . ?O .
..~..~..>.c... "..~.~~~.~~...
,.~.~1".1...~.1l .z..I~~.~~.'~.
- . ... ". -... .-. .. . - ~ ".. - ~ ~ .
~........~. .w. "..-.~~._... .
~._I~w.I,~~~I." :,.1.8~la~_wi'
..... H ~ ~ i\'i~ l!HlI.6 · .- 2'i1~"' ~ %:Jl' ~l' ~
.~.~B..~ ~...-.1~1..-21..~>..>-
_...---.... eoO-- ..-~-- ..-...
~~.~~~....~.....~~<~~...q~.-..2
_v 0-..... m-- .~~ - --..~ .>.~.....-
.
g
i~.
o
~
~
.,.
~
~
~
a
'"
\'l,
;e
\
:J:
lO
c
5!
~
"
1
~
....
\S
~
9
g
~
::J
9
ii
.
.
.
~
Q
en,!!
::l ca
.. -
lU~
q;,:
~
ca
Q.
Gl
jj
'iij
C
o
Co
UI
Gl
It:
-
C
Q)
E UI
t~
<110
g-:s: _
OOC
.- Q)
01- E
c.c
._ ::It
co.. <II
c'Oo.
.!!lcQ)
0.. <110
-
c
Q)
E
t
<II
0.
Q)
o
01
c
'2
c
<II
0..
-
c
Q)
EUI
t~
<II 0
g-:s: _
Ooc
.- Q)
01- E
c.c
._ ::It
co.. <II
c'Oo.
.!!lcQ)
0..<110
0)- cnc:n c>
.~ffi c.5 0) .SL:.
'0 ::1'0 .!!l .'0 UI Q).!::: 1i: '5
<II O"Q) 0.'0 <II <II.r: 01 <:;>
~ Q)cOl m~--ro en
0) 0> If).- C Q) "'0 0>.... >._ L.. (I) 0) C
m~~~'E5~ro~~U)S5 mm~g
O~~(I)c:ceot:Q)m"O>. 'OJ::Q.m
~ _rooo (I)m~Q)~- "'<DE
Q)..c >. Q) Q. Q) Q) Q..t: c ::t: - C Q).... ..c .....
o_CU _<Doc:nQ.Q)-roQ)oc.....o
CUl<llUlQ)o.cccoEE>EC<llc~
ro.~O)m.r::.c=m~L.._..ce_ro.~o-
:J- ..... (O:J.....a......:J .....:J-
tnw.5=>.m.r;:woSa.mw&mwRw2
~5~g..c~U).~..cm~~rog~m~~
0>"'Oo(l)2ccn <Du"'Oo..c"'Oo IDQ)Ca.
J::cc:o.roQ)-J::cw =c: J::.r::.mO
-cao- *-Em-roCOlmroO-_ .....
o_~0l~t~o_'~.5..c .5o.~Q)a.
='E-'E-~Om"O~-Et:ccn~c~-E~~
o :E L.. Q...c 0 Q) C c __ Co>
. .-Q.Q)......-L..-mca>m.- ow
o..cQ)Q)::Io.O~o..~Q)Q)o..-Q)o..o..~Q)~.r:
a. a...c m > 0.-0 a...... a. 0.__
Gl
'S
"0
Q)
.c
u
l/)
c
o
~
..
C
Gl
E
Gl
ii.
E
CD
~
::l
o
l/)
>.
'0
::I
ii5
Iii
""
'2
e
::l
UI
ca
Gl
:5
c
o
~
Cl
E
:5
-gCm
<II 0
'0
O>~c
CClca.
:a .- U)
co en 0 (f)
~-a:Q)
o>~e.....
_0......0
o ~
Q)_""C :J
'omS 0
L....c co..c
a. (/) (j) Q;
wc.....a.
J::<IICUl
""'OOG>
'- *- .- -
o i5. t5 "E
0.::1
Q)COlJLO
Ul Ul~
sWco
o..co...
0""'00
Q) c Cla:
..c~.5 f:!
-0=.....
Cl::lEIii
.. c..b:.::.....
co._(/) Q)
~ScQ)c
cc'oo=a>
UUlCl
>.
'0
::I
ii5
Iii
""
'2
<II
-....
<II 0
'OQ)Q)
2c..c
eca::-
~ g ~~
o_t..Q
:J tI) ~ ~ .
~m~~2
c~o.Q).-
o ro ..... (/)
O - 0._
rnrn-o
..cCQ)-Q)
U)*- L.. Q).~
._O><<JOO
.ccoQ)'-.....
"'ccoa.
<IIUl 0.Q)
1i) >'~"O.c:
Q) a...... Q)"'"
=o.E>'Q
<11::1 0
..cwo.........
(f) .....c.(1)
'O....Ec
c:c(j)'-a
",<II Q) >...
O.....~=~
.-c ro.....
'a. Q) 0 ,- r.J)
0. E ~p: 8l
..<(0. Q)J::
0> ,- (;) ""C_
--Q)::Jro'(i):J
1.t:t:TQ)Q)O
all--Q)_r....W
>.
'tl
::I
ii5
<II
""
'2
"
o
~O\
~
o
E
e
0>
e
Q.
0>
C
"C
.9
C
o
::;;
c
o
'"
..
0>
'"
~
J!l
c.
~
o
:I:
0;
c
o
"5>
Q)
0::
..
1i
Q)
E
Q)
?-
M
CO
.,.
o
,J-
&'
o
o
~
Q.
=>
9
Ii
""o_r.........WQ)
C coo <II.r: .
ro~-C>> -c
C.cm-o
c>>.~ (1).- c co :t:'
c'OEo.o -0
'-<IIQ)Q)'O>'2
""0 0 Q) (tJ_
f1o.<II~Q)'OUl
ClQ)-CJ).c~C
Q)o. Q)O
..., ~ Q) >-= 0. 0
~(f)~ctJcoQ)r....
.~= - :> ~ 0 0
Oca--ij(f)c=O
r....~cro Oc
o.w~O(f)cro
(1)c~~~coc>>
-5 ro o..~ e -5 ,5
00- w""O
0.0.-.5""C r.J) e
0.0 c~ 01
Q)<(w~(tJ.....\+-
~ w""C 0 0
::::J(1)""O\+-jBc>.
o~rooQ)-co
o ~ec~.E""C
c 0- ~
m O""C:t:' (f) ~ 0
.r:"" c <II ~<II
""'ocoSccom
C>>2wEQ)Ul....
..c--<Jl UUlO
o.cw::JcoQ)
N::ICQ)U.~u'O
cc'oo.bo""O<DC
owcocoCQ)
~
~
o
"'in.!
.alii
:e%
iIl-
~
C-
eil
ji
.~
o
~
~
----r
"C
Q)
~~
III 0
(6-3: ...
0.9 ~
~D~
_::11:-
C 0.. III
~-oO-
_cQ)
0.. III 0
"C
Q)
~
III 0
~~
O~
~O
'a <J)
C-o
~c
0.. III
"'C
Q)
~~
~o
Q) 3: "C
0.9 Q).
OlD <::
.S ::I~
C 0.. III
~-o(6-
_cO
0.. III
...
'E
~.a Q)
'C::Ic'c
._ f/) (O~
,%~il.~
Ol~ '0 0
1Il....l:>::"C
'OcgOQ)
Q).~O<(~
go.u;~ III
~~6fj'~
",Q)Q) 0
",,c -0
._:+-00';1-(1)0)
q __:e ::> .6
_ ._ Cl 0 C
_s::=,-c:.
at: 0--
'c Q) u- O-~
0.. 0- III <.<l 0..
~
:0
e
Cl
'0
8
~
'"
.'B
g~
:g~
0..0-
$
-0\11
01 Q) 'c
C-o 0-
._.;;; 0
-0 0 ....
e....O-
ClO-~
<.<l1i0)
....o--G
'<0
Q).c-G
o wo-
C :;;
(\J.$f/)
::IOCC
~CIIlO
._ ~ o..~
~""Q)E
oE:S-
'c 16 c%
0.. 0- a .-
ell
~
ell
'5
(/)
~
';:;
~
~
.!
c.
E
".,'<0
-0....
::10)
(j)~
<6 C) c::
:;::; -0 \II
.- c-
E<.<lo..
~
::I
(j)
$
~
1}
'5
o
(/)
~e
Q)
3C
<J)Gl
<6 C) c::
:;::; -0 \II
.- c-
E<<lo..
"., _ <<lQ)-oQ)c
o ,E.a $"E~ -GQ)-G~
N ....-0 :;::;<.<l~ ""o~ \II ,C
-0 01 <<lQ)~-N"" E"'s~'" 'Co
t~c..~~~!>> >>c' 8 .;.
~Gl:O-G6e<<li....-oi~e~K ~.a Gl
.~tA..~..1 ~.~. ~- 3
c.I.....8~ .~>>a .!.~
.~.2~:~%..< .~.o~ ...8
~o~c6c 0",1i).9. O)Q~~O ~~'o~Q)
Q). <<l 0) <<l c:.9. Q) .,.,'5 -0 "Qi U . 0 0..
61..~.!>>c.. .~c~. I.-~~
~._~~~""Q)Cl-o<<l\ll. ~3soi ~....aQ)~
.o-."a~$.-. <oaw. m.-~.
c...-O-o 0 \IICo 0- !;. _O-{:'....'O
'o;",cQ)::::: Q)Q)'- -0) Q):g.GlCl 00 III 0-
7"'- <.<lC,C....Q)Q)-a .,.-- --'" '"
.~.g_.~O>>~' __~~ ~.m~~
9 ~....~~~u;E,,,,!a '0 -0.0",::1
.~-.~", _,.c'" .'.11 .....
O~~Q)1Il3<.<ll6-o~0", u-~'" ~~coE
a OGlQ) ~\II "CQ)o-oi ~o",,,,.
~2i~~~S....z!00)""Q) .~~e<:: u;~-"'c~
o~ ClO.c Cl ... ow<or<O,~ ._:".sO)~
_'" .c",-oca.~Q) _cO)08w -o_w W
.~Ii_-'U>"'~'% \l;1~1>d; .._"~~
0-::1. '&.~ Cl,;:;-"'C 9:t 0 C <( e.... ~Gl. ! Cll6 08
Cl..... 0-'- -o....Ul 0-0 E\II..lIlc....-Q).,
.. coO) ",:;;:.",0 0) 0) '", c-i .... '" .;;; III C
0~.I.\l;III~I..!I.~1~0~~%~i~
cnO-GO-E~<o"'O-.Gl~cnI-O~<<lO _r
e
::I
1
~
e
o
'.o:!
\II
Ol
'.o:!
i
.
g
~.
o
\
~
0>
c
'a
"'-
~
a
~
?1
\
g.
:'E
"%
o
--g>
<to
"
~
"
~
...
\
"
1,
~
~
y
it.
-
c:
Q)
€~
ro 0
ar~ c:
O.sa Q)
01- '"
C.P t:-
.- ;:)~
cQ.ro
~-oO-
_CQ)
Q.roO
Q)
~
~
~
~Qi
.pC
~ c
.3ro
.\1 -U
-0 _
;>-00
CJ:;
ro c
o
~o
~-o
._ 0
~ 0
Q.t;::
$
-6
Ql
~
lJ)
C
o
~
~
Ql
E
Ql
~
.
?i
.3
(j)
tii
:P
':S
8
~
g
(j)
.
T
-C
Q)
€~
ro~
0-0
Q) ~ +-'
ooc
.- Q)
0l:D '"
.S ;:)-E
cQ.ro
c-oO-
$cQ)
Q.roO
-C
Q)
€
ro
0-
Q)
o
01
C
'c
C
$
Q.
Q)
~
~
5
CQi
roc
-ec
.3 co
",.c
'6~
,..,0
cJ:;
roC
o
~o
~-o
._ 0
~o
Q.t;::
,..,
c
ro
.9$
.....'.P
g';>
.....~
0-0
",ro
~~
-oc
o<'l
(<).P
~
a~
~:.o
~-o
Q)C
-:>
~%,
?i
~
tii
,..
"E
?i
.3
(j)
tii
,..
",S
-0"0 Q) "O~
E eg~ ~.~~
o .-t;::~ C c(G
.:=~6-Q)g g~'.~'"
cOQ)~' <'lOCO '" Q)o
o a> 10- 0 ..n~
+>.c"'CIl>- ""v>-Q)c
~~~(/)o.: .c"o.......ro
-c~lg~ ~~~$
~~8..OJ~ c.c8'O
:>Q) Q) ~.\1's>-o
g~"5-%,c .cu.....
~.~ ~'g ~o ~ "5 ~.~
EuJ....~ '_-cQ)-o
D Q)<'l EQ)~.3
:>"5~BS ~E.;g~
(/) f/) 0)'% ~ w e ~ <.Y
==O-_~'" _ro:::>O
<'l>-~Q)ro tiiO-'-
fh8~~Q) fhg~%
c >-~ ~ ! ~c' s::. .-
roEc"''''' _(j)",D
o~._oc '0"';'->-
==.....=20 ._.....u..Q).
8:tO ~ (ij Qi %~ to € ~
<( -; c: Co Cc ro.... -;.a..~
..Q)......;:;, ..Q)E....._:>
......cQlCO <'IN.coQlC't:r
t)r_~uJS{5 t)l-':=~ co ~
-c
Q)
t
ar
o
Cl
C
'c
c
$
Q.
OlQl
COl
.- -0
:g.c
's D
D'"
-'"
o~
50
CCO
roQl
:>~
'"
"'~
._ 0
0"""
+-"~
~E
o~
'c Ql
Q.O-
?i
.3
(j)
tii
:P
:s
Ql-o""-o'"
..... C 0.. Ill'-
III :> :> "" '"
eg~3si
~0l0c08
o ,..,$ Ql Ql S
C 6.0 ~ 0
ro - ~
en Q3""-o.
t:- .cOtii
._oc>>U>c.....
~ 'SrooQl
t:-S~3~~
';:)c'-oo......
roo~Qlo"'l
EroEQilll
~ Ql~
.gQ)~t-Ill$
c:: 4 _."2. 5S
(/)o$01$tJ>
,.., ,..~roOl
~ .S'.~ '6 (;.~
:>~t> ;;>-
""3ro~~~
t>>+"' "O).g
-o-C."'~
Ql~._Qllll~
r.n ~.o~ O-~
..:)"S:;(/) '3
(t) 0 aU; Q)"O 0-
0' OQl._.ccQ)
u..\..o"O~('Q)....
~
'lii
:>
Ql
~
~
D
<'l .
(SQ)
:> C
J:;c
'" ro
C-U
8 Ql
===-5
III
.cQl
",-0
c"$
56
'a~
'(6-0
"QlO-
-q-.c0-
or- ~
g
"'!....
1;:....
~
,
0..
0>
"
""
S
C
~
"
il
..
~
\
-a.
on
o
:c
\
..
~
~
...
~
"
~
J
o
o
6:
::>
9,
it.
.
~
o
Ulr/l
::l-
..J!!
J!~
(/),5
~
no
Gl
:a
"ii
c
&.
~
(ll
:i
'0
Gl
.c
U
(/)
c
.2
19
c
(ll
E
Gl
0.
E
1:
0.... III
=C E
.0(1)
::IE 1:::
a. 1::: ~
...: co 0>_ <J)
Co.CCO
(I) (1)'- $
~EO~ E ~
._ 1::: ",::I 1:::,-
COl-l:lllOlC
ijo.o-on.ij
a.~:s:\ij~0::
C~Gl
0'- 0>
~:s!"'O
tll.-.-
...::7.0
tll.Q
o.tll'"
0>.... ~
0.0(,)
lllGlO
....Otll
'iij C III
>>tllJ::
C::I....
- '" ~
'" '" 0
0'- .......
-es:t:::
~- E
.g "0 L.
a.Clll
010.
0>
U
~
::l
o
(/)
>>
-0
"
....
(f)
t1i
""
'c
Gl
~
::l
<II
III
Gl
==
C
o
.~
tll
:;:;
:!
III
J::
....
'15
~
.- C
'" 0
, .-
C(ij
o ~
(l)tll
.00.
O~
- 0.
'00>
lll-
~.-
.- '"
" .
0'"5Q5
~._ c:
t/) t) c:
._" tll
_.b..c:
'" '" 0
.- C
O>g$
.Q ~
o . '"
.- $
.Q~'"
"'0 0. 2
III = 0
.,:OltO
1ij 0> III
..::I cO>
LO "t: "'0
I r:r::s'-
O<(-oB
~
~
....
~.~
.- $
-go.
