Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121510 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694 -6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. PRELUDE MUSIC: CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE DECEMBER 15, 2010 — 6:00 PM Earlene Bundy Commissioner Kight Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of December 1, 2010 1 Next in Order: Resolution: 10 -27 A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three - minute time limit for individual speakers. All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Elect Chair and Vice Chair for 2011 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 3 Planning Application No. PA09 -0345, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 40 -foot clock tower wireless antenna facility surrounded by a six -foot wrought iron fence and consisting of three sectors of four antennas each (12 panel antennas), two GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store -It storage facility building located at 44618 Pechanqa Parkway, Matt Peters RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09 -0345, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A 40 -FOOT CLOCK TOWER WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY SURROUNDED BY A SIX -FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND CONSISTING OF THREE SECTORS OF FOUR ANTENNAS EACH (12 PANEL ANTENNAS), TWO GPS ANTENNAS, A PARABOLIC ANTENNA, AND SUPPORTING GROUND RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS STORED INSIDE AN EXISTING U- STORE -IT STORAGE FACILITY BUILDING AT 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY (961- 010 -009) 4 Planning Application PA10 -0194, a Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula Regional Hospital (PA07 -0200) to modify the phasing of the project, reducing the bed count from 178 to 140 in phase one and to build out the project to 320 beds by the year 2026, including other minor site plan revisions, located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 650 feet west of Margarita Road, Stuart Fisk RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07 -0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959- 080 -001 THRU 004 AND 951 - 080 -007 THRU 010)" REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC - The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing at City Hall's Planning Department Public Counter located at 43200 Business Park Drive and at the Temecula Library located at 30600 Pauba Road during normal business hours. Additionally, any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commissioners regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review at the locations indicated above. The packet will be available for viewing the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting after 4:00 p.m. You may also access the packet the Friday before the meeting after 4:00 p.m. on the City's website at www.cityoftemecula.orq. 3 PRELUDE MUSIC: CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Earlene Bundy ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE DECEMBER 1, 2010 — 6:00 PM Commissioner Harter Carey, Guerriero, Harter, Kight, and Telesio Approve the Minutes of November 17, 2010 APPROVED 4- 0 -0 -1, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIGHT; VOICE REFLECTED APPROVAL; HARTER ABSTAINED 2 Change in Location for the Planning Commission Meetings APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIGHT; VOICE VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 10 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGING THE LOCATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS TO CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 41000 MAIN STREET, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1 Next in Order: Resolution: 10 -25 Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 3 Planning Application Nos. PA08 -0241, PA08 -0242, a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a two -story, 24,943 Islamic Center located at the northeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Colibri, Eric Jones APPROVED 5 -0, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KIGHT; VOICE VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION 10 -26 PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA08 -0241 AND PA08 -0242, A TWO -PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO - STORY, 24,943 SQUARE FOOT RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON 4.32 ACRES WITHIN A VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND CALLE COLIBRI (APN 957 - 140 -012) Suzanne Rombach, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Margaret Jones, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Sylvester Scott, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Wiley Drake, Buena Park resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Mano Bakh, Wildomar resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Gayle Byrne, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. George Rombach, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. William Rench, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Amy Pina, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Julie Gilbart, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Jacqueline Le Beau, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Twilla Leonard, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Dr. Walter Moseneder, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Laura Scott, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Gabe, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Michael Torretti addressed the Planning Commission. Lorina Bennett, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Larry Slusser, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Patrice Lynes, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Donna Maxey, Corona resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Rev. Dominic Rivkin addressed the Planning Commission Paul Jacobs, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Diane Serafin, addressed the Planning Commission. Bob Kowell, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Rabbi Haim Beliak, Los Angeles resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Yosef Klien, West Hills resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Matthew, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. 2 Amy, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission Eric Greene, Los Angeles resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Michelle Lauridsen, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Tyler Saldanna, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Nam -Yong Horn, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. James E. Horn, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. David Pine, Los Angeles resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Adrienne Murphy,Tustin Ranch resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Brigitte Green, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Joseph Zarro, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Hadi Nael, Wildomar resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Christine Welsh. Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Suzanne Marks, Los Angeles resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Maya Barron, Los Angeles resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Dr. Ali A. Selim, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. David Dresnick, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. John Trautman addressed the Planning Commission. Fred Butler, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Rebecca F. Al- Ghizawi, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Mahmoud Harmoosh, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Dr. Nisar Ahmed, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Don Krampe, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Farah, Winchester resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Shakeel Syed, Anaheim resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Karen Lugo addressed the Planning Commission. Tahmina Morshed, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Arafiena Akbar, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Salam