Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06232025 CC Agenda - Adjourned Regular MeetingIn 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 11]. AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JUNE 23, 2025 -10:00 AM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Brenden Kalfus FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Brenden Kalfus ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant's position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a Page 1 City Council Agenda June 23, 2025 maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker's time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Adopt Resolutions and Introduce Ordinance Related to Temecula Valley Hospital Project (APN 959-080-039,) (Planning Application Nos. PA21-1525, PA22-0105, and PA25-0181) Recommendation: That the City Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolutions entitled below, and introduce the related ordinance: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25-0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 959-080-039) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 959-080-039) Page 2 City Council Agenda June 23, 2025 (PA22-0105) Attachments: Agenda Report Aerial Map Resolution - SEIR, SOC and MMRP Exhibit A - CEQA Findings and SOC Exhibit B - MMRP Resolution - Modifications Exhibit A - COA Development Plan Modification Exhibit B - COA Modification Ordinance - PDO Amendment Exhibit A - PDO Amendment PC Resolution No. 2025-23 PC Resolution No. 2025-24 PC Resolution No. 2025-25 06-04-2025 PC Staff Report Draft SEIR and Appendices Final SEIR Plan Reductions Notice of Determination Notice of Public Hearing ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 3:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 3 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development DATE: June 23, 2025 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions and Introduce Ordinance Related to Temecula Valley Hospital Project (APN 959-080-039) (Planning Application Nos. PA21-1525, PA22-0105, and PA25-0181) PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct the public hearing, adopt the resolutions entitled below, and introduce the related ordinance: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25-0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 959-080-039) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 959-080-039) (PA22-0105) SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: An Ordinance for a Planned Development Overlay Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) generally located at 31700 Temecula Parkway. BACKGROUND: On November 24, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital Inc filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, a Modification to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202) that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, Eve story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3. On January 26, 2022, Temecula Valley Hospital filed Planning Application No. PA22-0105, an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9) including establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO. No other mix of structures and uses, including behavioral health, are permitted without further environmental review, entitlements, and approvals by the City Council. On May 6, 2025, Temecula Valley Hospital Inc filed Planning Application No. PA25-0181, a Modification to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18-1258) which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2. Subcommittee Meetings On November 2, 2021, staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Councilmember Matt Rahn and former Council Member Maryann Edwards. The applicant gave a presentation and there was a discussion on the proposed services of the Project. On April 19, 2023, staff presented the Project to the Planning Commission Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Chairperson Lenae Turley-Trejo and former Planning Commissioner Adam Ruiz. The applicant presented the Project including the proposed operations of each building and phase, discussed previous meeting with surrounding neighbors and adjacent HOA and answered questions of the subcommittee. The majority of the discussion and questions from the subcommittee focused on the behavioral health hospital which has since been removed from the Project by the applicant. On April 25, 2023, staff presented the project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Zak Schwank and former Council Member Curtis Brown. The applicant gave a thorough presentation regarding the Development Plan Update, operations of each of the buildings and phases, as well as answered questions of the Subcommittee. There was a conversation that focused on the previously proposed behavioral health hospital that has been removed from the Project by the applicant. On August 23, 2023, staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Zak Schwank. The applicant provided an update on the Project and other projects in the region. There was also a discussion on the need for a community meeting to present the Project to the public and get feedback. On February 14, 2024, staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Brenden Kalfus and Council Member Zak Schwank. The applicant provided a further update on the Project and there was a discussion over discharge procedures and the future specialties of the hospital. On May 6, 2025, staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Mayor Brenden Kalfus and Council Member Jessica Alexander. Staff provided an update to the proposed TVH Development Plan Update which includes the removal of the behavioral health hospital. The applicant provided information on future parking demands and plans to meet those demands. There was also a discussion on the removal of a previous condition of approval related to the timing of construction of bed tower 2 as well as the timing of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Community Meetings On November 9, 2021, a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the Ronald H. Roberts Library. A presentation was given by the applicant and their development team that showed the proposed phasing, explained why the expansion was needed, detailed the future plans of the hospital and introduced the behavioral health hospital which has since been removed from the Project by the applicant. There were eight (8) members from the public in attendance at the meeting. On November 13, 2023, a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall. There were a total of approximately 130 people in attendance for this meeting where the applicant presented the Project and answered questions from those in attendance. Staff was not in attendance at this meeting. The meeting was filmed and posted on the City of Temecula YouTube channel as well as on the city's CEQA page for this Project. On March 26, 2025, a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall. There were a total of eight (8) people in attendance for this meeting where the applicant provided an update of the Project. Staff was not in attendance for this meeting. The meeting was filmed and posted on the City of Temecula YouTube channel as well as on the city's CEQA page for this project. Planning Commission Recommendation Staff presented the project to the Planning Commission on June 4, 2025. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project subject to the Conditions of Approval and certify the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. There were two public speakers who expressed opposition to the project. The first was an adjacent resident who expressed concerns regarding noise, traffic and light pollution. The second was a Western States Regional Council of Carpenters representative who stated that the project should use local union carpenters to construct the proj ect for climate and air pollution reduction mitigation. There was also one letter of opposition that was received from the attorney for the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. The letter requested that the project should use local union carpenters to benefit the community's economic development and environment, training should be imposed to prevent spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, a development agreement should be created to obtain community benefits, mitigation, and project improvements, and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report should be revised and recirculated for public comment. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report concering the project was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Enviommental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council must certify the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Projet, including Findings of Facts in Support of Findings, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Consideration for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation impacts. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial Map 2. Resolution - Certifying the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Adopting Findings, Adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Adopting Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 3. Exhibit A — California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) 4. Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 5. Ordinance — Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Amendment 6. Exhibit A — Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Amendment 7. Resolution — Modifications 8. Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval (COA) - Development Plan Modification 9. Exhibit B — Conditions of Approval (COA) — COA Modification 10. Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 2025-23 - Recommending Certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) Adopting Findings, Adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), and Adopting Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11. Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 2025-24 - Recommending Approval of a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Amendment 12. Planning Commission (PC) Resolution No. 2025-25 - Recommending Approval of Modifications 13. Planning Commission (PC) Staff Report of June 4, 2025 14. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) with Appendices — Available online at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA 15. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) — Available online at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA 16. Plan Reductions 17. Notice of Determination 18. Notice of Public Hearing 959-080-039 CITY OF TEMECULA PA21-1525 1 inch = 400 feet 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet I I I I I (The Heart of Southern California Date Created: 1211012021 Wine Country The map PA21-1525.mxd is maintained by City of Temecula GIS. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. This map is not for reprint or resale. Visit the City of Temecula GIS online at hftps://temeculaca.gov/gis RESOLUTION NO. 2025- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC ("Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan; on January 26, 2022, Applicant filed PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District; and on May 6, 2025, Applicant filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.). C. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the Project. D. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution Nos. 08-12 and 08-13. Subsequent Modifications to the Development Plan were approved by the City Council in 2011 by the adoption of Resolution No. 11-17, in 2016 by the adoption of Resolution No. 16-29, and in 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. On January 22, 2008 the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-10 (SCH # 2005031017). An Addendum to the EIR was certified by the City Council in 2011 and a Supplemental EIR was certified by the City Council in 2016 by Resolution No. 16-28. E. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and 21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan area and, therefore, tiers off of the prior EIRs for the Temecula Valley Hospital. F. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) should be prepared for the Project. G. On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issue to be addressed in the SEIR. H. On March 3, 2022, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. I. In response to the NOP, two (2) written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. J. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project. K. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR in November 2022, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on November 3, 2022. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in Press -Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. L. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. Copies of the Draft SEIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of N Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. M. In response to the Draft SEIR, the City received five (5) written comments from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Those comments and the Response to Comments, together with the Draft SEIR, the Corrections and Additions to the Draft SEIR (including revisions to the Project description, among them the removal of the behavioral health hospital component), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, constitute the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR). N. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, at least 10 days prior to certification, the City provided the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, to the public and all commenting public agencies. O. On June 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final SEIR and the Project, at which time heard and considered information presented by City staff on the Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. P. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23 recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared for Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9), adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-24 and Resolution No. 2025-25, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a Planned Development Overlay Amendment and Modifications related to the approval of the Project. Q. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR 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 SEIR; 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 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 SEIR. R. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section 4. 2. The one environmental impact identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures is described in Exhibit A, Section 5. 3. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VI of Exhibit 6. S. CEQA section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. T. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of the findings, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Section 7, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. U. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, technical studies, appendices, and all oral and written testimony presented prior to and during the public hearings on the Project. V. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 4 Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference as though set forth in full. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the Project. D. Find and determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony, does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final SEIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. 5 H. The City Council further directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15094. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of June, 2025. Brenden Kalfus, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of June, 2025 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations State Clearinghouse No. 2005031017 City of Temecula May 2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................II 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................................1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................................................2 3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW....................................................................................................................................4 4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL........................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................................7 4.2 Paleontological Resources...............................................................................................................................................10 4.3 Hazards And Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................11 4.4 Noise........................................................................................................................................................................................12 5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE............................................................................................................................................................................14 5.1 Air Quality..............................................................................................................................................................................14 5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................................................................................................15 5.3 Noise........................................................................................................................................................................................19 5.4 Transportation.....................................................................................................................................................................22 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................................................................24 6.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected in the SEIR..................................................................................................24 6.2 Alternatives considered in the SEIR..............................................................................................................................25 7 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................28 7.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...........................................................................................................................28 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i Ascent Environmental LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CUP Conditional Use Permit EIR Environmental Impact Report g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepower -hour Gpm gallons per minute GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating MND Mitigated Negative Declaration NZE near -zero emission PDO Planned Development Overlay PM particulate matter SEIR Subsequent EIR UHS Universal Health Services, Inc. VMT vehicle miles traveled ZE zero -emissions May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment ii Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: ► Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). P. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ► Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.' Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Project (Project), as more fully described in the Final Subsequent EIR (SEIR) dated May2025 — SCH 2O05031017. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultant. 1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081;14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant, Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), is proposing the Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment (proposed project), which is the subject of a Subsequent EIR (SEIR). The proposed project would consist of revisions to the currently approved project, which would require a Major Modification and Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Amendment. The Amendment revises the purpose and intent of the PDO; establishes an administrative approval process for buildings and structures that conform to the architectural standards of the PDO; clarifies the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO; and sets forth design guidelines for buildings and structures. Specifically, the proposed project would revise the approved master plan to allow for development of the following structures: an approximately 20,000-sq ua re -foot expansion to the existing hospital building emergency department; a 125,000-square-foot, five -story second hospital tower, two four-story, 80,000-square-foot medical office buildings, a 14,000-square-foot utility plant; an approximately 125,000-square-foot, five -story third hospital tower, a four-story parking structure; and six surface parking lots. In addition, the proposed project includes relocating the existing helipad from its interim location to the roof of the proposed parking structure. The proposed project would be implemented through three phases of development. The existing hospital building and associated infrastructure that were constructed during Phase I of the currently approved project would be maintained in place. The proposed project would result in full buildout of the Temecula Valley Hospital master plan on the project site. The existing 237,305-square-foot hospital building and 5,180-square-foot storage building, which were constructed as part of Phase I, would be maintained onsite. In addition, the existing onsite backbone circulation system and access driveways to Temecula Parkway and De Portola Road would remain unchanged. The remaining undeveloped areas, which were previously graded as part of Phase I, would be developed in two phases (II -III) under the proposed project. Specific timing for the development of Phases II to III would be dependent upon regional demand for the proposed uses and is not precisely known at this time. The existing onsite parking lots would be reconfigured and relocated as the individual phases are developed. The proposed project would not involve major changes to the site's topography. The proposed facilities and phasing are described in the Final SEIR. Several structures that were originally proposed in the currently approved project would no longer be constructed, which include the cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center. All proposed buildings would be designed to meet UHS Temecula Exterior Design Standards. The design and architectural style of new buildings would be consistent with the Spanish -Mediterranean or Mission styles of existing development on the project site and nearby development. The proposed pervious features onsite include various existing and proposed water quality basins and detention basins, trees included in parking islands and open spaces with drought tolerant vegetation. All impervious areas, except for the northern horse trail, the eastern independent channel and existing pervious areas will be replaced with new landscaping such as trees. All surface water flows from buildings and parking lots will be routed to the project's biofiltration basins; non-structural improvements such as rain barrels and tree wells would also be installed as needed to comply with applicable pollutant control and hydromodification requirements. Water quality improvements installed on the east side, where the existing hospital building and storage building are located, during Phase I will remain; new water quality improvements would be focused on the existing, undeveloped west side of the project site, and where new development and reconfigurations are proposed on the east side. Project Objectives As set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: The City's objectives for the currently approved project, as listed in the 2006 EIR, are to: May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ► Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; ► Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; ► Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; ► Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; ► Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and ► Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. The applicant's objectives for the currently approved project, as listed in the 2006 EIR, 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; and ► Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. The proposed project is consistent with and furthers the objectives of the currently approved project, as listed above. Specifically, the proposed project would: ► Increase the size of the originally proposed hospital and emergency department to accommodate a growing regional population and number of patients; ► Provide a mix of medical facilities to meet the demand for a variety of inpatient and outpatient medical services; ► Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; ► Provide medical office space adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures; and ► Relocate the existing helipad to a central location and change the helicopter flight approach/departure path to minimize helicopter noise impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR was prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital project and was certified by the City of Temecula (City) in January 2006. In February 2006, a legal challenge to the hospital project was filed on the grounds that the EIR was inadequate, which resulted in a ruling that found that the EIR did not adequately address several areas, and that the City failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In response, the City prepared an SEIR pursuant to the court's direction that was certified in 2008. In 2011, the project applicant, United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) filed a planning application to change the phasing of the project to reduce the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase I, modify the building facades, relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and relocate mechanical equipment. An Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR was prepared and adopted by the City in February 2011. Additionally, in July 2012, a conservation easement was approved to satisfy the off -site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by development of the hospital. Phase I of the hospital began operations on Monday, October 14, 2013. In February 2016, the City certified a Supplemental EIR for a Major Modification to relocate the previously City - approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase, and to develop the location of the previously City -approved helistop location with a single -story, 5,000-square-foot storage building. The following provides a history and timeline of the environmental documentation that has been prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital. January 2006 Environmental Impact Report UHS (applicant) filed planning applications in 2004 and 2005 for a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462); Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan (PA04-0463); a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571); and a Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9) (PA05-0302) to develop and operate the regional hospital facility. This included the following: ► A General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 overlay from the General Plan Land Use Map, which limited the height of buildings along Temecula Parkway to 2 stories, and the Professional Office General Plan land use designation from the site. ► A Zone Change from Professional Office and De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). PDO-9 allows a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. ► A CUP to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helistop (City zoning regulations require CUPS for such uses). ► A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helistop, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area would involve approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. ► A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. The City circulated an Initial Study from March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005 (State Clearinghouse #2005031017) with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND). At the Planning Commission hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City received public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR should be prepared for the project to analyze potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts. The City prepared a Draft EIR that was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005. The Final EIR was prepared and City Planning Commission hearings were held on November 16, 2005, and January 5, 2006, and the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the EIR on January 24, 2006. The Final EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality; noise from emergency helicopter flights; and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. It concluded that potentially May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 4 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental significant impacts related to the following would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures: aesthetics (light and glare); operational noise impacts; project transportation impacts. All other impacts were found to be less than significant or result in no impact. On February 24, 2006, a legal challenge to the project on the grounds that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two separate groups (California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic) and resulted in a court ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: P. Construction noise impacts; ► Siren noise impacts; ► Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and ► Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site, and generate unhealthful gas vapors. January 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate and directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed, and considered a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation, and the potential impact of MTBE plumes, as previously described. Other environmental impacts addressed in the prior EIR were considered to be adequate under CEQA and were not revisited in the Supplemental EIR. New planning applications for the project were submitted [PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit)], and on July 12, 2007, a scoping session was held in accordance with the Riverside County Superior Court direction. The Supplemental EIR was circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 to December 5, 2007, and on January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the new planning applications and recommended that the City Council certify the Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise from emergency vehicle sirens; noise generated during construction; and direct project -related and cumulative traffic impacts. It concluded that impacts related to MTBE plumes would be less than significant. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its previous approvals of PA04-0462 (General Plan Amendment), PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan), PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA05-0302 (Zone Change to PDO-9); approved planning applications for PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit); and adopted Resolution No. 08-10 certifying the SEIR for the project. No legal challenges were brought forward on the Supplemental EIR or other project approvals. February 2011 Major Modification and Addendum On June 18, 2010, UHS filed planning application PA10-0194 for a Major Modification to a Development Plan to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase I, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. An Addendum to the Final SEIR was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification application. On December 15, 2010, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the Addendum and Findings that the Major Modification does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance that shows that the Major Modification would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the Final SEIR. On February 8, 2011, the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Addendum for the project. No legal challenge was brought forward, and UHS began construction on the project. Construction of Phase I began in June 2011, and Phase I began operating on October 14, 2013. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 Ascent Environmental July 2012 Conservation Easement In July 2012, a conservation easement of 1.9 acres was approved at the Wilson Creek mitigation site through an agreement with UHS and Wilson Creek Farms, LLC. The easement is provided to satisfy the off -site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by the development of the hospital as set forth by the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Amendment to Clean Water Act Section 401 and water quality condition 11c-031 from the Section 401 Permit, dated September 26, 2011. February 2016 Helistop Project Supplemental EIR In February 2016, the City certified a Supplemental SEIR for a Major Modification to relocate the previously City - approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase, and to develop the location of the previously City -approved helistop location with a single -story, 5,000-square-foot storage building. The SEIR was limited to analysis of aesthetics, hazards, and noise. It concluded that the new helistop locations would result in significant and unavoidable impacts due to helicopter noise. Aesthetics and hazards impacts were found to be less than significant. CURRENT CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This current Final SEIR (March 2025) addresses the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. City staff have determined that additional review beyond the previously certified EIRs for the Temecula Hospital Project is necessary to address the impacts of the proposed project. Because the proposed project would result in new significant environmental impacts that were not previously addressed in the certified EIRs, a Subsequent EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, has been prepared to evaluate the project -specific changes. CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(a) states that an EIR: ,may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR." In light of the previous environmental review contained in the previously certified EIRs and Addendum, the current SEIR incorporates by reference the relevant analysis of environmental topics considered in the previously certified EIRs and Addendum, which are available for public review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department and online on the City's website: http://Iaserfiche.temeculaca.