~Ol
O>c
..... .-
0-0
III = III
0::10>
C.o:g
to....~
:::JQD
~ -0 '"
._ C ~
o to 0
_:!:.U
....EOl
o .... Ql
'C III
0- 0.:5
~
::I
V5
t1i
""
'c
"'~ -g .9
Q) ~ -... ~
0l1O = '" III 0 0> '"
:2..... ~~:6'; .Q-e
.,5>ocn_;:ooc='- <<1:0
"'5.~tJJ~_ro .t::.
~..,"O ro ::J"-:"cn UJ~
_.c.,aO>OCl)"EQ)(/)-
.... 0l",..J(f) :J.- 0> III '>
0::1 O>o>E.n'O.-"'u:i
..... o'OJ::,C"-"'O'L::S;.Q cD
5.c~-:-)(~.c;;roo
._...." 0'0 \l) $ Gl 0-0>>
1ti LO 0....... C::::: O)"C co C 0
L.,..~.e_coESc:.-"'O<<!<D
~=c~ 8'(j)g~o $ U).~
~9-EB~ >< c c:.S1t>t)
0. ......n 0 "" 01 Ql.2 O. to ::I
:::) _ CI) c: -- 0 0."0
$5l",a.:J05p:l"'Ee
._ _ _ -0 Cl."t) (I) ~ "'.- 0.
tIJ....(i5L,..-.- _"'-0
;>,~ r:. 01 =:: Cl.E:6 :!! -0 '-0 ~
c(J)w-o<D .....oc>~
Ol.Q....C.QUJoo'" .-
...... cC'Oo-.--L. -~Q)
~8CO(;)C1>L..Q)Q)cn,g:5
> a:J'~ O>~ ~:5 =:; 1B """" C1)
_ _ ~ _ .- ::J..... .....
Q) a.Q.C_O Q) (1)-....... Q) Q)
0..- -- .....t;::-
Q) UJ (0;= 0 cu1:::t: Q).- a.
<o:5~G>O~g.G)1f-fi"'8E
,', to 01 r:. 0 >'- IT' > C '" E 0
.......___'+- ......CDO--- 0
.
1:
0>
~
01
0.
III
o
0>
to
'2
C
'"
0::
0>
to
'0
0>
C
o
'-'
~~.
o
E
e
c>
~
g>
."
S
'"
~
~
,g>
i
~
o
:r:
-;;
"
o
'6>
.,
'"
..
a
.,
E
{!?
l6
...
o
~
;;
;9
0-
::Ie
9
I<
>>
-0
.a
(f)
t1i
:E
.E
C (f) 5 '-
0._.- Gl
~.....o.c
'" C.- 1:::
.2' Gl -g "
:t:: E.-.....
E(I)5$
....._.~
';--5 r:. "
c: CT~ g
.2 ~ 3: ...
....
.- -,..>>;>'
-o<..oro
cocE
0- (I)
ojg OJ>.
Q;::Jco~
r:.5rQ;O~
t:.~.cQ)Q)
:l__s::..-
'-<llO~~
~~ ~tf -=
(O~(tj.~jg
co>.ec::
a> ",.n 0.$
;;:~-oIllE
_"IllJ::C
IDcJ)W--O
...r:.ro01-_!:::::
r--....... Q)o.C1l >
'c E> C
O_E._Olll
-
.
-
. - - -
c C
<ll <ll
~ ~
tIl t<l
ar 0-
<ll
0 0
'" g'
c
'c 'c
c C
tIl <0
0: 0:
- -
tIl tIl
....."0 g' l/l"O"O <ll ....,"0 g' l/l"O"O <ll
'" <lltll<llc<O <lle~c '" <lltll<lltll <lle~~
c ~~ ~ 0<ll0~ c ~~C~ 0<ll0.....
~ .....~9o ~>~~ ~ ..........90 ~>~-
tIlmog'l/l<ll 08~~~tIltllOg'l/l<ll 08%~l/l
~~l/l~Si~!~.<O~~~~l/l~~i~!~.tIl~~
\<0 ..... .2:C <ll C .\l1 ~ "0 "0 ~ 0 tIl .Q ~ <ll C .!!! ~ "0 "0 ~ 8
_C~<ll~<O"Ot<ll/l!~i_c.<ll~<O"OtIll/l!'-E<ll
0!C>l/l~5~S",~~oB~>l/l~S~S"'~~
8=<ll.!!0~tIl~~.B=<ll.!!0~<O~~.
C%E~.....~i~~rol/l~C~E~-~i~~rol/l~
~<O~<lliOl/lO_C~<ll~<O~<lliOl/lO~C~<ll
$.g~E~~~.~~~..g~E~~~'~~~
_,s"O~<lltll CE<<Ol--,s"O~<lltll cE<tIl~
\0 <ll r <ll _ -0 ._ . ~ 0 <ll'-- <ll - -0 .- . ~ .-
_~"O--<ll c~<lll/l-.....~"O-~<ll c~<lll/l-
~'E'- 0 "'~"O'ro~"" ",0 _'~'- 0 "'~"O'ro~"" ",0
o_>o~tIl~ct"O~O- ot>~tIl_ct"O~O-~
~<ll~p()_c"'tIl<llCCO~()~<lle~()c"'tIl<llCCO--()
0.0-0- tIl~COO-<Ooo 0;.0-0- <o~COO-tIlOO
.
~
3
(j)
ro
""
',E
'"
~
ro
.""
'c
-0 eel
C<lltllc
~ ~gEo
tIltllE"O
..,.,: ........ Q) Q)
._ ~'.l:>.-
E'c Ill(\)
_e~<D8~
~o.o~ 5 0
g'i~~5\:5
._:l=' <lll/l <ll l/l
"CJ"t:.:cUl'-c
~~_e.,;;'-
....... .s:;"O ~ ('Q
~,tIl~"03E
<OS~<o-<ll
-.- c ......:J-
o._cl13OC
BOi<ll,s:=:<o
ccEl/l~g
<O<ll$go~
~_'-._c
.~ ~ ~-g g-g
<llE _._<0
cowen
-:s_ocoQ)
c:+=' (l) a. 0
.9 ~ ~ (/).f!l \--
),...0 ._ ro"5 --0 ':l
';":.20.0.J"O 5\ 0>
60: g-~o ~ e~
-0(ij<D'--
o~<llC
0-'- - 0-0 ~
.- '" )<
J: 0 00..<0
eo.....
<ll <ll -
c<Oaj,g<ll
;:.c:..... ~
00'- (/)-
_ l/l C
~tIl tIl
.!a Ol () :.0 B
5-.!: .<llo 5
c"O C
._ =' ,... 0
$_ O-c.2
L,.. (.) Q)"""
o.!: <ll l/l'o;
....... .c.- 0
rJ)u);.-3g-
cP <ll .-
e~co"O
"'~ 0 .
tIlO "O"O~
....UJ'Occ-
<llcPCtIltll'"
C~~CO .0
~_ 0
o~-(Q_"O
"0 l- 'CJ) C t1)
c.3~cQ).t:!
S!!:;otllE5
(-..i<po~u~-s
O,~:=:tcPQ)~
l-tIltllo..l:>tIl
~
\
---\
g
"Q'"
1;.-
~
o
,
"-
'"
c
-c:
S
'c
~
c
,g
~
;a
~
l!l
g.
~
'"
c
~
..
~
~
...
~
~
<:>
"
<:>
~
~
9
ii
11
Q
Ui.!!
:I IG
.. ,-
J!~
1Il..5
~tO~ -5'0 ~
."" 0>- :I .""
6c"O "'~ 6
E ,g l\i 0>0 E
:5lil"'_ .5Q) :5
~n Co co '-m..c l-
''11.1..(00)-- co
<OQ).--:5O)(I)o <D
=..c:.-g<DC:~-
co:::-a>..Q:m-o C6
0>+:0 0 0, 0 Q) ~ C>>
c:c:C_c:-'- c
'c::>Q)'"",<(E 'C
~ .... .w .s::. ._ .0 ~
"005001 O:::J .'0
o>.....J.o c ~"'.J!! 0> .
c:cn't--~.t:ro :}c(l)
'_.!!! 0 0 0 '" 0) <).-.!!!
&'5 "0 "" "" 8l ~ CIlE &'5
r._c.cc.on; r._
c:t)coooQ).s::(J)ct)
O",wEEc",I-O",
~
IG
Q.
Gl
:g
.~
o
Q.
ll!
lk:
-
c
0)
OlE
.5"1::
c '"
Co.
.!!!O)
c..O
Gl
:i
'tl
Gl
.z;
U
III
c
o
~
C
Gl
E
Gl
Q.
E
Gl
U
...
6
III
>.
"0
::>
U5
rn
:;:;
'2
f
:I
<II
cu
Gl
:=
c
o
i
CI
~
:=
$0>0>
._ c.c.
(/)'C .....
'0-
c _ 01
0'-
C '"
o 0)
cEE
'" .:::
l'3-g
0)'-
"0 0> 0>
._ 0 c:
> 0'-
0_>
... c 0
o.oE
Q)..<::
_rn"l::
-0.01
01 0)
.c .
(I)'U~-
co'"
01 '" 8
- 0)
C_tnCJ)
0101"'-
<) <) 0
._._.s::. 1f)
a.tDQ.(/)
a...2 =......
0l0"'C:
0) 0ll'3
01 c.-
"0)- -
r') .......c ~
0, E ~-=' a.
,-01"001
.
c
CD
g>E
.-"1::
C:0l
C:o.
.J!!CD
c..O
- -
c: c:
Gl Gl
E E
"I:: "I::
01 '"
a. a.
Gl Gl
0 0
01 Ol
c: c:
'2 'c:
c: c:
01 '"
c.. 0:::
Ol 0>
C c
'5 .~
0
E" E
€ .c
"I::
01 01
Gl Gl
rn rn
g> 01
C
'C 'C
::> ::>
"0 "0
0>", 0>",
.50 Gl .5 Gl
O+:i o'+'
<?,'5 0>'5
, .-
c13 c-
OOl og
>. >.
"0 "0
::> ::>
U5 -
(f)
10 rn
:;:; :;:;
'2 '2
"
i~
q
E
~
Ol
I?
a.
Ol
C
'C
II
"2
o
::;;
c
.Q
1;;
Ol
'"
~
.l'l
a.
U)
o
J:
1ij
c:
o
Cl
"
0::
..
a
"
E
"
I-
'"
<0
...
o
...
o
'"
o
o
~
0.
"'.
Y
De:
>.
"0
::>
U5
01
E
.E
Q) a..... I UJ
,-WCID:2 "'0
"'.!!! $ a.+=> Gl
(J')~.~ ..c:a> "'0 c:
Q)~rnQ)C: C/)<<i c: 0
""",!:!C:o..co- ta,- co:.;::;
\V 0"'" ;:.0(1) -0 ~~
~g~u~ ~i~~ ~~xl'3_~
t;._~cc =>"501 ::>c:
<<s€~mQ) ta'Uo'U Oca~GlOl
tJ)=,Q) '- ~c..cQ) aEe?~
1i)(f)Q)~ ~f/)\t= -0 0.-
o.-Q)L..<1>'''''' .- Q)G> Q)
"OE.:::J",L-E C(l)(/)~ ~Q.Q)>
'" _ m Q)Q)C:Q) :;:;.c.c-
<D'U"'O~-~ E~~~ c_-~
:t::ccE",a ~...E- Q)~"'c
~~ca ~p ~'-<D ~ (/)'-
_e_ c:a ~Gllil.o~ _~Q)O)
_ ~ Q) "1::0. Q) Gloc::
liiO>Gl5Eo. OQ)"'ale: .0_::>'"
<) ~_Q)C: > u- -"'Gl'"
'-O>o-~.t: cnC'C ..... mO- Q)
:g.5>0>~.9 Q)o-m>.U) .s:8..g'.::
Q....CO.-e>>- a=~Q)~ cnQ)L..~
_~ ~caC: ero>..c 0~OU
0U~E 0 roEo~ cmoo~
~~~ cE 000g~ ~o~~
-~=woc ~~ c E~~C
01...01--0 "OQ)m~"oQ) _cnm
~ID~~~~ ~~ ~c O.-~E
~>m >00 Oo~ro~ ~~>ID
.. ::> 8 >...c: tIl 0, .. .!!! Gl.o; a. E .. '" u.!!! Gl
~00~~O~~8~0~~~-ro~~
6~~s.i~~6 BS~ o<~~i
.
.
.
f
::s
II)
l'll
III
:!:
r::
o
~
tl>
:w
~
l'll
'i
c
en.!
::s ca
-,-
as::
enS
~
l'll
0..
GI
1)
'iii
r::
o
0..
II)
III
D::
-
r::
ll)
E
1::
III
a.
ll)
o
0>
r::
'c
r::
III
a..
~
::s
'tl
III
..c
u
III
r::
o
'i
-
r::
GI
E
III
ii.
E
0>
r::
'S;
o
E
.e
1::
III
Q)
m
0>
r::
.;::
:>
-0
0>1I)
.S: ll)
0:.;::::;
<;>>'s;
r::o
OCll
~
::s
o
III
>-
-0
"
en
m
""
'c
0> E:g
r:: ll) CIl 0 .
'i:: ..c: L. +:;' "0
:::::J _ c>ro<D
-0 _~ 0 o>.e
- L. .- t
,,__ a.:::'CtJ
~o>. roEQ)
ll)z.Oi ''0 r::
>'-(5 "OQ)::J
00._ CD Q)-c-
o<p"O"O(j;c~
.S:2~Q)-><DQ)
-o-EooEo
Q)'OE151ilE:;
L.C'_ '-00
CIlCll-oQ)-oO'"
C/)+-'a>C)WQ)<D
CC/)~ro&.:..L."-
'-'-'- I <<J Q)
COC>C5Q) .t:..c
E.QcCVJ~_
ll).9ll)~~:;:0
"-C:..o0 L..-o-
0>0 _:::JQ)CI)
m,gzCU.S:2g(ijo
.....m.c~Q)O'co
~a.(J)a....!::Q)a.
t CO CO >d!3 c...~
Q) ":::::JccQ)'l:}
>C>octJQ)..Q'_
>..5: Q) ...... E 0
r:.:lij~~55'6C1liU
I Cov>41..c
o ~ o>f- Q) U) U).s
-
c
ll)
~
III
a.
ll)
o
0>
c:
'c
C
CIl
0:
....
0>!11
.S ll)
'O.e
III 0
.... .-
O).c
....:;:
o
cO>
0.5'
.- ....
-0
Ol-
0.'2.....
E 0 ~
oEt;::
o....~
r:::.e ::J
O"C 0
o.co
=>CIl0
>-
-0
"
en
m
E
c
't-Q)"O 0
-oo.ctU _
g?5J-~ $gi
0>.-.- . Q) (J 0
.a~tJ)~..c: ml....
"O"O::l~<D_~a.:::J
~:; ~ l;l E.9'c.E lil
'e- 0 0.'- '13 '0 0> Q) ~
.r: (1)"0 Q) 0)'__
Q) f/)+J co a.:t::: U) co co
.:t:::U)(/J C/)'-"'O.2>0
r::ll)Ol E--'-
ffi Cl):5-g"2.a S'E 8'
E ~,,>-
0>._ '0 13 Q) (J) ;> 0 0
co c:> ........<1>
:0 Q) C'- 0 emE CIl
"o.o'Ooll)_ .c
-C/):P'3Q).c:::::J~o
g"'CJ!2oL..~~o>tli
'-, ~E o.{ij CIl ~E e-o
U)Q) ..... Q)O-C:
0)>001:: 0.81-ll) CIl
c: 00 c.......co
=0 ~ c: a.B tV 0"""'0,
~L..O~cE:>.oo
q::.....a.Q)CtJ.__ -0
<t-O:J o-oOc....
o ~'O;5!E r::~.Q <:
1:: 0 Q) c: ro >'+-'Ol Ol
o 1... '0) 0 -
a.c: co g?'ii)t c"C..~
<x>~!11g-0ll)&.2l,EOl
0<(.5 a-g~ ~<( 8=
0_
-c
.nOl
"E
0..1::
.....;- c:a 0)_
CQ.cc
Q)Ol'-ll)
~EO~ E
.- 1:: '" " 1::
c CIl -'" co CIl
Ca."--cO-
.!!1ll)g e Q)
0..0::>CIl0
0)
e
'S;
o
E",
.ell)
t;:;
CIl'S;
Q).-
-0
mOl
o>e
c.Q
';::0
" "
-0....
-
0>1I)
e e
'0 8
0>
''0
e e
OCll
o
o
"0",
t.....
~
o
~
~
0..
'"
"
""
.s
c
o
::;
"
o
""
'"
0>
""
::E
-
]i
'0.
o
o
I
"iij
"
o
g>
0::
'"
1i
"
E
"
...
M
'"
..,.
o
~
o
o
~
0..