Al- Marayati, Sunland resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Barbara Breyer, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Farouk Abdullah, Romoland resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Greg Krzys, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Moamer Shurrab, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Wendy Rench, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Ernie White, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Samir Bazlamit, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Mahmood Choudere, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Mohamed Wehha addressed the Planning Commission. Ken Engleman, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Ali Zamani, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. John B. Rogers, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. lyad Hajjaj, Hollywood resident, addressed the Planning Commission. AJ Shaker, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Mahmoud Zubaidi, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Jessie Arellano, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Marc A. Beherac, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Teresa Formentera, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Kathi Head, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Dr. Joseph Abrahamm, Santa Ana resident, addressed the Planning Commission Adam Eventon, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Suhail Fares, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Naureen Shaker, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Waleed Abdullah, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Oumar Sisko, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Michael Johnson, Murrieta resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Raymond Johnson, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Ted Wegener, Menifee resident, addressed the Planning Commission. Robert Rosenstren, Temecula resident, addressed the Planning Commission. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Carl Carey Chairman 4 Patrick Richardson Director of Planning and Redevelopment ELECT 2011 CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: BACKGROUND SUMMARY STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 2010 Matthew D. Peters, AICP, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA09 -0345, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 40 -foot clock tower wireless antenna facility surrounded by a six -foot wrought iron fence and consisting of three sectors of four antennas each (12 panel antennas), two GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store -It storage facility building at 44618 Pechanga Parkway Approve with Conditions Categorically Exempt Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures Michael Crawford from Spectrum Surveying and Engineering on behalf of Verizon Wireless NC — Neighborhood Commercial PDO -1, Pala Road Planned Development Overlay U- Store -It (Self Storage Facility) Hazit Mini Market and RV Storage Single Family Residential across drainage channel Temecula Creek Single Family Residential across Pechanga Parkway The applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA09 -0345 on December 3, 2009. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant on multiple variations of the antenna facility including a mono -pine, two light standards, and a building integrated design. In the end, it was decided that the clock tower would provide the best screening of the antenna facility, and both complement and enhance the U- Store -It development. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. 