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=197433&dbid=2&repo=Temecula. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. The City, as lead agency, has determined the key environmental issues that could have significant impacts associated with the proposed project, and that were the focus of the SEIR analysis, include aesthetics; air quality; cultural and tribal cultural resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services (fire protection and law enforcement); transportation; and utilities and service systems. Based on previous environmental analyses, existing conditions of the project site, and details of the proposed project, the following environmental effects were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft SEIR: agriculture and forestry resources; biological resources; mineral resources; public services (schools, parks); recreational facilities; and wildfire. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 6 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The Final SEIR (May2025) identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the specific areas of: air quality; cultural and tribal cultural resources; noise; paleontological resources; and transportation. Mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the environmental impacts to these areas to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the proposed feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR would reduce the proposed project's impacts to less than significant. 4.1 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.3-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources Construction activities for the proposed project, including any grading, grubbing, trenching, excavation, or earth - moving activities in previously undisturbed areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil, could encounter and/or damage previously undiscovered archaeological resources that qualify as unique archaeological resources under CEQA. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts to cultural resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: Retain a Qualified Archaeologist Prior to the issuance of each grading permit and before to the start of any ground -disturbing activity, the project applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology and as approved by the City of Temecula, to provide expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources (Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a through 3.3-1c). Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program The qualified professional archaeologist, retained by the project applicant, shall prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter heritage and cultural resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City Development Services Department before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum: ► types of cultural resources expected on the project site, - types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., ceramic shards, lithic scatters, soil changes), - what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; ► what to do if a worker encounters bones or possible bones; and ► penalties for removing or intentionally disturbing heritage and cultural resources, such as those identified in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measure 3.3-1c: Implement Procedures to Address Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features and Tribal Cultural Resources Where proposed project construction includes any grading, grubbing, trenching, excavation, or earth -moving activities in previously undisturbed areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct monitoring of these activities. If any prehistoric or historic -period subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil ("midden"), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the qualified professional archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find and determine the appropriate next steps in consultation with the City of Temecula. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the City of Temecula shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist or the tribal representative (i.e., because it is determined to constitute a unique archaeological resource or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as appropriate), the archaeologist and tribal representative, as appropriate, shall develop, and the project applicant shall implement, appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, preservation in place (which shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery (when it is the only feasible mitigation, and pursuant to a data recovery plan). No work at the discovery location shall resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the resource has been satisfied. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of proposed project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. If, during the course of monitoring the qualified archaeologist can demonstrate, based on observations of subsurface conditions that the level of monitoring should be reduced, increased, or discontinued, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant and the City of Temecula, may adjust the level of monitoring, as warranted. Facts in Support of Findings The SEIR analysis of the proposed project determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3- 3-2b, and 3.3-1c, impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, and 3.3-1c would avoid substantial adverse changes to the significance of unique archaeological resources by requiring the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist, requiring training for all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter archaeological resources, requiring construction to halt if potential archaeological resources are discovered, coordination with the Pechanga Tribe (if applicable), implementation of preservation options (including data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance), and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Impact 3.3-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Prior development at the project site and surrounding area have resulted in the discovery of artifacts. Additionally, tribal consultation resulted in the identification that the project site is within a Traditional Cultural Property and therefore likely contains additional Tribal Cultural Resources. Therefore, excavation activities associated with proposed project construction may disturb or destroy previously undiscovered significant subsurface Tribal Cultural Resources. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 8 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a (above): Retain a Qualified Archaeologist Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b (above): Develop and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1c (above): Implement Procedures to Address Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: Retain a Native American Monitor At the time a development application is submitted to the City for future individual building/projects associated with the Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan, as revised by the proposed project, the City shall route each development application to the Pechanga Band of Indians for review and to request the inclusion of any conditions of approval related to the avoidance of substantial adverse changes to the significance of Tribal Cultural Resources. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit and before the start of any ground -disturbing activity, the project applicant shall retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is approved by the Pechanga Tribe. The project applicant shall contact the Tribal representatives a minimum of seven days before beginning earthwork or other ground disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil; construction activities will proceed if no response is received 48 hours before ground disturbing activities. The Tribal monitor shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas, including but not limited to tree removals, boring, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project site, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil. Monitoring is not required for any ground -disturbing activities that do not meet these criteria. The Tribal monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that describe each day's activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. The Agreement shall be in place prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant should contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Pechanga monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. The following notes shall be included on all grading plans prior to issuance of a grading permit: ► Discovery of Cultural Resources: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga monitor shall investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment." ► Archaeological Monitoring: "A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property." Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 Ascent Environmental ► Tribal Monitoring: "A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the project archaeologist and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property." ► Relinquishment of Cultural Resources: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." Facts in Support of Findings The SEIR analysis of the proposed project determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c, 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c, 3.3-2a, and 3.3-2b would avoid substantial adverse change to the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource by providing the Pechanga Band the opportunity to review proposed development plans as they are submitted to the City and request conditions related to the protection of Tribal Cultural Resources, requiring the developer to enter into a cultural resources treatment agreement with Pechanga prior to issuance of any grading permits, requiring the project applicant to retain a Tribal monitor, requiring training for all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter Tribal Cultural Resources, requiring construction to halt if potential resources are discovered, implementation of preservation options (including preservation in place, data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance) and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered, if deemed appropriate by the Tribe. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.5-4: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature Construction activities for the proposed project, including any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or greater than 10 feet below the ground surface, whichever is less, or ground disturbance within any previously ungraded areas, could encounter and/or damage previously undiscovered paleontological resources. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project Impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Protection The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct an on -site training that will alert all construction personnel and supervisors involved in equipment training about the possibility of encountering fossils. The qualified paleontologist shall describe the appearance and types of fossils likely that could be seen during construction. Construction personnel shall be trained about the proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered. The qualified paleontologist shall also monitor all ground disturbing activities that extend deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or greater than 10 feet below the ground surface, whichever is less, or ground disturbance within any previously ungraded areas. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the qualified paleontologist shall immediately halt operations within 100 feet of the find and notify the City of Temecula. The qualified paleontologist shall identify and salvage fossils so that construction delays can be minimized. If large specimens are discovered, the qualified paleontologist shall have the authority to halt or divert grading and construction equipment while the finds are removed. The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing all tasks summarized below. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 10 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ► In the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits. ► Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil -bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting. ► Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens. ► Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database. ► Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection. Facts in Support of Findings The SEIR analysis of the proposed project determined that the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant by providing for the monitoring and protection of paleontological resources through recovery, cataloguing, and reporting. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4.3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 3.7-2: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and/or Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and result in a potentially significant impact. The project site was reviewed for impact relating to Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) from nearby gas station underground fuel storage tanks in the 2008 SEIR, and no detectable concentrations of MTBE or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were found at the project site. However, although unlikely, it is possible that contaminated soil could be at further distances below ground surface. Encountering contaminated soil, surface water, and groundwater without taking proper precautions during ground -disturbing project construction activities could result in the exposure of construction workers and consequently result in associated potentially significant adverse human health and environmental impacts. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 Monitoring and Disposal of Any Contaminated Soils Where proposed project construction includes any grading, grubbing, trenching, excavation, or earth -moving activities in previously undisturbed areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil, construction personnel shall conduct monitoring of these activities for the potential presence of MTBE or VOCs (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered). Soils determined to have detectable levels of MTBE or VOCs, if any, shall be segregated, stockpiled on -site in accordance Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 Ascent Environmental with applicable regulations, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, in accordance with the requirements of the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off -site in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non -hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Any soils with detectable levels of MTBE- or other VOC-impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations. Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit, the project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any soils with detectable levels of MTBE- or other VOCs- has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Facts in Support of Findings The SEIR analysis of the proposed project determined that the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 would avoid direct and indirect impacts on unique paleontological resources by requiring the project applicant to retain a qualified paleontologist, requiring training for all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter paleontological resources, requiring construction to halt if potential paleontological resources are discovered, and proper curation if paleontological resources are recovered. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4.4 NOISE Impact 3.10-6: Generate Substantial Long-term Stationary Noise Level Increases The proposed project includes a central utility plant, which would include new stationary sources (i.e., boilers, air chillers, cooling towers). Based on the modeling conducted, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at all nearby receptors would exceed applicable City exterior noise standards (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL for single-family homes, 70 dBA CNEL for multi -family homes), and would result in substantial increases (i.e., more than 5 dBA increase where existing noise levels are less than 60 dBA and a more than 3 dBA increase where existing noise levels are between 60 and 65 dBA) in noise. In addition, new HVAC units would be installed on the roofs of new project buildings. However, HVAC units are typical noise sources in urban areas and already exist in the project area. Further, existing noise sources (i.e., Temecula Parkway) would continue to dominate the ambient noise environment as HVAC units are intermittent noise sources that would not result in a substantial increase in noise. Nonetheless, the proposed central utility plant would result in a substantial increase in noise and in noise levels that exceed applicable City exterior noise standards. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR. The following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant project central plant noise impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.10-2: Reduce Operational Noise from the Central Utility Plant Prior to approval of final plans for the proposed central utility plant, the applicant shall hire a qualified acoustical specialist to prepare a noise minimization plan for the central utility plant. This plan shall identify design strategies and noise attenuation features that the project will implement to ensure that operation of the central utility plant does not result in exterior noise levels that exceed the following standards: ► 65 dBA CNEL for low -density residential, (single-family residences along De Portola Road); ► 70 dBA CNEL for medium -density residential (residential uses along Margarita Road); ► an increase of 5 dB or higher where existing levels are less than 60 dBA CNEL; May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 12 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ► an increase of 3 dBA or higher where existing levels are between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL; or ► an increase of 1.5 dB or higher where existing levels are higher than 65 dBA CNEL. The noise minimization plan shall include noise measurements characterizing existing noise levels at the time preparing of the plan is commenced, and/or modeling of noise levels generated by the central utility plant, as needed, to demonstrate compliance with the above standards. This plan also shall demonstrate how one or more of the following measures (or other measures demonstrated to be equally effective) shall be implemented to achieve the required standards. ► Design the central utility plant such that the structure itself is between the onsite noise sources (e.g., chillers, cooling towers) and the offsite receptors, serving as a noise barrier protecting off -site receptors from noise generated by on -site operational equipment. If the structure can completely block the line -of -sight from the source to the receiver, noise levels could potentially be inaudible at offsite locations. ► Enclose the area and individual sources where operational equipment would operate with noise barriers / walls, such that the noise barrier completely blocks the line -of -sight between the source and offsite receptors. Generally, a barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will result in at least 5 dB but can readily achieve a 10 dB reduction and taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. ► Install equipment with pre -installed acoustical reduction technology (e.g., louvers, baffles) to reduce individual equipment noise to the extent technologically feasible. ► Prior to final building inspection and operation of the new central utility plant, a noise test shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional, to demonstrate compliance with the City of Temecula's residential noise standards (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL for low density residential and 70 dBA CNEL for medium and high density residential) at all nearby and affected residential land uses. If noise standards are not met, the City shall not grant rights to operate the facility until it can be demonstrated that noise standards would be in compliance. Measures identified in the noise minimization plan shall be incorporated into the project design as -needed to achieve the noise standards set forth in this measure. Prior to approval of future development plans implementing the proposed project, the City's Community Development Director is responsible for verifying that the noise minimization plan has been prepared in compliance with this measure and measures needed to achieve compliance with the noise standards set forth in this measure are included in the site plan. Facts in Support of Findings The SEIR analysis of the proposed project determined that the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 would reduce project central plant noise impacts to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 would require preparation of noise minimization plan demonstrating that operation of the central utility plant would not result in substantial increases in exterior noise levels at sensitive receptors, including the two adjacent single- family residences and units located at the Madera Vista Apartments, based on objective standards. Measures identified in the noise minimization plan as necessary to achieve exterior noise level standards are required to be incorporated into the proposed project. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 5 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE The following potentially significant environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with the inclusion of all proposed feasible mitigation measures, as discussed below: 5.1 AIR QUALITY Impact 3.2-2: Generate Construction and Operational Emissions in Exceedance of SCAQMD's Regional Mass Emission Thresholds Proposed project construction activities and overlapping construction and operational activities would generate maximum daily project -related criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed SCAQMD regional construction -period thresholds for VOC and NOx, while the increase in maximum daily project -related criteria pollutant emissions over existing conditions resulting from proposed project operations would not exceed SCAQMD operations -period thresholds for any pollutant. Therefore, the impact of proposed project construction and combined construction and operations, but not operations, would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which substantially lessen, though not avoid, the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR; implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce construction and overlapping construction and operational emissions but not to a less than significant level. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible any further mitigation, and the effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (PRC Sections 21081[a][1] and [a][3]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[a][1] and [a][3].) The City concludes, however, that the project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below (PRC Section 21081[b]). Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Construction Low VOC Coatings To reduce VOC emissions during construction activities involving application of coatings, the City shall require that construction contractors use low-VOC coatings that have a VOC content of 10 g/L or less during all phases of construction. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Construction Equipment Reduction Measures To reduce VOC and NOx emissions during construction, the City shall require that construction contractors implement the following: ► Ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment over 25 horsepower used during construction will be equipped with an EPA Tier 4 Final engine, except for specialized construction equipment in which an EPA Tier 4 Final engine is not commercially available within 50 miles of the project site. The contractor or project proponent shall submit written evidence to the City prior to commencement of construction activities that Tier 4 or cleaner equipment shall be used, or that Tier 4 or cleaner equipment is not commercially available for use during the entire duration of that project's construction period. ► Use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy-duty off -road diesel -fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50 percent of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California. ► Use zero or near -zero emissions equipment in lieu of diesel- or gasoline -powered equipment where such zero or near -zero equipment is commercially available within 50 miles of the project site. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 14 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ► Use diesel particulate filters (or the equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines for on -road and off - road diesel equipment. ► Contractors shall limit all construction equipment, haul truck, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and adhering to a maximum idling time of no more than 3 consecutive minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Clean Construction Truck Fleet To reduce VOC and NOx emissions during construction, the City shall require trucks used by construction contractors to meet the following requirements. Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater, including haul trucks and earth movers, shall be zero -emissions (ZE), or near -zero emission (NZE) on -road haul trucks that meet the CARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. At a minimum, all trucks shall use 2010 model year or newer engines that meet CARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions. Facts in Support of Findings All feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 through 3.2-3 would substantially lessen construction -related emissions of the proposed project as described below. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, which would require low-VOC coatings beyond SCAQMD requirements for non-residential uses, would reduce VOC emissions. The reduction in VOC emissions from coatings is proportional to the change in VOC content. For instance, requiring coatings with a VOC content of 10 g/L instead of 50 g/L would result in an approximately 80 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the application of coatings. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires clean construction and diesel -reduction measures, which would reduce NOx emissions from equipment exhaust. On average, use of Tier 4 equipment reduces NOX, PM, and VOC up to 94 percent, 95 percent, and 50 percent, respectively, relative to Tier 2, and up to 91 percent, 95 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, relative to Tier 3. Furthermore, this measure requires the use of zero or near -zero emission equipment as it becomes commercially available. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 requires the use of modern and clean trucks for material hauling and deliveries. This measure would substantially lessen emissions relative to use of conventional gasoline or diesel -powered delivery and haul trucks. As shown in Final SEIR Table 3.2-9, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 through 3.2-3 would substantially lessen the proposed project's construction air pollutant emissions, but construction -period emissions for NOx would remain above SCAQMD regional construction thresholds; VOC emissions would not exceed the thresholds with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Additionally, as shown in Final SEIR Table 3.2- 10, overlapping Reasonable Maximum Construction Day (overlap of Phase II and Phase III) with mitigation and full buildout of operations also would exceed SCAQMD regional operations -period thresholds for NOx only. Therefore, the impact of NOx emissions during construction and combined construction and operations would be significant and unavoidable. No other feasible mitigation is available that would reduce impacts to less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. 5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact 3.6-1: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment or Conflict with State GHG Reduction Goals The proposed project would generate annual GHG emissions levels from activities and sources that would conflict with the statewide plans and goals for reducing GHG emissions, including the fuels used to meet hospital energy demand, the rate of VMT per employee, and the level of solid waste generation. Because proposed project annual emissions levels would be inconsistent with statewide GHG reduction goals, the proposed project would result in a significant impact on the environment. This impact would be potentially significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 Ascent Environmental Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which substantially lessen, though not avoid, the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR; implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions but not to a less than significant level. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible any further mitigation, and the effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (PRC Sections 21081[a][1] and [a][3]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[a][1] and [a][3].) The City concludes, however, that the project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below (PRC Section 21081[b]). Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Mitigation Measures for Reducing GHG Emissions from Construction Activities The applicant (or its contractors) shall implement the following emission -reduction measures during project construction: P. All equipment and delivery truck idling times will be limited by shutting down equipment and vehicles when not in use, and requiring the maximum idling time for equipment and vehicles not being used to no more than 3 consecutive minutes. Clear signage will be installed at all delivery driveways and loading areas regarding the limitation on idling time. Vehicle and equipment idling required to perform construction work is not subject to this requirement (e.g., running a motor to spin the drum on a cement mixer truck). ► All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers' specifications. Prior to the commencement of construction activities using diesel -powered vehicles or equipment, construction contractors will verify that all vehicles and equipment have been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into the project site. A report by the certified mechanic of the condition of the construction and operations vehicles and equipment will be submitted to and approved by the City prior to their use. ► Alternative -fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment (comprising at least 15 percent of the fleet) with lower tailpipe GHG emissions than gasoline or diesel equivalents will be used when commercially available. ► Renewable diesel fuel will be used for all diesel -powered heavy construction equipment and on -road vehicles to the extent that it is commercially available from a local supplier in the Southern California region. ► Local building materials and recycled products, including cement and concrete made with recycled products, will be used, to the extent feasible. A construction waste management plan will be implemented to divert landfilled waste by requiring the recycling of a minimum of 65 percent of all non -hazardous construction waste. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Mitigation Measures for Reducing GHG Emissions from Operational Activities The applicant shall implement the following GHG reduction measures for all new development under the master plan: ► The applicant (or its contractors) will implement the following water conservation measures, which are in addition to those required by codes and ordinances: ■ Install public bathroom faucet aerators (non-residential & residential over 6 stories) with a flow rate of 0.4 gallons per minute (gpm), ■ Install cooling tower conductivity controllers or cooling tower pH conductivity controllers, ■ Install rotating sprinkler nozzles for landscape irrigation 0.5 to 1.0 gpm, ■ Install drip/subsurface irrigation (i.e., micro -irrigation), ■ Implement proper hydro -zoning (i.e., groups plants with similar water requirements together), ■ Install zoned irrigation, ■ Contour landscaping to minimize precipitation runoff, ■ Install drought tolerant plants in 50 percent of total new landscaping, May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 16 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ■ Install water conserving turf in 100 percent of new turf added to landscaping, and ■ Use recycled water for stationary equipment that requires water cooling, to the extent feasible. ► Prepare a plan demonstrating, based on substantial evidence and to the satisfaction of the City, demonstrating that a minimum 85 percent of organic waste produced by the development would not be disposed of in a landfill. Measures to achieve this standard include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Operating a program to reduce the generation of food waste and divert food waste from going to a landfill (e.g., sort out food waste separate from other waste for collection or composting), ■ Operating a program to safely recover edible food and divert it to a local food bank, ■ Operating a program to divert green waste (e.g., plant debris from landscaping) from going to a landfill (e.g., sort out food waste separate from other waste for collection or composting). ► Install Energy Star -rated appliances. ► Dedicate five percent of new parking spaces for plug-in vehicles and equip those spaces with installed electric vehicle charging equipment. ► Install a high -efficiency lighting system that takes advantage of natural daylighting. ► Maximize the installation of on -site solar systems, or other systems that provide on -site power from renewable or zero carbon sources. ► Install, high-performance glazing with a low solar heat gain coefficient value that reduces the amount of solar heat allowed into the building, without compromising natural illumination. P. Install cool roofs with an R value (i.e., the measurement of the effectiveness of thermal insulating materials) of 30 or better on proposed new buildings. P. Increase urban tree canopy cover to provide shade to a minimum of 40 percent of the length of internal roadways on the project site. ► Use electric powered landscaping equipment, rather than fossil -fuel powered landscaping equipment. ► Use native plants and trees to provide new, water -wise landscaping that blends the facility with the ecology of the surrounding natural environment. In addition to the above, the applicant shall also implement the following GHG reduction measures for new development under the master plan, except for the proposed hospital uses (i.e., emergency department expansion, new hospital towers): P. Achieve net zero carbon buildings, in which building operational energy consumption is met through on- or off - site renewable or zero carbon energy sources ► Heating and cooling systems and other appliances and building end uses powered by natural gas will not be installed where electric -powered equivalents capable of meeting the building's operational requirements are commercially available in the project area. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Implement a Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program (see Section 5.4 below - Transportation) Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Implement No -Cost Transit Pass Program for Employees (see Section 5.4 below - Transportation) Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Provide End -of -Trip Bicycle Facilities (see Section 5.4 below - Transportation) Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 Ascent Environmental Facts in Support of Findings All feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 and 3.6- 2, 3.13-1, 3.13-2, and 3.13-3. would reduce the amount of GHG emissions generated from construction and operation of the proposed project, as described below. Mitigation measure 3.6-1 covers construction activities. The provisions include requiring equipment to not idle excessively, be property maintained, use alternative fueled equipment with lower GHG emissions than gasoline or diesel fuels and renewable diesel instead of traditional diesel if they are commercially available, use locally -sourced materials to reduce the overall transport distance of materials, and divert construction waste away from landfills. These measures are not quantified but would reduce GHG emissions during project construction activities by substantially lessening the amount of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel) that are consumed during construction of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 covers operational activities and would reduce the amount of GHG emissions generated during operations. For building energy, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 would require implementation of energy -efficiency measures in development under the master plan (except for proposed emergency department and hospital towers), including the use of Energy Star rated appliances, use of electric -powered appliances and HVAC, high -efficiency lighting, high-performance glazing on new buildings, and installation of a cool roof on new buildings. Implementation of these measures, along with increases in carbon -free electricity production required by State law, will reduce generation of GHG emissions from operation of proposed project buildings. For mobile sources, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires a percentage of parking spaces be dedicated to clean air vehicles and have EV charging installed. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.13-1 through 3.13-3 would reduce the amount of VMT driven by employees at the project site by establishing a program encouraging commuting by travel modes other than driving alone, providing transit passes at no -cost to all employees, and providing end -of -trip bicycle facilities (e.g., bike parking, lockers, changing facilities, showers) to encouraging biking as a viable means of commuting to work. These measures would reduce the amount of GHG emissions generated by operation of the proposed project by reducing the number and length of vehicle trips, and thereby reducing the amount of gasoline and diesel consumed. For water use and wastewater generation, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 will require water conservation measures that will reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption, through water -efficient faucets, efficient irrigation, and drought tolerant landscaping. Reducing indoor water usage not only reduces GHG emissions associated with the electricity embedded in water supply but would also reduce the amount of water that feeds into the wastewater system, thereby reducing emissions associated with wastewater as well. Taken together, these measures would reduce the amount of GHG emissions associated with water supply and wastewater generation by reducing water consumption. For waste generation, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 will require the project to achieve a minimum solid waste diversion rate of 85 percent by 2035, by implementing programs, such as a food waste diversion program and onsite recycling. This measure is in line with the State's goal in SB 1383 of reducing methane emissions associated with solid waste. Implementation of these measures will reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfills. Future phases under the proposed project would aim to implement the actions in Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 and 3.6- 2, and Mitigation Measures 3.13-1, 3.13-2, and 3.13-3. If fully implemented, the proposed project would not conflict with the State's long-term emissions reduction goals and targets by implementing all relevant measures in the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans. However, if not fully implemented for reasons outside of the City's control, the proposed project would conflict with the State's long-term emissions reduction goals and targets. Implementation of mitigation measures 3.6-1, 3.6-2, 3.13-1, 3.13-2, and 3.13-3 would reduce construction and operational GHG emissions by reducing emissions in various sectors, but may not fully assist the City in meeting the State's long-term emissions reduction target and ensure consistency with the Scoping Plan. Residual proposed project generated GHG emissions after implementation of mitigation, for example, the GHG emissions generated by the project's residual rate of VMT and reliance on fossil fuels for building and facility energy demand, would conflict with the State's targets and goals for GHG emissions reductions. Therefore, the amount of GHG emissions generated by construction and operations of the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. Because additional feasible mitigation measures are not available to further reduce the proposed May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 18 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental project's GHG emissions (e.g., achieve additional reductions in the rate of VMT, use zero or lower emissions fuels to meet the hospital's energy demands), this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. 5.3 NOISE Impact 3.10-1: Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Short -Term Construction Noise Construction of the proposed project would occur in three phases, with construction activities anticipated to begin as early as fall 2025. While construction intensity, duration, and equipment location are not precisely known at this time, reference noise levels for typical construction activities associated with land development were used to assess peak construction noise generated by the proposed project. Based on those reference levels, construction noise could reach levels of up to 89.5 dB Leq and 93.5 dB Lmax. at 50 feet. In addition, to assess increases in ambient noise levels, 24-hour CNEL levels were also calculated and estimated to be as high as 79 dBA CNEL. Thus, construction activities could result in a substantial temporary and periodic increase in noise during daytime hours at existing and future sensitive land uses. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which substantially lessen, though not avoid, the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR; implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce construction noise levels but not to less than significant levels. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible any further mitigation, and the effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (PRC Sections 21081[a][1] and [a][3]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[a][1] and [a][3].) The City concludes, however, that the project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below (PRC Section 21081[b]). Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Implement Construction -Noise Reduction Measures for Daytime Construction To reduce noise from construction activities, the City shall require construction contractors to comply with following measures: Equipment Restrictions ► Locate all stationary equipment (e.g., generators, welders, dehumidifiers) on the construction site as far away from adjacent residential land uses and other noise -sensitive sites as possible and no less than 50 feet from residential uses. P. Position onsite stationary equipment such that existing noise sources (e.g., roadways) or structures (e.g., existing buildings) block the line of sight between the onsite equipment and offsite sensitive land uses. P. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise -reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. ► All construction equipment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. The self-adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dBA over the surrounding background levels. All non -self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels. In addition to the use of backup alarms, the construction contractor shall implement the use of observers and scheduling of construction activities such that alarm noise is minimized. Quieter Alternative Methods and Equipment ► Each construction contractor shall use noise reducing operations measures, techniques, and equipment. This requirement shall be enforced through its inclusion on all construction bid specifications for all potential Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 Ascent Environmental construction contractors hired within the project site. The bid specifications shall require that construction contractors provide an equipment inventory list for all equipment within the fleet with greater than 50 horsepower engines, which includes (at a minimum), make, model, and horsepower of equipment; operating noise levels at 50 feet, available noise control device that are installed on each piece of equipment, and associated noise reduction from the installed technology. Control devices shall include, but are not limited to, high -efficiency mufflers, acoustic dampening and protected internal noise absorption layers to vibrating panels, enclosures, and electric motors. In addition, the contractor shall specify how proposed alternative construction procedures will be employed to reduce noise at sensitive receptors compared to other more traditional methods. Examples include, but are not limited to, welding instead of riveting, mixing concrete off -site instead of on -site, and the use of thermal lance instead of drive motors and bits. In all cases, the requirement is that the best commercially available noise -reducing technology and noise -reducing alternative construction method shall be used, provided that there are no safety concerns, engineering limits, or environmental constraints preventing it from being used. If a unique circumstance does exist that prevents an alternative quieter construction method to be used, the contractor shall provide evidence to support their proposal. The noise reduction elements of construction bid submittals shall be approved by the City of Temecula, in coordination with a qualified acoustical professional. Combine noisy operations (e.g., riveting, cutting, hammering) to occur in the same time period (e.g., day or construction phase), such that the overall duration of these activities is reduced to the extent practical. By performing the noisiest operations together within the same time period, the overall duration that excessive noise would occur is reduced, minimizing the disturbing effects of exposure to prolonged increased noise levels. Where construction activities at any one location on the project site occur for an extended duration of more than 30 days affecting the same offsite receptor, install temporary noise curtains that meet the following parameters: ■ Install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the boundary of the construction site within the direct line of sight path of the nearby sensitive receptor(s). Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound -absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot. Facts in Support of Findings All feasible mitigation measures for construction noise impacts have been identified in the SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 would result in reduced noise levels at sensitive receptors during construction activities by requiring noise -reducing equipment, alternative quieter construction methods, installation of temporary noise barriers, siting equipment as far away from receptors as possible, and relocating or clustering noise -generating activities such that the magnitude and duration of noise levels affecting sensitive receptors are minimized. Effectiveness of these mitigation measures would vary from several decibels (which in general is a relatively small change) to ten or more decibels (which subjectively would be perceived by receptors as a substantial change or a reduction by half), depending upon the specific equipment and the original condition of that equipment, the specific locations of the noise sources and the receivers. Installation of a noise barrier, for example, would vary in effectiveness depending upon the degree to which the line -of -sight between the source and receiver is broken, and typically ranges from 5 to 10 dB (NCHRP 1999). Installation of more effective silencers could range from several decibels to well over 10 decibels. Reduction of idling equipment could reduce overall noise levels from barely any reduction to several decibels. However, given that construction activities are anticipated to occur over an extended period of time while the proposed project phases are constructed and that construction activities could result in a more than doubling of the existing noise levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, temporary increases in construction -related noise would remain above threshold levels with the implementation of mitigation. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. No other feasible mitigation is available that would reduce impacts to less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 20 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental Impact 3.10-3: Exposure of Existing Sensitive Receptors to Operational Helicopter Noise The project proposes to relocate the existing helipad from its existing at -grade location onto the top of a proposed four story parking lot structure during Phase III. Additionally, a new flight path alignment is included in the proposed project as shown on Figure 3.10-2. The frequency or time of helicopter arrivals and departures on the project site would not change as a result of the proposed project. To evaluate changes in noise levels associated with the proposed change in helipad location and flight path alignment, noise measurements of helicopter test flights at the existing helipad and flight path alignment were conducted and compared to noise modeling of the proposed project. The modeling shows that project -generated helicopter noise levels would not exceed applicable City exterior noise standards for residential uses of 65 dBA CNEL and no helicopter activity would push existing noise levels to above the City's standards of 65 dB CNEL at low to medium residential areas and 70 dB CNEL at multi -family housing areas. In addition, project -generated helicopter noise increases would be below the FICON-recommended5.0 dB threshold for ambient noise of less than 60 dBA CNEL, 3.0 dB threshold for ambient noise of 60-65 dBA CNEL, and the 1.5 dB threshold for ambient noise greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Finally, residential development or other sensitive receptors would not be exposed to operation noise level increases exceeding the FAA adopted threshold of 65 dB CNEL. However, helicopter overflights that could occur during the nighttime hours could result in exceedances of the FICAN 65 dBA SEL standard at sensitive receptors along the proposed flight path alignment, which could result in sleep disturbance. Because the change in the helicopter flight path alignment could expose sensitive receptors to noise levels with potential to cause sleep disturbance, this impact would be potentially significant. Findings Specific economic, legal, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation, and the effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (PRC Sections 21081[a][1] and [a][3]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[a][1] and [a][3].) The City concludes, however, that the proposed project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below (PRC Section 21081[b]). Facts in Support of Findings Flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity to reduce noise impacts because the California's Public Utility Code Section 21662.4. states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital that is for medical purposes. Potential mitigation that could be effective in reducing helicopter noise at residential uses along Calle Los Padres would include upgrades to windows and building insulation and installation of central air conditioning in houses that don't have it already, which would allow people to close their windows. However, these upgrades would not preclude an individual to still open their windows at night. In addition, this type of mitigation may not be completely effective because it is infeasible for the City to require residents to close their windows and doors during all helicopter flights. Thus, the potential remains that if helicopters were to fly over residential uses during the early morning or nighttime hours, it could result in SEL levels that exceed the FICAN standard of 65 dBA, and thus, have the potential to disturb people during sleep. Although this occurrence would be minimal and infrequent, the potential exists, therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 Ascent Environmental 5.4 TRANSPORTATION Impact 3.13-2: Conflict or be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) The proposed project would result in a higher rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) than the threshold amount of VMT set forth in the City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines; the proposed project's VMT rate of 38.4 miles per employee (i.e., service population) would be approximately 31 percent higher than the threshold VMT amount of 29.4 miles per employee. This impact would be potentially significant. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which substantially lessen, though not avoid, the significant environmental effects identified in the SEIR; implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the rate of VMT generated by the proposed project but not to a less than significant level. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible any further mitigation, and the effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (PRC Sections 21081[a][1] and [a][3]; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[a][1] and [a][3].) The City concludes, however, that the proposed project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects of the proposed project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below (PRC Section 21081[b]). Mitigation 3.13-1: Implement a Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall develop a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees (program), subject to approval by the City's Community Development Director. Commute trip reduction programs discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. This program shall provide substantial evidence demonstrating a minimum 4 percent reduction in the proposed project's rate of VMT (i.e., VMT per service population), as compared to the proposed VMT rate evaluated in the SEIR. The program shall evaluate how the minimum VMT reduction standard will be achieved through implementation of the following measures, or equally effective measures: employer -provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing, discounted transit, bicycling, vanpool, and guaranteed ride home and information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives. Mitigation 3.13-2: Implement No -Cost Transit Pass Program for Employees Prior to the approval of future development applications, the project applicant shall develop a program to provide transit passes at no -cost to employees on an ongoing basis. The transit passes shall be made available at no -cost to all employees of the project during its operational phase. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for transit improves the competitiveness of transit versus single -occupancy vehicles; thus, increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and lower GHG emissions (CAPCOA 2021: 95). Given that 100 percent of employees would be eligible for such a program, the VMT reduction depends on the percentage of subsidy provided by the employer (Draft SEIR Appendix H). The transit pass program for all employees would provide a VMT reduction of up to 0.24 percent for the proposed project. Mitigation 3.13-3: Provide End -of -Trip Bicycle Facilities In addition to the bicycle parking required by the City of Temecula Municipal Code, the project shall provide end -of -trip bicycle facilities, including installation and maintenance, for employee use. End -of -trip facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, personal lockers, onsite bicycle repair station, signage on or near secure parking and personal lockers with information about how to reserve or obtain access to these amenities. The location and type of these facilities shall be identified in future development applications prior to their approval by the City. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourage commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions. End -of -trip facilities should be installed at a size proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained. Providing end -of -trip bicycle facilities would provide a VMT reduction of up to 0.3 percent for the proposed project. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 22 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental Facts in Support of Findings All feasible mitigation measures for transportation impacts have been identified in the SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, 3.13-2, and 3.13-3 would lower the proposed project's rate of VMT per employee by approximately 4.5 percent by decreasing the number of single -occupancy vehicle trips generated by employees of the proposed project and increasing the number of trips completed by other modes of travel, including walking, biking, public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, and teleworking. However, with implementation of these measures the proposed project would generate VMT at a rate approximately 26 percent higher than the City's threshold amount. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project's operational VMT would be significant and unavoidable. No other feasible mitigation is available that would reduce impacts to less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 6.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED IN THE SEIR State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re Bay -Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167.) In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project's significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of "potentially feasible" alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision -ma ker(s). (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3).) At the time of action on the project, the decision-maker(s) may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision -maker(s), for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-maker(s) adopts a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982)133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4t" 957, 998.) The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. The following alternative was considered by the City but is not evaluated further in the SEIR. Alternative Location When a lead agency considers alternatives to a project, "the key question and first step" is whether "putting the project in another location" would avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). If no feasible alternative locations exist, the lead agency must disclose the reasons for this conclusion in the EIR. No feasible alternative locations exist for the proposed project for the following reasons. The proposed project involves revisions to an existing master plan for Temecula Valley Hospital, the first phase of which involved construction of an existing hospital building that has been operating since 2013. The first phase also included mass grading of the project and installation of backbone infrastructure, including utilities, onsite access roads, and surface parking areas. The proposed revisions to the approved master plan include expanding the emergency department of the existing hospital building, providing additional hospital towers, and providing medical office buildings that complement the existing hospital facility. It would not be economically feasible for the applicant to put the proposed project in another location because doing so would require the applicant to pay for the tremendous cost of providing a comparable hospital facility and associated backbone infrastructure on a new site, and abandon the existing hospital and project site. Abandoning the existing hospital and project site would also result in potentially substantial detrimental effects to the City, including loss of healthcare services for residents. As a result, the City rejected an alternative location from further consideration. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 24 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental 6.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE SEIR Three alternatives, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives. The following sections provide a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its comparative environmental impacts. As provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these alternatives are identified in less detail than the analysis of the proposed project in the SEIR. 6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project -No Future Development Summary of Alternative CEQA requires a "no project" alternative to be evaluated in an EIR. Alternative 1, No Project —No Future Development, assumes that the proposed project would not be approved and that no new development would occur on the project site in the future; the existing physical conditions of the project site would not change. Under this alternative the project site would not be developed in accordance with the approved master plan or as contemplated by the proposed project. Specifically, the existing hospital facility would continue to be operated, and other existing physical elements of the project site would remain the same, including the existing paved surface parking lots, internal access roads, modular offices/storage facilities, ambulance parking, and service yard. The helipad would remain in its interim location in the northwest portion of the project site and the helicopter flight path would retain its existing northeast -southwest arrival/departure alignment. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 1, the No Project/No Future Development Alternative would avoid the significant impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, except for helicopter noise impacts, which are greater under this alternative (Draft SEIR Table 4-3). However, the No Project —No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives the project (Draft SEIR Table 4-2). The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 1. 6.2.2 Alternative 2: No Project -Approved Master Plan Buildout Summary of Alternative Alternative 2, No Project —Approved Master Plan Buildout, assumes that the proposed project would not be approved and that the project site would be developed in accordance with the approved master plan. Under this alternative, the existing hospital facility would continue to operate, and the following new development would occur on the project. Alternative 2 would expand the capacity of the existing hospital by providing one additional 6-story hospital tower (170,855 SF). Approximately 140,000 SF of medical office space would be provided, including one 80,000 SF, 4-story building and one 60,000 SF, 3-story building. A 10,000 SF, 1-story cancer center and 8,000 SF, 1-story fitness center also would be developed. Hospital -supportive infrastructure would be provided along the eastern edge of the hospital, including cooling tower, generators, transformers, fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A new permanent helipad location would be provided atop the 6-story hospital tower (second tower) located in the southeast portion of the project site. Helicopters utilizing the helipad follow a northeast -southwest helicopter arrival/departure alignment. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 184,961 SF less total building area than the proposed project. It would also result in 244 fewer patient beds, and 470 fewer parking spaces. As result, this alternative would result in less overall construction activity (e.g., ground disturbance, on -site use of construction equipment and vehicles, application of coatings, frequency of materials deliveries to and from the project site) relative to the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 Ascent Environmental Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 2, the No Project —Approved Master Plan Buildout Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts of the proposed project or reduce any significant impacts to less than significant levels (Draft SEIR Table 4-3). In addition, this alternative would not meet the proposed project objective to relocate the existing helipad to a central location and change the helicopter flight approach/departure path to minimize helicopter noise impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses because this alternative would not relocate the helipad to a central location within the project site and would have greater helicopter noise impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses (Draft SEIR Table 4-2). This alternative would partially meet the objective to increase the size of the originally proposed hospital and emergency department to accommodate a growing regional population and number of patients but to a lesser extent than the proposed project because this alternative would provide one additional 6-story hospital tower (170,855 SF) but would not expand the existing emergency department. In addition, this alternative would partially meet the objective to provide a mix of medical facilities to meet the demand for a variety of inpatient and outpatient medical services, including behavioral health services but to a lesser extent than the proposed project because this alternative would provide 140,000 SF of medical office space, which is similar to the 160,000 SF provided by the proposed project, but would not provide any behavioral health services. The Behavioral Health Building has since been eliminated from the proposed project. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 2. 6.2.3 Alternative 3: No Medical Office Development Summary of Alternative Alternative 3, No Medical Office Development, assumes that the project site would be developed the same as the proposed project, except that no medical office buildings would be provided. Specifically, this alternative would not provide the 160,000 SF of medical office space that is included in the proposed project (two 80,000 SF, 4-story buildings). Alternative 3 would also provide proportionately fewer surface parking spaces than the proposed project to account for the lower parking demand from not developing 160,000 SF of medical office building space. Because it involves less total development, this alternative would result in less overall construction activity (e.g., ground disturbance, on -site use of construction equipment and vehicles, frequency of materials deliveries to and from the project site) relative to the proposed project. Alternative 3 was developed to lessen the significant GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of the proposed project. The medical office buildings have the highest vehicle trip generation rate of the uses including the proposed project, at 31.86 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of building area (Draft SEIR Appendix H). This rate is approximately three times greater than for the hospital towers (10.77 daily vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of building area). Omitting the medical office buildings from the proposed project would substantially lessen the VMT generated by the proposed project by removing the highest trip generating use from the proposed project; it would substantially lessen GHG emissions resulting from vehicle trips, as well as from medical office building energy use, solid waste generation, and construction. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 3, Reduction Medical Office Development, would decrease the amount of adverse physical environmental change for seven significant impacts of the proposed project, but still would not avoid any significant impacts of the proposed project or reduce any significant impacts to less than significant levels (Draft SEIR Table 4-3). In addition, this alternative would not meet two of the five project objectives (Draft SEIR Table 4-2). It would not diversify Temecula's employment base because it would not provide medical office buildings for development of biomedical, research, and office facilities that are included in the proposed project, and it would not meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures because it would not provide medical office space adjacent to the hospital facility. In addition, this alternative would partially meet the demand for a variety of inpatient and outpatient medical services, including behavioral health services, but to lesser extent than the proposed project because this alternative would meet demand for behavioral health services but would not provide any medical office space for other types of medical services.. The Behavioral Health Building has since been eliminated from the proposed project. The May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 26 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 3. 6.2.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, one of the alternatives must be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Because Alternative 1, the No Project —No Development Alternative, would avoid all significant impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project (except for helicopter noise impacts, which are greater under this alternative), it is the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project —No Development Alternative would not meet the objectives the project. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. Alternative 3: No Medical Office Development, is identified as the environmentally superior action alternative in the Draft SEIR because although it would not completely avoid any significant impacts of the proposed project, it would decrease the amount of adverse physical environmental change for seven significant impacts of the proposed project, and it would not increase the amount of adverse physical change for any of the proposed project's significant impacts. Alternative 3: No Medical Office Development would meet many but not all of the basic objectives of the proposed project. Alternative 3 is considered the environmentally superior alternative, but for the reasons provided in Section 6.2.3, the City Council has rejected this alternative. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 7 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the economic, social, legal, technological, and other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. Specifically, PRC Section 21002 provides that, "In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." In addition, PRC Section 21002.1(c) provides that, "In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency...." Finally, CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) Section 15093(a) provides that'Ji]f the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable."' The City Council (City Council) of the City of Temecula has carefully balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the significant unavoidable environmental effects identified in the SEIR that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. Notwithstanding the significant unavoidable environmental effects that are identified in the SEIR that cannot feasibly be eliminated, lessened, or mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council, acting pursuant to PRC Sections 21002 and 21002.1 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15092 and 15093, hereby determines that significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable as set forth below, are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described below. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the proposed project as set forth below, independent of each of the other benefits, warrants approval of the proposed project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed project. 7.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Significant and unavoidable project impacts are summarized below: ► Air Quality — construction and overlapping construction and operational emissions ► Greenhouse gas emissions ► Noise — construction ► Noise — helicopter flights for medical purposes ► Transportation — Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 7.1.1 Project Benefits Based on the objectives of the proposed project identified in the SEIR, the City Council has determined that the proposed project should be approved and that the significant unavoidable environmental effects attributable to the proposed project are outweighed by the following environmental, economic, social, technological and other overriding considerations, each one being a separate and independent basis upon which to approve the proposed project. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that approval and implementation of the proposed project will provide the benefits listed below. The City Council thus finds as follows: ► The proposed project provides for comprehensive high -quality hospital and health care services, in response to existing and future demand in the surrounding region. The proposed project will better meet the needs of the community than the currently approved Master Plan in terms of the types of healthcare facilities proposed to be built. ► The proposed project will create a substantial number of high -quality construction and operational jobs. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 28 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental ► The proposed project will stimulate the local and regional economy through additional construction and operational jobs, and additional hospital and healthcare support services. ► The Project will create a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the Project area. ► The Project will relocate the existing helipad to a central location and change the helicopter flight approach/departure path to minimize helicopter noise impacts on surrounding sensitive land uses, thereby preserving the ability to meet emergency healthcare needs while reducing impacts, for a net benefit. In conclusion, the City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the SEIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment May 2025 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 30 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Final Subsequent EIR / State Clearinghouse No. 2005031017 Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance Air Quality Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Construction Low VOC Coatings To reduce VOC emissions during construction activities involving application of coatings, the City shall require that construction contractors use low-VOC coatings that have a VOC content of 10 g/L or less during all phases of construction. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit or Building Permit, as applicable Field Verification and Sign -Off by City of Temecula Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Construction Equipment Reduction Measures Pre -Construction/ City of City of Prior to Issuance To reduce VOC and NOx emissions during construction, the City shall Construction Temecula Temecula of Grading require that construction contractors implement the following: Permit or ► Ensure that all off -road diesel -powered equipment over 25 Building Permit, as applicable horsepower used during construction will be equipped with an EPA Tier 4 Final engine, except for specialized construction equipment in Field Verification which an EPA Tier 4 Final engine is not commercially available within and Sign -Off by 50 miles of the project site. The contractor or project proponent City of Temecula shall submit written evidence to the City prior to commencement of construction activities that Tier 4 or cleaner equipment shall be used, or that Tier 4 or cleaner equipment is not commercially available for use during the entire duration of that project's construction period. ► Use renewable diesel fuel in all heavy-duty off -road diesel -fueled equipment. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50 percent of diesel with the lowest carbon intensity among petroleum diesel fuels sold in California. ► Use zero or near -zero emissions equipment in lieu of diesel- or gasoline -powered equipment where such zero or near -zero equipment is commercially available within 50 miles of the project site. ► Use diesel particulate filters (or the equivalent) if permitted under manufacturer's guidelines for on -road and off -road diesel equipment. City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance ► Contractors shall limit all construction equipment, haul truck, and delivery truck idling times by shutting down equipment when not in use and adhering to a maximum idling time of less than 5 consecutive minutes. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Clean Construction Truck Fleet Pre -Construction/ City of City of Prior to Issuance To reduce VOC and NOx emissions during construction, the City shall Construction Temecula Temecula of Grading require trucks used by construction contractors to meet the following Permit or requirements. Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of Building Permit, 19,500 pounds or greater, including haul trucks and earth movers, shall be as applicable zero -emissions (ZE), or near -zero emission (NZE) on -road haul trucks that Field Verification meet the CARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams and Sign -Off by per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. At a City of Temecula minimum, all trucks shall use 2010 model year or newer engines that meet CARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: Retain a Qualified Archaeologist Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of Prior to the issuance of each grading permit and before to the start of any Temecula Temecula, Grading Permit ground -disturbing activity, the project applicant shall retain a qualified Qualified professional archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archaeologist Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S. Department of Interior 2012) and as approved by the City of Temecula, to provide expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources (Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a through 3.3-1c). Mitigation Measure 3.3-1ba: Develop and Implement a Worker Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of Environmental Awareness Program Temecula Temecula, Grading Permit The qualified professional archaeologist, retained by the project applicant, Qualified shall prepare a worker environmental awareness program. The program Archaeologist shall be provided to all construction personnel and supervisors who will have the potential to encounter and alter heritage and cultural resources. A copy of the worker environmental awareness program shall be provided to the City Development Services Department before construction activities begin. The topics to be addressed in the worker environmental awareness program will include, at a minimum: May 2025 City of Temecula 2 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance ► types of cultural resources expected on the project site; ► types of evidence that indicates cultural resources might be present (e.g., ceramic shards, lithic scatters, soil changes); ► what to do if a worker encounters a possible resource; ► what to do if a worker encounters bones or possible bones; and ► penalties for removing or intentionally disturbing heritage and cultural resources, such as those identified in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1c: Implement Procedures to Address Discovery Construction City of City of Issuance of of Subsurface Archaeological Features and Tribal Cultural Resources Temecula Temecula, grading permit Where proposed project construction includes any grading, grubbing, Qualified and verification trenching, excavation, or earth -moving activities in previously undisturbed Archaeologist by City of areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading and Pechanga Temecula in completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil, the qualified Tribal consultation archaeologist shall conduct monitoring of these activities. If any prehistoric or Representatives with Pechanga historic -period subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including Tribe locally darkened soil ("midden"), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the qualified professional archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find and determine the appropriate next steps in consultation with the City of Temecula. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the City of Temecula shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist or the tribal representative (i.e., because it is determined to constitute a unique archaeological resource or a Tribal Cultural Resource, as appropriate), the archaeologist and tribal representative, as appropriate, shall develop, and the project applicant shall implement, appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include, but would not necessarily be limited to, preservation in place (which shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery (when it is the only feasible mitigation, and pursuant to a data recovery plan). No work at the discovery location shall resume until all necessary investigation and evaluation of the resource has been satisfied. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of proposed project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. If, during the course of monitoring the qualified archaeologist can demonstrate, based on observations of subsurface conditions that the level of monitoring should be reduced, increased, or discontinued, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the project applicant and the City of Temecula, may adjust the level of monitoring, as warranted. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: Retain a Native American Monitor Application City of City of Issuance of At the time a development application is submitted to the City for future submittal Temecula Temecula, Grading Permit individual building/projects associated with the Temecula Valley Hospital Pechanga tribal and field Master Plan, as revised by the proposed project, the City shall route each representatives verification and development application to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for sign -off by City review and to request the inclusion of any conditions of approval related of Temecula in to the avoidance of substantial adverse changes to the significance of consultation Tribal Cultural Resources. with Pechanga Prior to the issuance of each grading permit and before the start of any tribal ground -disturbing activity, the project applicant shall retain and representatives compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is approved by the Pechanga Band. The project applicant shall contact the Tribal representatives a minimum of seven days before beginning earthwork or other ground disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil; construction activities will proceed if no response is received 48 hours before ground disturbing activities. The Tribal monitor shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas, including but not limited to tree removals, boring, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project site, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil. Monitoring is not required for any ground -disturbing activities that do not meet these criteria. The Tribal monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that describe each day's activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. May 2025 City of Temecula 4 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. Pre -Construction City of City of Issuance of The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Temecula Temecula, Grading Permit Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. The agreement shall be in place Pechanga tribal and field prior to issuance of a grading permit. To accomplish this, the applicant representatives verification and should contact the Pechanga Tribe no less than 30 days and no more sign -off by City than 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit. This Agreement will of Temecula in address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the consultation designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga with Pechanga Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing tribal activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of representatives compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Pechanga monitor's authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the project archaeologist in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. Pechanga and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the limited authority to stop and redirect grading activities should an inadvertent cultural resource be identified. Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 3.5-4: Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of Protection Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct an Qualified on -site training that will alert all construction personnel and supervisors Paleontologist involved in equipment training about the possibility of encountering fossils. The qualified paleontologist shall describe the appearance and types of fossils likely that could be seen during construction. Construction personnel shall be trained about the proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered. The qualified paleontologist shall also monitor all ground disturbing activities that extend deeper than the mass grading previously completed in 2011 or greater than 10 feet below the ground surface, whichever is less, or ground disturbance within any previously ungraded areas. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the qualified paleontologist shall immediately halt operations within 100 feet of the find and notify the City of Temecula. The qualified paleontologist City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance shall identify and salvage fossils so that construction delays can be minimized. If large specimens are discovered, the qualified paleontologist shall have the authority to halt or divert grading and construction equipment while the finds are removed. The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing all tasks summarized below. ► In the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits. ► Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil -bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting. ► Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens. ► Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database. ► Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Mitigation Measures for Reducing GHG Pre -Construction/ City of City of Field Verification Emissions from Construction Activities Construction/Post- Temecula Temecula and Sign -Off by The applicant (or its contractors) shall implement the following diesel Construction Building Official City of Temecula emission -reduction measures during project construction: or other Issuance of ► All equipment and delivery truck idling times will be limited by Designee City Building Permit shutting down equipment when not in use and reducing the of Temecula Construction maximum idling time to less than 3 minutes. Clear signage will be Community Development Waste installed at all delivery driveways and loading areas regarding the Department or Management limitation on idling time. other Designee Plan Approval by Community May 2025 City of Temecula 6 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance ► All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in Development accordance with manufacturers' specifications. Prior to the Department commencement of construction activities using diesel -powered Director or vehicles or equipment, construction contractors will verify that all other Designee vehicles and equipment have been checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to admittance into the project site. A report by the certified mechanic of the condition of the construction and operations vehicles and equipment will be submitted to the County prior to their use. ► Alternative -fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment (comprising at least 15 percent of the fleet) with lower tailpipe GHG emissions than gasoline or diesel equivalents will be used when commercially available. ► Renewable diesel fuel will be used for all diesel -powered heavy construction equipment and on -road vehicles to the extent that it is commercially available from a local supplier in the Southern California region. ► Local building materials (at least 10 percent) and recycled products, including cement and concrete made with recycled products, will be used, to the extent feasible. A construction waste management plan will be implemented to divert landfilled waste by requiring the recycling of a minimum of 65 percent of all non -hazardous construction waste. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Mitigation Measures for Reducing GHG Pre -Construction/ City of City of Field Verification Emissions from Operational Activities Construction/Post- Temecula Temecula and Sign -Off by The applicant shall implement the following GHG reduction measures for Construction Building Official City of Temecula all new development under the master plan: or other Issuance of ► The applicant (or its contractors) will implement the following water Designee Building Permit conservation measures, which are in addition to those required by City of Organic Waste codes and ordinances: Temecula Diversion Plan ■ Install public bathroom faucet aerators (non-residential & Community Approval by residential over 6 stories) with a flow rate of 0.4 gallons per Development Community minute (gpm), Department or Development other Designee De Department p ■ Install cooling tower conductivity controllers or cooling tower Director or pH conductivity controllers, other Designee City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance ■ Install rotating sprinkler nozzles for landscape irrigation 0.5 to 1.0 gpm, ■ Install drip/subsurface irrigation (i.e., micro -irrigation), ■ Implement proper hydro -zoning (i.e., groups plants with similar water requirements together), ■ Install zoned irrigation, ■ Contour landscaping to minimize precipitation runoff, ■ Install drought tolerant plants in 50 percent of total new landscaping, ■ Install water conserving turf in 100 percent of new turf added to landscaping, and ■ Use recycled water for stationary equipment that requires water cooling, to the extent feasible. ► Prepare a plan demonstrating, based on substantial evidence and to the satisfaction of the City, demonstrating that a minimum 85 percent of organic waste produced by the development would not be disposed of in a landfill. Measures to achieve this standard include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Operating a program to reduce the generation of food waste and divert food waste from going to a landfill (e.g., sort out food waste separate from other waste for collection or composting), ■ Operating a program to safely recover edible food and divert it to a local food bank, ■ Operating a program to divert green waste (e.g., plant debris from landscaping) from going to a landfill (e.g., sort out food waste separate from other waste for collection or composting). ► Install Energy Star -rated appliances. ► Dedicate five percent of new parking spaces for plug-in vehicles and equip those spaces with installed electric vehicle charging equipment. ► Install a high -efficiency lighting system that takes advantage of natural daylighting. May 2025 City of Temecula 8 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance ► Maximize the installation of on -site solar systems, or other systems that provide on -site power from renewable or zero carbon sources. ► Install, high-performance glazing with a low solar heat gain coefficient value that reduces the amount of solar heat allowed into the building, without compromising natural illumination. ► Install cool roofs with an R value (i.e., the measurement of the effectiveness of thermal insulating materials) of 30 or better on proposed new buildings. ► Increase urban tree canopy cover to provide shade to a minimum of 40 percent of the length of internal roadways on the project site. ► Use electric powered landscaping equipment, rather than fossil -fuel powered landscaping equipment. ► Use native plants and trees to provide new, water -wise landscaping that blends the facility with the ecology of the surrounding natural environment. In addition to the above, the applicant shall also implement the following GHG reduction measures for new development under the master plan, except for the proposed hospital uses (i.e., emergency department expansion, new hospital towers): ► Achieve net zero carbon buildings, in which building operational energy consumption is met through on- or off -site renewable or zero carbon energy sources ► Heating and cooling systems and other appliances and building end uses powered by natural gas will not be installed where electric - powered equivalents capable of meeting the building's operational requirements are commercially available in the project area. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Monitoring and Disposal of Any Contaminated Soils Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of Where proposed project construction includes any grading, grubbing, Construction Temecula Temecula Encroachment trenching, excavation, or earth -moving activities in previously undisturbed Permit areas, or any ground disturbance that extends deeper than the mass grading completed in 2011 or has potential to encounter native soil, construction personnel shall conduct monitoring of these activities for the potential presence of MTBE or VOCs (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered). Soils determined to have detectable levels of City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance MTBE or VOCs, if any, shall be segregated, stockpiled on -site in accordance with applicable regulations, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, in accordance with the requirements of the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off - site in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non -hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Any soils with detectable levels of MTBE- or other VOC-impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations. Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit, the project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any soils with detectable levels of MTBE- or other VOCs- has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Noise Mitigation Measure 3.10-1: Implement construction -noise reduction Pre -Construction/ City of City of Prior to Issuance measures for daytime construction Construction Temecula Temecula of Grading To reduce noise from construction activities, the City shall require Permit or construction contractors to comply with following measures: Building Permit, Equipment Restrictions as applicable ► Locate all stationary equipment (e.g., generators, welders, Field Verification and Sign -Off by dehumidifiers) on the construction site as far away from adjacent City of Temecula residential land uses and other noise -sensitive sites as possible and no less than 50 feet from residential uses. ► Position onsite stationary equipment such that existing noise sources (e.g., roadways) or structures (e.g., existing buildings) block the line of sight between the onsite equipment and offsite sensitive land uses. ► All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise -reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. May 2025 City of Temecula 10 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance ► All construction equipment with back-up alarms shall be equipped with either audible self-adjusting backup alarms or alarms that only sound when an object is detected. The self-adjusting backup alarms shall automatically adjust to 5 dBA over the surrounding background levels. All non -self-adjusting backup alarms shall be set to the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise levels. In addition to the use of backup alarms, the construction contractor shall implement the use of observers and scheduling of construction activities such that alarm noise is minimized. Quieter Alternative Methods and Equipment ► Each construction contractor shall use noise reducing operations measures, techniques, and equipment. This requirement shall be enforced through its inclusion on all construction bid specifications for all potential construction contractors hired within the project site. The bid specifications shall require that construction contractors provide an equipment inventory list for all equipment within the fleet with greater than 50 horsepower engines, that includes (at a minimum), make, model, and horsepower of equipment; operating noise levels at 50 feet, available noise control device that are installed on each piece of equipment; and associated noise reduction from the installed technology. Control devices shall include, but are not limited to, high -efficiency mufflers, acoustic dampening and protected internal noise absorption layers to vibrating panels, enclosures, and electric motors. In addition, the contractor shall specify how proposed alternative construction procedures will be employed to reduce noise at sensitive receptors compared to other more traditional methods. Examples include, but are not limited to, welding instead of riveting, mixing concrete off - site instead of on -site, and the use of thermal lance instead of drive motors and bits. In all cases, the requirement is that the best commercially available noise -reducing technology and noise - reducing alternative construction method shall be used, provided that there are no safety concerns, engineering limits, or environmental constraints preventing it from being used. If a unique circumstance does exist that prevents an alternative quieter construction method to be used, the contractor shall provide evidence to support their proposal. The noise reduction elements of City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating Agency Compliance construction bid submittals shall be approved by the City of Temecula, in coordination with a qualified acoustical professional. ► Combine noisy operations (e.g., riveting, cutting, hammering) to occur in the same time period (e.g., day or construction phase), such that the overall duration of these activities is reduced to the extent practical. By performing the noisiest operations together within the same time period, the overall duration that excessive noise would occur is reduced, minimizing the disturbing effects of exposure to prolonged increased noise levels. Where construction activities at any one location on the project site occur for an extended duration of more than 30 days affecting the same offsite receptor, install temporary noise curtains that meet the following parameters: ■ Install temporary noise curtains as close as possible to the boundary of the construction site within the direct line of sight path of the nearby sensitive receptor(s). Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound -absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot. Mitigation Measure 3.10-2: Reduce Operational Noise from the Central Pre -Construction/ City of City of Issuance of Utility Plant Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit Prior to approval of final plans for the proposed central utility plant, the Qualified Noise applicant shall hire a qualified acoustical specialist to prepare a noise Acoustical Minimization minimization plan for the central utility plant. This plan shall identify design Specialist Plan Approval strategies and noise attenuation features that the project will implement to by Community ensure that operation of the central utility plant does not result in exterior Development noise levels that exceed the following standards: Department ► 65 dBA CNEL for low -density residential, (single-family residences Director or along De Portola Road); other Designee ► 70 dBA CNEL for medium -density residential (residential uses along Margarita Road); ► an increase of 5 dB or higher where existing levels are less than 60 dBA CNEL; ► an increase of 3 dBA or higher where existing levels are between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL; or May 2025 City of Temecula 12 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance ► an increase of 1.5 dB or higher where existing levels are higher than 65 dBA CNEL. The noise minimization plan shall include noise measurements characterizing existing noise levels at the time preparing of the plan is commenced, and/or modeling of noise levels generated by the central utility plant, as -needed, to demonstrate compliance with the above standards. This plan also shall demonstrate how one or more of the following measures (or other measures demonstrated to be equally effective) shall be implemented to achieve the required standards. ► Design the central utility plant such that the structure itself is between the offsite noise sources (e.g., chillers, cooling towers) and the offsite receptors, serving as a noise barrier protecting off -site receptors from noise generated by on -site operational equipment. If the structure can completely block the line -of -sight from the source to the receiver, noise levels could potentially be inaudible at offsite locations. ► Enclose the area and individual sources where operational equipment would operate with noise barriers / walls, such that the noise barrier completely blocks the line -of -sight between the source and offsite receptors. Generally, a barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will result in at least 5 dB but can readily achieve a 10 dB reduction and taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. ► Install equipment with pre -installed acoustical reduction technology (e.g., louvers, baffles) to reduce individual equipment noise to the extent technologically feasible. ► Prior to final building inspection and operation of the new central utility plant, a noise test shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional, to demonstrate compliance with the City of Temecula's residential noise standards (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL for low density residential and 70 dBA CNEL for medium and high density residential) at all nearby and affected residential land uses. If noise standards are not met, the City shall not grant rights to operate the facility until it can be demonstrated that noise standards would be in compliance. Measures identified in the noise minimization plan shall be incorporated into the project design as -needed to achieve the noise standards set forth in this measure. Prior to approval of future development plans City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Action Indicating Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Agency Compliance implementing the proposed project, the City's Community Development Director is responsible for verifying that the noise minimization plan has been prepared in compliance with this measure and measures needed to achieve compliance with the noise standards set forth in this measure are included in the site plan. Traffic and Transportation Mitigation 3.13-1: Implement a Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program Post -Construction City of City of Issuance of Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall Temecula Temecula Building Permit develop a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees Building Official Voluntary (program), subject to approval by the City's Director of Public Works. or other Commute Trip Commute trip reduction programs discourage single -occupancy vehicle Designee Reduction trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as City of Program carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and Temecula Approval by greenhouse gas emissions. This program shall provide substantial Community Director of evidence demonstrating a minimum 4 percent reduction in the proposed Development Public Works or project's rate of VMT (i.e., VMT per service population), as compared to Department other Designee the proposed VMT rate evaluated in the SEIR. The program shall evaluate Director or how the minimum VMT reduction standard will be achieved through other Designee implementation of the following measures, or equally effective measures: employer -provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing, discounted transit, bicycling, vanpool, and guaranteed ride home and information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives. Mitigation 3.13-2: Implement No -Cost Transit Pass Program for Employees Post -Construction City of City of Issuance of Prior to the approval of future development applications, the project Temecula Temecula Building Permit applicant shall develop a program to provide transit passes at no -cost to Building Official Transit Pass employees on an ongoing basis. The transit passes shall be made or other Program available at no -cost to all employees of the project during its operational Designee Approval by phase. Reducing the out-of-pocket cost for transit improves the City of Director of competitiveness of transit versus single -occupancy vehicles; thus, Temecula Public Works or increasing the total number of transit trips and decreasing vehicle trips. Community other Designee This decrease in vehicle trips results in reduced VMT and lower GHG Development emissions (CAPCOA 2021: 95). Given that 100 percent of employees would Department be eligible for such a program, the VMT reduction depends on the Director or percentage of subsidy provided by the employer (LLG 2022). The transit other Designee May 2025 City of Temecula 14 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement Responsible Action Verification of Com fiance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measures It Monitoring Phase Agency Monitoring Indicating I I Agency Compliance pass program for all employees would provide a VMT reduction of up to 0.24 percent for the proposed project. Mitigation 3.13-3: Provide End -of -Trip Bicycle Facilities Post -Construction City of City of Issuance of In addition to the bicycle parking required by the City of Temecula Temecula Temecula Building Permit Municipal Code, the project shall provide end -of -trip bicycle facilities, Building Official including installation and maintenance, for employee use. End -of -trip or other facilities include bike parking, bike lockers, showers, personal lockers, Designee onsite bicycle repair station, signage on or near secure parking and City of personal lockers with information about how to reserve or obtain access Temecula to these amenities. The location and type of these facilities shall be Community identified in future development applications prior to their approval by Development the City. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and Department related facilities encourage commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT Director or and GHG emissions. End -of -trip facilities should be installed at a size other Designee proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained. Providing end -of -trip bicycle facilities would provide a VMT reduction of up to 0.3 percent for the proposed project. City of Temecula May 2025 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment 15 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. April 2023 City of Temecula 16 Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 2025- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25- 0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959- 080-039) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-12 (Conditional Use Permit) and Resolution No. 08-13 (Development Plan). Condition of Approval #27 for PA18-1258 was approved by the City Council on November 27, 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to remove a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. E. On June 4, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and proposed Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. F. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and proposed Project the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)". G. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-25, "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 N TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25-0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN 959-080-039)". H. On June 23, 2025 the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Project and the Final SEIR for the Project, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the Project and the Final SEIR prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)" Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Project, pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section, 17.05.010, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; Hospitals are a conditionally permitted use that was previously approved on this project site. The modifications to the previously approved development plan and conditions of approval do not change the use on the project site and therefore the Project is in conformance with the General Plan land use of Professional Office. The site is properly planned and zoned and, as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of hospital development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the hospital, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards, and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing proposed in the Modification is anticipated to have an adverse impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 3. Section 3. Conditions of Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application Nos. PA21-1525 and PA25-0181, Modification applications for a update to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and removal of a previous Condition of Approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Development Plan Modification) set forth in Exhibit A, and Conditions of Approval (COA Modification) set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2025- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)". Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of June, 2025. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Brenden Kalfus, Mayor 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of June, 2025 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA21-1525 Project Description: A Modification to the to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3. The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway. Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-039 MSHCP Category: N/A (no new grading) DIF Category: N/A (no new grading) TUMF Category: N/A (no new grading) Quimby Category: N/A (non-residential) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Project not located in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan) Approval Date: June 23, 2025 Expiration Date: June 23, 2028 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval Page 1 of 9 Applicant Filing Notice of Determination. APPLICANT ACTION REQUIRED: The applicant/developer is responsible for filing the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904 within 48 hours of the project approval. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not filed the Notice of Determination as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void due to failure of this condition. Failure to submit the Notice of Determination will also result in an extended period of time for legal challenges. FEES: Fees for the Notice of Determination are Four Thousand One Hundred One Dollars and Twenty -Five Cents($4,101.25) which includes the Four Thousand Fifty -One Dollars and Twenty -Five Cents ($4,051.25) fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee. The County of Riverside charges additional fees for credit card transactions. FILING: The City shall provide the applicant with a Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval via email. If the applicant/developer has not received the Notice of Determination within 24 hours of approval, they shall contact the case Planner immediately. All CEQA documents must be filed online with the Riverside County Assessor — County Clerk- Recorder. A direct link to the CEQA filings page is available at TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA. COPY OF FILINGS: The applicant shall provide the City with a digital copy of the required filings within 48 hours General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Page 2 of 9 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within three years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. Use means the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the three year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five extensions of time, one year at a time. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 5. Consistency with Planned Development Overlay. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District. (PDO-9). 6. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. SCH 2O05031017. 7. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 8. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 9. Previous Conditions of Approval. All previous Conditions of Approval from PA07-0200, PA07-0202, PA10-0194, PA13-0141, and PA18-1258 shall remain in full effect unless superseded herein. 10. Future Development Plans. Each future building within the Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan shall be submitted individually to the Planning Department for review in the form of a Development Plan application. Outside Agencies 11. Compliance with Geotechnical. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Leighton Consulting, Inc transmittal dated February 21, 2022, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 12. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 13. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 14. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for on site improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. Page 3 of 9 15. Haul Route Permit. A haul route permit may be required when soils are moved on public roadways to or from a grading site. The developer/contractor is to verify if the permit is required. If so, he shall comply with all conditions and requirements per the City's Engineering and Construction Manual and as directed by Public Works. 16. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. 17. Private Drainage Facilities. All onsite drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. 18. Underlying Approvals. The Applicant shall comply with all the underlying Conditions of Approval for PA07-0200 as approved on January 22, 2008 and all subsequent approvals. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 19. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 20. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: www.TemeculaCA.gov/ECM 21. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 18, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 22. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml Page 4 of 9 23. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link: www.TemeculaCA.gov/WQMP. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require Alternative Compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. 24. RCFC&WCD Approval. 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. 25. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 26. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 10 and 100-year storm event for 24 hour storm duration peak flow) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. 27. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 28. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements) for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 29. American Disability Act. The developer shall ensure that all frontage areas to the proposed development within the public right of way are ADA compliant. Any sidewalk within the public right of way found to be non -compliant shall be the responsibility of the property owner to be removed and replaced with ADA compliant sidewalk per the Streets and Highway Code Section 5610. Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) Page 5 of 9 30. Public Utility Agency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way; and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. 31. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and City standards. 32. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic) shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 33. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No. 407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 34. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 35. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all on site work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 36. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 37. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 38. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. 39. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Verification. As part of the WQMP approval, the Engineer of Record shall report and certify BMP construction per City of Temecula NPDES requirements. Should the project require alternative compliance, the developer is responsible for execution of an approved Alternative Compliance Agreement. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 40. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. Page 6 of 9 41. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and Temecula Municipal Code as identified in Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 42. ADA Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. c. Accessible path of travel from parking to the furthest point of improvement. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Accessible path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as trash enclosures, clubhouses, and picnic areas. 43. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. All exterior LED light fixtures shall be 3,000 kelvin or below. 44. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 45. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 46. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Solid covers are required over new and existing trash enclosures. 47. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On -site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 48. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Code Section 9.20.060, for any site within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 49. Protection of Drains and Penetration. Protection of joints and penetrations in fire resistance -rated assemblies shall not be concealed from view until inspected for all designed fire protection. Required fire seals/fire barriers in fire assemblies at fire resistant penetrations shall be installed by individuals with classification or certification covering the installation of these systems. Provide certification for the installation of each area and certification of compliance for Building Official's approval. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements Page 7 of 9 50. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x (2) 2 '/2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all Commercial project hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, and shall be located no more than 210 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 fire line may be required to be a looped system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 51. Fire Dept. Plan Review. 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. 52. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 4-hour duration for this commercial project. The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 53. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 54. Two Point Access. This development shall always maintain a minimum of two points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5). 55. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 65,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 56. Gradient of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 57. Turning Radius. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code 15.16.020). Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 58. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). Any changes to the existing underground water system will require plans to be submitted for review and approval. The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on -site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5). Page 8 of 9 59. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for any buildings outside of OSHPD. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 60. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for any new proposed buildings outside of OSHPD. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 61. Gates and Access. For any gates proposed or may be added in the future on required Fire Department access roads or obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5). 62. Hydrant Verification. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) (Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 63. Knox Box. A "Knox -Box" shall be provided. The Knox -Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). 64. Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6-inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. (CFC Chapter 5 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 65. Site Plan. 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 (CFC Chapter 5). 66. Additional Submittals (Fire Above/Below Ground Tanks). 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 Chapter 57 and Temecula Municipal Code Section 15.16.020). 67. File Format Requirements. 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. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable Page 9 of 9 f111 Lei Anniversary 25c/ Leighton Consulting, Inc. A Leighton Group Company February 21, 2022 Project No. 11760.030 City of Temecula, Planning Department 4100 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Scott Cooper, Associate Planner II Subject: Geotechnical Peer Review- Mast Plan Update Temecula Valley Hospital, (PA21-1525) 31700 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter in regards to future building submittals for the subject Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update. We understand existing building expansion or new building design may be submitted incrementally. We recommend a Geotechnical Peer Review be performed for each submittal that may consist of an individual building expansion, new structure or multiple structures. The main purpose of review is to confirm that the submitted report generally complies with the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (or then current code), applicable Local and State technical guidelines, and standard of care typically used in this area and for this type of construction. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to City and please do not hesitate to us if you have any question. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. .. fl 4U, TF 0 � CERTIf!IE0 * ENGINEERING � Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 �s, 0EOLQGIST Senior Principal Geologist Cp Ext 8914 rriha@leightongroup.com Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF copy via email) 41715 Enterprise Circle N, Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590 T: 951.296.0530 www.leightongroup.com EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA25-0181 Project Description: A Modification to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18-1258) for Temecula Valley Hospital which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2 located at 31700 Temecula Parkway Assessor's Parcel No.: 959-080-039 MSHCP Category: N/A (no new grading) DIF Category: N/A (no new grading) TUMF Category: N/A (no new grading) Quimby Category: N/A (non-residential) New Street In -lieu of Fee: N/A (Project not located in the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan) Approval Date: June 23, 2025 Expiration Date: N/A PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements Page 1 of 2 Indemnification of the City. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys' Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees") from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission's actions, this approval and the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the City's environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 2. Modifications or Revisions. The developer shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. Previous Conditions of Approval. All previous Conditions of Approval from PA18-1258 shall remain in full effect unless superseded herein. Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO.2025- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-01. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay as approved shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "PDO". B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital Inc filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. E. On June 4, 2024 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and the Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PA21-0105)." G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-24, "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 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)". H. On June 23, 2025, the City Council considered the Project and the SEIR at a duly noticed public hearing at which time the City staff presented its report, and all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the Project and the SEIR. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN N AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)." Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Planned Development Overlay/Zone Change hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Furthermore, the proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance directly responds to Goal I Policy L U-1.8 of the General Plan Land Use Element which encourages future development of a community hospital and related services. The proposed project is consistent with the above General Plan Land Use Element goal and policy in that it is contributing to the development of a community hospital and has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure through required and proposed design guidelines and development standards, building orientation and location, circulation and access, and other features and requirements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay Amendment. Section 3. Zoning Code Amendment. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 17.22 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT (PDO-9)) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code by amending Article X, entitled "Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District 9" in its entirety to read as provided in Exhibit A, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Section 4. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 6. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Brenden Kalfus, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2025- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of June, 2025, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Article X. Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District-9 Temecula, California Municipal Code Title 17 ZONING Chapter 17.22 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT (PDO) Article X. Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District-9 17.22.200 Title. 17.22.202 Purpose and Intent. 17.22.204 Future Approvals 17.22.206 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. 17.22.208 Development Standards. 17.22.209 Parking Requirements 17.22.210 Design Guidelines 17.22.200 Title. Sections 17.22.200 through 17.22.210 shall be known as "PDO-9" (Temecula Hospital Planned Overlay District). (Ord. 08-01 § 4; Ord. 06-01 § 3) 17.22.202 Purpose and Intent. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO) district is intended to provide for design flexibility and general standards with regard to the building height of hospital projects, along with expanded healthcare services and various approaches to the design of future structures, such as medical offices, central utility plant parking structures, and parking identified in the approved master plan. Future buildings will conform to the approved building footprints and locations. 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. (Ord. 08-01 § 4; Ord. 06-01 § 3) 17.22.204 Future Approvals Future buildings/structures outlined in the masterplan that are in conformance with the architectural design standards outlined in the PDO can be approved administratively. 17.22.206 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.208 the following rules and regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area: A. 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; B. The citywide design guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete; C. The approval requirements contained in the development code that are in effect at the time the application is deemed complete; D. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time the application is deemed complete. (Ord. 08-01 § 4; Ord. 06-01 § 3) 17.22.208 Development Standards. The development standards set forth in Chapter 17.08 of this title apply to this PDO with the exception of the following modifications. 1. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.55 for the Temecula Hospital PDO district. 2. The maximum percentage of lot coverage is 55%. 3. The maximum allowable building heights, as defined in Chapter 17.34 of this title, for hospital buildings in the Temecula Hospital PDO district, shall be limited as follows: No more than thirty percent of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the seventy -five-foot building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the thirty percent area may not exceed one hundred fifteen feet. For the purposes of this PDO, the 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. The hospital campus may contain a mix of structures, including: 1. Medical Healthcare and support facilities 2. Medical and professional offices 3. Parking structure 4. Helipad Only the aforementioned uses/structures are permitted. At the Temecula Valley Hospital's request, behavioral health is not included as part of the PDO. Any other structures/uses not specified above, including but not limited to behavioral health, will require further environmental review and entitlements. 17.22.209 Parking Requirements Fig 1 provides for required parking for the Temecula Valley Hospital at each phase of the campus buildout (see table below for required parking counts) NGb til MOO OTHLR }.G4 Y7.}tW0 T+Y417J4&W 1.1: • ' ' '- -:. 1ABEPS . °=fln=.r I I.;- -c r EXISTING PHASE 2 1 PHASE a BU441QG AREA BEDS PAR KNC. SPAMREQUIRrO AREAS-F I-Ir 5P&rAt 7UC;3+41 140 47 206,341 STORAGE 51180 5 51184 TOW€R2 125LOOn 14D 47 12!0w ED EXPAN510N 2Q00G 20.00D M0111 ] BULWO 404 B0.0m CUP ]Z600 14 ]7Ax roweA 3 12F%GW 141) 47 125.OdC- M015 2 BQ0011 401) BO'Co'. SUB TOTALS 65412111 424 H1 I M 1 19 1 ti U1 237AW 205,001) FINAL AREA 654121 $F FINAL PARKING REQUIRED %0 CARS FJNAL PAAKINIS PROVIDED I*903 CAPS SURP11,15 PARKIPdG 941 CARS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AREA 571W 5F PREVIOIUS1T ENTITLED PARKING L154 CARS DELTA INTTTLFDAREA 8A781 5f IN{RE+4SED DELTA E11T1TL4O PARKING 549 CAPS WEREASED EXISTING IP9lA3E 2 PHASE 3 1}PT A PHASE 3 or, e IG7 A 169 1s 50 50 LC]T B 274 179 179 133 LOT C 413 333 LGT C - 33 87 G LOT � 295 295 295 D LH LOT 46 271 273 273 LOT G - - BE] �E as M ss � 1'QTxL +i8� 915 1903 18s1 Fig 1 Planned Parking counts by phase. The following graphic (Fig 2) and (Fig 3) provide anticipated traffic patterns for service, staff, emergency, and public vehicles on the Temecula Valley Hospital campus. The graphic illustrates pedestrian and vehicular paths to entry points and public transportation. /PpR LARD 9E _l =n :1 =�r �, ♦rr ! EXISTING - ME HOSPITAL f TOWER 3 I MOB2 ,4 PARKING ED _ ;I , I STRUCTURE TOWER2 DARTOLO RD —I �i TEMECULA PKWY MASTER PLAN - OPTION A CIRCULATION Fig 2 Planned Campus Circulation Option A + SIGNAL LIGHT �...... PEDESTRIAN PATH E AMBULANCE PATH E MEMEBERS PATH E STAFF PATH E SERVICE PATH QBUS STOP 4— ao aso HMC Architects N �rl SIGNAL LIGHT 1, _J r r r „ PEDESTRIAN ;+1 PATH =_ II 11 L AMBULANCE 11 i - i, CUP 11 PATH r 11 1 -Ir MEMEBERS ♦ - .. i 1 PATH t 1 r 1 O E - - STAFF 1 PATH SERVICE PATH EXISTING - Q BUS STOP 1 ME HOSPITAL r TOWBR r ' PARKING s ^ Moez r' 1 1„�� ED , �.uu.. G.,. 1 STRUCTURE 1 1 rri ' 1 CIS TOWER2 _ I i 1 DARTOLO RD 0 0 .1 ru u��unu unmrurnn unui�%.r uinn nnnu u�unnnn nn err. I I � , r� ^ MOB 1 ' J I r�b' - - _-_----- TEMECULA PKWY MASTER PLAN — OPTION A CIRCULATION MC Architects Fig 3 Planned Campus Circulation Option B 17.22.210 Design Guidelines Overall aesthetics shall match the Spanish -Mediterranean or Mission styles of the existing facility and neighboring community. Large mass elements shall be articulated to reduce the overall scale. This includes vertically offsetting portions of the ground level to relate to a more pedestrian scale. The exterior finish shall be primarily stucco or EIFS with an elastomeric topcoat. Accent tile or stone shall be incorporated into key elevations and building design elements. The color shall be light natural tones to harmonize with the local community and match or complement the existing plaster/EIFS colors. Glazing shall be predominantly storefront on lower public -facing areas, with punched windows elsewhere. Curtainwall window systems may be used at key architectural elements and main entries. Rooftop equipment shall be screened. Mechanical screens can be either tile -covered mansard roofs or vertical wall panels clad with EIFS or metal panels. Canopies, port-cochere, or other overhanging elements shall be designed to match the main building or with complementary painted or pre -finished metal components. The parking structure shall follow the campus theme for color and city standards for design and development standards. The (Fig 4) and (Fig 5) also provide anticipated Campus phasing for the Temecula Valley Hospital campus. V\ CUP ppto` TO GE of .��� ` — •� TOWE 2 EXISTJNG J 1 GM HOSPITAL \ `� - - ED TOWER 2 i ---� PARKING MOS 2 STRI -7,RE MOB\ p PHASING PLAN - OPTION A PERSPECTIVF HMC Architects Fig 4 Planned Development Overlay Option A CUP z t, 1I PHASING PLAN - OPTION B PERSPECTIVE HMC Architects Fig 5 Planned Development Overlay Option B BUILDING: EXISTING HOSPITAL STORAGE ED EXPANSION TOW E R OB1 CUP TOWER 3 IGB TOTAL BUILDING AREA: ll =1:1C1I2MISM QJJIM PHASE: EXISTING EM TINC PHASE2 PHASE2 PHASE2 PHASE2 PHASE 3AIB PHASE 3AIB SQUARE FT 206,341 5,180 20,000 125,00 80,000 1,00 125,000 80,000 6549121 [:t i111;l:;` Conceptual Illustrative Land Use Plan — Prospective shows overall building massing for the campus at final buildout. (Ord. 08-01 § 4; Ord. 06-01 § 3) Contact: City Clerk: 951-694-6444 Published by Quality Code Publishing, Seattle, WA. By using this site, you agree to the terms of use. https://library.qcode.us/lib/temecula_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17-chapter_17_22-article_x?view=all 2/2 PC RESOLUTION NO.2025-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105) Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC ("Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan; on January 26, 2022, Applicantfiled PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District; and on May 6, 2025, Applicant filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 14000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the Project. C. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including CEQA. D. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution Nos. 08-12 and 08-13. Subsequent Modifications to the Development Plan were approved by the City Council in 2011 by the adoption of Resolution No. 11-17, in 2016 by the adoption of Resolution No. 16-29, and in 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. On January 22, 2008 the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-10 (SCH # 2005031017). An Addendum to the EIR was certified by the City Council in 2011 and a Supplemental EIR was certified by the City Council in 2016 by Resolution No. 16-28. E. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and 21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan area and, therefore, tiers off of the prior EIRs for the Temecula Valley Hospital. F. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) should be prepared for the Project. G. On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. H. On March 3, 2022, a public scoping meeting was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to comment on the issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. I. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project. J. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in the Press -Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. K. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. L. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, the Corrections and Additions to the SEIR (including revisions to the Project description, among them the removal of the behavioral health hospital component), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on May 23, 2025, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final SEIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). M. On June 4, 2025, the Planning Commission, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final SEIR and the Project, at which time the Planning Commission heard and considered information presented by City staff on the Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. N. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire record, including the Final SEIR, evidence presented prior to and at the hearing, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and other materials. O. CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR 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 SEIR; 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 SEIR. P. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit B, Section 4. 2. The four environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures is described in Exhibit B, Section 5. 3. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 6 of Exhibit B. Q. 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. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference. R. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of the findings, and is attached hereto as Exhibit B, Section 7, and is incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. After due consideration of the Final SEIR and the Project, and in its independent judgment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and resolves that: A. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into this section as though set forth in full. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony. D. The Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached herein as Exhibit B, with the exception of that impact found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony, does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. The Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the Project, make appropriate environmental findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the mitigation measures set forth therein be made applicable to the Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4'h day of June, 2025. ATTEST: KdA-�, Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2025-23 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4'h day of June, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Hagel, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watson, Watts NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None &AQ Matt Peters Secretary RESOLUTION NO.2025- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC ("Applicant") filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan; on January 26, 2022, Applicant filed PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District; and on May 6, 2025, Applicant filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.). C. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the Project. D. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution Nos. 08-12 and 08-13. Subsequent Modifications to the Development Plan were approved by the City Council in 2011 by the adoption of Resolution No. 11-17, in 2016 by the adoption of Resolution No. 16-29, and in 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. On January 22, 2008 the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-10 (SCH # 2005031017). An Addendum to the EIR was certified by the City Council in 2011 and a Supplemental EIR was certified by the City Council in 2016 by Resolution No. 16-28. E. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and 21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan area and, therefore, tiers off of the prior EIRs for the Temecula Valley Hospital. F. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) should be prepared for the Project. G. On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issue to be addressed in the SEIR. H. On March 3, 2022, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. I. In response to the NOP, two (2) written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. J. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project. K. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR in November 2022, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on November 3, 2022. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in Press -Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. L. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. Copies of the Draft SEIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. M. In response to the Draft SEIR, the City received five (5) written comments from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Those comments and the Response to Comments, together with the Draft SEIR, the Corrections and Additions to the Draft SEIR (including revisions to the Project description, among them the removal of the behavioral health hospital component), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, constitute the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR). N. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, at least 10 days prior to certification, the City provided the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, to the public and all commenting public agencies. O. On June 4, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final SEIR and the Project, at which time heard and considered information presented by City staff on the Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. P. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23 recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared for Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9), adopt Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 2025-24 and Resolution No. 2025-25, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a Planned Development Overlay Amendment and Modifications related to the approval of the Project. Q. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR 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 SEIR; 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 SEIR. R. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section 4. 2. The one environmental impact identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures is described in Exhibit A, Section 5. 3. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VI of Exhibit 6. S. CEQA section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. T. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of the findings, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A, Section 7, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. U. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, technical studies, appendices, and all oral and written testimony presented prior to and during the public hearings on the Project. V. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference as though set forth in full. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the Project. D. Find and determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony, does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final SEIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. H. The City Council further directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15094. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of June, 2025. Brenden Kalfus, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23`d day of June, 2025 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk PC RESOLUTION NO.2025-24 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 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-01. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay as approved shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "PDO". B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to remove a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. E. On June 4, 2025 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PA21-0105)". Resolution No. 2025-24 and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval the Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Application No. PA22-0105, hereby finds, determines and declares that the Planned Development Overlay Amendment is consistent with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City: A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Furthermore, the proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance directly responds to Goal I Policy LU-1.8 of the General Plan Land Use Element which encourages future development of a community hospital and related services. The proposed project is consistent with the above General Plan Land Use Element goal and policy in that it is contributing to the development of a community hospital and has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure through required and proposed design guidelines and development standards, building orientation and location, circulation and access, and other features and requirements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay Amendment. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY. (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)" in substantially the same form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 41h day of June, 2025. r r *WLarnae Turley- r io, Chai rson ATTEST: M Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2025-24 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4 h day of June, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Hagel, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watson, Watt: NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None K wd� yj)c� Matt Peters Secretary ORDINANCE NO.2025- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Ordinance No. 08-01. The Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay as approved shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "PDO". B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for a Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. E. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. F. On June 4, 2024 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and the Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. G. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PA21-0105)." H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-24, "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 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)". 1. On June 23, 2025, the City Council considered the Project and the SEIR at a duly noticed public hearing at which time the City staff presented its report, and all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the Project and the SEIR. J. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)." Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. K. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 3. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Planned Development Overlay/Zone Change hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Furthermore, the proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance directly responds to Goal 1 Policy LU-1.8 of the General Plan Land Use Element which encourages future development of a community hospital and related services. The proposed project is consistent with the above General Plan Land Use Element goal and policy in that it is contributing to the development of a community hospital and has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure through required and proposed design guidelines and development standards, building orientation and location, circulation and access, and other features and requirements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay Amendment. Section 4. Zoning Code Amendment. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 17.22 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT (PDO-9)) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code by amending Article X, entitled "Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District 9" in its entirety to read as provided in Exhibit A, attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein as thought set forth in full. Section 5. Severability. If any portion, provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining portions, provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall be interpreted by the court so as to give effect to such remaining portions of the Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23`d day of June, 2025 Brenden Kalfus, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2025- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of June, 2025, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2025 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk PC RESOLUTION NO.2025-25 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 (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25- 0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959- 080-039)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-12 (Conditional Use Permit) and Resolution No. 08-13 (Development Plan). Condition of Approval #27 for PA18-1258 was approved by the City Council on November 27, 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to remove a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. E. On June 4, 2025 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and the Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. F. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the Project the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-23, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PA21- 0105)". G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of Modification application No. PA21-1525 and Modification application PA25-0181, pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.05.010 hereby finds, determines and declares that Modification application No. PA22-1525 and Modification application No. PA25-0181 are Modification application No. PA22-1525 and Modification application No. PA25-0181 are consistent with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; Hospitals are a conditionally permitted use that was previously approved on this project site. The modifications to the previously approved development plan and conditions of approval do not change the use on the project site and therefore is in conformance with the General Plan land use of Professional Office. The site is properly planned and zoned and, as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of hospital development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the hospital, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards, and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing proposed in the Modification is anticipated to have an adverse impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07- 0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25-0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039)" in substantially the same form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 41h day of June, 2025. ATTEST: 1"L Matt Peters Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Matt Peters, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2025-25 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of June, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Hagel, Solis, Turley-Trejo, Watson, WattE NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Matt Peters Secretary RESOLUTION NO.2025- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25- 0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258) WHICH PROVIDED A DEADLINE ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION FOR FUTURE HOSPITAL BED TOWER 2 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959- 080-039) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the adoption of Resolution No. 08-12 (Conditional Use Permit) and Resolution No. 08-13 (Development Plan). Condition of Approval #27 for PA18-1258 was approved by the City Council on November 27, 2018 by the adoption of Resolution No. 18-77. B. On November 21, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21-1525, for a Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan, on January 26, 2022 filed PA22-0105, for an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District, and on May 6, 2025 filed PA25-0181, for a Modification to remove a previously approved Condition of Approval. These applications (collectively, "Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act. D. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA"). On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. On March 3, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the project site. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. During the comment period, the City received five (5) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, revisions to the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies in accordance with the law. E. On June 4, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SEIR and proposed Project at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. F. Following consideration of the entire record before it at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and proposed Project the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)". G. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission hearing, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-, "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 (1) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA21-1525 A MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0200 AND PA07-0202) AND (2) PA25-0181 A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27 FROM A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING APPLICATION (PA18-1258 FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039)". H. On June 23, 2025 the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the Project and the Final SEIR for the Project, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the Project and the Final SEIR prior to and at the public hearing. I. Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025- "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA21-1525) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT (PDO-9) (PA22-0105)=" Resolution No. 2025- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council in approving the Project, pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section, 17.05.010, hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; Hospitals are a conditionally permitted use that was previously approved on this project site. The modifications to the previously approved development plan and conditions of approval do not change the use on the project site and therefore the Project is in conformance with the General Plan land use of Professional Office. The site is properly planned and zoned and, as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of hospital development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The overall design of the hospital, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards, and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing proposed in the Modification is anticipated to have an adverse impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 3. Conditions of Approval. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application Nos. PA21-1525 and PA25-0181, Modification applications for a update to the TVH Development Plan and removal of a previous Condition of Approval, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 2025-, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) LOCATED AT 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY (APN: 959-080-039) (PA22-0105)". Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23`d day of June, 2025. Brenden Kalfus, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23`d day of June, 2025 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: June 4, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Scott Cooper, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA21-1525, a Modification to the SUMMARY: previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202) that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3; PA22-0105, an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9) including establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO; and PA25-0181, a Modification to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18-1258) which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2. The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway (APN: 959-080-039). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed Planning Commission Resolutions recommending the City Council (1) certify the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), (2) adopt a Planned Development Overlay Amendment, and (3) approve Modifications subject to Conditions of Approval. CEQA: Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Temecula Valley Hospital INC General Plan Designation: Professional Office (PO) Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Temecula Valley Hospital, Vacant Land / Professional Office (PO) North: Single Family Homes / Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Temecula Parkway, Single Family Homes, Commercial Center / Low Medium Density Residential (LM), Medium Density Residential (M), Community Commercial (CC) East: Multifamily Residential, Commercial Buildings / Professional Office (PO), Highway Tourist (HT) West: Single Family Homes, Medical Office Buildings / Professional Office (PO), Very Low Density Residential (VL) Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 33.9 Acres 5.0 acres Floor Area Ratio: 0.44 0.55 Maximum Landscape Area/Coverage: 30% 25% Minimum Parking Required/Provided: 1,903 Parking Spaces 960 Parking Spaces Option A 1,851 Parking Spaces Option B BACKGROUND SUMMARY On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); on June 30, 2004 filed PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080- 010 for the construction of the Temecula Valley Hospital ("Previous Project"). On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Previous Project at a noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Previous Project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Previous Project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Previous Project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the Previous Project at the noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Previous Project, adopted Resolution No. 06-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA05-0302), adopted Resolution No. 06-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-06 recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571). On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Previous Project (PA04-0463). Following due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Previous Project, adopted Resolution No. 06-06, amending the General Plan to remove the Project site from the "Z - Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two-story height restriction (PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 to consolidate the Previous Project's eight lots into one lot (PA04-0571). On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Previous Project. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Previous Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether; a gasoline additive) plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. On July 3, 2007, Universal Health Services, Inc., submitted Planning Application PA07-0198, a General Plan Amendment, PA07-0199, a Zone Change, PA07-0200, a Development Plan, PA07- 0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07-0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320-bed hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical office building, 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness center for the 35.3 acre project generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road ("Project"). On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution No. 08-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07-0199), adopted Resolution No. 08-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution No. 08- 05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to PDO- 9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the Previous Project. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08-10, certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-11 approving the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198), adopted Ordinance No. 08-01 approving the Zone Change (PA07- 0199), adopted Resolution 08-12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution 08-13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-0200), and adopted Resolution 08-14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-0201). On December 30, 2009, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., applied for a first Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved Resolution No. 10-08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10-08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; 4 and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10-08 that in approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need to file for a Major Modification of the entitlements. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the Project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the Project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA10- 0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-28 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification (PA 10-0194) and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. At the public hearing the City Council added a Condition of Approval (COA #27) that provided deadline for commencement of construction of the foundation of hospital bed tower 2 within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1), or no later than February 8, 2019. Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. On April 15, 2015, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA13-0141 for a proposed Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202). Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-05 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA13-0141) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202) and adopted Resolution 15-06 recommending certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. On July 28, 2015, the City Council was scheduled to consider Planning Application No. PA13- 0141 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. However, on July 27, 2015 staff received a letter concerning the noise analysis, alternatives analysis, project description, and feasible mitigation measures contained within the Supplemental EIR prepared for the Project. The City Council continued the item at the July 28, 2015 City Council hearing to allow time for a Recirculated Supplemental EIR to be prepared to address the comment letter. On May 4, 2016, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA13-0141 for a proposed Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202). Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-12 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA13-0141) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202) and adopted Resolution 16-13 recommending certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. On May 24, 2016, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA13-0141 for a proposed Major Modification to the Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202). Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-28 certifying a recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project and adopted Resolution 16-29 approving Planning Application No. PA13- 0141 (Major Modification). On September 13, 2018, Universal Health Systems Temecula Valley Hospital filed Planning Application No. PA18-1258, a Modification to revise Development Plan (PA10-0194) Condition of Approval No. 27 to require the commencement of the Phase IV hospital bed tower (hospital bed tower 2) foundation within 15 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1), or no later than February 8, 2029. On November 27, 2018, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA18-1258 for a proposed Modification to the Development Plan (PA10-0194). Following consideration of the Project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-77 approving Planning Application No. PA18-1258. On November 24, 2021, Temecula Valley Hospital INC filed Planning Application No. PA21- 1525, a Modification to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202) that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3. On January 26, 2022, Temecula Valley Hospital filed Planning Application No. PA22-0105, an Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9) including establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO. No other mix of structures and uses, including behavioral health, are permitted without further environmental review, entitlements, and approvals by the City Council. On May 6, 2025, Temecula Valley Hospital Inc filed Planning Application No. PA25-0181, a Modification to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18- 1258) which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The Modification to the Development Plan, the Planned Development Overlay Amendment, and the removal of a Condition of Approval do not propose the actual construction or architecture of new buildings and structures. The Development Plan is being updated to reflect the current and future needs of TVH in the form of uses, square footage of those uses, and locations of the uses within the Development Plan. As individual buildings and structures are proposed TVH will submit the buildings and structures to the City of Temecula as individual Development Plans for review. Previously pproved Development Plan On January 22, 2008 the City Council approved the TVH Development Plan that consisted of the following components: • Hospital Facility o Two (2) towers with 320 beds o Emergency room, intensive and cardiac care services, outpatient and inpatient surgical services, and administrative offices • Helipad • 80,000 square foot, four-story medical office building • 60,000 square foot, three-story medical office building • 10,000 square foot cancer center • 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center • Surface parking Of the previously approved TVH Development Plan components only an approximately 206,341 square foot main hospital building that contains a single tower with 140 beds, helipad, and surface parking were constructed. In 2016 the City Council approved the relocation of the helipad and a 5,180 square foot storage building. These were ultimately constructed and exist on the TVH project site today along with the hospital building and parking. This is referred to as Phase I of the TVH Development Plan. Proposed Development Plan The proposed TVH Development Plan contains three (3) phases. The specifics of each phase are as follows: • Phase I (currently constructed and operational since October 14, 2013): 0 206,341 square foot hospital facility that contains a single tower with 140 beds o Helipad 0 5,180 square foot storage building o Surface parking (489 parking spaces) • Phase II: 0 20,000 square foot emergency department expansion including expanding the number of emergency bays from 21 to 30 0 125,000 square foot, five story, 75'-0" high, second hospital tower with 140 beds 0 80,000 square foot, four story, 73'-0" high, medical office building 0 12,600 square foot central utility plant that serves the energy needs of the hospital o Surface parking (427 parking spaces) • Phase III: 0 125,000 square foot, five story, 75'-0" high, third hospital tower with 140 beds 0 80,000 square foot, four story, 73'-0" high, medical office building o Four story, 55'-0", parking structure o Relocation of the helipad to the southwest corner of the parking structure 0 987 or 935 parking spaces depending on final location of the Phase III medical office building. Helipad Relocation & Flight Path In 2016 the City Council approved the current location of the helipad. This location was an interim location with the final location proposed on the roof of the second hospital tower. The new proposed location is on the southwest corner of the proposed parking structure. The new location would utilize a new more east -west arrival/departure path as compared to the existing northeast - southwest flight path shown below in blue. The new flight path would minimize noise impacts to surrounding residential land uses or developments. The Project would not change the existing average number of helicopter trips per month (approximately six (6) trips). Prior to the future approval of the Development Plan for the parking structure and relocation of the helipad to the roof of the parking structure the project will be required to receive approval from the Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the new location of the helipad. EXISTING FLIGHT PATH 61 41 Planned Development Overlay Amendment PROPOSED FLIGHT PATH The Project is proposing an amendment to the existing Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay. The proposed amendment includes establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO. The amendment includes: • Adding Design Guidelines which include the overall aesthetics of future buildings, exterior finishes, colors, and materials, mechanical equipment screening, additional design elements, and requiring the future parking structure to adhere to the city design and development standards for parking garages. • Adding an allowance for future buildings and structures that are in conformance with the architectural design guidelines outlined in the Planned Development Overlay they can be approved administratively. • Adding a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum percentage of lot coverage. Currently the City of Temecula Development Code allows for a FAR of 0.30 and lot coverage of 50%. A FAR of 0.30 would not allow TVH to achieve their current needs and future goals given the scope of the proposed Development Plan. An increase of the FAR to 0.55 provides for the proposed Development Plan buildings and structures and an increase in the lot coverage to 55% will allow for the FAR and lot coverage to align. 9 • Adding minimum parking requirements that adhere to the City of Temecula Municipal Code parking space requirements for hospitals and medical offices as well as the number of parking spaces associated with the phases of the Development Plan. • Providing anticipated traffic patterns for service, staff, emergency, and public vehicles in the form of two graphics. At the applicant's request, behavioral health is not a component of the Project. Should the applicant wish to add behavioral health, or any other use/structure to the Project, this will require further environmental review, entitlements, and approvals by the City Council. Modification to PA18-1258 On February 8, 2011 a Modification Application (PA 10-0194) was considered and approved by the City Council to change the phasing of the TVH Development Plan by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. During this hearing the City Council added a Condition of Approval (COA #27) that provided a deadline for commencement of construction of the foundation of hospital bed tower 2 within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1), or no later than February 8, 2019. On November 27, 2018, a Modification Application (PA18-1258) was considered and approved by the City Council for a Modification to revise Development Plan (PA10-0194) Condition of Approval No. 27 to require the commencement of construction of the foundation of hospital bed hospital bed tower 2 from within 5 years to within 15 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1), or no later than February 8, 2029 rather than February 8, 2019 which was a 10 year extension. The request was made by TVH as at the time the second bed tower was not feasible due to market conditions and the extension of the construction start date would allow TVH the flexibility to add new beds at an appropriate time when they were needed in the community. TVH has requested for the removal of COA #27 from PA18-1258 as the timeframe is not realistic and it will allow TVH to add hospital bed tower 2 and the additional beds at the time when it's appropriate for not only TVH but the City of Temecula and the surrounding area. Subcommittee Meetings On November 2, 2021 staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Councilmember Matt Rahn and former Council Member Maryann Edwards. The applicant gave a presentation and there was a discussion on the proposed services of the Project. On April 19, 2023 staff presented the Project to the Planning Commission Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Chairperson Lenae Turley-Trejo and former Planning Commissioner Adam Ruiz. The applicant presented the Project including the proposed operations of each building and phase, discussed previous meeting with surrounding neighbors and adjacent HOA and answered 10 questions of the subcommittee. The majority of the discussion and questions from the subcommittee focused on the behavioral health hospital which has since been removed from the Project by the applicant. On April 25, 2023 staff presented the project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Zak Schwank and former Council Member Curtis Brown. The applicant gave a thorough presentation regarding the Development Plan Update, operations of each of the buildings and phases, as well as answered questions of the Subcommittee. There was a conversation that focused on the previously proposed behavioral health hospital that has been removed from the Project by the applicant. On August 23, 2023 staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Zak Schwank. The applicant provided an update on the Project and other projects in the region. There was also a discussion on the need for a community meeting to present the Project to the public and get feedback. On February 14, 2024 staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Council Member Brenden Kalfus and Council Member Zak Schwank. The applicant provided a further update on the Project and there was a discussion over discharge procedures and the future specialties of the hospital. On May 6, 2025 staff presented the Project to the City Council Ad Hoc Hospital Subcommittee which consisted of Mayor Brenden Kalfus and Council Member Jessica Alexander. Staff provided an update to the proposed TVH Development Plan Update which includes the removal of the behavioral health hospital. The applicant provided information on future parking demands and plans to meet those demands. There was also a discussion on the removal of a previous condition of approval related to the timing of construction of bed tower 2 as well as the timing of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Community Meetings On November 9, 2021 a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the Ronald H. Roberts Library. A presentation was given by the applicant and their development team that showed the proposed phasing, explained why the expansion was needed, detailed the future plans of the hospital and introduced the behavioral health hospital which has since been removed from the Project by the applicant. There were eight (8) members from the public in attendance at the meeting. On March 23, 2022 a publicly noticed scoping meeting was held at the Ronald H. Roberts Library. A presentation was given by the selected environmental consultant, Ascent Environmental, that introduced the Project, provided a history of the hospital including previous environmental studies, showed the proposed phasing and changes from the previously approved Development Plan and detailed the CEQA process. Following the presentation there was a question and answer session. There were three (3) members from the public in attendance at the meeting. 