::>
9
Ii
-q,-
T""
>-
CIl
m::2:
.2 "0
Q)c~
.e.ero
:::~"O
C50d
.cOle
-C!l-
.~ Q) en
~:5a...
o.e>-
E'- .n
o.c
u:!:::"'O
-:;:~
menta
.ceo.
w.Q ~
ernQ.
CIl -0 -
o e C
= ll).Q
a.E-
a. ~
CIlEo-q,
~ (]) 80.0
,.r=.(])><o
"W f- L.. W N
~
o
Uilll
::\"iii
1:e
(i)'S
~
0-
CD
D
1
~
~
CD
-
-6
~
(/)
c:
o
~
5
c:
CD
!
~
~c
OCD
3'-~
,!;!(l:l
~o.
::>Q)
0-0
Q)
Cll,p
.~ C
,%0
Cll % Q)
~c:1G
8 1ll'l5.
_ Q) 0
--0-
Ill.:; 0-
~eg-
._ 0- '"
0..<<<1
....- (I)
-\::-
o_~
'Co <D:f;1.
0- 0- 0-
~
?i
~
<I)
"iii
%!
'.l;
CD
s
'A
CD
~
sa
'0:1
~
'';::;
,~
\~
~~
3'-€
.~ III
:P~
cto
g'Q)
::0':;
~~
III ~ Q)
~g~
Q) 1ll'l5.
"'Q)O
C-o'"
Ill.- 0-
::>~O-
'f},_1ll
._ 0. '"
o,...;(\)
.,t;.I.- (f)
...\::c
O-(l:l
''C Q) -
0- 0- 0.
?i
~
<I)
"iii
""
'C
-
Q)
~~~~e ~-o~ ~-o ~ Eo ~~
i'SCDCD <<I ~ CD CD CDS ::>~~I<<I
00--~ -o~"'-o~"'s:>~ \::~~-o$
~~.~~3 '0~'~ia~"%%\R"6.0~~5,~~
""...(1)00 ~~CDCllCDO - C ~CD
$~i ~ \::CD_-oCCD~~~CD~O~~'"
~~%~~ ~~i~'fS!~~~~il~
:;>:;c..SCll .t:>~:;CCD.,jO-Ill'" Q)<<IC-o.
~lw'l .~:III'!.11elll
~_! _ i%~~\Rc.~~ig~~~~i
~$Olll~ ",(l:l~___6::>-o~~~_~Cll
::>~~~ ~ICD~I~e~,ss~~oi
0~-~~ "'0-g_-tl",es~-o-o~::>3~
~(l:l-o~'" Q)",::>Q)CCDCD",~Q)C~~~~
i~Q)Q)o "'~O-o_...~CCDC(l:lO~~.t:>
~~'" 0- 1ll~~(l:l~(l:l~Q)"'O-O <<1-0
'i& 3 '&. ~ %.. s Q) '" aN '" 3 -0 !:e ~ '0 Q) ~
:;>000 !Iig'~i%~~~c~-o!~
~:i a~ CD <<I 0. ~ "" 0 ~ .t:> <<I. ..: S S <ii g ~ s:> .
g'11!6~ !~~'~l~~~eeii11~
~Q)Q)O III CllCDOW\::~Ill"iii-::>::>Q)~~-~
,-o.~~i i~i30~~~~e~loe~~~~
Q)_~...oo..",-Q) :;>1llS:>-::>0 Q)Q)Q)0-
~ !~Q)~1ll~~~:;><ii1ll\::::>1~\::\::0.~-_0-
U1~"Og%s:>~\.UUl-O.t:>o. '"
.
~ ..0.
\;;-
~
E
t
0>
C
."
sa
'e
~
c
g
~
...,
~
~
li\"
~
1
"i'
'"
'"
1
%
....
~
~
~
'"
'"
it
?
9
ii
.
.
.
~
o
en,,!
::J IV
....,-
ca~
....c
If)_
~
IV
a..
Gl
:c
'iij
c
o
a-
lii
Gl
II::
'"
->::-
.... c
o Q)
~E
ut::
='"
.a a.
::J Q)
0..0
Gl
3
"
Gl
.c
u
If)
c
o
:0:;
'"
....
C
Gl
E
Gl
Q.
E
Ol
c
:a
~'"
Ol'"
",.$
....0
o c
Q)",
uQ)
Cu
"'.-
::> > Q)
"'0_
'" .... '"
.- not::
o "a.
....:!::::o
.... E ....
0.... a.
'C Q) a.
0.. a. '"
B
..
::>
o
If)
>-
"0
::>
en
Cii
E
.!:
l!
::J
III
IV
Gl
==
C
o
:0:;
IV
Ol
:0:;
~
'!::;.aQ)"OQ)=0 CtI"O C ~ CD CO Q)"C
"0 It=LL.CDQ)ffijgm~.t::.DQ)
Q)"t: CD> _a.:).$~~
~-g B.~~~ ~ ~ g-S ~ co a.
<i"''''OCD ~CD",CD EQ)
'0 cn.D vf --.c: ..0
Q)__ "O-'-~o- .....
.c ~ a5 CD - mOO U) C)"'C - 0
- :JOE: X cm"'c
"'0 "'O"'OoQ)(J)Q)~'CNQ)
- m~_Q)._ --..c"'O
::1roQ)"-U)<UoC-crn:Joou-
0_a.0l Eucc'OQ)....co::>
.c:c::a..cw c'- --
tnO"t::::J:= '-cO~>..c
-.~u; V) 0 0('f') 0 Q)tt= o('t) W
CO "- en:::::J._ _ tJ)
"C 0 Q) -1::.Q....... ~ -= co -
~..c::5:g 0 ID 0 co'+-:S ~ c.~~
CO ..c Q.-- Q) a. 0 +-'u 0 co: <<1);;::
EEo EQ)NX '-.c_-
....- g._"Q) 0_ Q)(;) 2m+-' COu
-= o.f: -- 0'.1"0 II) c o1i) Q) E .$
:::~~C'\I'~ "-~ ro~ en Q.eu CD ~
O:J ~~-g~.~ (I).-:..<<J Om ~ a.
'- CD _.....trn(\lQ> Q)..cE
~ >.~ t) g 0 ~ ~ cb :0 0) 01- 0
<<J(i)>'co--k,,- V)T"""m.~-oo
::.;;::: 2 ~ U) 0 E 8.u :::J ~ rn CD ~
W%co roo:::! lDQ)~Q)-....
.!::: ~ ::J ...... .-.- E U .. Ole.; '"
-Q) m"-c -=> --"-c
~ cD '- g- 2 OlCO 'x 5 - ~ -; ~ :c
I.c: "OO<UL;,.m.c:o _WQ):t:::
Wl-mm~EoEU)C\I.so.ec>~
'"
-c-
o c
~~
ut::
='"
.a a.
::> CD
0..0
Ol
c
:a
~'"
Ol'"
",.$
....0
oc
CD '"
UQ)
Cu
"'.-
::> > Q)
cnE-
.~ a..~
o ~Ci
.....='=0
.. s:: ....
Oca.
"t: Q) a.
0.. a. '"
o
o
"lr--
t;:-
~
o
E
l'!
C>
E
0..
0>
C
'C
.s
<=
o
::;:
c:
o
'"
"
C>
'"
~
S
Ci.
'"
o
:x:
..
c:
o
C>
"
a:
"
~
E
"
?-
M
'"
...
o
...
o
'"
o
o
~
::J
9
ii
I
>-
"0
::>
en
'"
~
'c
co ""C ..c""C....oo
c ~ .$ m ~"O
ooro \V(J)c"OC
UJ-'E ~>.W2'6>Q)o
lI::uQ)CD "-' CCD>-
'-CD ~c:5~-5g>~ Cl>J.':1-2
o 0.... "0 ::> 's;.~ - _
en:;::; 0 o"'C 0 ......-~ m 0 Cl> .
0.- -.....Oi::::JO en CD 01
O""CQ)-\U .-__ c:
- C:"'" c: Q)~ ~~ C::!:--a.
E ou2 ~.c_ UJ UJ"fi....c~ 0
..... en..........""C....._Q) -",
..... Q).O Q) en C 0-=- Q)"O
E.. a.::>", -=o::>co
.- :J E E 01"0 Q) 0" Q) -
~t) 0 -cc<J)C)Q)x"'"
E'- Eo> CD.....!!2:i2.... CD '" CD.Q
O::J-_-enQ) .c .....
c E E '" '" a.:a Q):5 ::> U a.
-- -- m ;:: a. .C _ en ::J cn
-c Q) 0.- '+- m >. t>> 0 '+- 0 C)
<1).c 0 - -~.c t: Cl> o.r::..~
U::2 CD '" ":'E'o- 'P.~"E "'"0
~ ::J..c 0 ~- ..... "'C - Cl> = ==
a.o_-cnoenCl>ctJ tt=:J
(J)J.':Q)"'Cc~Q)t5cE"O-O
.oU)>2(J)C:-EmQ)~Q)o
-coo"O::J a.W -
::2C.a"'ECD.sE~.!!!~'"
:J ro ro Q.:J-O c: 0 a.a.o.Q)
~w~gE:2~o~.9E.g'
.. "'.c0)J.': 0.5(::J 0) '+-0 ro..... 0 Q)
LO_ Ol -OX oOCD
I == 0._ (J) \U..c -- It:: >".i::_
W u..!::; ",.a E '" E =.a a. 0 :5
~
5
g
"iI 1Il
a iO
1A ~
c:
-
~
~ /Jl ~~
~ ~.... ~-c
P- o~ o(\) ~€
1Il ~€ ~€
a ._ <<I
._ <<I :po.
~ ._ <<I jSo. -;:I(\)
-0.
.g(\) -;:I(\) 0..0
& 0..0 0..0
Ol Ol
~ c:
c :0
Q) :0 e~
"S -0 <<I'"
e~ 8><0 Ol
-0 <<I~
CD Ol <<I~
-5 <O~ 0 C3g
~g "Oc Q)<<I
l/l Q)<<I o(\)
c: 8<0 g-8 C:-O
0 c-8 <<1.-
.... <0.- -;:I:>Q)
<0.- ~6$ ",0"'"
l! -;:I7<\) "'~<O
"'0.... "'~<<I ._ o.'c
"'....<<1 ._ o.'c g....ro.
Q) ._ o.'c 0...;-0- .- 0
~ o~o.. ~.- 0 ....g~
~._ 0 ....E~ o 0.
1 ~g"" 0....0. .c <\) 0.
o 0. .c CD 0- 0.. 0. <<I
.c <\) 0. 0.. 0. <0
- 0.. 0. <0
.{;' .{;'
.{;' -;:I
~ (j)
~ f/)
~ (f) <& <&
} ~
! :e .G
.s .G
-ot-o<\)(\)~(\)<\) .r:.(\)<\)(\)<\)-o(\)g> .~g-e.@
.'/J.~~~~~~~ -ooi!!
:; 0 ~'?f:.g,s,s 6~1;)!l' .0 (U <\)% C X
00. ~ it) '-C c .-
~._._(l)t-O '- g?~~
~ 0.-08 0..P~.g Ol "0 % % ~~~"O en
-;:I <\) 0 .- o (\) <\)
~"'~~Q).s-og'& '" ._ E -Co o.....\il ~,s"'%.
__ _ ~ Q) ._ -0 ~~-;:I8 <\)c;e 0. - :.- ,((
_~O- (\)~~~-
ell)<\)<\)-o8"'~\il o';:;E~-o.P~c of/) --..;
3"tO'OS..... jg-83 c'- <\) 0 .- <\) "'~le.
'_5,,;:l0..r:.:98 .P .... .
o_.....(/)gtU .-(1) '" 0. ...-;:1 <\) C - 0 '"
~~~~o~~\,s .,-!!!.o~~~~~ -o<\),.-. -0
:;E~'%~
"'._ E -0 ~ C 'Q) -0 (\) /Jl 0. oCLl'~'-~
0'" "'0 .- o.\1)';;Io(j)ti)c C) ~ .~ :0 0.. c.
~e~.9~8e~-o p..60t\lQ>o<>>c '" 6- (\) Ol~
-c 0. ro '" <<I 0.'* $ -;:I E{ij~l-~,s'~ V)(l) e(/)
8.s~(\)"'o..(\)....-;:I (\)Q) ,:>,.-!co 0-0 c-r-'-~
('\S 0)8e ,.011ld) s::._...-:tnO~~ 0(\)0>-0-
~.. Q) ~ 'Vi..... ,,;:l.p0><<I-;:l
e 15' c c 0.(6 (1)- ",.po>.s-oc~o (tS ~ '- 0
(00:0 _'ciii'~~ \.- ........<9 Q)
-;:l _.~~.r;~$':){1)f/) ~-o~ $<D.gc (\),s E
/Jl Q)~ -0 "'O~ 0.'- (.\) '""' (\')
to i;:-;:l'p~~roE~e ~ -;:l 0 II) ro J;; 0.-0 0~"6$!l-
Q) \il en~<oE _0. o..-ts.oo c:
~ c - '" -c.r:.-o<<lCc1:'<<I g> 8 () '& "0
~._ C -0-- 8.r:. Q){/) 0.0",0) .
c: ....."Og~ Q)~~.-1ffi E<\)~E':;::;"'"'Ol-c ~~g>~5
0 oQ)(O....o ~~Q) Q)-o 0 oo.,-'OtIlg
~ ~() oC""- ~e%o\!'Q)Q)'~e '""' -'-
.,p,((S::::t\1cno o~ ..0>8:9"9--0
tlI "'_~ 0.<& Q) ~ ~ r.:. 0.$ c --g E %. ~ ~ ~ r:J'.)_ 0':;::1 c
..co.oE'pQ)~OIl)
~ ili ~ ~ ~ 8 g ~ 8> '&~ w.s~8t1l8-;:l._EO w<(tIlCOCltll
~
.
~oO_
\.-..
q
~
~
...
~
."
~
~
"
o
',&
~
~
~
g.
~
l
.~
..
l
~
\-'
~
q
<t
~
g
it
-;:I
~
"
--
--
~
"C
0)
~
0.
0)
o
0>
c::
'c
~
0:.
.s
'e
.!S
0.
~
~
.~
-=>0
"'0
.so..
'-"J:
g.lf)
(r.0
.
-b
:i3
If)
'$,
"='
c::
-
41
'-
-=>
\%
41
~
C
o
~
0>
~
~
.
0) C
go
c:: to "0
_ cO)
..... ~ cD: tD
e~-c:l
0> '" '(G Q)
Cll_e:oD
-0 C 0
Cll-....
(1)00.....
0';:' '" c .
c::~"OQ)O)
tOo.,-e:"='
-=>tOOo.'"
tJ)Q)O._~
'" ~ 0) -=> ~
._ ~ .... cr (1)
O~Q.)Q)'O
~._"O- ~
'- e:'5 ro 0.
.'g(i;O\.-1D
Q. 0. 0..$ .s
g
'0. 0-
\i:.~
~
q
~
t;,
2
0-
i
'a
~
a
'"
~
'"
\
"0-
f
1i
"
.S!
~
1
%
...
~
'"
~
\
-:>
9
ii.
'" -"€
5 -=>
-0 .. 0-
Q)~c'20o
,sN.!StOO)"C
ci ~ ~o: ~ ~
o"Oo"C'-t
0.. 0)""" 0) Q) to
"J:>.!Se:~0.
If)\?''-O)'-'-O)
00.'5.0>0)0
s-",tO,s....:.
ow c C -r,'
~c<.'3t'Ooc:
'eCll.l:>~roO)
to:e::"O"'>~~
o.'2~roo "<G
tj}.g .c o..~ <D
.S '" ~~ o.ro"J:
~_~(O~(l)-
'-ro 'o~ O)"J:$
B~..... ",:G:>:-c
':J(f)tI):) ~G)
","C",o.s~e:
otOro-e...........c
~o.C(\1oE.e
~~ Q) N.gtc:.-
..oo..+-':t'O..o~:>
..... .c 0. Cll..... -=> 0 c
tLo..",-e:c-"'OUl
~(1)cn""--o
i"'oDc.2.o
.", 0) 'is "0
_c C 0)
ge~%~CO
<::O$::.C g.C
\.- _ f./)'- ....... ....... a1
o~ "to?
_.... -Cll 0 '"
~ g~t.Q.~'~
t'O.1=>Od1o.Q)
_?o._'70
-oQ)~04 .......