1 ANALYSIS Site Plan The applicant is proposing 40 -foot clock tower wireless antenna facility surrounded by a six -foot wrought iron fence and consisting of three sectors of four antennas each (12 panel antennas), two GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store -It storage facility building. The clock tower is proposed to be located at the end of a row of storage units at the back of the site, which is on the north property line adjacent to the Hazit Mini Market /RV Storage Facility. The equipment room will be located in the end storage unit. Construction of the clock tower will not have an impact on access and circulation within the development, and Verizon will utilize an assigned, but non - exclusive parking space for maintenance of the facility. Architecture The clock tower is proposed to have a green standing seam metal roof, and stucco finish with foam trim banding details, and arched details. All colors will match and complement the design of the existing U- Store -It main building facade along Pechanga Parkway. The clock tower will completely disguise all 12 panel antennas and a wrought iron fence will replace existing chain link and barbed wire separating the U- Store -It property from the Hazit Mini Market /RV Storage Facility. The overall height of the clock tower is 40 feet. The property is zoned PDO- 1, Pala Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The PDO specifies that the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Development Standards shall apply. The Neighborhood Commercial district has a maximum height requirement of 35 feet. However, Chapter 17.40 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance specifies that the height of the support structure must be the minimum necessary to provide the required coverage. The panel antennas are required to be 35' feet high at the centerline and will be housed in a 40 foot clock tower. One of the clock tower variations staff reviewed had a flat top with no cornice or parapet. Though this resulted in a lower tower height, staff requested that the applicant include a pitched standing seam metal roof to match the existing building and provide a finished look to the tower. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on December 3, 2010 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review per Section 15303, Class 3 New Construction of Small Structures. This project includes the construction of a clock tower antenna facility at an existing U- Store -It storage facility on 3.04 acres. The area of construction for the clock tower consists of 796 square feet. The facility meets all development standards per the General Plan and Development Code. 2 FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.10.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. The proposed use is consistent with all requirements stated in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance of the Temecula Development Code. In addition, staff reviewed the project and has determined that the project is in conformance with the all the requirements of the General Plan. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect uses, buildings or structures. The antenna facility is incorporated into a free standing clock tower that has been designed to match and enhance the architecture of the existing U- Store -lt facility, The project is designed to have negligible impact on surrounding uses. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Based on the requirements stated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code, the site for the conditional use is adequate to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other features described in the Development Code. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The wireless antennas will be located inside a new clock tower and most equipment for the antenna facility will be housed inside the clock tower or an adjacent storage unit. This will prohibit unauthorized access to the facility. In addition, the project has been reviewed and conditioned by Building and Safety, Fire Prevention, and the Police Department to ensure the conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and the proposed project is consistent with the requirements outlined in the Development Code, and Building and Fire Codes, which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the use is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. 