11 On November 13, 2023 a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall. There were a total of approximately 130 people in attendance for this meeting where the applicant presented the Project and answered questions from those in attendance. Staff was not in attendance at this meeting. The meeting was filmed and posted on the City of Temecula YouTube channel as well as on the city's CEQA page for this Project. On March 26, 2025 a community meeting was organized by the applicant and held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall. There were a total of eight (8) people in attendance for this meeting where the applicant provided an update of the Project. Staff was not in attendance for this meeting. The meeting was filmed and posted on the City of Temecula YouTube channel as well as on the city's CEQA page for this project. Digital Mailing List A digital mailing list was set up by staff where community members could sign up to be notified in order to stay up to date with the project. A quick response (QR) code was provided at the scoping meeting that provides a direct link to the City of Temecula CEQA page where the digital mailing list sign up could be accessed. To date, 22 people have taken advantage of this digital mailing list. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS The notice of the public hearing was published in the Press Enterprise on May 23, 2025, and mailed to the property owners within 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan was approved by the City Council on January 22, 2008 by the approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08-10, certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2005031017) for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-11 approving the Zone Change (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution No. 08-12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution 08-13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-0200), and adopted Resolution 08-14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-0201). Staff has reviewed the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) and has determined Phe project could have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared for the Project. On March 11, 2022, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2005031017). The NOP was circulated from March 11, 2022 through April 11, 2022 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR. 12 On March 23, 2022, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. The Draft SEIR was prepared under staff s direction by Ascent Environmental. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between November 3, 2022 through December 19, 2022. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in the Press -Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. A Notice of Availability was also posted on the Project site. Copies of the documents were available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Community Development Department, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center Drive; the Temecula Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A; and the City of Temecula website, where the documents were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The City of Temecula received five (5) written comments and responded to each comment in the Final SEIR, which includes all timely received written comments and responses thereto. Comments were provided by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside Transit Authority, Southern California Gas Company, and Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters. The Final SEIR was provided to commenting agencies in compliance with State law. A copy of the Final SEIR, which includes the Draft SEIR, written comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the text of the Draft SEIR, has been provided to the Planning Commission. The environmental analysis identified four (4) areas; Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation as creating significant and unavoidable impacts. In the event the Council decides to certify the Final SEIR and approve the project, and in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted prior to approval of the project because of this significant and unavoidable impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. In addition, if the Council decides to approve the project, it will be required to adopt Findings and Facts in Support of Findings in connection with the Final SEIR and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. FINDINGS Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Furthermore, the proposed Zone Change/Planned Development Overlay Amendment Ordinance directly responds to Goal I Policy LU-1.8 of the General Plan Land Use Element which encourages future development of a community hospital and related services. 13 The proposed project is consistent with the above General Plan Land Use Element goal and policy in that it is contributing to the development of a community hospital and has been designed to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure through required and proposed design guidelines and development standards, building orientation and location, circulation and access, and other features and requirements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay Amendment. Modification (Section 17.05.030.E) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State Law and other Ordinances of the City. Hospitals area conditionally permitted use that was previously approved on this Project site. The modifications to the previously approved development plan and conditions of approval do not change the use on the Project site and therefore is in conformance with the General Plan land use of Professional Office. The site is properly planned and zoned and, as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of hospital development proposed. The Project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the hospital, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The Project has been reviewed for and, as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards, and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Nothing proposed in the Modification is anticipated to have an adverse impact to the public health, safety and general welfare. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. PC Resolution — Subsequent EIR 3. Exhibit A — Draft City Council Resolution 4. Exhibit B — CEQA Findings and SOC 5. Exhibit C — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6. PC Resolution — Planned Development Overlay Amendment 7. Exhibit A — Draft City Council Ordinance 8. Exhibit B — Planned Development Overlay Amendment 9. PC Resolution — Modification 10. Exhibit A — Draft City Council Resolution 11. Exhibit B - Draft Conditions of Approval (Development Plan Modification) 12. Exhibit C — Plan Reductions (Development Plan Modification) 13. Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval (COA Modification) 14 14. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) with Appendices which can be downloaded at: https://temeculaca.gov/362/Enviromnental-Review-CEQA 15. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) which can be downloaded at: https://temeculaca.gov/362/Environmental- Review-CEQA 16. Notice of Public Hearing 15 a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment State Clearinghouse No. 2005031017 Prepared for: C Zl�"fz (e"M -ti Environmental Review Document City of Temecula Available Online: City of Temecula Website www.TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA November 3, 2022 a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Update and Planned Development Overlay Amendment State Clearinghouse No. 2005031017 Prepared for: -ti City of Temecula Environmental Review Document Available Online: City of Temecula Website www.TemeculaCA.gov/CEQA May2025 Ir s CO� WF_ a o2 c Z- x 0c =? U) W z Z C J _F �� W N W W cD Q a a Z 2 0 In I- W W D 3 :V A Q = 2 z a A J J Hospital Table 17.24.040 1/3 BEDS MOB Table 17.24.040 1/200 SF OTHER Table 17.24.040 1/1000 SF EXISTING PHASE 2 PHASE 2 BUILDING � ARE:A BEDS PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AREA SF HOSPITAL STORAGE TOWER 2 E13 EXPANSION 206,341 140 47 5 _ 206,341 5,180 5,180 125,000 140 47 __ 125,000 20,000 _ 20,000 MOB 1 80,000 400 80,000 CIUP 12,600 14 12,600 TOWER 3 MOB 2 125,000 140 47 125,000 80,000 400 80,000 SIJB-TOTALS 654,121 420 141 19 211,521 237,600 205,000 PROJECT DATA GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY, TEMECULA CA 92592 APN - PARCEL NO.: 959-080-026 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS 1, 2, & 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13043 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 23 PACES 25 AND 26 OF PARCEL MAPS AND PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13734 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 137 PAGES 4 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAPS, ALL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ZONING CURRENT: TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HOSPITAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED: N/A BUILDING: PHASE: SQUARE FT: EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING 206,341 /� � =J ASpH \ , �'° I _ _ _� - - - - -- - ,a3/ / �f� / I /i .� �„ STORAGE EXISTING 5,180 °° -_ ' �'� _ _-y����r�177 '-"s'�_�����_ * :':i .' * + �t+t+" +% + + a':�.~. +` 1t;?' I C11_+i� .:�: -:.:i' " _ \ r,_ ++++ :: I I N.T.S. ED EXPANSION PHASE 2 20,000 is''r s- �. +~:~ '..,'.-'... ~ ' ~ `+'++ '+'+~ ~+*+~ TOWER 2 PHASE 2 125,000 roll '':� _o_- I +� . ... +��.�+� .+. :+ .+. ♦ .'~•'• ` I - >>�'- I / MOB1 PHASE 2 80,000 PN. �>.��'------- .�+ ' + - +:+ : +•+•+• + + + + + ,3+_ #-._+ + + + +++ + + + - - + +'+•+ +"+' + _� CUP PHASE 2 12,600 r_ '-�16s - _+<% +� +? ++ + +«'-+ +_*_ .Z, ... +-; ...... '-:. ++% s - ; +'� + ~♦ +�. TOWER 3 PHASE 3A/B 125 000 -- ��� +4�+ + •+ +' / M B 2 PHA E B 1 .r �+ + +t: +-: + O S 3A/ 80 000 ///fr r�' •..,+++.+.';+ . + +�-+•'+•+•+•+•'• ' :: +•+•+•+ +•+•+•+ +•+•+•+ +•+•+•+ :•:�,:+ +;:•: :•:~: :•:~:•: :••::::: r* T TAL B ILDIN AREA: 4 121 -- J :�: , I I I ~+ + ' SQUARE FT ACRES '++•+ •+�+++•+•'`�' 4+•+•'++•+•. .•.'' I I +++++++ +..+++++ ++..[++'~, I TOTAL GROSS AREA: 1,475,514 33.9 +++++++++* / +1+ � I I I I I ++++ +++++ .. ~+t'~'+ NETAREA: 1,473,945 29.7 '+•+•,. +~+~+++ + 1.~+~ +•, \ \ I + +~+•+~+*+*+ +~+•+ +~+•+ ALL WED B ILDIN AREA: 1 7 - +++++'' +++ + + + ' 18 + + + MTR O U G 8 0,6 0 ++�+ +,+ +'+ +•+++ + + + ++++ ''.•+ + +'+•+ +•+'p FAR ALLOWED = 0.55 PROPOSED = 0.44 * * \` �• * * *' LOT COVERAGE: SQUARE FT PERCENTAGE + •1~ * + ++++++ BUILDING AREA: 227,300 15% +'''+ +'' ~ +'''+ I +'~'+ +'~'''+ +'~ PARKING AREA: 695,900 47% \ « * ,++'+++A+� + + + •'+~+ +!! c / 1 1 r r r r r r 1 +~+•+ LANDSCAPE AREA: 445,900 30% \'~'+ ' \ + 24 � 24 24 24 30 24 = + +++++++ I HARDSCAPE: 106,400 7% \ + + r I- - + + + + . \ '+ ++++''' ,c�� FINAL AREA 654,121 SF '«+'+ ++ \++-� �+ «+'+ I LOT F 0 '«+~+•+ +•+ + + tiJ FINAL PARKING REQUIRED 960 CARS \ '''+'' + +'+*+* ' + ~1 �, ' ' + _ - - - - - +'+ - - - ' ' + + + +++ +. ♦+ ~+•+*,+ ++ + + + R G: r---------- + +~+~+ +~. FINAL PARKING PROVIDED 1,934 CARS + ;+ ++\++\~~++++'+'+'+'+++~+'+•+~+~+~+~+'+•+~+~++ I _ 273 SPA ES 0 +*�+++++ I 4 \ *11+++ ++ ++ V I + SURPLUS PARKING 974 CARS � \ \ + +'+' ' *' �`�, + * +'+ + +'+'+'* + +'+'*'+ II// + + + *'* + +•+ ++ -- '• ++.++++++ +*+++ ++ +++,+ \ +++++++ *++++ +~*~+++ +++++ +++~+ + + + + + •,+ ~+•« I + ++++' +..+ PIREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AREA 571,340 SF �p �� I I + ++ +++++ ®M PIREVI I LY ENTITLED PARKIIN 1 4 AR \ .P ' +''++'+*+•+•+++++++++•+++++++++++•++++++++ I I O US G ,35 C S ; +,•+'++'`'+•,•,•+•,'+''++•+•+•,'+''++•+•+•, / I '+•, ,*,+ + + + ' ' i " - DELTA ENTITLED AREA 82,,781 SF INCREASED \ +++%a . ++ +*� + ,++ +++'+ +++'+ I i ,U, i + +++++ ++~I++++++ n J ti +~+•+ +~+ ~+•+ +~+~+•+ +~+~+~+ s ~+•+ +++ / DELTA ENTITLED PARKING 580 CARS INCREASED 10 ~'� . +'+~++d ` O CUPANCY I + ,'�,~'~' 1 3 I+ ♦ I '\+'+'+ ~ ,;+++ ,++++ + + �+ ++ +mi�.11 I o `CUP I * ,+++, '+I+' ,++ - L ., - -- '+\+•+ + / + + + + i 1 �' 1 STORY I + ^ `� \ + + ♦~1+*>+ '+ ''+~+~+ +++~+~+ `t�� I ` 5, HEIG T 43FT I ,+•+ + + + + - ;` 1 1 _ jJ� EXISTING PHASE 2 PHASE 3 oPra PHASE 3 oPTs + ++',+ ++++'+'+++++'+' I ' i + ....... ,;3 L s {L 1 LOTA 169 169 50 50 ~'+'«'-,+, .+ +. + +~+~+•, +~+~ / +~+~++ I +~+~+•+ 1S ~+•+ +~+~+• I oiRr `. ti LOT B 274 251 251 125 \ ~ '' + + ,++'++ ~+ + + + . •- " - -�, LOT C - - 292 292 \ *1� - - - - - - - ++ +' I _� _ LOT D - - 93 87 �"I "1 \ IW / \ ,~+•, + ++ + + '~+•, I I I o ++•+ +~, +•� -y _ l + + + + ♦--------- �l . i LOT E - 295 295 295 \\ \\ GLOW \ ', ~+ ~+ �'+~+~+«' L - - - - J I +vet'!++, _ = H LOT F 46 273 273 273 / \ � \ +++ �,... j _ `� ` ' / \ \L / \ �,. ++ + +++~+•, +~,: -+~+.+ ~+.+•= ~+++~+ +4++'~+~,~+•+~+.+ � P +++++++++ F 1+.+.•. APN. 959-080-0061 L1= ""' 1 I 7 LOT G - - - - i \ + * ' ZONING - VERY L `� - NSITY REJIVENTi'A� y �•� - _ \ \ - - - ♦~+~+~+~+~+ +;;�%'+++++++++++•+•+•+•+•+•+•+•+•+•+++♦;♦++ 7 UE - - = a L PS H - - 680 680 \ - - 1 _ �._■ .. 1 �.. \ \ +i • >-+ #+T T++# #~T off+ F>+T+Tj+++++++++++++++++++++++++ +~~+•'~'~'~'~' - _ _-+: / \ +~ + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + , \ +~I ~+~+ ,~+• ~++,~+ LAND USE VERY LO c -=B ' _ _ :( : r DIRT \ ''' #+:'+++ PAN �� _� -z _ = TOTAL 489 988 1934 1802 ++►+ + CCU C1S' - _ _ - _ - �.�" \ \ __ __ __ __ __ +~ DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL fi . \ -- 1 - - ~4~+ + L ; -- -- - 1 t ' llllllllllllllllll'�llltllilitll,itll'1»liltlli 11,llllll,lllllll1111111111111ll1 �"'- \ _ _ --- ��- �= \ \ ++:s' * - ~'~'++ % ----- - '+'+''' STORAGE i +''' + +•+ ' \\ ` _ ��+, + � I �'_' - _ " 1 STOF�Y + I + +,I+ � I \1 t++++++++++ ' y +�+++++~ EIGHT 22 T/ +~' ~+' *,'4+ '+' I ` I �- I V � WOOD / _.+ + t + + �// + +++ +L++ +♦ / +++,~ ,+,+ +.'°Id~ +++ \ / �. ++ ' I - I .• .+,+.++* ' , «, # - DIRT + / + 1+++++* I ITj + + # 1 `1 \ / " ' *�++ +� i I - - -� - ` _ - - _1 - -� - - = - / - -� - - - +++';' +�+ +♦++ I ATE zo"� I' I I�+�~+�. ~++++'+'S +S�BP- \ "*' \ '++++ .. ..~+ ....; .... + = f � s�E ye �+ + a R - 27.16' I --� Ir / + % !P' + + + +_ + \ \ + + I + + I , - •+ =b. \ I u t r_t+ + + +r_T+ + + + ' + +- + +'+++'+'~' ++ - - - ++++ ♦++ +++ ® I.+ FH • / / i « / + \ \ \ ® - - - + + + + ++++++++++++.+.+++++++++.+.++++++++ *+ + I + - .. + '+ + + +•+ S��Q ~,.+~ *+r+' r+~+~+ + - _~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~#~+~+~+~+ + + ~ I * I I �i //F #+++«~+~«~ '+ + / ® I I +•+ '++++'+ \ ]'�/'�� �p� /� �jQ � +++++#~++++++++++#~++++++#++++~ +~+ *~+ �ffS _ �/ fj. -/ + + 7 ® I I I l.iCU.r }'17QC 1 III + ##+•#~+•+•+•##+•#~+•+•+• +•#• ++�r '+�1� + + + + + .+ i+++*+++ ♦###.♦♦###.♦ #+# 1 ��� _-- /-r �♦+, + ' - - +r'-','-� - ~+ + - - FNOS•PITAL OCCUPANCY '+ •+•+•#~#•+•+•+•+•#~#•+•+•+•+ + ,++•, ,++•, + Erg + + +•+ ,+,+++, ,+,+++, +++++~+ +++++~. - / ' I I :+�++++++#++~ �'-� � \ B ILDIN * I \ 6 �':'« « •~�~� + ® I +% + + - U G OUTPATIENT +.. +.+.+.+.+.++ . + + + + + + + i I 5 STORIES +•#*#•#'+•+•+•#*#•# + + +•#• ##+ \ I BUILDING + I ® _ « + ,+,'+�=+'»�,'+•, ,•,'+•, +•+'+ ,•,'+ ,•,'+ ,•,'+ ,•,'+ '•,'+ +•+:I'��.•+ HEIGHT 75F � eFT'+•,'' +++ •,++++'+•+'+''+ \ 1 STORY ♦ \ ,y'�� + ,~+•, ,~+•, +~.~+ + +~,~+~+ +~,~+~+ +~,~+~+ +~+~+ +~,~ +.!'.. + + +~.~.~. ® + r� I ss ~ HEIGHTI FT ~++'•~~ '• {Ly+y+++ + + ++ ,,/'�, I 60 201 124 ++w, . 0 ++; I I ~+r+ # 7•: . ~+~+ .•, ,~+~+•, ,~+~+•, ,~+~+•, ,~+~+•, ,~+~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+ . + + .•. 'I I +~I. +,++'+'++'+,•+•+++'++'+ ++ _++ +++++++•+•+•:•+•+• • ,+ +++ �� ♦w+~+++++ + f +~+ ® I ' I 1 ♦cv + / I I� I I I I + + 8 ,•+ +~+~+ + . + + ~# # . +~+~++.~+++~+~++ ,~+•, +~+•. '~+•, i .\## Q Q H. ° \ ® I ~:+�,~' doss + y I +++•+•+~+~+•+• •+ ~+~+•+• +•+~+~ +•�•+•+•+•+•+~+•+ I I ASP •+%+#F+ +•++#~+ '~+++++ +. K+#+# . N ® ++V+++++++++++++ I I XPANSION I ++~+ +++*++# ♦++++~+~+ ++~ +++++ +++++ +++++++ ,+,+++, ,++~ # ~++.•.~+•# # ~+•#•#++++++++ ,+++++, 2 T RIE S O S ~.+~'++ 5 HEI HT 4 F ..•.•.•.•.'.'+•# •#~+'+'+•# •#• G 5 I *+•++•+ e I ++w++•+•+•+•+~+•+ ++++++++++++++++ ~++++++++++ ~++ + +«,«,.+ ~w . I ~+r+~,~+•,~+~+~+ N. J59 0130 01 1 ,� +~~+ , ~+:�++~+~'+'++~+•++'+'+'++~+•++'+'+'++~+•++'+'+'++~+•++'+'+ '~+~+ +•+•+•+•+•#•#• +•+ •#•#•+•+•+• ARCEL 3 F .N . B J 1-2 ++�+�+++++++++♦ a� 1060 OIJING F LPN =VE 0 MENT FH I I +' ;+~+ l I ,�! •+�+•+~:•+•' LAND JS ) E PMENT ~."�. O F.F. EL 1057. \ +•.•fit+•+•,+«+,•+•+ + 1 STEP I I '� I +'+'+'+•+•#•#'+'+'+•+ # # + + +'+ + ++1.~.~+•, ~+•, ,+,~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, +~+ .. + .~.•.~.*.* . +~+" ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, '','++,++',,,,,+,,+++'+♦ +� I �',~+ I + �: ,*+�+ �^ • , / I �r M I 11 I I I� \ I .�. +, ++ +, ,~+~, ,~+~, ~'~ + +~+•, .~.~ ++ + .. .. ..+ ..+ .+ +•, ~'~ + ,~+ +~ + .. +~ .~. +, ~+ '~+ ,~,~+~ + +~+~+ ,~+ ~+ ,~,~+•, ,~,~+ +~ . .+ .. ..+ ..+ + ,~,~+• , ..+ ,~,.~+ ..++ +~ + +~+ .+ +~+ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ + #.++ % /I I � � �} {��} / , I # + ♦ ice. ♦ +~II~+~+ # ~+~.+ I ,may \ + I i I I @� I I + ♦ ♦ +` I r 1 V �/ C � - - - - - I' • I I _ �/ L_ _ 1 +~I«~+ I PAN Y d OCCU C I I� I ca 'h'*'*'*'*« I I ++r+. HOSPIT I f I S ,h I n/ ♦ +y R +•�•+ 11 +••+ I I C I E #1 ► I •+I +• I I II ~+r ~ I +++•+ +~+•+•+ +~+•+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ +•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ ~4 +~+•+ +~+•+ +~+•+ + ♦~ +~~+ \~++ ~+I~+ I ~. + + I +•b• ;. I .. +~.'.t I + +++ - - - - - +~+~+ +~+~+•+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - +' ay I + +++++ I I' +.♦+.++.♦♦.+ --J I - I W +,++,+++,+,+++,+,+++,:,:+:,:,:+:,:,:+:,:,:,:,:,:++'''''+'+'''''''''+'+'''''''''+'+''''''':,.........+.+... •+•+•+++.++,++'+' I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ASP +.•. ~+~+ ~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~+~+ + +~+~+~+ ,~,~ - - N I I \\ N + N 080-019 //F//j+/ \ I I I .'+ '�'*++} S MEDIC P Z c +•�++•+•+•+•+•+++•+•+•+'+•+++•+•+•+'+•+++'+ + I MT R �J� �, I ++ + +' © �3 I a b 1 ~+\~+ I rn Z I �;: -1 +++++ +++++++ +++ + + +++++ +++++ +++++ .~.•+ +++++ +++ I + +i` + +++•+•+++ /� I ``!M � / I I +++ I 1 0� 8 ~+•, ~+•, ~+•, ,~, + + + + + + ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, ,~,~+•, + + ....: + I 1 I I LOT B I I 1 1 I - PARKING: +> o S*\* H I ~+•, ~+•, ~+*+ +++++*+ +++~+*+ + + + + +~+~+~+ + + + , ,~,~+•, ,~,~+~+ 251 SPACE 1 I 1 ++~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~,•+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~,� - - - a ,,++ 38--36- -24- -� �4 --36 I a II ,~+•, ,~+•, +~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +~,~+~+ +~+~+ +++~+ � I +~+~X+ III*++ +~+++ +++'T ++':'- +~++ +++ ++':'- +~.. ++ ++ 1 1 B OCCUPANCY MOB #1 / 4 STORIES HEIGHT 7 T - 1 _- ++ ++ +++ +++ I �+ \ t 5 'I' / a I T� '+ I + •:i:+ qq I ' 1' I ~+1+++'++ I I 1, ,•+•+ \ I I I I+ .♦1♦+♦ + I �_ 1~ \\ I 6 •� I♦ ++++ +++ ++ +++++ ++++ :0 I +♦« ++++. + +•' Q Q r+ r +++++ '~+~+ +++ + / 1* +~'+ + I 1+ / I I+ LOT E �. I P N� 1 I♦ ~,~�~,~ ~++ I ,•,•+ / ` PARKIN + + + , +~ / F 59 0-019 1♦ © ` © I I 1 ' ' 295 SPACES ++�;+' ' / E 1 M.B 99 / 15-16 I 1~ i I 1 1+ / / / / / / / / ,•,\•+ +� ~ I I / IN - �s,l HWAY TOURIST 24 18 1+ 18 24 36 24 24 36 24 36 \\24 36 2 18 / / / l+ ' « ' M RC - - I +Ti~_ - - • I 1+ +++++ + + - - - - - - -� - - - �._. •.�'~~ T llEIST CO �r '�� -I- L FRONT - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ + / . + + + SETBACK - 1 SN + + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ � I +' 1, T a +++++ +++++ +~+~+ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++++ +++++~' +++++++ +++++++ + + _ + + N I N I F 1 '++++ 4- \ '+++'+' I' / / , +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++ + + + +++++++++++++++ C++•+•+++++++++•+•+++++++++~+~+++++++++~+~+++++++~+~+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~+~+ +~+~ +~, / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~+i1�F'+++'++ \\ ++� . L 44 28 ' - - - - II +~+~+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1* *13++ \\ ++ s� ~+~+ ~+~+ ~+•+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +++~+~+ +~+~+•+ +~+~' .~.~+•+ '~+~+•+ + + + + -� +•+•+ + + + + + + + + + + + . + + + + + + + + + + + + +~+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + r + + + + +~+~+•+ + + + + + + + + + + +++ �+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +~+ +~+~ +~ ~+ +'+•+•+•+++•+ u sE.... + *'rid'•�*'*'*'*'*'*'+'+'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'+'*'*'*'+'+'+'*'*'*'+'+'*'*'*' - +���+ 'j� /,'+ . . / ++ r r i. / t -�- � "� ,.,. IF J ` 1506.11' _/ \ " / / \ Y / y' _z_ ' rT 01 6�� i LUG �I \, '_---------- /�,• �.�-------- >� - \ --------------------------------------------- _ -__------------------------ --fir, 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- - - ----------------------------------------------------_ ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- i \ - - H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -------- ------------ ---- -----------------------------------------------j--------=------------------------------------------------- 0 - � �' � - KEYNOTE: O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1966 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86340 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR WATER LINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 127414 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O AN EASEMENT FOR EQUESTRIAN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF KAISER AETNA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 29, 1976 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 40949 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 79 HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED PER PMB 137/4-5. O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 7 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 128566 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE Q UITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 339051 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE, SLOPE, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112863 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112864 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN OFFER OF AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55, ABANDONED HEREON. 10 AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55; A PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT ABANDONED HEREON. 11 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF JURUPA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 211284 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 12 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, IN THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 173234, 173235 AND 173236, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 13 (E) MONUMENT SIGN. 16 (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE. 14 (E) PVC HORSE TRAIL FENCES. 17 N/A 15 (E) UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK 1s N/A HOSPITAL: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; DIVISION 1.1 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE I; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.0.B.1: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.0.B.2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24• CH. 3' SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CUP: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP U CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3' SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 1 STORIES, 43'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE PARKING STRUCTURE: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP S-2 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 311.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE 1 B' 2 HOUR CBC TITLE 24• CH. 6' SEC 602• TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 55'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24• CH. 3• SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB• FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 3: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP 1• MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3' SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6' SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE ED EXPANSION : OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP 1- MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES, 45'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CLIENT: Universal Health Services, Inc. 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 T 610 768 3300 HMC Architects 1359037-000 3546 CONCOURS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764 909 989 9979 / www.hmcarchitects.com A DESCRIPTION DATE L E G E N D � - - � PROPERTY LINE - - - - - ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL •FH FIRE HYDRANT •FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION •PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE TRANSFORMER, PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FIRE LANE PROPOSED BUILDING LANDSCAPE AREAS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL, WHEEL ® STOP, SIGNAGE AND LOADING ZONE FIRE LANE /TRASH TRUCK TURNING RADIUS hT , INSIDE DIAMETER: 37'-O" h OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 56'-0" ." WHEEL CUTS: 50'-O" KEY PLAN: AGENCY APPROVAL: The t e of a roval to be issued b Yp pp Y The Agency Having Jurisdiction for this project is: FACILITY: UHS TEMECULA 31700 Temecula Pkwy Temecula, CA 92592 PROJECT: MASTER PLAN UPDATE SHEET NAME: SITE PLAN PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT FAC NO.: - BLDG NO.: SITE DATE: 03/12/2025 CLIENT PROJ NO: - SHEET: SITE PLAN 1 1" = 601-01, PLEASE RECYCLE g� A1.20 to .n _ WQi mZ; <o; Z J fix: 0C): xZc w� wZc O W J l ~<<i x w 3 T f' u u < 3 0 2 < u C c c C E < C c E < C e e. C 2 u `u P F 2 u C 2 < 2 < 0 a u < < `u I- C C C r r C "u 3 C u r C 0 < I- 2 C IT Iv `o C, u V C 0 r c 11 1 ■ VICINITY MAP I 2 �i.;.S. BUILDINGAREA BED _� S Hospital MOB OTHER Table 17.24.040 Table 17.24.040 Table 17.24.040 1/3 BEDS 1/200 SF 1/1000 SF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Q EXISTING PHASE 2 PHASE 2 AREA SF HOSPITAL 206,341 140 140 47 47 5 206,341 STORAGE 5,180 5,180 TOWER 2 125,000 125,000 ED EXPANSION 20,000 20,000 MOB 1 80,000 400 80,000 CUP 12,600 1 140 14 12,600 TOWER 3 125,000 47 125,000 MOB 2 80,000 400 80,000 SUB -TOTALS 654,121 420 141 19 211,521 237,600 205,000 FINAL AREA FINAL PARKING REQUIRED FINAL PARKING PROVIDED SURPLUS PARKING 654,121 SF 960 CARS 1,934 CARS 974 CARS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AREA 571,340 SF PIREVIOIUSLY ENTITLED PARKING 1,354 CARS DELTA ENTITLED AREA DELTA ENTITLED PARKING -. _� \ � 8- / I � 1 \(3 S , \� / __ -4�- I',- 0 0 / - / � ~\_ \ '` 01 I) / ­1\y2 \_ --_- �` Pft \ - - `- / -/ ` -- i,,,__ 7 \ -' , '°4- \ \ i � fir,' - J / I / . ` 1� " I", / , / /, /� /// // I ll 1 / / / / s/ /// / \ \ / / / / I/ / /./ /// / I \ ASPy / / / - / I1 // /I ////^ / 1 . / \\ �_ � ^ I S L J �)11 / IIII/�/ I /- � I I/ / //� / O/ / ❑° /� ` \ l 11 ��.7. /�� P,r8, 1 . ( ,�, --'Y ] S i - - - -- ,� . - `��%jai""�i�/�//iiii/ ,.�..�..�-,!cam.;,�.�a. ._ E_r��wo �� I� i�i/J1���111ft/i -� }} + +* +#+ }} #+#} ♦ ♦ ++ •Y# -4• 4}i�rt +i+++ 4*+ *• 4 i ' *• 4 4 •* '4-++ + 4 4 '♦ + *+*+ +' +' + + + + # + ' ' + }�+ + + +#+#+++++++•+•+•++++ + + + + + + ft +'+'+'+*+*+*+'+'+' + + +'+'+'+*+ + +' .... +*#* ' } + #*# `}`}`# # + .'} } # # '+++ ++*: } `.*.*.*.*.*}`}`} # ..*.*.*.*# } . + + +*�^+*+* +� r `+* + +*+`+`+`+*+*+* `+*+* +'+ + *` *++`+`+++*++*+-NTR*.*.*.*.' #*....'. # * + + +'+'+*#*+*+'+'+'+*#*+*+ +'+! +*+*+'+'+'+*+ + '+'.'.*..*.'+. ++ +* *+*+*+ + ,. . + +*+*+*+#. + +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ +'+* *+*+*+*+ .t '. . + ' � ' + ' + + ' + ' + - + + + + G�D - + +�+.++.+.++ +.+. + . + :+:++ . .+++t :+++-'V++++.+-++.-- . . . + + +. . . + � . . . . . . . . . I *+*+* �+ - +*+ *+ +:++ :*+ . + .. , , , , , ++ + +*+'+*+ +*+*+*+'+ ++++ +*+*+ '*'** *+ ;+«.* 24 24 24 24 30 3 24 0 '+*.*+ +`+`+'+*. +*+ AI *+*+ '+'+*+ . + «« +*+ •+.+•� .♦ ++.+. ++++++.+• .++. *}*+` .*.*+*} + . + ...* `+`.*. KING: t�- - - - - - - - - - - *.*+ +*+*+*+' +++' * %% + + + } + + +♦+ + *+'+ + + .. + + + + .. +' '+'+ *+*+ +'+'+'+*. +*+' II .++*+*+*+'+C,,\'+' + t++' **it•':*'**+*::'r'.':**'*'**'* 273 SPA ES I 0 «+++ *.+. +++++++++ .+♦+ «`:`: ' +..+:' # } +*t *« + + +++••+*+*+*«*«*:*«*«*«*+*+*#*' I + .`.`#.# 0 *«*'* I «*« «*«*«*«*::*« --04i - .++++ +}*}*+ # + } }\ . + } .*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*+*+*}*+*+*. + + } + . + + + + } + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 + '+`.+ + *}* I +*+ +*+*+*+*+ +*+ + ++++++ *+++++ + * + * ++.+.«+«.«.;.++++++++++++ + + I I :+: «+«+«+«+' ;+ +« T +*+*+ ' '*+*+* +*'*+*' *+ #*.*.*.*.*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*++�+ 111 .+..*}*+*++' +* ++ N fS *+ +*+*+ ,+ + + ............ .* *+'+'+'+* + '+ OCCUPANCY + `+`+* + +. '+*+*+*+'+'+'+*+*+*+'+ + + - * I :* +.++++*:* / __ +*:�: \ } '*:*:*' + } } + + # + } + + + #t I CUP ...... + . . \ . +*+*} *. +*+ } *+•+`+'+*.*+*+•}`+'+*.*l*+/ r+--+-+l � + 1 TORY I *' *+'+'+'+*+;+ *«*:* '*«*« '}«* }'* «*«*.::+«.*+«+«+ + + N 1 HEIG T 43FT 1 ::*«*«*«*: '*'«*' 1 I ... I + + : I + , + . + : . . . . I I J+ . \` '_111_ _- `- LOT A 169 169 50 50 i_977- +x+x+:+�)1J \ o/ .I1 '_ A -A _� \ �� 'I` ti . LOT B 274 251 251 125V-\/ *+*+*+ ' «*+*+*'* '.I++*+ + +*#*+*}*}*+*+*: + } ' # + } } + + } } +*+*+*+*}*}•.+♦ . • ••.•.*.*.*+*.•.•. • .*+*+ ' ' *' t 7 - 4 LOT C - - 292 292 \ AP 959-040-022 ' * ; ; « + - - - - - - - - '} *+ ; ; - - LOT D - - 93 87 i \ Z NI G - VERY LOW \ `...+ +}*}*+ :+ } !*:* o *+*+*.*+* '..' ® e - 1 _ \ ENSI RESIDENTIAL '+'+*.++ +`+`+« +' L - -1 - - - - - - � I ;+*+«.«+ +• ,+ I I \ . l (a I ' LOT E ND SE -VERY LOW '+* .+ *+* �e ': L'_. 295 295 295 \ . +* + ' '*} ' }*: ..*.. *+ + 1 H � �W I1 Is LOTF 46 273 273 273 \ +..'. +••+*+++++++.++}++.+++ }++.+++++ ++++++++ +*+*+'++* * +' -�A� .1959-080-006 D SITY RESIDENTIAL �1 �. _+. ..�. 7 LOT G - - - _ �// \ } + + # # # } } ++ # # ##+•+•+•*•*•+• # • .. } p . # # + 1 + ZONI G I PS H - - 680 680 / % \ - - - - - + ... • . « ...�.` . • . .. • ..... • .. } . • ... « 7 1 . • . } /.* •. ( D1=NSfT; f2fSiBET - - - - 1 -• : I,�, l u 1/ ` + .* } ++ }•+ + +* } + . + + + + + + + }........*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*+*}*+*+ + +* *}*+* +*+*+ I +*+*+ +'+ *+ ,+ �` LAND USE - VEf�O' LO B = = (, f TOTAL 489 988 1934 1802 o/RT \ + }` . *+ +*+*+'+'+'.*+ +* +'.*.*+* + +'.*.*.*.•.`+'+* *+`+`+'+ + +* `+`+'+*.*+*+ CCUPANC .*+*+ +'+ + + 1 _ _ _ �fi��; / \ • , _ \ DE 31T'i; RESIDENTI}�L lllllllllll»tlilttlllllltlillllltl�ltll111111 1lilllllllllllll__llllltlllilll \ \ + + +* + +*+*+'. + ♦ . *+*+*+* *+*+*+*+*+* + + *+*+ ♦*♦* + + +«7 y \ I --- �I -- ,�= IA \ * + +`+:% i 1 + +*+`+ +*+*+'+'+'.' *.*+*+* . *+'+;+•+* STORAGI` +«+ I ;+++ , +« + + + I L ML 1 �\ \ / # .*.*+** _ _ _ = I *#*' } 1 STO Y *+* I +*+ +'+'+ .' : I \ I \ / / I I \ L / ' *:*~* \ EIGHT/2 T '+* .*+ +'+`+ + +, I II II`� 0 1 `' f WOOD +++++ / + +*+*++ +'+++ }« *+*' / +'} + . + -i \ / / .•. - .. �•... �r 1 I I 1 APN. 959�949�-020 \ / ♦ •*•}'+' ;++++ +/ ++*+*+*} + + «+�}*+ _ - �/ - - + 2 I '+ +'•'. •�*,I• • .' I IQ 1 II / , •+ +,.*+*+'+' ' ' + *.*+*+*} +* *+ +*♦*• +'+ } •+ R WELL \ 7 � NG - VERY LOW I _9 g6 . }'+ + ' / - `*+* - i _ - _ - - - - - - .`..*+*+ .. + sr L � _ I I 20 I I 1 I \ DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL *1 `\ • }*}* '*'*'*' • / '*'* s * ' ' * * '* I I LAND USE -VERY LOW I \ ri . ++#*+«}CK' - _ ,% * +*+ } + + # *}`:+ +ram+ +,.• • s 127.16' \\ I 111 DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL + +'}*}*+s +.+++,}'+«+++++«+,}'+«+*+ +*+,}'+:+ +* + + + + ' �\ . . . . \ I + + + . + . + + + + + + + + + + +.+++++ + + + + . + . + + + + +++++++4 ++ r - - §10 + -++ I I / 111� / , I + + + + + + + + - .� + + + + �r I I / \ / . + :*.*' / LOT A + + + ++}+ I • -i r =�1, \ . } } . + ......*.... + + . #*' *}*}*+*+*# }*} �- I I r/ +*•*'*'*'*. + . + +++' '** ' PARKING: + + + :*. *: �+ + + +++«+« *+«+++'+'+ - 1 I I + }*+ *+++++# � 50 SPA E ++`+ ® I + +- - +++++:+ \ H • _ +++++} +++'�+ \I I 1 # +*++++++* / S + #++ 4 + f O } 4 # f # 4*4* *#*#*4*+*' I II + ++ +'+*.*+* * + ++++;};+;++ \ • + +«+;+;.;.«.;.*. '+ . '� +++ } + + E+ ++*+'+' ,I. '\ _ *+#}++++++ - _ _ _ �. / +*}*}*+*+* / + +*+*+*}*}*+*+*+*+*}*} 24 +'.'.`} + +*+*+*}*+*+*+*+*+*}*+*+* + + } 24 ® I +* }*+*+*+ + } +*+ *.*+*+*}* - - - - - - _ 05.35 + +'+*.*+*+` ` +`+`+*+*+*+'+'+'+*+*+*+'+`+ +'+•}•+ +'+'+*+*+*+'+`+'+*+*+*+'+`+`+ +*+*+'+` + +'+*+*+*+*+' +*+*.* 6�C NCY I' + +*+•+'+' �_ + + •} '.* « *+ } + . +++++*+*+*+*+*+ *+*+*+* - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + HOSPITAL OCCUPANCY Q } + + # . - +++*+* +� + + + + +*+*+ +'+*.***''***+* '+'+*+* # # + - cal •* I '«}}«+«#«#«.> /f��-C BRUsy *} }*+*+*.*+*}•.'.'.*+*+ } } + +,jRJ�«`-+ �+*++++ ++/ # . . . ♦ ' ' . . + # ......... + # # + + + . . . . + +*+*} .*.•. + I # } + + + +/ +*+ + - BUILDING OUTPATIENT *+ '+'+*.*+*+'}'+'+*.*+•+'}'+'+*. + + } + + / . + +++++++�+�+' .'.'+ ..+.+.+# *+++++++ + +*+++ +++++++++ .*. + +*+'.'.'.'.*+*+'+'+'+*+*+*+*+'+'+*..*.'.'.'.*..*.'.'+'+*+*+ + I 5 STORIES c BUIL ING .. }++ . • .,«*.=::*:*«*:':*:*:*:*«*:':*' :*:*:*:*«*:*:*+*} }*«*:*;+.. }*}*+ «+++**«*++++«+++.. + #+ 1 *«*++++« ++++♦;♦ \ HEIGHT 75F ao " *}*}*+*+ iF e +*+*}*}�+ . + +*#*.=+art *}*}*+*+«+*+*}*} + . +*+* *+ +*+*+*+* I *}*+*.«*N **+ + } _ \ I I ST RY *}`}*+*+'+ } + + .*+*+ } + +*.*+ + + +• .+•+«.*+ +.+.+•+...+.+ +.+.+...++ .+.+• ......'.'.*.* .+•+ .