0)- ~
)(to 0-
""3"Oc O)Gl'o
_ -0'-
'C. 0 cU ..... s:..- a-
Q)....... 2,\-b
e:-ocliCll ~
o.~ .... Q; . 0. en
';5'E ~O-e "2-
0'''''' Cll 0 Q) .... 8
(pot;'"O~roe
cc",c'2%. ...;
~"'?cIi<<l ~l
:l..o\.-"O-o~cQ)
\-- ...~(\)tDoroO-
~ g>o.~';:-u c 0>
~ :0 "0 $. $ e 2 .~
..o-=> .S.S"C'S-o
or 13';:::(1;)<.0 roro
0~.SZ, '2 '2 8'20>
~
~
0
'iiitll
~~
!~
(l)S
"'C "'C
~ 0)
0) €~
€
0.- ~ \10
Cl) 0) ~"'C
:P 0 0.9. <I)
"t ",- E
~ c.ss
.- 0.. t
i.- C 11l
~ ~-oo-
_cO)
& 0.. 0..11l0
.
~
.
~
f/)
c:
o
~
~
.
E
\
c 0
4i 0 C.
,.. ._ -0 -0
~t:oG) Q) 0>
~~1!<Il.t;'OE .t;
~:2-g~~~~~ "%
'""':::=C='~._~--O Olcn
"'11l0-rtS--~ ....--
'O~ <Il.~ E'5.~-;"~ ~'a
O)lJ)",,~O)E:>""So'"
(.)c{l32a.o8o~oCC
~~'O-o~ lJ)e~o
:>O-cc,I::;~~80lJ)-o
fJ)Q)o~(/)'?~G>-''!1.C
.\!!~~Sj!!~gcc o~
o -t) (1)C"""--c.*"'-
....:<::0 '~:>$O)_~E
~<:::_<Il- _"'~o~
o~ ::::_tU:_ClO'-CO
'C'a;~~~~g9~O:O-
0.. 0-.... .,. -
~
~
f/)
~
.a
(j)
til
'""
.~
~
~
if)
til
'""
':5
~lJ)-o
",,:><1)
_ 0 C
lJ):>'--O
Cl)Cc- -
~._t:-c~
._~Q)';)~:;:J
?;o1i)oO)c
~ 0 -0 ~€ ~
~ f/) - 0'- .
cc.(G.9c~$
o_~o ,-,-
~~.ce.1eG>tf)
:J C ",.- U ..... "0
,-"'ia -(6 0 .C]2...? Q)
iji<:::,I::;"'o""'-
cc;;. c:",..~e
o-ol1l._O-",O-
oc,-CQJC<1>
-ol1lE-~~o~
~ 'B~~~til",
<'l._(I)O-oc
~o.,I::;,I::;$1C~
~_O"'" c>>CU ':3
l1ltilO?:,ClJ).J:1
_S;___O(l)(U
O>(J)<.Oj!ro~1J)
::=~~.P Q)
11l C 0 - lJ)"'-';:>
11l ~....t~
't'1.) 'a; O-J;. (I) 0)
(-..i 'C "Eo:€: 'B C g- g-
66.2"1! g% 0.0.
.
~
i
~
C
o
~
~
:e
~
.
"'C "'C
<I)
0)" €
€~
11l
11l 0 ~
~~ "'C
0.9. 0) 0
",:a E ",
C
C:>-c 'c
'co.. 11l
c-oO- ~
~ct1) a:
0..11l0
't' ~
:a
t -g
l.
11l", '0
o.~
<1)0 \
of{'
C C
11l 0
~-o '!k.
!!J.c
11l B~
.9~
'6E ~E
g~
'C 0) . <I)
0..0- 0..0-
~ ~
.a ;3
(j) if)
til til
-.;:>
'"" .~
'S
-0 ,;,-0 -0 m 0;\1
,.. ~ s~~I'a;Sa
11l (I) S~:> ~~E!
~O) $1 ~o "" mEl.'a;o
<::: "" ~e .....",'6 $10
~t13-a~O'g (0 ~'O- o.5.Ji-1,-Q) (0
c-~q..... ,1::;0)1.) C~~O-O
Cl) =:'0- ~ C lJ) 2: <'l'g ~ --'- .~
~~~1~~ I~o.i ]i'll~s
Eo-o'15'~:t O)c~c - ", 0-0-$
~11llJ):> C ~Cl)~11l ",=: -o""l1l-~
0) 0.'- lJ) \5 0 11l lJ) . - c'l1l' Cl) 11l 0
0-<1) Gl .....-0 CllCl) ,&0.. '0 <e c.,l:;~
-oS1%<ei~ S!!J.o~ :>mS~tIIClJ)
~~c%5:<:: ~g~~ ~~g5"'C~11l
C,I::;-oCl) C $E:20 _00-lJ)~ ,I::;
gtll~o't'~ GlO~til "'C~EO)",,-og
o"'C~e~o 'O~~";>- O)-og$1%'BlJ)
SO)'i\)?h~Q .~~'t'% %.~,I::;~4.ClJ)
!%.~~~i ";>-3':ae ~~I~Cl)!~
g~~~~~ ~~%: i~:;:>lJ)~~~
.".,_,I::;_.....v 11l11lC,I::; - . .~; :>
....-o~ _ --..... l1Itlltll-~ :;:>.
l1lro:>~'Oo 't'lJ)mO 0'a;~$19ClltllCll
CClJ)!-O) _11l~"'" ~....SCll~C t;
OOCGll1lO ""-og~ 11l11l11lC~:a'6~
a-.;:>OlJ)";>-C ~0)0-0) ,l::;0)""-~:>-~
.\!! 11l-';:> ~ 11l.. o"tii 'B';;::.D O,l::;C-o '0-0.-
~:a5~%~6~~.~6~"~~SS'~
(9.... 09- 11l.-
~~.
Cf
\
o
Ii:.
Ol
C-
."
S
'C
~
~
~
~
~
i
~
o
1
.,
l
~
~
'J
~
i
:>
9
Ii
I
~
o
iiil/l
~iO
l:e
(/)$
~
Q.
.!
,e
%
~
&
.
"'C
Q)
~
~
o
g>
'c
C
~
Q.
'"
:%
'"
~
C
o
,.;
1II
"C
~
(II
-a.
.s
.
"'C
Q)
~
ar
o
g>
.~
~
0..
~c.
t:>>~ at)
%~-g'~
:::==,tUe.
::I>J>tOO-
.0(\)-0)
to.o6~
'O:::::Q)"""
to ",0
~~\l)Q)
c ,-,\-~
~~'O l))
Yl i3) >>-:5
.... _..4-" '-
-to'()-O
o -
<tJ~Q)01
(5 EG.S
.c Q) 0
0.. O-S 0>
~
"5
Q)
~
l))
-:S
.s
g>
'00
q>.~
c8
00-
8
...
::I
fA
-B'
~
(j)
ro
""
":5
-B'
~
(j)
~
~.
~ .'
Q)O
~-
.G 0
-0:0
Q)C
>J>tO
::I Q)
Q)O>
.o~
z:~
C
oli;
~~
~O-ai
~6'g
OctO
....Q)c
e t:>>$
Q)~C
C ~.-
~Q)~
_c-o
utOC
c_tO
l)) 0 l))
~.... Q
.' l)) C'c
'9E~Q)
t!)LL1Q)>J>
Q)
$
~
(II
~
c:
o
,.;
1II
Cll
~
:i
"'C
l))
~
to
ar
o
0>
C
'c
~
0..
l))
~
"5
Q)
~
Q)
~
...
o
-
g>
"0 'U
0>Q)
. .-
CO
050
lJiEe-o
~8.e~
'u;- to.S
Q) ~ 0..-
e~~~
~to-o:::;::
cl))ctO
o (,) ('3~ .
to- ~
-0 - to 0>0..
~"'O.~.Eo
oc~"Oo
"to<oto--
C _ gl-
l)) 'ai -'6 c \
Q)::>"2.::I~
.ogl--go!.
ro . <'lO
s:. o~ Ol<?
>J> 0 cl-
(/)~ \.-.-~
~8<'l~0
o "",o.oU)
o _-\,.0
"Ot'i$ro....::1o
~o
g'l))C-s:.
._-oQ)>J>Q)
.."0....."'0'--
r-tO;..-:Jt:'
1 0 () U'J 0
t!).J.;;es:.S
-?i
3
(j)
ro
""
.~
"'C
~
<'l
~
g>
.~
<'l
~
~
'0
l))
'is
Q)
~
...
o
-
g>
'0 t)
q>.~
c8
00-
1l6'lh
Q)
~c:
s:.::I
>J>
Q)$
.o'u; ,;,
~S'&
.c'- (.)
if' g- ~
~2 ;;0-.
13 0
._ <1> C
~-S ~
::>c'ai
6'oE
c ~ Q)
Q) Q) ...
c:>>:::: S.
"'C
~..~
...,~-
~ cro
E <'l 0
os:,+-'
~~"O
fJ)~e
C l))'-
coQ)-fr
6~g'e
-B'
3
(j)
ro
""
.~
"'C
Q)
~
<'l
ar
o
g>
'c
C
~
0..
~g>
"0'- Q)
;;-g :S
e~ d) 0
a.(O ~<(...-
0)....,.. ~.c(,"O
.0 0 -d (/) u.. .~
1ij~<'lQ)-o::l
s:. C .g.~ C g
>J><'lo)s:.~"'-o
c::ls:.::;;Ol))l))
0>J>Q):><'l....0'
-..;a!!!..cl))>J><'l...
.....<P~(.)ot/'JO-
c.cl-c:z=;cQ)
Q)..-O<'l::loc.
c:.o-~co~~
s~~ OaC tU_
o...EEo:;o
o.g4;8d;~2
00-0- o!....:::;::
-?i
3
(/)
(6
""
'E
~ ~(61ijQ)-oS.
.0 ......'ais:.-:S'ffi...-o
.~~ $~ >J> .l!\.g~
o 0 ... c:i u.. "'C C ~ 0-0)
.....0-0 C <'lo-;;*s:.
~"'C ~. 0-00'::: <o._l))
~Q)o-Q) ~c:::;:: eOcs:.
'"'.... 0 <'l 0- .- ..-
<=",-.;::l:>: '" 0-",::10)"'0
:.::= G) <<t (0 ..n tU (,) cr CD
Q)-<;;:.3'::> w-o cetO:;
.0 '11'-;;; '0 ,e o!. Q) ~ ",2'E
1ijro6'''' ~ s:.ccto>-
s:. e c-S ;;0-.\'51- oP-O.~~
"'Oll))tO -"" IttOo
~ Q) 8' ~ ~ ~ c. e Q) 5o~
~~ ~~ g ~~ g"'$ ~e
~SQ)>J> 1ij1l).~ 'o!o>
.r;};!~.S'ai s:.......- c...<O
~...... s::.. en .GcQ)"-
Q)-O'" .....l))c.2'2'Eo
~'i;ieo c....-6~woQ)
0-(6'5 g ego!. ~ Q)'::: 0
g.oO" :::;::(j) ro>J>'ffi
t.-e! 0. C 'cro=,
%al>J><O Q.l))0~0-:>'"
s:."'" __4.s:.._",00>J>
~wa>o +-'tu~"""~.-
o;Q)t:~Q)"""! ._.oO-O-Q)
6~83~61-0~~~~-:S
"
o
-q....
\;.N
~
l
o
n:.
g>
.~
'"
o
::;
5
..,
\
'g.
:t
~
i
'"
"3
Gl
i
....
\
...
"
"
it
?
9,
ri
~
c
UlU)
:liij
-.-
ca~
-C
Ul_
~
Cll
D.
GI
::s
'iii
C
o
Q.
U)
~
-
e
(I)
E
t::
l1l
0-
(I) Ol_
Oce
.- (I)
g'~ E
._ :l t::
e In l1l
c-oo.
~t:Q)
a.l1l0
GI
:;
'0
GI
.c
u
Ul
c
o
~
-
C
Gl
E
Gl
ii
E
-
e
(I):>,
:::J.o
g' O'Gll1lGl
.- Ol (I) _ .c_
"C U) m ~
m.!:.o"i::+-'C
L.. U ::J a. l:: 0
Ol= '" 0 Gl-o
l1l:::J:>,""EGl
.0 e o.t::
o~ CO g-m~
Q) It= C)u (1)0. 0
U e L..
eGl._GlOo.
l1l.c"Q E Ol(l)
::J-..JQ) .0
U)"Co 0>.5
wcc""Ocro
'omcfJ)c.r::.
......~:!::::'~ co en .
5EEEa.Gl~
01:: (p 0> Q) Q) 15 co
a.. a. a. 0.:5 c: 0.
GI
U
...
:l
o
Ul
Cij
0-
:Q Gl
C-o
:::J 0
~O
l!!
::I
'"
Cll
GI
:ii:
c
o
i
Cl
E
:ii:
Q)oQ)v~Z'd>
:5(/):5oS;;c
L.. I..... 0
.... ::J >.0 0
l1lo.o0l0e
.c 0' .-
:>, -0 .c
rnQ)Q) Q):::
:::J.c~.:2;:.
->0'" (I)
g(/).QZc20
oG>(ij ~.-c
"a. m 0- en Q)
'" U '" Gl a:: :>,:2
c'- m 0 c U)
O-g :ii'Ol1l~
U.- -
__3:.~_L..."'O
"'0 ctI 0"'0 T""" ..e Q)
$;; 0>0"'-- ~'a.
(I) ... .0 n" ['t) ::J
00 \.J.......o
a.<Dc '0
'O'~.!l!el'o
Q)L..~::JOLO
.c Q..r::. ~ :g '<::t ffi
_(I)'" E Glo....
l1l:5 -(I)OOZO
.c el- Gl
(/).9.2 >-Q)=
a>G>o\f-mgE
o>g20~Ct1Q>
T"""~~t) 'o.5t
T""" 0>- c >- cD "0 co
,:...- c o:!:::: 0..0L..:::J
,-,OOGlUO", 0'
E
ci
o
(')
<0
I
E
l1l
o
(')
<0
:>,
l1l
-0
'C
u..
>.
l1l
-0
e
o
::::E
L..
o
E
ci
o
(')
cO
I
E
l1l
o
o
I'
'"
:>,
l1l
-0
e
:::J
00",
:>,
l1l
e-o
0=
o
I
-0 _
(I) C
:t:Gl
.- E
Ee
(I) L..
O-g!
o
",e>
.- Gl
-
l1l
-ecn
0::"
;: ~
Gl
oaJ
zu..
:>,
l1l
"E
:::J
-
l1l
00
o~
l1l
(I) L..
u.E
e:>,
l1l0
:::Je
~ l1l
._ 0.
:::J_
o
(I) 0 Gl
.cogj
-......c:
00.
02.5
-l1l
OOl
.- e
L..~:a
ot::_
.- (1)'-
O:O.E
:>':>'Gl
1::l1l-
2::{g .
(/)0)0:5
l1lGlE:::J
(l)L..EO
(1):5000
:5moa>
_ 0.....
l1lEl1l:>,
Cijeog!
c:\i--:>
Ol~ .c
.- e _ Ol
'" Gl W._
u_cI
!i:: Cl.~ E
l1l"" 0
.b .s. >.J::
-ocm__
(I) :::J ;: 0
o Gl
en () L. "0'
0_::IL...
0.
00000.
L... rJJ ~ cD
O-(I)l1l.c
(1)0 -
..cuco
.....('0....._
~t5 - ~
.- Gl l1l (I)
""C--.c
'7000l0
I::::E a'-en 16
.
"''''
-"'-
L.. e
0(1)
SE
ot::
=l1l
.00.
:::J (I)
0.0
o~
l1l
Gl L..
0.E
e:>,
l1l0
::Ie
'" l1l
.~ a.
:::J_
o
Gl 0 Gl
.cogj
-......c:
00.
02.5
-r!0l
~.5
L.'- u
ot::_
"C: Q)'S
0.0.0
"
o
~~.
o
E
E
Ol
e
a.
01
"
."
9
'"
o
::<
"
o
1il
Ol
'"
~
S
'li
U>
o
I
..
"
o
"I
co
~
E
~
'"
co
.,.
o
~
o
"
o
o
~
:>.
y
Ii.
e
l1l
a.
~
Q)
C
Gl
e>
.c
-
(I) :::J
.cO
-00
0l0l
e.....
..2:>,
l1l l1l
'" ;:
-.c
.co>
Ol._
=:r
IDe
(I) 0
L..
--
'" 0
"C.~
ee
l1lo.
~(I)
l1l.c
;:-
(1)'0
-0
.- Gl
"'0>
=l1l
.. (Q.....
N-e
''''0
I"=:.:::
.
f,lg
g
(no!
::J '"
.. .-
J3:!::
(/).5
'~
'"
a.
Gl
.2i
'Uj
l::
o
Q..
<II
~
Gl
'S
."C
Gl
s:::
U
(/)
l::
o
~
C
ell
E
ell
a.
.5
.
,
.
.
Vl
~~
OC
$~
01::
~'"
.00-
::l0)
0.0
o~
lO
(J)~
O$!