3 ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Notice of Public Hearing 4 City of Temecula 0 250 PA09 -0345 500 Feet This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System. The map is derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The Geographic Information System and other sources should be queried for the most current information. This map is not for reprint or resale. TEMECULA CREEK f very onwireless 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY TEMECULA CALIFORNIA 92592 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BUILDING D, 1ST FLOOR IRVINE, CALIFORNIA \/ mmas, wireless 15505 RA:O CANYON AVENUE BUILDING D. 1ST FLOOR (RUNE. CALIFORNIA 92618 PROJECT WPORMATIOY TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92592 CURRENT ISSUE DAR 08/06/70 ISSUED FOR ZONING _RE V2 - DATE:== DESCRIPn0NN =B ME PRm5IIO PPg0C5 ntl u rN OF (12) N s MVO. ANTENNAS AT A .35,-M • 91sT wnw o 4 mrzw 0- a s P * • W50Y1A102 LEMMA EWRN 99 (9 9190E AN 061140 STORMS maT 9151.191,191 OF 0 N 5100 0- ms 091 045 ON • 0 S0Nl*1C9 OF A 1S9IZCN -50154 B' 1•9003215 1T IR F2MK • Ixnuunw 206' A 191¢00 91000605 V wa'nwpT 1 CA re • 91514007700 OF A VERSON MRELESS 5.5 B' co:cam 040 PAD 0-M A RERUANERTGERERATOR • CQ1M•Q CA11- RUNS 111°" AN As • MR ap i µ 50 CARNETS • NEW 2004 5000015 517100E TO KERR alas AS ADOPTED 8,74 MM. GMERNIM MINDOSES, Nor „cos„„ 10 w c To mom 0-x as I. 2007 2.10600.00 oo ME zoos IDc 5. 3 MCC 2. 2007 MC O*YO s . 007 CEC BA55D ON ME 2003 MO .. 2917 CRC IMMO w ME TOM DIM 0 2077 CPC RAND w TM 2006 Mc 7 2007 u 0 00505 00 200E 917 062 BAUD M ME W GC SHEET DESCRIPTION REV. /76noz rvG x0 149 a.z. N /w i s zawD 0.N. T1 77112 MEET A : 5/28/09 cox 0m:NB 0.s Al 055 PINT A A2 -- _ A3 A4 . v 2 K1AL A aNA & CAaE 59100#0 A.9 AxTPrA uXUr _ ..__.__ E. are eau. 2 . _ z 2 PREPARED , ' c_r+ —_ _ ___..._____ NORM AxD EASE EmRAn91s AS MGM 500 92_ST 0[vnnw2 SURVEMNG & ENGINEERING 8905 W POST RO.. SUITE 100 LAS KCAS, NEVADA 89118 PH. (702) 287 -7705 A% (702) 267 -0722 - CODE COMPLIANCE r - DRAWN EIY)= : APV: "'" -' -- ,..._ R. SAN RUM 11.1 0500L0 C 05658 P AECTx2LL PROJECT DESCRIPTION SOF AC MIVPON /PI AWNING. .., 8790 MAPLE PL. RATE KO RANCRO 1 CALIFORNIA 9173C GOMM MADAM* . 0 0 505 ) 094 944-3471 I V NGNEER N P / WQ FN` /J' NO g A SPECIRMA S nC 00.. 50CE 107 2 3 2 ( 33 3) 6 B 9TRUCTU061 FNGINFF9;, Low F GTR'.„ PROPOSED /•P OCAT/O O • / 10041 /ON M'oN 0050 FPt SHEET INDEX ZONING \--‘ o a TITLE SIGNATURE DATE N 5,,, e„,„,„„, 000 w Poor LAN CMS NEVADA 1 z) RF ENGINEER TER Pa 0. 5 <. Ns. °o Fi cc RRAL ESTATE PROPERTY OWNER 00000 ,_ _ _ _ _SNEEr TITLE SHEET 4RUETOR 3D. '224x0 spEcmow 8905 W TPo' 50 801 MN .)..RADA 1B MGM 112474 ".(702)767 7705 ruh7E1 x7 -em CONING APPROVAL CONSTRUCTION 0050101 A001TION L APPROVAL SHEET NUMBER ENSIGN: THOMAS GUIDE MAP RIVERSIDE COUNTY 2I PAGE: G C3 I T 1 x q 1-l57 -S VICINITY M MA NIAP PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT TEAM APPROVAL UST DESCRIPTION \/ �� •��� mxtb 15505 SANG (0 A BUILDING MAINE 0511020005 93CNVE 00015 FLOOR 01 L 3 or R1 uAas,HEAMw 061 PRA IN SON c,. { I I I eECw, 555 aT0 s S ♦ ♦ aoE _ SHOT. 007 77{000 ' 0,777 S 7770 TPST LINE 7 A S00 RAE TABLE ---71--7- . —1_ I +-� I ' "/ T r 1100 0055500 105100 LI ro 00lw ,9 ' 02 S5 /30 Y YYN0t S 0 02 1 R )B >3 p0 mE B 1 I �- ,J-..7.7S8.057PROSCi S0.00 TEST; TM 00 , _ - I I MEUSE NORM 055954 EARL E ., I 1 1 A I 1 '5 RAGE 07 OF E COUNTY RECwOExa - I .,. 1 I I °� wl �Y�Y�G Y \ P Ex a _00 04 0(N00, s I § I I \ \ 3.2r ryas ra 0000000 °J _ u[ 9 mE xwmwsi I m rt 00000 m) Cr ` f NOTES & TITif REPORT FXC.EPTIONS Pa r 1 I gI - \ NFCRNAPIXI TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECHAAGA PARAWAT TEMECULA CAUF02NIA 92502 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 08/06/10 ISSUED FOR ZONING m05 • - REA: AO. ' u£LVnxwv0U . \ PPM0000 000Z005 wn0120 i EASE .- ,I '' I� E EMMEiwi 3/ 0 5000 a 0 1:OC I M 0) 00000RD: 5 00300 0000 a 000 00005000 0000 20 R m i = 400 c0 I 2417-4 ,P 0Gµ w 0005 EOa mil S 00 a¢nwATOR AREA 70 -0' . xa (x390 S0. ) (— ro E ♦sr 4 00N w W s. r1E /0„,„ /0„,„ Ow0ESPw0 00 r0.0„ u ' \ \ 0 7707 7 0 7707 7 LG AREA tags 5000.) I - . I ll 0 aaaff mS R,om a, , \\ I I I I '�' v.>i:.