*+ +; } � HEI FT ++•+'+'+*. 2 WIDE *+ *+'+*.*+*+`+`+`+*.*+*+`}` rn `� +.. ;' .+.* ♦ ♦ + *+' + + + - +*+'+`+ - �+ + 60 - 1 01 - 0 1 4 - ,*+* ♦,•+. '♦ EMENT "+::*:*«`«'«*:*:*:++... + +*+`+'+ '+•+'+ I "+' r :++ +* '� *+«'$r .1 .+ ++++++++++ + +*+ +•. + '+ . '+ 1 +'+*+*+*+*+'+'.'.*.*.*.'.'.'.*. OR } ++##+}++ + ♦•• + .. #} # .# ......... }* +*+*.*+*}*}*+*+*' + ' +*+*+* 1 '*+* } 1 +*+' '+` +*+*+*+ + 1 I ++ I ++++�"�++}.++++++++++ +` `+*.*.*.`.`.`. + +*+'+`+` +'+`+`+ + +* , , *+*+'......*.`.`+*+*+* +� +'♦' *:: '*+++.++:*:*' I I *«*: # + P RKIN *:*:*:* I ` I I *: I I :*«*:*:*:*«*:*«*:*:* +'*'*+*:*: *+ +* *+*+*+.. ..*+« +*.*+* 1 CCUPANC } +*+*. + + } # : «+'+'}'+ ++ ° * +;+++;+;+;.* I « I ;+;+*. ♦ TRUCTUR ;+;.«+ +;H.1 *'*'*' «*:*: #+ + . +++#+#+;+;. +. ++*++++*+++ I dOls 11 +*+*+*} +*+*}*: I + I, H 1 ED *+*+*'*'*'*+*'*+*'*'*'*+*'*+*' P MENT F ' :*::*:*:* *' I B * 11 *'*'*' *:::* * :*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*: + }*+ +*+*+*+ } *+*+*+ +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ H LYNORA RE •} *. +*+'}`} +* 1 OCCUPANCY 11 0 .+++♦++ I . I EXPANSION +'+•+++++++'+'+•+++++++'+'+'+++ �Aolz� + +*. +*+*+' * rr.nirvNG: '+*.*+ +*+*+*+*+*+'+*+'+*.*.*+'+'+'+*+ 9/04 I + ++ •• �ss,r,ES I MOB + 11 / RKI #}}+ • 1 + 1 2STORIES ++++++++.}+###} ++ ++* •+*+* +'. } .++*+*+ *.*.*+*+*+'.'.*.*+*+*+'.'.*+*+* 64 * *+` `+` *+'+ 4 STORIES + II STR CTURE ::::+t+ I ' �I HEIGHT 45F 5 *+*+*+`+•+*.*+*.'.`.•.*.*.*.*.` . ## }# }}+##}}++##}}}+# +. ++ } •}`}•+ 1 HEIGHT 73FT •+*++« +'+•+*+*+*+'+'+•+*+*+*+'+'+•+*+ '<� ♦ + +'+*.' ' STD : +*+* R IN +'+'+*.*+*+'+'+'+*.*+*+'+'+'+*. *+ :*:*:*« 1R' 24' 24' « + + } - I +«. ++++++++.+++++++++++.++++++++++ .*+*+`} +' * + + +++*+� I •+. ++++++.+.+.++++*++.+.+.,++•*•+. 'L� *' ..♦♦• 1 *,*,* 1 �.+;+; SPA[ I +# F.F. EL 1057. }}+##}}++##}}++# 0. / � ++++.+. + + + : ... *' - 189A A - *++ . h > , ++ . .... .. .... . . ... . + - . - ­_ -\- ++++- ----= + El --- :,.&, + -++ + +++ I A +++: :+,.+'++'+ +*+* 0 +.+ + - A- .0-- .r , 11 . . . . - ;WF-- ftftk. - I + . + . + . . � . � . . + L+ + + + . . . . . . . . • . ♦ + r • • . + + + + #k. +la 4� 99 + - 11 + + r + + • # + + + # # # # # + + + + + # # # +__ i�_ 99 91140 99 9910 I 11 +++++.+. . C= ++. : +++ + + . . . . . . . . 1++++++++++++++. 82,781 SF INCREASED 580 CARS INCREASED PROJECT DATA GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY, TEMECULA CA 92592 APN - PARCEL NO.: 959-080-026 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS 1, 2, & 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13043 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 23 PACES 25 AND 26 OF PARCEL MAPS AND PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13734 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 137 PAGES 4 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAPS, ALL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ZONING CURRENT: TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HOSPITAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED: N/A BUILDING: PHASE: SQUARE FT: EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING 206,341 STORAGE EXISTING 5,180 ED EXPANSION PHASE 2 20,000 TOWER 2 PHASE 2 125,000 MOB 1 PHASE 2 80,000 CUP PHASE 2 12,600 TOWER 3 PHASE 3A/B 125,000 MOB 2 PHASE 3A/B 80,000 TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 654,121 SQUAREFT ACRES TOTAL GROSS AREA: 1,475,514 33.9 NET AREA: 1,473,945 29.7 ALLOWED BUILDING AREA: 810,670 FAR ALLOWED = 0.55 PROPOSED = 0.44 LOT COVERAGE: SQUARE FT PERCENTAGE BUILDING AREA: 227,300 15% PARKING AREA: 695,900 47% LANDSCAPE AREA: 445,900 30% HARDSCAPE: 106,400 7% EXISTING PHASE 2 PHASE 3 OPT PHASE 3 OPT � \\ T _/ r- 10 +* ++*+*+*+'+ +'+ I +« '' ''♦'♦'♦''' I ...... +++ + ♦+.++++ +++♦ +++++ +i� ♦ ♦ 4 + 4 4 ♦ ♦ \ ++ �'�'+'+'♦ '+'+'+ \ ++ I \\ +++++++ ++*+*+ + + +;+;+;+;+ I +.;.;.+ + \\. *+*+*+*+*+ +*+*+*+ + \ I rRffS \ \ II JI +'+`.*.*.`.'+ +++*+++ 1 * II +«+;+;+;+;++ +'+'+'+*+*+ I 6 III I / / I ''+++'+'+'+'+ '+'+'+`+'+' \ II +*+*+'+'+'+ + '+*..... . .+ +« ♦+..++++++ ♦ + + .+++++++♦+. ++ ♦++♦ +++. Ills �� + `♦ + \ "� + . 1 +'+` + I '+`+` ... *+*+*+ + + + + + + + *+*+` 1 +* `+'+*+*+*+*+`+ I :*:*«`«`:`:++..++++ I I eS III 1 `.`.*.*.*.*........ + +*+*+*+` .`.`+`+*+*+ +'+'+*+' I I APN. 909-0 1 1 l / +*+++'+'+•+ + + +'+'+•+*+* +'+•+*+* PARCEL 3, 1 -2, ) +.'.+++.+++;:I:.«..«.:.:+ ++++.+.+. +`+*+*+*+*+ + + + + + . *+*+*+*.`` g� III ZO JING - I MENT ♦+++++++++.�♦'''''+++ +*+*+++♦+' 11 LAt�ID USE 11 KLOPMENT '*'.w:*:*::*... .*:*:`«*:*:*: III I IIII I \ + + + + + + +*+'+' '+*+ +++++++++++++ +++++ +++++++++++ *' *.*.*.*.. + *#*+*+`'`'* a 111 I I III \ + ..+.+.++'+'+ ++++'+'+ I 11 II I I +*+* `+'+'+*+*+*+*+j++*+`+*+ r I +*+* '+'+' + + +' + ..*.'.'.'. I II II I + + ++++++�♦+♦+++ +♦++++.+++++ I I r +++.+ ... + 11 II HEIGHT 55FT C * + 'I' 344%1 ++- x -I� '+:: L, "�' :::: ::::: ::: ++ .+ OCCUPANCY :::: ..++ 11 III '* ' + . +*+ + \ `+ *+++`+`.•+*+*+*+ +'+•+` +* : I .`.*+*. f J IIII I I I : + + + ,I,Ih+ + +`+ *+*+*+ +` `+•+* I ++*+`+ •+ E +*+*++ +`+ +*+++`+ Iy1 fS 11 4♦ `+*# * 4 *#*+ 4 ' *4'4'4 *#*+ +'+' #*#*+ 4♦4'+*+ '4'. . . +'4'4',4*+ 4'4'+ +*#*+ 4 4'+*+ 4 + * 11 #*+♦+♦ ♦+ _ ++++4* ♦+♦+ +4*+♦ I I + ++++ 'F ' '*:*. + + '♦;+ * ++ +:`' :*: +*:*+ + I +++++ ' + + ......... + + + . + + + + + . + + + + + . + + + ++++ ++ ++++++.+.++ ++++++. ;+;+,++ +++.++++ ++++++ *+;+� ++++ I + 111 III +.•+• •+++++ '+`+ +* +' +*+*+`+'+ +*+`+'+�++ + *+++'+'+`+*+*+*+'+'+*+*+'+'+'+`+*+*+'+'+'.`.*.*.'.'.'.`.`+ :+�:+ + + *.*.`.'.'+` *+*+`+'+ + + + + + + + + +*+`+' ..*.*.*. *+'+'+ *+* '+' + . + I II / `+*+ + + *+'+'+`+* _ _ :'+ +'+' +'+'+*+*+ +'+*+*+*+ '+'+*+*+*+' '+'+*+* +'+ I I III / ++ + ♦++ ♦♦+:+•.: - - + + .♦ -- #}.++##}.++*O'8*@*' - - _ - +++++ III - +++ I ++*i::::++: 3 - J 1. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - - -fir- - - - - - - - - - - +*+*+`+`.*+ *.*.*.*.*+* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +*+*+ +,.sty '� E�F - �" � \ - A I I , I r_-5-11 -- �" � - I I �/ 00 ." : / + � 111111%; I') + ' -f * * 11� so, I I F)\ I*..- / ..... .+ / I `: I I I +++ . + L_:+`+* +* � o - ' z+ + + - / �� I I' ,+++. +++++ 40)' 1131 + /\ + + - OCCUPANCY Z - I I LOT C ++ ++ LA US I + RKIN + B MOB #1 I + ` _ KIN • + 4 STORI/ST + '+ sz�♦+ TIVERP RCE - _ - SP - SPA[ i HEIGHT 7 ++ MAP No. 307 7 a - -� - - ' - ' - 2 ' 1 24' * ++ - + *+ �/ _ _ I - - - ++ - C i / + - / - -- SETBACK / +++ 5:+ +! +++++ ++++ ......... 16 + ++ +5/ - - + a * 1.'* \ / I I + / cv L - cv r + '.+� I I I„ : � � � � � �I I --- I I I I *+*} + 44 28 + � � � � � � � � � A: 011" .'+++♦ �:+ _moo +*+'+`+`++*+*+'+++++++++ .*++++++++++ A � � �J/ � + ++ + r" }+ +++++*+++ ++++.+.......� -� dU � � *..+ ++ +.......++++++ +............+, d]*.... ............. ��- +* ... ... -�.'t.'t'-'*'.'.'t't"*11 _11�\�' 1+ �*.* + �++ ... =" �' ; w '117 ��'-+-+ + ... I I I *. ... ;i J - =. +*+*+++++++*+*+*++ \N + &��-+ "ilm, _io 09;Q_1_1_>1>-1;�_ 4 aL�� -+++ +++++++ l�� ���!!!������ + . ♦ . + + + . ♦ ♦ ♦ . . + . . ♦ ♦ . + + a + + ♦ + �+++++++ + + + + . + . Y --- �' - - - + +++++ _+ + . + +�+ +++- � + f';'-'--;rZ�'�"+'�+ + .........++++ +++ _ _ _ ...A -e - _/ - - - ->' I Z - - ::! /_1�71 ' _+� Y ----- --- J -'_ ..s.ar. .'..' ` mbar - -� ---- _> 1iii _; ii ---------- --- ---------------------------------------- ----------- - - ----y - --�-- - -- -� ------------ --- - r i / ----- J --- !_- - - - - . ��� �i --=t---------------- ---------------------� ---- s�«�=--_--------------------------------� --- ----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - � / 4' 'I' CCUPA SPIT C L T N \ ( \ Nk +.+.+.+++++++.+. +,+,.+.+.++,+,+,.+.+.+ +++++. IIIIlil�I 1 + ++++++++++ '*+*+*+*+*+*.*+ '* *.*+*' a 1 +++•+++++• ' +++++'+'++++• ++}+*'*+ IIII I I J :.*.*... `:*:*:*:*+`+` ;�;:+:+: IIII IIII ++ I + +'+'+•+*+* + +*+ IIII TR III I \ r - + +'+'+'+*.* '+'+*+*+*+'+ + p+*+ + *+*+*+*+'+ - +*+*+*+*+*'*+*+•+`+`+ I f£s III '`'`'`'*'* - - +++++.+.++ +++ ++.+- IIII V + +*+*+*+*+* Q Q ++++++++ ++•7;+*+*+ 1 s II + +'+'+'+'+ + + ++++'+' +♦} + .*.*.+.«•« LOT E ''' '* `'*'*'*:•«•' I I �1" 1 + +*+*+ + . *+*+*+ + + + + + +'+'+'+*+* - RKING: `+ + +`+* 11111 / 59 0- 9 1 + 295 SPACES • + * ' ' IIIII �// 1 M. 99 / 1516 + + ` + +++.. + 1111 / I AY/ TOURIST/ * ' ' *+*+'+ 24 24 24 24 4 2 + + +' * * 111111 // / , M RC + +� + + + +`+`+`++++ +++++++++*+*+ . . . . . . - - E�S- a - ------a + + + + + + + + = + + + + + + + + + . + : (I ++++ ++++++ + ++*+'+ N + + + + +*/// . + :+:++ I) C_:� - - - - I 0 I I I I I I 1 �2 01:11 I I I I I I- I n I �'� I I � ±+ +*+++++++++++++++ ++++++++ •} ++++ +++*+*+++++ +++.... +++ ++........+ .'.'.'.*..*.'. --- /, -- ��"__ - M_rt� � I I - ft :!� - - --------- --��------------------------------!---------------------------_ --------------------------- C - - - - - - - - - ' "I--. - -� a--� ------------------------- ----____ _� _ ---------------- -------�- =---- ------ Q--- SITE PLAN 1 1 " = 60'-O" KEYNOTE: O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1966 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86340 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR WATER LINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 127414 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O AN EASEMENT FOR EQUESTRIAN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF KAISER AETNA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 29, 1976 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 40949 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 79 HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED PER PMB 137/4-5. O6 AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 7, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 128566 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 339051 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O7 AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE, SLOPE, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112863 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112864 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN OFFER OF AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55, ABANDONED HEREON. 10 AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55-1 A PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT ABANDONED HEREON. 11 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF JURUPA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 211284 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 12 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, IN THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 173234, 173235 AND 173236, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 13 (E) MONUMENT SIGN. 16 (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE. e (E) PVC HORSE TRAIL FENCES. 17 N/A 6 (E) UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK 6 N/A HOSPITAL: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; DIVISION 1.1 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE I; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.O.B.1: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.O.B.2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CUP: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP U CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 1 STORIES, 43-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE PARKING STRUCTURE: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP S-2 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 311.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE 113; 2 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 55-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24- CH. 3- SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 3: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE ED EXPANSION: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES, 45'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CLIENT: Universal Health Services, Inc. 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 T 610 768 3300 HMC Architects 1359037-000 3546 CONCOURS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764 909 989 9979 / www.hmcarchitects.com A DESCRIPTION L E G E N D - - - - PROPERTY LINE ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL • FH FIRE HYDRANT • FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION • PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE TRANSFORMER, PER Ifl ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS E] FIRE LANE PROPOSED BUILDING LANDSCAPE AREAS I- ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL, WHEEL ® U STOP, SIGN AGE AND LOADING ZONE FIRE LANE /TRASH TRUCK TURNING RADIUS INSIDE DIAMETER: 37'-O" h h OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 56'-0" WHEEL CUTS: 50'-0° KEY PLAN: AGENCY APPROVAL: The type of approval to be issued by The Agency Having Jurisdiction for this project is: FACILITY: UHS TEMECULA 31700 Temecula Pkwy Temecula, CA 92592 PROJECT: MASTER PLAN UPDATE SHEET NAME: SITE PLAN PHASE 3 - OPTION A BUILD -OUT FAC NO.: - BLDG NO.: SITE DATE DATE: 03/12/2025 CLIENT PROJ NO: - SHEET: A1.30 PLEASE RECYCLE Cb cv s (1)F- LU F_ oz c Z- x 0c _- wz Z C J _ F �- (� W N J) w a IL a Z ( 2 0 U) I- W W :9 3 A :n Q = 3. z a .0 J J 3 z Q z J i Y Q E a J J A E _1 7 D 7 h R = M L0 0 2 Q z 0 i E 2 N X) 14 D y h 14 4 VICINITY MAP 2 N.T.S. Hospital Table 17.24.040 1/3 BEDS MOB Table 17.24.040 1/200 SF OTHER Table 17.24.041) 1/1000 SF EXISTING PHASE 2 PHASE 2 BUILDING - AREA BEDS PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AREA SF HOSPITAL STORAGE TOWER 2 ED EXPANSION NIOB 1 206,341 140 47 5 _ 206,341 5,180 5,180 125,000 140 47 125,000 20,000 _ 20,000 80,000 400 80,000 CIUP 12,600 14 12,600 TOWER 3 MOB 2 125,000 140 47 125,000 80,000 400 80,000 ISLIB-TOTALS 1 654,,121 420 141IN== 19 211,521 237,600 205,000 FINAL AREA 654,121 SF FINAL PARKING REQUIRED 960 CARS FINAL PARKING PROVIDED 1,903 CARS SURPLUS PARKING 943 CARS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AREA 571,,340 SF PIREVIOIUSLY ENTITLED PARKING 1,354 CARS DELTA ENTITLED AREA DELTA ENTITLED PARKING 82,,781 SF INCREASED 549 CARS INCREASED -}�� �' i� 1 j jJ'1 EXISTING _ », F I III �j i' , l ,cam \ � ' �-1 14U11�r,-,I J \ I ,/,/ / #?�/ / \ \��Ilgg­' \ / (� � \ / / / /.// / \J / \/ 1 ` 1 I \ ASP/ I I o f J_/ 1 � // // I///^ / _ ­4053- 0 0 � \0 / � � / �� �`\ ) 01 I /_ 11 ` - 1 Ill / ll� / ---� i / �\�C3 \r\ ---- �_ _ ____ - r= �� f r� srs I I ram. + _* 8 +* +. ;-+ : -<-. o + �*+ LJ-J + +*fit + + ` "'r ice" \ s/F + ♦ « +�� I -;. �\ . .. . . . . . . . . + . . . . +++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++++++ +++++ : )) . , J'�; -- - , + + . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ++++++ + / y * '+'. ++*+ .*... *+'+ '+ . ,r '+=i��_71+ I I ♦J I I II - I �/ I 1 '+ T' \ H. 1-10, + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NIN +\\ + . « .'+'+'' ''+'' + + + + ­';;� + - -�J- d + . . . . . . . . . . . . I -_ + + +:+:+:+ + - - � A/ - . . . . . . . . . . \ «++++ *++*+ ' + + + ++«+ 1 T��, ie , / - 2L:1 1 ��.1 1 ' + ++++ +*+++ ':?�+ '�«+'+.+ 24-�3fr�- 24 .,�, 24 24 30 .,.I 124 0 + + + �:::;) '*.*.'+ ++,�.++++ �`C.«.«'*+*.i+«+« I I I I I LOT !-�� 0 *++' ,c,� �3.'\*«* +*+ + I B�c�KING: - �( - - - - - - - - - - - .*.+. t�..� +�.+++*+'+ '�++*+*+'a+*.*+*++'++*+*+*+i+«.« *+*+*+ �r73 SPA ES I 0 I *;+• • + % « + + + ++- I ++ I + « ip ' +'+'+ '+/'+ I ©NI ' +*+*+*+ +*+*+*+ *.*.*+ I I + + \ J+ +++++'+ h •` / 1 I 40' 111' I +'' '''+ N r f +:+ + '++.*+�.*''''''''.+.++'+ ' .. I I +.. 10 '*'+ 1 4+ * I. +' +++ '' +�+ ++ '' +.+++++ + + . . ' + + + + + . I o OC PANCY I +.. +'+'+ \ \ . + . + + .. +�' '' +'+ UP I . .. I ++++*. '++++*+ ' + .'+*+*. .'+*++. � I 5 + 1 3 RY ' ''+ ' '�''+ «�+« N I S I. 'I +' \ +'+ HEIGHT 43FT c .*. PHASE 2 PHASE 3 OPT a PHASE 3 OPT s I. / +...+++'+ -�- ' «� IIII +.+.*'* �� +'+'' + + ''+1 '*+ + +*+* +'+*+*+ ++*+*+ + +*+Y+' s ` L �_ s; LOT A 169 169 50 50 / 1S *+,�, + I �iRr 0, ;*:� « i-� I` LOT B 274 179 179 133 +' � + ' + ��: L 4 :I'` - - - - - LOT C 333 333 \ APIV' 959 040 022 - - - - - - - fs _ +*,r' - - �.:. s`ti .''r'..*'*' ' I *. o*. i L - _ t _ +' - ;� : . . LOT D - - 93 87 i ZONING VERY LOW - _ L 1 �1 - \ \ DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL - -I - - - - - - _ o I! - _ _ LOT E 295 295 295 _ t _. 1� - 'I',,. rR �_ ,I i :� LOT F 46 273 273 273 \ LAND LSE VERY LOW +�, +.i.+ * -�A�N. 959-080-006 - 1 D - SITY; RESIDENTIAL .. + + + + + + + ++ .. r \ -.. / 1 \ +`� ?,:;+++« * +' S P I ZONING - VERY L I. LOT G i - -0: -_ ! _ _ OW / 1 - - - - ;.�;i%�` : .*C*:* 72 I .•+*+ I UtN�ITY; I\LSIDE�JTI,4� _ _ _. , I, r,L a IA +*+ + +*+*+ +*+*+ ' .*+*'+'+.*.*.*+*'.'..'.*. .'C'.'.*+* 'U' I +'+++* +'+ LAND USE -VERY LO l = = _ �- K\ - - L RT I T TAL 489 1 1903 0 9 6 1851 - - L N IT`r RESIDENTIAL e < DE � 1 II .� ;Ig" - -- --as&PAN Y � CCU .=�1111 illlll'�llllllllllll'�lilil�l'1�1111»li�'17111ii111 llilll'lil illl»lllllllll�lllllll t,=„ TAL \ \ � � +*+*4*+� -- -- --- - +++f+i ++*4 + +*+ + + 4*� • \ I _ _ - -.- + + + rl _ -' '--A � \ + / I = - - '+/ _ STORA E i '++:; .+.+ I I \ / // *.r `� 1 I \«+' STO Y .'. + \ :i -r w ) \ HEIGHT ++' I '++'+'+' I I I \ Ii I / �/ 1 APN. 959-946•-020 � \ / _ 1 '� j+' j I T ; '+• I «+«+++� - _ 40�+ +. 2 i *+.+; .:�:+•+•+ \ °C w\Eu (� �NG VERY LOW I ��14; + +* / +*.* - _ _-� _ I +'..*.*: + + + + 2( L7I I DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL �� I + / 3 _- - _ - _ - - *. �' �'*''+'+' I I� 11'; II J s LAND USE -VERY LOW 1 \ ''cK � + + \ \ \ \ I - +*+ + + +.... + 2 ' � ''9 �+ '*'+* 127. 6� \\ I '11 DENSITY; RESIDENTIAL •++5*� P _++++.++++++i+�+++++.+++++.++.+.++.+ + + +* �8 + + . • • + R CCESS + N' . I I II \ / _• +/ +'+ I • _ 4'' -�• 7 \ I + + + . + « + ♦ 4 4 « + ♦ 4 4 / � PROJECT DATA GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 31700 TEMECULA PARKWAY, TEMECULA CA 92592 APN - PARCEL NO.: 959-080-026 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELS 1, 2, & 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13043 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 23 PACES 25 AND 26 OF PARCEL MAPS AND PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13734 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 137 PAGES 4 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAPS, ALL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. ZONING CURRENT: TEMECULA HOSPITAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-9) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HOSPITAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED: N/A BUILDING: PHASE: SQUARE FT: EXISTING HOSPITAL EXISTING 206,341 STORAGE EXISTING 5,180 ED EXPANSION PHASE 2 20,000 TOWER 2 PHASE 2 125,000 MOB 1 PHASE 2 80,000 CUP PHASE 2 12,600 TOWER 3 PHASE 3A/B 125,000 MOB 2 PHASE 3A/B 80,000 TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 654,121 SQUAREFT ACRES TOTAL GROSS AREA: 1,475,514 33.9 NET AREA: 1,473,945 29.7 ALLOWED BUILDING AREA: 810,670 FAR ALLOWED = 0.55 PROPOSED = 0.44 LOT COVERAGE: SQUARE FT PERCENTAGE BUILDING AREA: 227,300 15% PARKING AREA: 695,900 47% LANDSCAPE AREA: 445,900 30% HARDSCAPE: 106,400 7% • II II \ / +++++* + +'+' I +1+5 +++'+ +++++++ I I �/ PARKING: ®+' *.'.'. \ H • '+;• I I I I I ++ + +'+' • * \� \ \ N 50 P CES '+ + + + + - 4+++ +IL #.•.'.'. � + ' I' - _ I - - �' / / +'+*. / + + .'.'.*. .'+ 18' 24' +'.'+ + + .'.'.*. .'.'.*' 24' ®18� I .'+'. I 4++. - - - - - _ 105.35 i - + + - - '� r+-++++ � �C NCY I �-- �l + ++:+. + +'.' + +*+ ++.. ++.+. '�.�. ' - HO.&PITAT- OCCUPANCY £�- p - '�------------ -- --� I--+'' BRUS" +++++ +++++ + + «gig:+ +� +++++ ' I .++.+.+.+� �+� BUILDING OUTPATIENT ++� *� * I 5 STORIES /: BUILDING ...+ HEIGHT 75F + . ++' .+. .+' .+. .+. .+. I I .+. e\ 1 STORY '� ` � I 'j:' `rDi HEIGHT 1 FT .'.*. '++*. .'.*. .'.'.*. .'.'.*. .'.' .'.'.*. .'. .'.' + + + .'. .*. M I 1 " 1 1 p 2 WIDE- + 60 -5 oil- 124 - ,+ *, , D INAGE I II . - .� .' .'; ' 1�' +.+.*.*. .++*.*+ .'.*. .+.*. .'.*' .'\++ .'.*. 1 +. +'+*+ +. EMENT '+' f+':.'.'' '.' ORDED '. .*. + .+' .'.*. .'.'.*. ++++.*' .'.'.*. .'.'.*. .'.' .'+'+ IIIIII .'.*.*. 1 1 I I I P RKIN +�+ I 24 C CCUPANC o- TRUCTUR JJ o >H .+. .+. .+.+. .+.+. .+.+. .+ .+' .+++ ++.+. .+.+. RI �H / I ' / ED ^ F� du EASEMENT FO I P "g+'+ + XPANSION rnk�F \ LYNORA REC_ '+'.'. +'. .'.'' .'.'' .'.'' .'.'' .'.'' o '. .'.'. '.'. '.'. +I' c�i n 40 9 04 INS. . , I �4 / ..+++.' .+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+. +++.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+ I \ .+.+.+ * I 2 STORIES .+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+. I� ar"ALICS 64 I PARKING + I + HEIGHT 45F 5 --I\ S _STR RE +' +. .+. .+. .+. .+. TT '�,' o .+. .+. .+. /F f / i R, S I O 8` 24 35 24 _ • •• •• •• •• • + PAR ING: '<� •• •• '+*. .'+'+* .'+'+*. .'+'+*. .++++*. .++ .'+' .'+ .'+*+*. .'+*+*. '/.'.''*' 680 SPACES I .�'++• r � 4 L S F.F. EL 1057. ..., :: +' yd I I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++,,�; \ + ++;+++'++++++++++++++++++ : / + . I + + .+++++++++++. + I � > I © ,. __-_ \ - I I I I I+ + : + + - I I ++++\++ - - I 1 , I I ♦ + I 'I ' I I + ++ . . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . - - : J - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ++ X++ + ++ + I - /_ _7 _­ A 1 4 . . . . . .. \ \i +•'i + I ...... +' \"' 11 � + I ++' I ++' - 1 \ ` II '''' \ \ ffs \ +.+++ +++++ \ 1 \- A I .. «I « + \ 1 1 6 \I •I + * ..... .�... �, \ \ � ++ +++++++ \ 4 \\ I I +++++ :+++ n/ \\ \ \ I .'...*.*+ ''.*.*. I I I I I '+++ pp '+*+ '.*. «'4'+'«'« II 1 L I I .+.+.+ +.�.+.+''+'++.+. +.++ II II I �, I I 1 +'+'+'+'+'+«+«+'+ TR I I fes I I :+++.++h.+'++++++ I III I I I I *... I '.*.*. + + .*. .'.*. .'.* +++++ II II I I '.�.'.+.+.+.'.'.' y I APN. 959-0 1 I l / .'.'.'.M.'..'.'..... .'.'. �) ++�++.'+'+'+'+' I PARCEL 3, I -1 +.*.*. + + +*. .*. 8 III ZONING - I MENT +++ + l+++++�+'.'.+.+�'+ I LAND USE I �LOPMENT + m I + + + .'+'. N III / \ I' I I I 1 II I I I N �I I �I I 1 ''�..«''''''' I I+++ +I +'+'i'i'.'+ I I II III + + +*+*+ I I I � �C I / + .� + + + + + + + + 4 STORIES / .+++ I • ; .y + + �' '+' •+' '+' '+' '+' I '+' HEIGHT 55F - - - - - I +,� III ' / � �- + + + + +�''' I r- _ - I 344 + N I \ + + '+ + + + +'+'+*+ +'+'+ + +'+'+*+ .'+ + L + + + + + + + + + + +'+*+*+ '+*+*+ I ^ ' ' �'� I I ',�;' OCCUPANCY • • • i' II I �- /n«+ I L r I I / I I I I I I ++''*. ❑ I 5 STORIES '':''''''' I I I ^ f .'+ +'+ HEIGHT 75FT + + +'+ '++' '++t. .�+ I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + '++ *++..+ + ++++ +�+ ++++. E ++.. .+t'+�+t I I II ts + ++•+ ' :� III I . + ++i •++++++++++++'+++++ +'�'+ + . ..... +'p'+ II a+I. I I I I II _\ / I I ' - -• .=` -- -- «+; p+ .' II - - - - + III I +� i '+*+ + ... + + + -- - -- �y �«- -- +'+'+*+ +'+*+*+ - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - *'' IIII I I I - I 0 I . - ++�++++'+ /+ �+ - -- -- - ��� III I I I----- - ---- I / I I \ "COI M 0�0-0.19 - / '+ + I .'.*.*. '.1:+.*.*' III \ N + _-'+'' - / +++ / I I FH • I +++[VI /I �+ I I YP. _ I // + I +++J I I+ 11.++'+ I\ +1 28 / / % I - LOT I(� a I ++ I+ + + I I I I `� I ' I I+ '+'+ I ' I_PARKING:-L.I 1 / _ I + I I +* sss SPAGCS ' 'B' 40' OT B 40' IBI ' ' '+ _ I 0 EE +- PAN Y P RKIN�3 o OCCUPANCY CCU CS / _ / - I 3; PACE I + LVNI _ 1./ 11 , MOB #2 MOB #1 ��LAN[ USE - P/ + Y a I 4 TORTES 4 STORIES/ 4: .. + BR�s" /I - HEIG T 73FT I HEIGHT 7 IVE PARCEL - i- __ - %"I '+'+ I '' MAP No. 3079 I- -�/ j I -r 1 ]+++'+' -1 24' 18' _ / I+ +++ - �.11 . - -- - / / I - - - "II++'''1 �I I I IF+'+' - - - I 80' FRONT 7 + + + rt00, LL SETBACK ++ FI 'r � .... � �.... ''''+''''' 0 16 *'' �'I + I I I + ° *\c'' /I I 4- I I * \ +- / N L_---- N---------J L---- N ------ ---- 44' 28' f ) •• +'+ «� I .III I I 1 � � � � �I I- I I I I III '.'. + +'+'.' _L �' . " ;: -, -, J .;+ c C + + + S \ +''' '+�+'+ / +++++++++ +++++++. + + + + ++++i ++++++++� �� + + . . . . . + + + + + + + + . + +'+'+ + + +•/== / IAA/+ + 11 _------------ s -- /.�/ _ - � T ,Io .ICJ J ` . ��� ------ - . J J L ` 1506.11' N ....:\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - = -� - = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- �- - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -` _� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A 0 J - -__-------------- -_ -------------------------------------------- ----------------------1----------------------------------- / / 4' fit I CCUPA C SPIT L T T I S O S I HT FT ++I I S MEDIC P + + +.+++ +++++ ++++ +.. IIII I i + + .'+'. .'.'+ .'++.+,.'''' IIII jll I + - ++ ++ III/ III a J +'+*+*+ + + III I 1. I I I I r - + .'+ .'+*.++ ++I'+++++ IIIII rRffs IIII I� \ I+ _;t IIII I V ft . 11 ' 0 Q ' .+ .+.++ I 6 II q +'.'. ++++ +++ ...... '+'+ '+' '+''+'+.+I:+.++'+ `IIj I / u/ LOT E \ IIII 1 �r 1 I' .+.'. / PARKING: \ �.�+.'. IIII / 59 10:0- 9 4 © ® 295 SPACES \ \ © '�'�y+;};�'' 111/f'{� CE 1l i%.M. 99 / 1516 '++ 1 / / / / / / / / / / 1 .+:�i'.•.. it I % oil I - �,s AY/ TOUT T/ 18 24 36 24 24 36 24 36 4 36 2 18 +•; + 1�11II // %�!'; M RC Ai_ +'+fir - *' / T IST C - + !� _ > �-1 ' .'. .'.+.+� / / fs / //I :++ I I I IQ I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I' +++++ +'; \ �z/) / -- - - - - - ------ - I 6• SIDEWALK - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------- r - - - - - - - - - - - 1 l - - - - --------� a- \ -- -- - - - _ - _ . - � - SITE PLAN 1 1" = 601-0" KEYNOTE: O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1966 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86340 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR WATER LINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 127414 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. Os AN EASEMENT FOR EQUESTRIAN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF KAISER AETNA, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MARCH 29, 1976 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 40949 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 79 HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED PER PMB 137/4-5. O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 7 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 128566 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. O AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 339051 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE, SLOPE, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112863 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF BRIDGEPORT BUILDERS, LLC, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0112864 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O AN OFFER OF AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55, ABANDONED HEREON. 10 AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR STREET, PUBLIC UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEDICATED ON MB 59/53-55; A PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT ABANDONED HEREON. 11 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF JURUPA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 211284 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 12 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, IN THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 173234, 173235 AND 173236, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. 13 (E) MONUMENT SIGN. 16 (N) TRASH ENCLOSURE. 14 17 E PVC HORSE TRAIL FENCES. N/A O O a (E) UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK 8 N/A HOSPITAL: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; DIVISION 1.1 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE I; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.O.B.1: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE M.O.B.2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP B CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE -A 24I CH. 6; SEC 602I TABLE 6 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES 73'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CUP: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP U CBC TITLE 24• CH. 3• SEC 308 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE 11; 1 HOUR CBC TITLE 24• CH. 6• SEC 602• TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 1 STORIES, 43'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE PARKING STRUCTURE: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUPS- 2 CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 311.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE 1 B; 2 HOUR CBC TITLE 24• CH. 6• SEC 602• TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 4 STORIES, 55'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 2: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP 1• MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES75'-0 ," PRIMARY STRUCTURE TOWER 3: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP 1; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 5 STORIES, 75'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE ED EXPANSION: OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP I; MIXED USE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 3; SEC 308 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IB; FIRE RESISTIVE CBC TITLE 24; CH. 6; SEC 602; TABLE 6-A AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM/ ALARM PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 2 STORIES, 45'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE CLIENT: HMC Architects 1359037-000 3546 CONCOURS STREET ONTARIO, CA 91764 909 989 9979 / www.hmcarchitects.com A DESCRIPTION DATE L E G E N D - - - - PROPERTY LINE - - - - - ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL •FH FIRE HYDRANT •FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION •PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE TRANSFORMER, PER Ifl ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ElFIRE LANE PROPOSED BUILDING LANDSCAPE AREAS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL, WHEEL ® STOP, SIGNAGE AND LOADING ZONE FIRE LANE /TRASH TRUCK TURNING RADIUS INSIDE DIAMETER: 37'-O" h OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 56'-0" .51 WHEEL CUTS: 50'-O" KEY PLAN: AGENCY APPROVAL: The type of approval to be issued by The Agency Having Jurisdiction for this project is: FACILITY: UHS TEMECULA 31700 Temecula Pkwy Temecula, CA 92592 PROJECT: MASTER PLAN UPDATE SHEET NAME: SITE PLAN PHASE 3 - OPTION B BUILD -OUT FAC NO.: - BLDG NO.: SITE DATE: 03/12/2025 CLIENT PROJ NO: - SHEET: A1.31 PLEASE RECYCLE C� ON of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • TemeculaCA.gov VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com June 24, 2025 Supervising Legal Certification Clerk County of Riverside Post Office Box 751 Riverside, CA 92501-0751 SUBJECT: Filing a Notice of Determination for Planning Application No. PA21-1525, Modification Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202); PA22-0105, Amendment to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9), and PA25-0181, Modification to Remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from Planning Application (PA18-1258); Project Location - 31700 Temecula Parkway (APN: 959-080-039) Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the Applicant will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee. Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Determination within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Cooper at (951) 506-5137 or at email scott.cooperkTemeculaCA.gov. . Sincerely, Matt Peters Director of Community Development Attachments: Notice of Determination Form, Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Notice of Determination TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the California Public Resources Code State Clearinghouse No.: 2005031017 Project Title: Temecula Valley Hospital (PA21-1525, PA22-0105, PA25-0181) Project Location: APNs: 959-080-039 Project Description: A Modification to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202) that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3; a Planned Development Overlay Amendment to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9) including establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO, including specifically not allowing a behavioral health hospital without further approvals; and a Modification to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18- 1258) which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2. Lead Agency: City of Temecula, County of Riverside Contact Person: Scott Cooper Telephone Number: (951) 506-5137 This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above -described project on June 23, 2025 and has made the following determinations regarding this project: 1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program was adopted for this project. 5. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Environmental Impact Report and Addenda that were prepared for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, together with comments and responses is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590. Signature: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office: Date: Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No.: PA21-1525, PA22-0105, & PA25-0181 Applicant: Temecula Valley Hospital INC Location: 31700 Temecula Parkway Proposal: A Modification (PA21-1525) to the previously approved Temecula Valley Hospital Master Plan Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0200 and PA07-0202) that at buildout will include the existing 206,341 square foot hospital building and 5,180 square foot storage building along with a proposed approximately 20,000 square foot expansion to the emergency department, a 125,000 square foot, five story second hospital tower, a 80,000 square foot, four story medical office building, and a 14,000 square foot utility plant in Phase 2, an approximately 125,000 square foot, five story third hospital tower, a 80,000 square, three story medical office building, and a four story parking structure with the existing helipad relocated from its interim location to the roof of the parking structure in Phase 3; a Planned Development Overlay Amendment (PA22- 0105) to the Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-9) including establishing an administrative approval process and design guidelines for buildings and structures, revising development standards, and clarifying the allowable mix of structures and uses in the PDO, including specifically not allowing a behavioral health hospital without further approvals; and a Modification (PA25-0181) to remove Condition of Approval No. 27 from a previously approved Planning Application (PA18-1258) which provided a deadline on the commencement of foundation construction for future hospital bed tower 2. Environmental Action: The project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project will have four (4) significant impacts upon the environment (air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation) based upon a completed Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. As a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required in compliance with CEQA. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take action on a recommendation that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project. PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers DATE OF HEARING: June 23, 2025 TIME OF HEARING: 10:00 AM u� s ject Site Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice. The proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Scott Cooper, City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 506- 5137. REQUESTS TO SPEAK "F T111 4,4, REQUEST TO SPEAK ,. CITY OF TEMECULA 1989Aim p Date: Q g S Public Comment: Non-Agenda Item. Agenda Item: Item Description or Item No Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. • Name: /- -� P�.� Phone Number: Address: /( Email address: // If you are representing an organization or group, please the name Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.