~~
::lC
00",
!!1 0-
::l-
o
O)OV
L:O~
~.....L:
00.
.9$.5
~o>
t;::.E
ot:g
.- 0)-
~()::l
0. .0
ell
U
...
\~
e
::J
\Q
Gl
:IE
l::
o
i
C)
:e
:IE
~~
olii
$E
01::
~'"
.00-
::l 0)
0.0
o~
lO
O)~
o$!
C>-
lO 0
::lC
~'"
._ 0-
::l-
o V
0) 0 00
-SOlO
.....s:::
00.
.9$.~
\'Jo>
t;:.5:
01:::2
.- 0)'-
Q:(),E
>-
"0
::l
ti5
<il
""
:5
>-
"0
::l
ti5
<il
""
'c
(5C5ro' t)
~C::l-g 0>
:t:; 0""0... 0
::J:p--<J) .:
0:0........- Q.
U)"OJJ~ V
0)(000 .s=.
'r-- 00 +-'
>-cO-e E
ca(Qcct> e
~ sd) -
.c(1)+j'..o
.2'-0;;= ~ g
:I:'>~lO :e
""'oe-o~ (1)
o-e- e
e ::l lO c,
.QoQo 0"0
t>~~c om
(J) L:OO ~&
~-g'62 ~~
coc~ !;!.8
.-0::00 '"~
0) ~:;; C tr.
:S _ "0 (I) ('Q
~C.- -Q)
(J).-::lL: 00
>(00- <D
._ e c>>.o~ .' c.9
C'? 0. ~ 1il ~ \'<1" e V
6E~ ~'$ ::t8'1j;
~~
~ c
o v
~~
\.- '"
:00-
::l 0>
0.0
-5
'"
0)
\~
~~
.!!l E
~
v
..9 0..
0>
e
'-:.0
.0_ :=:
~::l
,0. .0
~
C>
I,J,
.::>
ci
0::
o
00 00
x. --
~c
00)
~~
~'"
.00-
::l0)
0.0
L:
o
lO
(J)
~
11.
is
~ .
oo~
(J)u.
0>:E
11.::>
tst:..
lO 00
0.0)
EV
_11.
.... e
Co
0) .-
E1U
0-.!2'
o==-
Qi:E
~E
o~
$!
v.-
_C
.0::>
'"
00
""a::
0.",
o.~
"'I-
l!) ~-o
::to.fij
,
~~
~c
ov
~~
~'"
.00.
::l0)
0.0
.....
o
o~
lO
v~
o$!
c
lO~
::lC
OOlO
.!!! a...
5=
(J)00>
.<:O~
~......<:
00.
o2.S:
-50>
~.s
ot:2
'C 0) .-
\:().E
'C
V5
<il
""
'c
23
c
lO
::l
UJ:=:
.!!l E
0)
00.
~O>
C
~:o
0-
'c,";3
0...0
>-
-0
~
U)
<il
..;:>
:s
ocotn
0)'"
~(ijt)
<1>~.~
E-2
<J).d a.
>00
o 0) Ql
a:s~
.~ ea
0>';;; .l!l
:6>-0
Vl"''''
"O~O-
~ -0 E
lO "'.-
~e-
o
.- "0 d) .
ooCOO<(
O>lO"'-
0) .<:1-
If- (/) 0. IJ)
o>CO)L:
'-O.r:.-
~t5--c
s::: v .-
Vl C-o
.:: ~ 0 4>
~$~;S
\<0 ::>o.f: (/) c::
I <u_tO<D
xo..ro.o:s!
~.l!l
oC
$~
01::
~'"
.00.
::l 0)
0.0
>-
c
'"
~
$!
~
ac
O)lO
o 0._
e::l-
'" 0 0)
::l 0 Vl
",0 '"
'" .._ L:
.- (5 0.
VO)e
-5"""" .-
"'0>
,g.!d c
......-
ot~
.- 0)'-
~()::l
0.. .0
>-
"0
~
,:n
<il
""
'c
Vl '"
\!l
.00.
Id::
.c
'"
~
$!
>-
'Og
v'"
o 0._
c::l-
",gO)
::lOOO
~ 2
.- '00.
Vvc
..c .........-
-;~t>>
-t;::..5
ot32
its]
-(U~
00)0)
Je l-.-.
croe
v >-0.
E -g v
~<n5
Ov 00).....
~L:O
'P' 0-_
_ E 00
0. .- .~ u
0) v Vl '"
.c f;>-~
~ ",E
E Vl :;;.-
O "E'O-
t,;.,. \,'0('0-
:;; %e$<i
'" ~"02i=
&. ",co.o>
O>lO .<:
.2-0 $w<D-
.@<<J ~5-5.s:
lO& lO:;::l c-o
O .cooO)
'" 00 v 0.<;:
o~ .....(/):):.t:'
L- .- '- c:
~co ~2"'OCll
.._0)._ c.<D""O
r- .... '- co >0-'- (/)'-
,ottl ,ro-rot>>
X ():E IX 0.. ro.a '"
.8
.$
'(jj
~
o
,J,
C>
ci
0::
o
~
11.
is
~
","':"
O)l:!:
v..:.
\1.::>
~I-
u~
lOfF;
o.V
E~
~c
Co
0).-
E1U
o..Ql
o~
Qi:E
~ E
00
Q)~
-c
~::>
o 0
= a::
0.",
o.~
lOl-
-->0
O?as-g
I:I: 0. '"
"
-&'"
t;:<'l
&
o
E
I!!
c>
e
"-
c>
"
."
g
c
~
5
'"
co
c>
'"
~
S
.~
:I:
~
o
g-
O'
co
g
!
'"
~
~
9
"
g
fi:
=>
<;I
Ii
!
di.!l
=' III
1:e
(J)$
~
0-
CD ~~
B o~
~ ~~
~ ._ lO
:a 0-
& ::><1>
(1.0
~
CD ~
% ?i
! "OC
8~-
:h ::>-
c: ~g$
0 ~o~
~
~ .f/). --0 0.-
al
~ -S .s .S
s'B~
~ ""-
...'\::.""
g .g t5 '5
0.. .D
8
'S
fh
-?;'
.a
({J
<Ii
:e
',S
CD
'S
i
~
5
....
~
i
.
... <I>c'O-os
O ,..0 <I>tll
'0- 03~~~~
-0 ",<I> ..c<g,<I>.E'"
S alal:D 0 e ~ =s:.;:o.$ -:. Q)
w 'iii_tll(.)w-E<I>wC:
\1--C'" <I>.c~...tll-P
_-ooal.c.o'" --0-
o (\) 0. al .':it "" ... al ~ C 0
fI) 0-(/)-- u. Q)s:,~ ~
"'O€~~3Q)<g'" co!!
al'- tll -.Z'- ""0.... C
._e2>.c ~~ Ol~ 0-"'0 Q)
2C1l lIlo_c-o::>al€
o-.c--o'~-..:! ~U1 0 .-<I>
<I>"'c.egs:a:-€~.g.~
-G'~?-<GI!!.(.)u g"'.6-
~_ 3 eo~r- tGS GS!!J.!
......Q)'tl c~- -of/)
<<1-5 Q):e.- _";l C Q)?'>c
-G -0'-"" Q) ! (.) 0 c <G 0
-0 Q) 2~~"'0 ~~g c.a '&
Q):Q)O- ' t;;_:.t-JtO~c.
-0 (.) Q) ,...:t:: Q) al '-' co""'-
C~.c S o.cl-.~ ~c::: ",Qi
'I,II:t-'\.VO~*",""O~~..P"'O
Q) "'~_.... <=; 0 \:: ::>'5
.Dal,-,ocJ:j -'&...."''''
-oalal-o-o:a:-tll...-- '--'
_-'o~"" Q)u S::> C. Q).c(
..~u.-5.€<g,ts ",~,",,-GO
~ .l@ ~ Q) l1j':e ~ 2. Q) al ! ,...U1
:i::::l--G o.E tlll--G E...J:jO
g
\4
q
\
a.
~
S
"
~
5
\
'"
~
'a
""
~
:'t
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
~
...
t
::>
y
ii
.
.
.
~.c.;";~c;.c~___ ~
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\C U P\2004\04.0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
17
. _".,o,"':';C.L,':'-,C,"""
c,'__", _.
_ ,.c-.,."...~~.....~~~'i-
'-:"'-__-:i:~c
~,- .
__ ~~'~,:.:;:;:;'::~_~,--7;_'""" "
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF T.HE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY DESIGNATION
AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION
FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development
Plan; and PA04-0571, 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 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
.
WHEREAS, the Application 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-
recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-
recommending the City Council adopt a Resolution Amending the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to eliminate the Z2 overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for a
site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita
Road, also known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-
080-007 through 959-080-010, attached as Exhibit "A",
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
.
R:IC U Pl2004104-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospila~raft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
1
Section 2. Findinps. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the
Application makes the following findings: .
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to eliminate the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height
restriction for a site located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west
of Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "A"
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of April 2005 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\C U Pl2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitaWraft PC GPA RESOLUTlON.doc
2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:IC U Pl2004104.0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC GPA RESOlUTION.doc
3
. - .--. -. -
~.:i.:~~:";,;;:,--,,:;:;:;,~~,,,::~,&~~::
~ .
..._._..... '. .--..
-- - ---..--~~
-~...""""""......=--.."'..
.:....::...:'--,:;:.;:~;,.>-'--~ .:'.-
C,-',:.",_,,::"," _ .. .:;;. ,_..C.c.:,__'
~~,--~. ._--_.._---~-- ---
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE Z2 OVERLAY
DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO STORY HEIGHT
RESTRICTION FROM THE GENERAL PLAN FOR A SITE
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgment of the City, bears a relationship to its planning;
and
B. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located north of
Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s).959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project");
C. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act;
D. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either
in support or opposition to this matter;
E. 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. 2005-_ , recommending City Council approval of an Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
F. 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. 2005-_ , recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment; and,
G.
The City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and
,2005
and
R:\C U Pl2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
4
H. On .2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05-
Section 2.
following findings:
Findinas. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of
the adopted General Plan.
B. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of
the surrounding area.
Section 3. Amendments to the General Plan Text. The City Council hereby amends
the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate Z2 overlay designation and
corresponding two-story height restriction for a site located on the north side Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, generally known as Assessor Parcel Numbers
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010.
Section 4. Severabilitv. 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.
Section 5.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
th day of
2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\C U Pl2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~raft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of
, 2005 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:IC U Pl2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospita~Draft PC GPA RESOLUTION.doc
6
OTY OF TEMECULA
Existing:
I
I S~;.p~ I
I
Specifu: Plan
Area
Z,;L,;L,
Pmnosed:
I
I Proposed ,
Specifu: Plan
I
Specif>c Plan
Area
ZI and Z3
Location
Along Highway 79
South, between
Jedediah Smith Rood
and Margarita Rood
Location
Along Hghway 79
South, between
Jedediah Smith Road
and Margarita Road
Table 2-9
Direction for Future Specific Plan Areas
Key Obiectives
CITY of TEMECULA
To achieve a comprebensivelyplanned mixed-use
devdopment with compatible/complemental}' mixtures of
office, support commercial, tp(:lr1prn-i"I, and services. The
project shall be limited in height to one or two stories and
designed to be <_......c1]e with existing ranch ~
residential The project should take advantage of the
unique opportunity to incOlporate open space resources
into the design, scale, orL....:vu of the deve:. r~~ The
Clty recognizes that given the sire conftgtm1tion and
location that cenain colIl1ne1cial..__.:vu uses may be
desirable including, but not limited to, bowling alleys,
cIrivinJ,; r.utl(es, and heahh clubs.
Table 2-9
Direction for Future Specific Plan Areas
K"" Objectives
CITY of TEME CULA
I To achieve a comprehensively planned mixed-use
devdopment with w"'I'".JJle/ complementaty mixtures of
offJCe, support CO"""""-""4....:.J, residential, and sexvices. The
project shall be limited in height to one or two stories_and
design to be compatible with existing ranch st}le residential
The project should take advantage of the unique
opportunity to incorporate open space resources into the
design, scale, orientation of the devdopment. The Clty
recognizes that given the sire configuration and location
that certain cc_..:..J recreation uses may be desirable
including, but not limited to, bowling alleys, driving ranges,
and heahh clubs.
)
Land Use Element
.
Anticioated Land Uses
. Mixed- Use including Offu:e,
Support Commercial,
Residential, and Services; Open
Space/Recreation.
Anticioated Land Uses
I .Mxed- Use including OffICe,
Support c.,~,Jal,
Residential and Services; Open
Space/Recreation.
I. Approximate
Acreaee
Z, 55.0
Z, 35.0
Z, 35.0
, A,,~~"
J
21 55.0
Z3 35.0
.
r;
CITY OF TEMECULA
"
".,.':of.
- '....
. Legend for Specific P~ O'j'-b.,.,
Figure 2-5 {Continued}. .,'
APPROVED SPECIFIC PlAN AREAS
. A Winchester Mesa ,..
B.Rancho Spa andCoiintry Cub
..C. Warm Springs .. -... '"
D. Silverhawk
E. Mountain View
F. Margarita Village ,',
G. Rancho Highlands
H. Paloma del Sol
I. Vail Ranch
J. Redhawk' A~A.-
..J,l; Rorioaul!ltHiIIs. 'c':'" ..- ", ,,"-"t '.
FUTURE SPECIFIC,PLAN AREASf .
It. Winche$~r 1800. '..' ..
L Quinta J)o,~
M. Muniel!i SpriDg$~l S
N. Borel Aimark.. '..",
O. ~ViileyVil(8ge /,
P. Hot"Springs Village.
."Q. Johnson Ral1ch
R. Roripaugh 800
,,;.,
S. Winchester Hills . ..
T. Winchester Meadows BusinessPliik
U. Temecula Regional Center ,'.. .... .
{,. , ;".
V. Campos Verdes, ,'<.
W. Old Town, ,
:'-
X. Unnamed Specific Plan' '.
Y. Unnamed Specific Plail .' "
Z,hZ". Unnamed Spec~~ Pl!iIi . .
AA. Murdy Ranch. ,", .
". ~ .
'.
..
;-'.
.
" .
..{.~:~&
..," .~". .'
""":-.
.~-' ..:
Land Use Element
'. . ~
:LOCATlON, "
Environmental StUdy Area
-Environmental Study Area
Envirol1li1ental Study' Aiea
Sphere of Influence
Sphere of Influence
yity of Temccula .
.Oty Qf Temecula
. ,City of TeriIecula
"c,',:Sphere,of:Influ~9C. , ., "
. /, 'Shere ofInfluerice
-",,-,,:''''dW bf Temccula "
LOCATION
'" '.' ,.., .Spl1Cte of Influence
. '.' ,.' . Sphere-pI Infhienee
" . ..' .':~piiCri:Of Influence
.... ,:,Sphi:m !Jf Influen,~ ,. . .
;gR~9f,c~"fIljen,#;ri\;:', . ,..
" -.,.- . . n~.....~,-,.'ta1'~'''''' 'K:;;.,;;....
. '0' ~~:~~~~I1, .'9~r"rU.;.,':"
h' SphCieoflDfIuCDee" .
$ 'ke QiInfluence/
~ty<ot'.Temccula
, ~''''-
City~(Tciii:C9t.ila .
. City))f TemecU)a" ,
Ci~of Temeci1la"':,'
City' of Temeculll,iJ "'v
~ity 91 T~C4J!!a';', "
CitYofTeniectija-/ ':,,,
a. f.... .....H:. ","',
ty.o ....~~~\__g.~'t~.
'. .' .. ',BiD' ofTCIl1~laj\.'"
," , :. City'ofiTe1i1~~' ..
~J/>'-
j~
1 The 1Ul11les of the htpre SpecifIC PItm Areas tue ;"bjeet to ciumge.,
.1
I
,
,
i
. ,
. 'j
, ..
.. '. -'
.~ .~. -.r<..~:~...__.JF.~'
.:"~ !
Po"" 2-<36. .
Legend for Specific PIaD. OVerlaY,
Figure 2-5 (Continued). ..". '.'. '
APPROVED SPEClFICPfAN ARJtAS:L<>CATION..,,"
. A. Winchester Mesa > JEovironmentill StWfy Area
B. . -Rancho-Spa 8Dd9Jiintiy au~:. . 'Eoviw.......atal Study Area
" .c. Warm Springs ..;;"..--; :'''' ':.' "', iEnviroDIilental StudyAiea
D. Silvcrhawk: __ .i,'" Sphere of influenCe
E. Mountain View ',...'. . ". .' . . Sphere of lnfIuelice
F. Margarita Village '....' <;ity of Temecula ..
G. Rancho Highlands; " ,;.,City l;lfTCUlecula
H. Paloma del ~l ." ,- .,;' :' . --'. :~tY of Temecula
I. Vail Rancb . . ., . ':/ '__ ~>.:;' --Sp.bere Of;lnfIuen~, .'.,.'
J. Redhawk: . . ')"'>'" " ~~~' '~ .. ,1 :~~ of lnfIuerice .
~.1, RorioauaHilIs.:";"" ;:;. -- --""'~"{'Yi:!' ;.,,~ '~:., 'I"~ ;,;."'- '.. :<- 'OW of Temecula "
FU1'URE SPECIFIC1>LANAREA$1: ..... . . ".LOCATION.