� IN0001.0•At THERETO 5 SET FORTS IN A DOCUMENT P 1 ✓ 0 5 0 00'x: TES a 5,000 1 00 - , ,. em .5 0 „„ 5„Ex,xc.s9es ♦ \ \ \ • 1 I I w I I c $ a m u x505005 05x0 cexRmEO _ sO v ) I 5 ', ' J b 00000' >AS w PPOPEPTY s s.oA„ ten. aA.v v N % \ r - / I I S 1 E ` 0 ± 01W00s°, ' . ' d. - 0 N .S 1 0 \\ / I j I1 or. "8 - 8 0005 crs 0 00 0 ,,,E00„,,, 000000 \ I 000 00 a i L '" z - 10.0 - S,. r ' v. \ \ • I 000 o o ACCESS T ° I I 0500 5 0 0 1 . & O ww 0¢500 ¢ES.w i„AD o inw Nm syR s\ \ ‘,/ I m E e ' 1 1 IT Q t) a � OY 1 1 0.' � $ x v m�. 50000 N'M M 0 0777- I I u 1 ` 077D a 00 540 W W4'7" G5' 0 ♦ 55 (0 00 4 0♦ 0 E 00NO \ \ N I I 1 ' a S WAS 55 \ 1 I PI I \ = REV.:= DAlE:= 0E5CRmnoN: =eY:= ,z © 00 /00/ Exam lr /o/ z rc sane /090 009150 / A.s. P PREPARED 0Y, = LANS ISP CTRIJM 'SURVEYING &ENGINEERING 0905 VEGAS. POST RD„ SURE 100 IA PH. (702) 361- ]]05 FAX (7000) SST -8733 .00 OOSFx v L0051W E ARE \ KMC0E0 70 USE A 00500000550500000 D0000r D0070070 \ ; w� L \� [' I 1 C0 \ j G - Cr 000000 \ \ 1 I f „.. _ _ _ _ \ 1 ,s{ \ 1 �i.iil..1 0 / D MLE ♦r LOSASV7 S SET S00 ' \ \ I I � V \ \ G/ ; 1 I / X 000171 a "0 = DRAWN BY 00003 =500,, R. SAN JUAN IM. CEFAIV o. NENER = UCEN00RE: 8000 vn \ h / I ' 1 50 1 \ \ h% 1 � \ G� 1 O is 0 EE007700777077. 0EE RECORDED M P 0 554'0 TRACT. \ \ 0 M1 I � j \ 1 1 / I Rx¢ S Y 1 \ Z \ / PURPOSE. / MAO EA SE5040 \- .4t700, n 5 :m FARCE / v v ' F 0 1 � �•4 uwwrry \ \ 3 �— w !ERROR. ray cameo l' [TTWR .v v / / O �n Rf O Ex 4CEFUFN( „0„5„„ ♦o 0 CAO}wtl U. \ 4' \ I � h n / \ \\ \\ / I 0, \ / AT 700 SEMEN; / S>RL Uu 000 ■ � SE 7710071•071 I } \ \ \ \ .PMASw I RECORDED: esmuvsr Na 01 ry� "° \ten • 1 I t WOE , L TMUVExr Ew zoo PMC w I \ q\ \ \ ,p' " Q mt, .L ��� 1 I I Ec mn 1 e�9 \ \ Po . \ \� \\ / 0000001020. M 11 m a 940000 „00,0„ .a 000000 A 00.E m I'�4 � \ \ \ ,.r ` 00 ARO 0J a 0 0 00 0 001 ....0 000o4ENT c. EorF �` 1 \ \ \ `��� � \ I M. ME OTY OF w R ' R - Ensn 00500 00011 1 5 0M Ei 9 n u ,rr _ m 2 I I I G90. \ \ r . .. Wacdx \ a \ \` 00(0011 R &c w m „wfi 1 PROP EAT. As 50000 I I " 3 ° \ \ LS 07 i 1 / \ \�1 000om E`LM°iw GRAPHIC SCALE I ' / \ ) 1 Y O E5 PtlMP SWP¢ _ — I 1 1 I %// E a =SHEET 0110 SITE PLAN -SHEET NUMBER 1 I I v / / w EUT wAru Tour Mac I I I� v v� / • , l°'w' Al 2 SITE PLAN .�iml 1 LAX -153 -B AVIAN :, BwIN�,',E °A aN,ERL.BE �A.KE M� B ZE CC''''' CME LEND a" ,Bm 00090000 „ G 4 35 O (0) 779 0045 ag N „ Ex a 35' -O w (0) 0/0' 0040 TV/Ma s i5 310 A 39 -1A 50 (010/9 wn LOW /OR 3 u .. 010004(0 LB 0- 1 00.0. 0.00. °B➢. id0. 1.05. LED. CPS BA VT COAX CAA • 00W. CMMACTCR 10 F-00 0EA0Y 040IC 0EB41,.s PRIM TO 000ERN7, 0000400::. 201000500000 OF 0A3000 ANTENNA LAYOUT SITE DETAIL ANTENNA AND CABLE SCHEDULE PRAPOSEO TOxER /w0E03 0ENT RDA* I 20'` 20 (I0000 .F T .5 04' (7074 LEASE AREA 5700 sort) ^\ <4==g-N . \ \ \ \ \ P u wEU P : € \ \ \I � - / 4 \ . , \\ \ I < I I I I i 1 17 I I 7 I j oA / 10C'N5 LEASE AREA AEXTERUNA 0000005 EA0 50AAR CHAZAILAX FENCE F PROPOSED WOUPIT IRON RKC E [G, ma 0$11 BLOCK WALL ARE 1■YORAPAI PAR.MC LOT l RCC000[A we POWER 501E GRAPHIC SCALE 2 - 0• 5 SAND CA50100 AVENUE '15505 SAND VENUE BUILDING 0, ,ST FLOOR IRNNE, CALIFORNIA 92618 PROJECT INFd4MATON TEMECULA CREEK 44018 PECHA1414 PARKWAY TEMECULA, CONFORMS 92592 r CURRENT ISSUE Mt 08/06/10 ISSUED FOR ZONING SHEET PRE DATE: —DE 0na /00 BO Eavuo PREPARED BY ON SURVEYING 8, ENGINEERING 8 05 w ST D. Su1TE AS 000 5 VEG 5 NE DA 09148 ,1. ( 02) 167-7705 FA% 02 ) 367-8733 PR. OS P oaoo R. SAN AN IM. CEFALUIC. NENER CENSURE: SITE DETAIL, ANTENNA & CABLE SCHEDULE AND ANTENNA LAYOUT SHEET NUMBER:001 A2 IA% -053 -0 IFr N0 - �� as A BUILDING CANYON AVENUE 0518E 00190RNA92610 _ Y = \\\� _ _- • II I I 1` = PROJECT INFORMATQY - z I k. I i' +... \ \ \ A TEMECULA CREEK 46618 PECNANGA 506 025 TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92592 O 1 ✓ 1 / I 4 E i \ w.Y x0W di C I _ - � °` 410-1100 L 0 000 a "° : Y. n = CURRENT 6551E 0610 08/06 /10 0040 050 I h 111 110011a1 NON a »I 1 p , 'J 5 v 1 I I .Ew,«w a.ER,i«, i 1 -- , �_ WS Saa 6 I I I I I i i WEE amvc cxa roN AREA t — - R u i � 11 I V/ 1 HYDRANT I 11 � 1 1p 094051 a T I __ 450 0040x ° TO I _ _ I ox "EA J rr u . POWER FLEE ■ i ,., _ / I Ii I I \ ,' I i ! � I 1 =ISSUED FOR. ZONING _ REV.: = OAT::— OESUIPTON� BY: ! 