It. Winc~~r 1800 . ,.
1.. Quinta Qat.l!go. . '
M. Murrie~ Sf'.~l(l .' ~i: ," ...--
N. Borel A~rnark '. '. . ',;
O. erow:V~' ''''''Jf:' "'A1-;'~' "., ....
P. Hot~springS;'illagr.~", ,,:;,~.:.~.:,.;.\.:t,;..;,..,..',.
"Q. JohnsonRaiICh ',y- . "SpjimoL1iIfluence' --,
P-: Roripaugh 800 -- "'$p~ Oflnfluencel
.... ~ty:Of;:tCJPecUla
S. Winchester Hills __,' >aty.qfTem:~la
T. Winchester Meadows Busm~s~):tarlc ' Cfty)ifTenitc4Ia-,
U. Telilecula Regional Ceq!Cr .' '\"> ~~ofTemecUla'\:.; . .
V. Campos Verdes > : .<::Cify'"ofTciOieeu11li\"\""
W. Old Town '. :~ /.,' .~tY 9': Tt:gil~a~,;;,,:'{~,
x. Unnamed Specific Phin'," ~.. '" :C~Wof Teni~J.t;".;i.;' .
Y. Ul1Il1lIIled Specific Plaji., ,,'" .; -- : Qty.of Teme.QlUli;\9~~ '
~. '~" Unnamed SpeclqCi PUin; . ,c. ..' ,~tr..ofl'eni~l~jI>~:h ,
AA. Murd Ranch"., ' ; '>'.', City' of(femecUla
y , , .'
. -. '. . -:.~".: .." -.~,:j;i~> ~.,.I~..,
~.,.,
. ~ >,"
j
i
j
!
j
.-
I
1
.. ~:
CITY OF TEMECUlA
. ~.;:~ ;.-' ."'. -. ".
LaiUI Use Element
, 0'
J';" ,
I
i
. ,
,
.
"\< J.,
"1/.',
/",
"".
,
e
. , .
"
,""j
;' ~J ." -~, J
. ,.I', , <.. _.';::...;/:;;
. "
': ": :~
p~Z-36 . .
1 ' -. . ~ . ,
The ~ of the ~ spec1jle Pbm Areas are subject to t:/iangt;
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY
t~ 'APprtlved Specific Plan
~ Areas
~ ~~sedspecln~ Plan
...... _See _dSfoil6c PIin .
Arao"'~"""
- --:' ~:'. ;"
...
~
~
i
....u.. _
:E
::
,,; :;
-.
.';,';,-'
." ~.
';"
.....,.-...-
'.- -.
...
. ~.
~.:" .
.,.
-',
..;;..,
.
.,
~ --
,:",;".Vtl).
~~~'{.~.
-{'
." ~:
.
.. .
r,
i ..,-
;
i...
;
i
i
i
i
;
;
;
;
.
i
i'
;
;
'il , ,. ."
ii .. .. THE
it 1'1 '\~PLANNING
IE., , . ' CENTER
f ,-' .
.
FIGURE 2-5
1t:MECULA
G~reraI PIH. Pro~ram
\:)1" rAAt'l C r J...A.N v Y bKLA Y
,.
"
1
1
,
,
~ Approved Specific Plan
~ Areas
~.::::<<::ii;l Proposed Specific Plan
..,,:~ A"":as
':,'~"'" ,'" ~"" .' .,~ '.
. /loI.e:So< _ crSpoiUlc Plio
,..... ... CoIIOWioi .....
i
...."t1 _
:2
=;
.: 'J
.
1 ~.
",;
...;.of"
...'...,." .
.,.
i,'
~'.~,
,
.~:.- ..:.;...~. '-
.
-:i..
11.:....
.i":. ,~~., ,
.i"'..-.
...:-.,
.'" " '.~
".,.,.'
......
".,;..
....
; .. . "'. . ,".. .~.:~
~ -:1'-
," ,.
.,
....i ,:L
.: .~'...." . f
.
.,
.)
~~~~...
./1
-~,(.
.
,
#.,';
"
~
.'he City of
l'bMECULA
lener.al Plan Proeram
I ..
,. .
, .
~.. rl ',00. .~, .
=f \. .laD CENTER
. .
FIGURE 2-5
I
I
i
I
t
-
I
I
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:\C U NOO4\04..0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
18
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS
17,22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A SITE GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD"
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001
THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080-
010 (PA04-0462)
.
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by
reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as
Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-
010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ("Project").
WHEREAS, the Application 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; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on April 6, 2005, 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; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program; and Resolution No. 2005- recommending the City Council approve a General Plan
Amendment;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Commission recommended the City Council approve the Project subject to
and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending the City Council approve a zone change and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through
17.22.230, including the PDO-9 text and development standards;
.
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council
approve the Project, and certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted the Mitigation
R:IC U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
1
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA04-0462 hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation of the General
Plan of the City of Temecu/a in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The
proposed zone change is consistent with the related General Plan Amendment, the site is
physically suitable for the type of uses that will occur in this area, and the proposed zone
change would further the City's long-term economic development goals.
B. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and the use is in
conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General
Plan. The proposed change of zone allows for a use that will provide the diversity of uses
desired in the General plan and will create a balanced community with additional public services
available to the community.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 05-_ changing the zoning
designation from Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206
including the PDO text and development standards in the form attached to this resolution as .
Exhibit A.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-o463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
2
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby that the
PC Resolution No. 2005- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April 2005, by the following
vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IC U P\2004104-Q463 T emacula Regional HospitaOOraft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 05_
(ZONE CHANGE)
R:IC U Pl2004\04,0463 Temecula Regional Hospita~raft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
4
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. 05-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH
17.22,206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS (PA04-0462).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0264, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit;
and P A04-0571; Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located north of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road,
known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through
959-080-010 ("Project"); .
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
D. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City
Council approval of a General Plan Amendment;
. E. 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. 2005-, recommending that the City Council approve a zone change tq amend
the land use designation from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-8)
to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) and adopt Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206,
including the PDO text and development standards for property generally located north of
Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita road, known as Assessors Parcel
No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010;
F. On , 2005 and 2005, the City
Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time
all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on
these matters;
R:IC U Pl2004104-0463 T emecula Regional Hosplta~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
5
G. On .2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it .
adopted Resolution No. 05-_;
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
General Plan Amendment for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05-
I. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecuia approved a
Zone Change for the Project when it approved Ordinance No. 05- . as described in
attachment A;
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following
findings.
A. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designation
for the General Plan and the related General Plan text amendment. The PDO text, as proposed
is also consistent with the General Plan and related General Plan Amendment
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that the
provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction
shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Notice of Adootion. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
Section 6, This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City
Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated
in said City.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
_ day of _, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
.
R:IC U Pl2004104-Q463 T emecula Regional Hospita~raft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
6
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 05-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the _ day of , 2005 and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
"
R:IC U P12004104-Q463 T emacula Regional Hospita~Draft PC ZC RESOLUTION.doc
7
.r .
.. ....
. ..... .
..... .
. . . . . . .
\.;..: : : : : . . --" . . >-'---t. . ./. . . ". . . . . . . "-:I /"
Existing Zoning
.:::::..::::::'. ... ....... ....X..... ..... ..
... ... ... . ... ... . ....... ... .,. ..... ..... .
.... .... ........ ...
. . . ....... .... .......
. . . . . . . . . . .. . .........
. ...... ..... . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. .....,..........
\:)0
300
o
300
600 Feet
00
. ,
. . .
............... .
... .. ... ... ... ... ... ...
... .... ... "" ^ ... ... ... ... ... ... .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
r.lgislkeililarcviewprojectslhospitaLzoniIlQ.JXl09_ exJslapr
'r' .... \
...... .
..... .
...... .
I . . . . . .
____. . . :--,--<' . -I' . . '" . . , , . ''":-/.,.,.1' , , , . .,
Proposed Zoning
....)<..... ..... ..
. .. . .. ..... ..... .
... . .. .. ..... .. ...
. . . . . . . . .. .. . .......
. . . . .. ..... . r, . . . . . . . .
. ...... ..... ..........
\=>>o
300
o
300
600 Feet
00-
^ ^ ^
A "" ......A...A...........^A~
.... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ...................................................^...........................^...^ ~
r.\glslkellilarcviewprojectslhospitaL zonil1Q.Jld09.apr
.
Proposed
DRA.l1'T
T emecula Hospital Planned
Overlay District
(PD0-9)
.
Submitted to the City of T emecula
By:
Universal Health Services, Inc.
367 South Gulph Road
King of Prussia P A 19406-0958
Contacts:
Pat Brietigam (UHS, Inc.) 702-562-8542
David Prusha (HKS, Inc.) 214-969.5599
April 6, 2005
.
TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
DRiU"l'
.
17.22,200 Title
Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.206 shall be known as 'PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital Planned
Overlay District).
17.22.202
PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Temecula Hospital planned development overlay district is intended to provide for design
flexibility with regards to the building height of hospital projects. Other aspects of this PDO will be
consistent with the land use designations that are described in the land use element of the
Temecula general plan.
17,22,204
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITYWIDE DESIGN
GUIDELINES.
Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.206, the following rules and regulations shall
apply to all planning applications in this area:
1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any development
in a Professional Office zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed
complete.
2. The Citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed
complete.
.
3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time
the application is deemed complete.
4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the application is
deemed complete.
17.22.206
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,
The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 apply to this PDO with the exception of the
following modification to allowable building heights. The maximum allowable building heights, as
defined in Chapter 17.34 for hospital buildings in the Temecula Hospital PDO District shall be limited
as follows: No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot
building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within
the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this PDO, roof area is defined as that
portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall
that defines the roof area.
.
Chapter 17.22
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\PC-STAFF REPORT.doc
19
..~S'~...=2~'-i'-::C"::'~::~:'::~";~ =- --~~:,;;.~-io:::..:::~..i:..;'--:;~,-:'
- --'-~sL_'~~t..:i
"',....:,. '.-
..~--_.-
. . .,....... - .
'-._".--'___ __n"
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HEll PAD; AND A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE
FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE
FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700
FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959-
080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH
959-080-010
.
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use
Permit; and P A04-0571 , Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by
reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as
Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-
010 and an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ('Project').
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) on April 6, 2005, 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;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; and Resolution No. 2005-_
recommending the City Council approve a Zone Change;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the
City Council approve PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan);
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
I
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is
consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in
the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
encourage ua complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land uses; (Goal 1)" ua City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and '~ City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns; (Goal 8)" The proposed project
provides a regional use that needed in the community and surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate
medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, .
noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The proposed conditional use is
compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared,
which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality,
noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points
have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state
highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to
screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state .
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
2
.
.
.
reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial
grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state
highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off
sirens no less than ~ from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has
been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is
designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 316 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31
acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance
with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the
adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities
without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a
seNtce that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any
adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community.
The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of
any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development
(OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will
review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
e. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is
consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula
Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels.
Section 3. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.01 O.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City
of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
3
and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning
ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for
the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been
designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project
has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit to
establish a 316 bed hospital facility and a helipad; and a Development Plan to construct a for to
construct a 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office buildings totaling 140,000
square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation
center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79
South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The Conditions of Approval are
contained in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 6th day of April 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Aesolution No. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6 day of April 2005, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary .
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 TernecuJa Regional HospitaJ\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA-doc
4
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
5
':.:..~!t:::::"--,,--_-o=. - c:--". ---"-..:.. - ___._ ,"_.~__,-~~',._",~~;;~
-S:.:::~__
-- --, --.-
'---'''-'~
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A
320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE
FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELlPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000
SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER AND AN 8,000 SQUARE
FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING
APPROXIMATELY 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES,"
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
KNOWN AS APN: 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND
959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. Universal Health Services, Inc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462,
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional
Use Permit; PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by r.eference
and an Initial Study was prepared in accord with CEQA Guidelines for the property consisting of
approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001
through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project").
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review
was conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public
hearing on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review,
at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either
in support or opposition to this matter;
D. 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. 2005- recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City
Council approval of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the
City Council approval of a Zone Change;
E. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit and
Development Plan;
R:\C U P\2004\04..0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
6
F. On , 2005 and 2005, the City
Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time .
all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on
these matters.
G. On .,2005, the City Council of the City ot Temecula approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it
adopted Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, and Resolution No.
05-_; approving a Zone Change,
H. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project when it approved Resolution No.
05-
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following
findings as required by Section 17.04.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code; the proposal, a request for a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad, is
consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in
the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open
space land uses; (Goal 1)" "a City of diversified development character where rural and
historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development; (Goal 2)" and uA City
which is compatible and coordinated regional land use patterns. (Goal 8)" The proposed project .
provides a regional use that needed in the community and, surrounding region. There is
currently a lack of medical treatment facilities in the community capable of providing adequate
medical care for the general population. The proposed project integrates public medical
facilities necessary for the demand of the current and future population. The project is situated
adjacent to residential uses and a state highway. The project has been designed to mitigate
various potentially significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation,
noise, light and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The project, a hospital facility, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows
low and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated
Planned Development Overlay (PDQ-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot
coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The project as conditioned is also
consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; The proposed conditional use is
compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because there was an initial study prepared,
which identified potentially significant environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring .
program was adopted that mitigates potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality,
R:\C U NOO4\D4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
7
.
.
.
noise, light and glare, and biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points
have been designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the state
highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of approval to
screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated closer to the state
highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of the height; this will also
reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound blankets are required during initial
grading and construction activities to mitigate construction noise. There are conditions in place
requiring helicopters arriving and leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the state
highway corridor rather than residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off
sirens no less than M from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has
been designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce any
potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and the site is
designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission, or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The conditional use is a request for a 320 bed hospital and helipad on a 35.31
acre site. The project has been reviewed and it is determined that the project is in compliance
with the development standards of the Development Code and associate Planned Development
Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height.
The project also provides amenities such as a multi-use trail between the project site and the
adjacent residences to the north, which will extend a future trail to be constructed in the near
future. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facflfties
without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a 320 bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community because the proposed project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to minimize any
adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the surrounding community.
The proposed project will actually contribute to the long term viability and longevity of the
community by providing additional medical care facilities. In addition, prior to the issuance of
any building permit, the California Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development
(OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building Department and Fire Department will
review the construction plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fife
Code.
E. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2 and 3
of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed helipad facility is
consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of the City of Temecula
Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and residentially zoned parcels.
R:\C U 1'\2004\04..0463 Temecula" Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
8
Section 3. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of a
Development Plan, Planning Application No. PA04-0463 hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.05.010.F of the City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
The proposed use is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City
ofTemecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other
ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project has been reviewed and as designed
and conditioned, it has been determined that the project is consistent with all applicable zoning
ordinances, state law and the General Plan.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for
the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, because the project has been
designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and the project
has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the uniform building and fire codes.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application
for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a 320-bed hospital facility and a helipad; and
Development Plan to construct 408,160 square foot hospital, a helipad, two medical office
buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet on 35.31 acres,
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road,
known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through
959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, .
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
Ih day of
,2005
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula RegioaaJ Hospita1\Draft PC cUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
9
.
.
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 05- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting held on the th day of ,2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
10
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit establishing a 320-bed
hospital facility approximately 408,160 square feet and
a helipad within a related Development Plan (PA04-
0463) located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known
as Assessors Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through
959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
April 6, 2005
Expiration Date:
April 6, 2007
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money
order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand
Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the
City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)].
2. The applicant shall sign both copies of the. final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
11
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
.
3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
4. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
5.
The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
.
6. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated June 30, 2004,
(attached) on file with the Planning Department, unless superceded by these conditions
of approval.
7. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
8. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the Aviation Division of Caltrans and the
Federal Aviation Administration, if required, to operate the proposed helipad.
All construction and operational requirements of Caltrans and the Federal Aviation
Administration shall be complied with. The applicant shall provide a copy of
these agencies approval documents to the Planning Director within 30 days of
their approval action.
9. The applicant shall submit to the City of Temecula Planning Department an approved
hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management
Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency,
Department of Environmental Health.
The flight path for all helicopter traffic arriving and departing the project site shall be
limited to the Highway 79 South corridor and commercial areas, unless it is determined
10.
.
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA.doc
12
.
.
.
unsafe due to weather conditions. Flights over residential areas shall be avoided to the
greatest extent possible.
11.
All emergency vehicles shall turn off sirens no less than one quarter of a mile from the
project site.
12.
The project shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Temecula Hospital and the approved Mitigation Monitoring
Program as attached.
Police Department
13. All exterior lighting surrounding the project site should be energy-saving and minimized
after 11 :00 PM to comply with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore,
all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements.
14. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
15. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and. other miscellaneous hardware
~hall be commercial or institution grade.
16.
Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings shall be removed or painted over within
twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department
immediately so a report can be taken.
17.
All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
18. Any public telephones located on the exterior of this facility should be placed in a well-
lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering.
This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of this
facility.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
R:\C U PaOO4\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
13
.
.
.
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No,: PA04-0463 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 320-bed hospital
facility, approximately 408,160 square feet In size, two
medical office buildings totaling 140,000 square feet, a
10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square
foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling
approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the
north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
MSHCP:
D1F:
Commercial
Office
TUMF:
Service
Approval Date:
April 6, 2005
Expiration Date:
April 6, 2007
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Planning Department
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision.
1.
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money
order made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand
Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the
City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c)].
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCAdoc
14
2.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
.
WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE OF THE PROJECT, THE
APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
3. The applicant shall submit seven (7) complete sets of final approved plans to the
Planning Department with the following revisions shown on the plans. Planning staff will
stamp these plans as approved for distribution to each department and the applicant.
4.
The Landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide vines on the screening wall at the loading dock area,
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
b. The landscape plan shall provide shrubs, vines and/or other acceptable
screening methods to screen the oxygen storage container in the loading dock
area, subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show final color and finish details
for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape
shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas
(including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness
rehabilitation center).
d. A minimum of one broad canopy type tree shall be provided per every 4 parking
spaces. The tree shall be provided in close proximity to the parking spaces it is
to shade.
e. One landscape finger shall be provided per 10 parking spaces. The interior
finger planting width shall be a minimum of 5' wide with the length equal to the
adjoining parking space. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5'
width. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree with surrounding
groundcover or shrubs or both. The grading plans shall be revised as necessary
to reflect this requirement.
.
5. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are
screened from the public view of Highway 79 South.
6. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing
details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning.
Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high Quality appearance,
7. The applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing of the water and boulder feature
at the main entrance, near the porte-cochere. Said feature shall -be subject to the
approval of the Director of Planning.
8. The applicant shall submit cross section verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be
screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning.
9.
The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and
structures, excluding trash enclosures.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
15
10.
.
Trash enclosures shall be shown the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall
comply with the following:
a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the
site.
b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and
include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide
shrubs and wall vines on 3 sides of enclosures as required to provide screening.
11. The elevations shall be revised to show decorative lighting fixtures at the primary entry
of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Details of
all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting shall be
provided on the plans.
12. The Applicant shall revise the site plan and provide a detailed elevation drawing to show
a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that
deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all
FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per
Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
Planning Department
.
13.
.
The grading plan shall include the following notes:
a. "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be
evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the propertY
owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all
further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease.
The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the propertY to
deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully Qualified specialist to inspect the
site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeologicaVcultural
resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such
determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that
the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning
shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may
take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been
approved by the Director of Planning."
b. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources,
including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the
Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This
mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
R:\C U P\2004\Q4-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
16
c.
Prior to any ground disturbance activities a Qualified archaeological monitor will
be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated
monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered
on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as
a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing
activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the
County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be
contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure
shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
d.
14. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontologicaV, archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/
archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall
provide written verification that services for on-site professional archaeological and
paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving
activities.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an
opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions
regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit
correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been
made prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
16. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets
forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native
American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for
the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that
may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the
presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The
applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre-construction agreement/treatment plan to
the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
15.
17.
The grading plan shall be revised to include the following:
a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79
South as discussed in these conditions of approval.
b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within 100
days shall be tufted, seeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion.
c. Show the 5-foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the Hoot
concrete landing strip (7 feet total width). One parking island is required per ten
(10) parking spaces.
R\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCAdoc
17
.
.
.
Public Works Department
.
18.
All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or
property owner.
19. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit.
20. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
21. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
22. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Work,s.
23. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction.
25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
24.
26.
.
NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction-phase and post-
construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction-
phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the
City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for
Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction
Activities. Post-construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development
Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include
a combination of structural and non-structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs
to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff
year-round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction-phase and post-construction
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
18
BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the
approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project .
proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure ongoing long-term
maintenance of all structural post-construction BMP's.
27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
28. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
30. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's .
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
32. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which
may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development
Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Developer shall design the following features
into the approved construction plans, or submit the appropriate information as required below.
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Planning Department
33. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the
colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
.
R:\C U 1'\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofAdoc
19
.
.
.
34. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved conceptual landscape plans, or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Consistency Check fee shall be paid (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at
time of submittal of construction plans).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. One (1) copy of an agronomic soils report.
d. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
e. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
f. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
35. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following:
a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall
be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that
minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the
specific zone requirements.
b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate
proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning.
c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally
mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department.
d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30' of
street frontage.
e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six
months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted,
seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan
and landscape plan shall be provided.
f. A minimum 5' width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking
rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this 5' width. The planter
length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a
minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers.
Accent trees (minimum 36" box size) shall be provided at entries to parking areas
in order to define the entry and provide a focal point.
g.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
20
h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle.
I.
Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building
MOB #2.
.
j. A combination of large (no less than 24-inch box) Afghan Pines and California
Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern
perimeter of the project to screen off-site views of the development as approved
by the Director of Planning.
k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent
to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24" and 36" box)
screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare
from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross
section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer
area.
I. The landscaped area along Highway 79 South shall include a meandering berm
with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant
shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be
maintained at a minimum height of 3' around all parking areas to screen parking
from off-site views.
m.
All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features
shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area
along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be
landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed.
.
36. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot-candle
illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel, building
entrances and at property lines. A minimum of one-footcandle illumination shall be
maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot-candle illumination shall be
provided at primary building entrances.
37. The final construction plans shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting shall comply with
Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, be directed down and fully shielded. Lighting
onto adjacent properties shall be limited to the greatest extent possible.
38. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the
primary entry of each building/structure, subject to the approval of the Director of
Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including
decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting.
39. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility.
40. The split rail fencing for the equestrian trail proposed along the northern property lines,
adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western
edge of the property line. Said fence shall a continuous fence beginning from the
secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospita1\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
21
.
.
.
41.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined
acceptable by the Director of Planning.
All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they
are not visible from Highway 79 South.
42.
Public Works Department
43. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public
Works. The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
44.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department
of Public Works.
45. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
46. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all'Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
47, The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Building Department
The Conditions of Approval herein (Building Department) are not applicable to the projects that
fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California (OSHPOD). These conditions are applicable
to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are
within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
22
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
49. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for
the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown
on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside
lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property
or public rights-of-way.
48.
50. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
51. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
52. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998)
53. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
54. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
56. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
55.
57. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
58. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
59. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
60. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Community Services Department
61. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
62.
Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting whichever
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
23
.
.
.
.
approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the
transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program
Fire Department
63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
64. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention
Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil
engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to
hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are
signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants
shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National
Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I - (A 17G-bed
hospital with 80,000 square feet of medical office space), THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
Public Works Department
.
65.
Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of
Public Works.
66. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula.
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include
installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities,drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
I. Westbound
a. Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long
b. Provide three (3) thru lanes
c. Provide one(1) left turn lane
iL Eastbound
a. Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b. Provide two (2) thru lanes and
c. Provide one (1) shared thrulright lane
iiI. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
24
iv. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection.
Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
I. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive
aisle
iL Southbound (exiting site)
a) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
b) Provide a 20 foot wide shared thrulright turn lane
iiL Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88'
R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer).
d. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
I. Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap.
b.
67. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
a.
b.
Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
I. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road
to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION THE FOLLOWING
SHALL BE COMPLETED
Fire Department
68. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2).
69. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4).
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE II - (Expand to a
320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office space), THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
25
e
.
.
.
.
.
Public Works Department
70.
The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' RJW) to be improved with additional paving to allow
for two through lanes and a center turn lane.
b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities.
PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER
Planning Department
71. The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of each building for Planning
Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
Building Department
72. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Planning Department
73. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
74. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning
Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
75. Performance securities (Maintenance bond), in amounts to be determined by the
Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private
common areas and the Right-of-Way for a period of one year, in accordance with the
approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning
Department for one year from 'final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Director of Planning, the bond shall be released.
76. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be
prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural
resources. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered
specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of
Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the
palentologic and archaeological resources.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
26
Police Department
77.
Roof Hatches: All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
e
78. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall
be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code.
Fire Department
79. The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or
aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or
any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire
Prevention Bureau (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
80. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format
must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be
acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval.
81. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches (CFC 902.2.2.1).
82. This development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1).
Blue Reflective Markers shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3)
83.
84.
e
Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in
such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the
property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial,
multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches
numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a
minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 901.4.4).
85. Based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer
shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9).
86. Based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the
developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10).
87. All locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department
vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an
exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC
sec 902).
e
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
27
.
88. A "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6)
feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser door (CFC 902.4).
89. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE I
PHASE I - a 170-bed hospital with 80,000 square foot medical office space
Public Works Department
.
90. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational:
a. Highway 79 South
i. Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and
Country Glen Way.
a) Roadway improvements
b) Westbound
i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet
long
ii) Provide three (3) thru lanes
iii) Provide one( 1) left turn lane
c) Eastbound
i) Provide two (2) left turn lanes
ii) Provide two (2) thru lanes and
iii) Provide one (1) shared thru/right lane
91. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South
a. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle
b. Southbound (exiting site)
i. Provide two (2) left turn lanes
ii. Provide a 20 foot wide shared thru/right turn lane
c. Northbound (entering site) - 28 foot wide
92. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88' R/W)
along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water
and sewer).
a. State Route 7g/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road)
i. Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
.
R:\C U P\2OO4\04-0463 Temecllla Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & OP Reso w CofA.doc
28
93.
Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private
streets:
.
a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
i. Restricted to right in/right out vehicular movement
b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road
to include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF PHASE II
PHASE II - Expand to a 320-bed hospital plus an additional 60,000 square foot medical office
space.
Public Works Department
94. The following improvements shall be constructed and operational:
a. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow
for two through lanes and a center turn lane.
b. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and utilities.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
95.
e
96. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
97. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
98.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
.
R:\C U P\2004\04~0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CafA.doc
29
.
99.
100.
101.
102.
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly
notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense (Planning Department).
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project as
attached.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan,
contained on file with the Planning Department.
104. This development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's
Development Code.
103.
.
105. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan
elevations and landscape plans contained on file with the Planning Department.
106. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be
deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent
of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
.
Material
Stucco Color NO.1:
Stucco Color NO.2:
Tile Base:
Aluminum Panel:
Ceramic Roof Tile:
Tinted Glass:
Window Frame:
Color
Senergy, Parchment, # 342
Senergy, Walden, # 3104
Daltile, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red CS51
Centria, 9910 L T Seawolf
Monier Lifetile, Terra Cotta Flashed
Viracon, Bronze VE 4-2M
Kawneer, Medium Bronze Kynar 500 Fluorocarbon
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCA.doc
30
107. The condition of approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items,
materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be .
deemed satisfied by staff prior to approval of the use or utilization of an item, material,
equipment, finish, technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of
that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to
substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the
regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision.
108. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show
and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A 3' clear zone shall be
provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting
the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of
utilities shall not look like an after-thought. Planting beds shall be designed around
utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall
insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
109. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent
site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines (Planning Department).
110. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be
submitted for review and approval for the project site.
111. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
112. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan)
contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of .
Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping
into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
113. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape
Design) are required to be met.
Police Department
114. Graffiti: Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police
Department immediately so a report can be taken.
115. Crime Prevention: Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can
contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department.
116. Public Telephones: Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should
be placed in a well-lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature
to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the
interior of the building.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CoCAdoc
31
.
.
.
117. Landscaping: Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at
a height of no more than three feet (3') or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants,
hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would-be intruders from
breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows.
a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
118. Lighting: All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy-saving and
minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting
Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Ml. Palomar Lighting
Requirements.
119. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The
doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one (1) foot candle of light at ground level,
evenly dispersed.
Building Department
120. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
121. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays
Community Services Department
122. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
123. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a
regular solid waste container.
124. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways,
perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting.
125. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance.
Fire Department
126. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM
for a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or
R:\C U P\2004\04..0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
32
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, .
Appendix III-A).
127. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site
and off-site (6' x 4' x 2-2 1/2' outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire
access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart,
at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow
shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing
fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B).
128. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. On site fire hydrants are required for this
project (CFC 903.2).
129. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2).
130. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105).
.
131. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. This condition only applies if
any manual or electronic gate is proposed or conditioned (CFC 902.4).
132. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the City; should
any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce
any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports (CFC Appendix II-E).
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
133. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 7,2004 from the Riverside
County Department of Environmental Health.
134. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 24, 2004 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
135. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 21, 2004 from the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA).
136. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 12, 2004 from the Rancho
California Water District.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaI\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
33
.
.
.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\C U NOO4\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC CUP & DP Reso w CofA.doc
34
~~
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
. July 7, 2004
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long
.-
1~[E~ :-e II IJ i~ ~
I"
JC' ,,~i:904 if!
- L.J
By
--.=
-
RE: Plot Plan No. P A04-0462 & P A04-0463
Dear Mr. Long:
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 to
construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be
available in this area, although we have not ill receipt of any information conv,;,.":"g those services.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE
REQUIRED:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the "l'y..,y.:ate water and sewering districts.
.
b) Any food establishments, (including vending machines), shall require three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
. a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food
Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600-6330.
c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the
Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955-
5055)
Sincerely,
Sam Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
.
.ow Enfo..,emeot A!l"ocy . p.o. Box 12BO, Riverside, CA 92502-12BO . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 40BO Lemon Street, 9th F1oo~ Riverside. CA 92501
ad Use IIIld Water Ea8lneerlng . P.O. Box 1206, RiveJSide, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 lemon Street, 2nd Floor. Riverside. CA 92501
_._----~. -' .._~-~.~.~...
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
Gen.raI Manag.r-Chi.fEngin....
Slt80.l
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention: DM-1 \.,.o,Jq
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR'~ @ ~ 0 \!J ~ J"
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTR I
JUL 2 8 2004 .
e
By
ladies and Gentlemen: Re:
The District does not nonnally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
.cities. 111e District also does not plan check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood haZard ,,," ~,;.. for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are nonnal/y limited
to Items of spl1cific Interest to the District Including District Master Dralnage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and dfalnage faclUties which.could be Cl>nsidered a 1~1 componenf or extension of a master plan sYStem,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, .Infom'lation of a general nalure is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the '" """.ad project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such Issue: .
. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed.
$- This project Involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facllities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check, and
inspf1Clion will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
ThIs project proposes channels, stann drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
consldefed regional in nature and/or a Io!lical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District woula consider accepting ownershil? 01 sucn laClllues on wnnen request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District Plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
.f'A Oq-()'fj,,'l. ~ PA- ot-o~(,.3
.
ThIs pro~ is located within the . limits of the District's Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been ad~tea; applicable lees snoulo oe palo oy cashier's
check or money order only to !fie Flood Control District prior to issuance of building orgradil)Q pennits
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the. actual
penni!.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may reguire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOESl IlBrmit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recOrdation, or other final approval should not be given until the
. City has determined thatlhe project has been granted a permit or is. shown to be exempt.
If this prolect involves a Federal Emergenc:y Management Agency (FEMAl mapped flood plain, then the Cltv should
requiretf1e applicant to provide all studies calculations, Plans and other Infonnation re~uir'ed to meel FEMA
relluirements, and should further require thai the applicant obtain a Conditional letter of Map Revision (ClOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a letter of Map Revision (lOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project. the City should require the ap~licant to
obtain a Secllon 1601/1603 Agreement frOm the Califoinla Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or. written correspondence from lhese agencies
indicating the proiect is exempt from these ~ulrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water QualitY Certification
may be required lrom the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
permit.
)( /rfJ ~f;..lt l'/SII-t.J", syt1ll.,L.. lit!
- D~l1'-"I..JEt> fO\2-#o1J'I "Ju,..1'- vJI114'IN r~
])\$1l!-Ic..r I4qtt1-or-~ffl I(I--..J 111+
DI&~ c.., f=A<.ll.../ 11 (ii$,
""'e~c."'vPo q.~\"'" L.-\.~ .,(
c:,..M
Very truly yours,
~4
ARTURO OIAZ
Senior Civil Engineer
Oate:~/Y'..z-/, ;1a1-f
I
.
.
.
.
(
-
-
RIverside Transit Agency
1825 third Street
P.O. Box 59968
Riverside, CA 92517.1968"
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
July 21,2004
Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner
Planning Dept., City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: P04-0462 and PA04-0463 - Temecula Hospltal- Comments from RTA
Dear Mr: Long:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical
complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal
Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in
support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project.
To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the
site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features:
· A paved, lighted, and ADA-compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft-Iong turnout configura-
tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR
79. just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should incorporate a paved
passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters.
". Information note: Sufficient right-of-way appears available for this turnout without
significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and
with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure installations.
.RTA staff is also recommending designation on the plans of an additional specified clear
path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building.
. RTA staff also advises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new
passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design
and architectural themes.
RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04-0462 and
PA04-0463. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at
(909) 565-5164 or contact me online at mmccov(a)riversidetransit.com.
Si?::w~
Michael McCoy
Senior Planner
F:\dala\Planning\MikeMlWord\Oev Review\Temecula\2004\RTA Llrhd - Temec Hosp.doc
..-.....
-.....
RiftrsIde Transit Ag8KJ
July 21,2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~
City of Temecula. Cases PA04-0462 & -0463: Plot Plan review and CUP for
535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical-related facilities. N of State Route (SR) 79
and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments
Bus routes involved: Existing Route 24 and future bus routes
Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use
permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35
now vacant acres Yo mile west ofthe SR79-Margarita Rd Intersection in a rapidly expanding
commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full-facility medical institution In
Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging
planners and engineers to provide a robust suite of mobility options for access to ~ The
project includes the following components:
To:
From:
Subject:
. 176-bed, 6-story hospital building, Including Emergency admittance
. A 5-story expansion of the hospital
. Two multi-story medical office buildings
. Cancer center
. Fitness center
. 1280 parking spaces
The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary
access provided directly off a signalized intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The
hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drlve-thru loop suitable for van-
pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths-of-travel are specified
on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and all perimeter driveways.
e
RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SR79 but the bus currently does not stop
at this site. RTA Is currently studying a generai reconfiguratlon of bus routes In South-
west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita
Rd In the relatively near future since it is an important arterial that would serve many
commercial generators of bus traffic.
In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital
site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the Inland Counties. In some
cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is Important enough to be the route terminus or
name of the line as Identified on the bus itself. Also, several distinct transit routes often
serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page.
It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, .
to drop off and pick up passengers if the facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside
F:\dala\PlanninglMikeMlWordlDev ReviewlT emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc
County General Medical Center In Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like
Kaiser or San Gorgonlo, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby
street. Some examples of transit service and stops are:
.
. Kaiser Hospital in Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having
multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc;
. Lorna Linda Hospital: 3 lines, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter
of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital;
. Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn-around on site, very
close and convenient to main building;
. Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property;
. Corona Regional Med ctr: 2 lines, bus stops along S Main St, off the property;
. St. Bernardine Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts
Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical
Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon Its full
build-out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would
. be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the
former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access
road network. No on-site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site.
.
To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital,
RT A Is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans be
amended to include a two or three-bay bus stop and bus turnout located at:
. North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized
Intersection with Country Glen Wyand the primary hospital entrance. The stop's
taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the
intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 ft to accommodate two parked
buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer-
cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth
(i.e. width) of the turnout is 10 ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft If a designa-
ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79.
. Additionally, RT A requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the
main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location.
. RT A staff also requests that the project proponents consider Investing In some
additional architectural amenitlils for the bus stop, Its benches and shelters by
perhaps taking this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in
the. interests of maintaining the community Image of Temecula. Because this
facility will be one of the most well-known and visited places In the city, Its bus stop
is deserving of a hlgh-quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible anti
complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect
or engineers are urged to contact RT A staff for further details.
RT A staff will request the multi-bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above
be made conditions of approval for cases 04-0462 and 0~463. RT A staff will work with
future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is
comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital.
.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004.
F:\data\Planning\MikeMlWord\Dev ReviewlT emecula\2004\T emeculaHosp.doc
r
@
Rancho
later
Board of Directori
John E. Hoagland
President
c..ba F. Ko
Sr. Vice President
Stephen J. Corona
Ralpb H. Daily
Ben R. Drake
Lisa D. Herman
lobo V. Rossi
Officers:
Brlam d. Brady
General Manager
PhDlip 1.. Forbes
DUedor ofFinanee-~
E.P. "Bob- LemoDS
Director of Engineering
Pen:')" R Louck
Con""""
Linda M. FrecO*P
District SeaetaryiAdministrative
Servieea Manager
C. Michael Cowett
Bestu-t.~LL1"
........,c.........
,
,
July 12, 2004
.
SUBJECT:
"'.H
.".' ...
.'.," ,,)
J'/ .'~' "
..'/,r
. -1';;/ 1:<
W' iQ,
0"/' c-
C;/ 0>~, .1'/..>,
. ~'0 '2
<::Y@ '"
~~
WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONALHOSPITAL;
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043;
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO.1, NO.2,
NO.3, AND NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959-080-001
TIlROUGH APN 959-080-004, AND APN 959-080-007 THROUGH
APN 959-080-010; P A04-0462 AND P A04-0463
Dan Long, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required oncsite and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner
signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
.
All on-site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of
RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12-inch discharge pipeline
and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be
contained within a minimum 20-foot-wide easement, which is located such that
no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The project
proponent should schedule a meeting with RC'\YI) to confirm and detail these
requirements.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
7l:J:!L{~~er, P.
Development Engineering
O41MM:mcOIBlFCP
.
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones. Engineering Project Coordinator
Rancho Califol'llia Water District
42135 Winchester Road . Post Office ~ 9017 . Temecula, CAlifomie. 92589-9017 . (909l296-6900. FAX (909) 2$6-68GO
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\C U P\2004\04..0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\PC-ST AFF REPORT.doc
20
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING -
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT
LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY
700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-
004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571)
WHEREAS, UHS of Delaware,lnc, filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and
PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the
property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located at the north side of Highway 79
South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-
001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 and an Initial Study was prepared
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Project);
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA04-0571 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;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA04-0571 on April 6, 2005 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;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending
the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the
City Council approve a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending that the City Council
approve a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-_, recommending
the City Council approve a Tentative Parcel Map;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve
the Project, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder;;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFTEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
.
Section 2. Findinas. That the Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the
Application, hereby recommends the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code /;1ecause the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the
development standards wIthin the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General
Plan Amendment.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract;
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In .
addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the
Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided;
H. The subdivision is a commerclaVoffice project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. Conditions.. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves the
Project (Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468) to consolidate eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one
parcel for all of the foregoing reasons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other
necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
R:\C U Pl2004\D4-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallOraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
2
.
.
.
.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 6th day of April, 2005.
David Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No.2005- _ was duly and regularly adorted by the Planning Commission of the City
of T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 61 day of April, 2005, by the following vote of
the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2004\04-Q463 Temecula Regional HospilallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 05-_
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
R:\C U P\2004\04-D463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Dratt PC TPM Resolution.DOC
4
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468,
TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1
PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-
001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-
080-010 (PA04-0571)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of T emecula does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A. UHS of Delaware, Inc., filed Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change; PA04-0463, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit; and
PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres
generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita
Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010 ("Project");
B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was
conducted as required by law, including the California Environmental Quality Act;
C. The Planning Commission of the City ofTemecula held a duly noticed public hearing
on April 6, 2005 to consider the applications for the Project and environmental review, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
D. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan for the Project; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval
of a General Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval
of a Zone Change; Resolution No. 2005-_ recommending the City Council approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan;
E. 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. 2005-_ recommending approval of a Tentative Parcel Map;
F. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed
public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity
and did address the City Council on these matters.
G. On ,2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted
R:\C U P\2004104-0463 T emecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
5
Resolution No. 05-_; approving a General Plan Amendment, Resolution No. 05-_ ; approving a
Zone Change, Ordinance No. 05-_; approving a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; .
H. On , 2005, the City Council of the City of T emecula approved a Tentative
Parcel Map for the Project when it approved Resolution No. 05- .
Section 2.
The City Council of the City of T emecula hereby makes the following findings:
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan, and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the development standards
within the Development Code, Subdivision Ordinance and related General Plan Amendment
B. The Tentative Map does not proposed to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act contract of 1965 or the land is is
subject to a Land Conservation Act contract.
C. The site is physically suitable for the uses and proposed density as shown on the
tentative map as proposed by the Applicant;
D. The design of the proposed subdivision and the proposed improvements, with
appropriate conditions of approval, is not likely to cause significant environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or
habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. In
addition, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified prior to action on the .
Application;
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible;
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those
previously acquired by the public will be provided.
H. The subdivision is a commercial project and is not subject to Quimby fees.
Section 3. The City Council of the City of T emecula hereby approves Tentative Parcel
Map No. 32468, Application No. PA04-0571, consolidating eight parcels totaling 35.31 acres into 1
parcel, for the property generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road, known as assessors parcel no(s). 959-080-001 through 959-080-004
and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 subject to the specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
6
.
.
.
.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
,2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the _ day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\C U P\2004104-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
7
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map 32468)
Project Description:
A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 32468) to consolidate eight
parcels totaling 35.31 acres into one parcel located on
the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700
feet west of Margarita Road.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007
through 959-080-010
DIF:
Office
TUMF:
Service
MSHCP:
Commercial
Approval Date:
April 6, 2005
April 6, 2008
Expiration Date:
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed
easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may
require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
Planning Department
1. The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a check or money order
made payable to the Riverside County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred
Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty
Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty
Four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code
Section 211 08(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicanVdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of
failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospilallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
B
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
e
Planning Department
2. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
3. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
4.
The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading PI1in: "If at any time
during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural resources, or any artifacts
or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological
resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and
the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to
immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the
property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no
cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the
discovery is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the
property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon
determining that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of
Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take
place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures hi'lve been approved by the
Director of Planning."
A qualified paleontologisVarchaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontologicaV
archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologisV archaeologist, Planning
Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologisVarchaeologist or representative
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery
of fossils.
.
5.
6. The Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity
to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection
and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the
Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.
7. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth
and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American
cultural resources. The agreemenVtreatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment
of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered
during the project. The agreemenVtreatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga
tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed
copy of the pre-construction agreemenVtreatment plan to the Planning Department prior to
the issuance of a grading permit.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
9
8.
The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all
archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio
Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the
grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
.
9. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present
and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the
significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation
measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit.
10. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in
the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office
and the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of
such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
Public Works Department
11. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
13. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
12.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP
14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. This property is located within thirty miles (30) of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
ii. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and is on file
at the City of Temecula Planning Department.
iii. This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
iv. This property is located within an area identified by the City of Temecula
General Plan as being a sensitive area with regards to archeological and
paleontological resources.
.
A:\C U P\2004\04-D463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
10
Public Works Department
e
All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or the
property owner.
16. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
15.
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
d. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
e. Planning Department
f. Department of Public Works
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Community Services District
j. Verizon
k. Southern Califomia Edison Company
I. Southern California Gas Company
17. The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following public improvements -
to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be -
reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
i. The dedicated right turn lane into the main entry (Country Glen Way) shall be
12 feet wide and 200 feet long at a minimum.
ii. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
b. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country
Glen Way.
c. Half-street improvements of De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial - 88'
R/W) along property frontage plus taper to include installation of pavement, street
lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer).
d. Dartolo Road (Collector - 78' R/W) to be improved with additional paving to allow for
two through lanes and a center turn lane.
i. Provide an internal connection from project site to Dartolo Road to include
paving, curb, gutter, street lights, over crossing of drainage channel, and
utilities.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
11
.
.
18.
e. State Route 79/Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and
eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap
Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise
approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets:
a. Half-street improvements of Dona Lynora (66'R/W) to include the installation of
paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
b. Private (28 foot wide) ingress/egress road from Dona Lynora to De Portola Road to
include installation of paving and curb as shown on the approved site plan.
19. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum
over A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207 A.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
e.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 34kv or greater, shall be installed
underground
f.
.
g.
h.
20. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
21. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map with
the exception of two (2) openings as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
22. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from De Portola Road on the Parcel Map with
the exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
23. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospilallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
12
24. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
25.
e
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concems and shall be recorded with the map.
26. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
27. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
28. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of
any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
is required for work within their right-of-way.
29. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
30.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
.
31. A 28 foot easement shall be dedicated for public utilities and emergericy vehicle access for
all private streets and drives.
32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the
final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept
free of buildings and obstructions. "
Fire Department
33. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet
from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The
required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade
of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional HospitaJIDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
13
.
.
.
.
34.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimljm fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a
4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into
account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
35. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including
parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI
Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone
VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and
format. prior to satisfaction of this condition.
36. This parcel shall maintain reciprocal access to all parcels.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Planning Department
37. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
38. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
. 39. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project, as
attached.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
40. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 Temecula Regional Hospital\Draft PC TPM Resolution.OOC
14
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
42. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the T emecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
41.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
50. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated November 19, 2004 from the
Rancho California Water District.
51. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 19, 2005 from the
Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\C U P\2004\04-0463 T emecula Regional HospitallDraft PC TPM Resolution.DOC
15
.
.
.
.
f
,.
'*
Botmi o{ Pi.rettAn-s
John E. Jloagiand
President
Qlaba F. Ko
St. Vice Pluident
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H. Dally
Ben R. Drake
Usa D.llemaan
MicllaeJ R. McMillan
Officers:
BrIan J. Brady
General Manage;
Phillip L. Forbes
Director of Finance-Treasurer
&P. "Bob- LemoIlS
Director of Engineering
Perry IL Louck
Director of PllllUling
Jeff D. Amultrong
Controllor
'\
November 19,2004
O~(Gi~O\YJ~l
ill Nav 2 2 2004 J
Dan Long, Project Planner -
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO.4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6813
PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, AND NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
13043; PARCELS NO.1, NO.2, NO.3, AND NO.4 OF
PARCEL MAP NO. 13734; APN 959-080-001, APN 959-080-
002, APN 959-080-003, APN 959-080-004, APN 959-080- 007,
APN 959-080-008, APN 959-080-009, AND APN 959~080-010
CITY PROJECT NO. P A04-0571
[UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES)
Dear Mr. Long:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-
site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD
and the property owner.
IJDda M:. hego8o
District Secretary/Administrative
",",~M......or If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
C. Mi"",eI Cowett requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the u<uuv<~ owner
Best Be9t & Krieger lLP ...- c . J
Gen<nlCo~.1 signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If .you should ~ve any questions, pl~ase . contact an Engineering Services
Representative at tIiis office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Mi aelG.Meyerpeter, P.
Development Engineering Manager
04\MM:at211IFCF
c:
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
-'
Rnncho California Water District
42135 Winchester Road . PMt Office Box 0017 . TelMCUla, California 92589-0011 . (951} 29€M19OO .. FAX (95i) 29&4)860
~~
o COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY 0
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 19, 2005
rD~ IE@; ce 0 W ~ ~ll
~u JAN 2 1 2005 Jl
By
.
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
./>
A1TN: DanLong
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468 (1 LOT)
Dear Mr. Long:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map 32468 and
. recommends:
a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Department.
Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be subrnitted in triplicate;
with a rninimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the .
internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint
specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1,
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative
Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California,. when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel
Map 32468 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho
California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to such "Tentative Parcel Map".
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such
Tentative Parcel Map at aily specific quantities, flow& or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose. A responsible official of the water company shall
sign this certification. The nIans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's
Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the reouest for the recordation of
the final maD.
2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of
the final map.
.
Local EnfoIcement Agency. P.O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-8982 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 92501
Land Use and Waler Engineering' P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4080 Lemon Street. 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501
i
I
/
Page Two
Attn: Dan Long
January 19, 2005
.
3. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to
the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans
and specifications as '"1'1'"v ,'ed by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the
Health Department. Pennanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted
in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and
joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be singed by a registered
engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that the design
of the sewer system in Tentative Parcel Map 32468is in accordance with the sewer system
expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal
system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at
least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
2. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made PRIOR to the recordation of
the final map.
Sincerely,
· -t.,~En~~'''R'''''Sp<ci''''
(909) 955-8980
.
~