1 1 e iltr CDUSUPPORT(- 4'EAw «r) 11 • ' -I I / I � . A � L � - -J I I 1 � � .. P809011 WRING v rocas I ^ I 1 ` I I a 0 11 I , - I—�- I - 'F I (10 o EPS u+rzx5AS 00551 - M �w I y1 I i ® � I V/ 1 1 I k 1 � AI � y = I I� ° 1 1 ' STORAGE R000 ��io: / J za.sa.,,xw; .00. Q..iosiR9 I9Rx z QD 1 0n � 0 as -PLANS PREPARED BY S?. ► _ - W °��� ���� O — A I 1 1 1 n I i -- -'—B I r LJ I tlAVIAENERATW 0 (EMS SO. 1) I ® � _ I 1 1 I AFE AREA xns SP 0JJ DC 'I .1� � L� I � E 1 ( `� � ; � La d 1 L . 1 — I L l i I I I I 1 _ EGS I 1 I I I B E - _ 1 I 1 � 1 I I I M.c I A�O I .• L 42_502,4 I ' L __ L � _ L — R 1I 1 I ��. 1 - m c. I - I , oRoposio z I R ' NEW WALLS AND Calra 1 1030705:0 VERIZa R 6 / 600 000 821w-001 . i 1 PROPOSED 100 an"a I � ' '"0 5o(c0 j 'i PROPOSED a I 1 Oi Axa.. Axs 1T II Il ; I j / I ¢xm ° i aox I 2 � - - - i' G 1 E EM iemi rzw 1, __ - _ �— = 11 1 51 -__ _ 1,1 CA SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 6 05 OS 0, 5001E 100 LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89168 P . (]02) J6] ]]05 100(702)3 - DRAWN BY 0 CM K�APV: •�I R. SAN ✓JAH1M. CEFALV C. MENER - uCENSORE =SHEET T E. ENLARGED SITE DETAIL -541 NUMBER R M910Y� A3 LAX B ENLARGE SITE DETAIL sww P004' 0 O 4Wt 0 E ca 90 0 ¢WV i00 \ \\ nntaarwireless 15505 SAND CANYON AYENUE 81L0I160 D. 1sT AWARD CALIFORNIA 0251 92618 - PROJECT INFORMATION TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY 114100LA. CLUFORNIA 92592 - CURRENT ISSUE DATE. 08/06/10 ISSUED 001D ZONING - REV.:= DATE:==O4DESCRIPTON: —BY:- iEv) YrLiii o1 Da/06/41 ' emo 4Exi00 v.2. ( )WPo WxE4[ssa.' - R 0R Pw.RD N,1..: ` . w. !! 020 4 0 0 01 P u � . E wvE ,2 o gxRRJVE \ P 0014424 <.x4Ex. '� \ I - 1f �$$�� !f9! Q 1 1 1 /06Ni DJF=ONO O . V . 0/215/0 900 WANG = PLA�N00041PPA�RRED13=0Y{ -NQLC If'L�LIld e s 4 5 SURVEYING k ENGINEERING 8905 W P ST RD. SUITE ILO LAS WED 5 NEVADA 89198 051 (42) 20 9722 cg0a R DYO NAyM PE �1 SE f 40400 2 2 / i; 0 wREss 1-\ .x l� PR s rc 1422, 11 E Oi 2) „ „ WIS(M 00 U mefi 500.0 € RCN =NQ 6 00050010 PPE02 RS ♦ v(02 v'S O+v F SO E F S. NE ( ) .. 1 g . & DRAWN BY. =CHK =APV: faiz 4 0 o 0 0 y a R 8 .. , N. SPN .PJAN M. 1U5L5 C MENER - 1 LICENSVRE. dill ktp,,,, T' .T 6 c. PAD(To R '� . f j 'T 1 k 1 i 1 .' ” A H «RE x6. F . ,,,,, 1 <E. a2) • 1 5 „ 1 ,,tE. a CONCRETE 20 CAELALTS 01002 9„„, A, 8 PER U +mAU90 PIO coRCONTE M( UPO O z / TWROTTO re 90=2061 0" w=1= TE .. ...,__.. w../ _SHEER 11011 NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS =SHEET NUMBER EAS'ON:_ A4 2 EAST ELEVATION -- 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1 LAX- 153-e Pnro°scO lEFlxm wn[t[55 - o" Km2M 0X1055 \- VOirtga Areless 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BuLDRIC O. 1ST FLOOR 1NE. CAIIFPNIA 92616 = PROSCT INFORMA8ON TEMECULA CREEK 44616 PECHANEA PARRINA)' c0ECUL4. CALIFORNIA 92592 = CURRENT MACE DATE: O8 /D6 /)D =15WED FOR ZONING =REV.: =DAR:= OESCRIPPON: =BY:. a ` as/06/1 z r =lax ax. r:r: r.1 I r as wD 1 1 N N.6 zos A re Las r. rr r 4! rrn 7 1 rcwxm r .;o M ;, , , ,,, .S.T. o aC.N . U >11.1 o o °,,, =PLANS PREPARED BY �''AA' ISPECT� SURVE10NG k ENGINEERING 6 DS w P 5T R0. SVIR 100 LAS DEG 5 NEVADA 89148 PH (02) 367-7708 000 (OR) 707._0777 W `r i N oo( T 0 / °2 R POW 3 w M X55 MW2(0 mass =ass s rttiuA / u x .NC amoss asaos =ORANN BY —CXK —MV , AA y U � n k' , R. SANNAN Iµ CEFALUIO. SERER _LICENSURE amass b'n 6 A j et r /A G� ,� A / � - * 1i III!I ?� � = Ili , (i .1 • ma I amas -PRceoao .00 RER 00IFFMOR no/ sco yams Rtu <MMC( PA° (m. OS s s 2 ut o 5 aoa4 s, ra (m. a z) � =ass -SHEET - SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS =SHEET 04000E0: 0EN000::= A5 u x - 2o -B WEST ELEVATION 'o 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 7 YA1ERIAL: AM:NICHT COM. FRA2EE PAM COLOR LOT MYI161N 'PORTAGE' EAST ELEVATION H2 MAMA: 04101 10 MO1 COLOR MAZE PAM COLOR LIE 4091/848 TOITACe NORTH ELEVATION SAlxa3 11091 cam MADE PAM COIGN IXE 0.410014 •ALLY -80' MGR MANE PAM 0104 COOL IRAEEE PAW 00.08 U80 tom: FRAZEE PAM C0.01 1110 OVALS WE CORM* 1.M`A' SIV000 MIN \` 01100101 'TALLY -N7 IRM 0EIAE5• LITE 0.2641■ 'SLAW S1Df,C0 0054 OCLOR: FRAME PAM COW NPE 04100118 'TALLY - fl7 4.1 (1 IIIIII ll ILIIIiIi� WirAW: STNON° SE48 METAL - MGh FRAZE PAf1T C0.* LSE 03138 1148101' 1MA 00981 coLow mat PMf COIW 410 03410 -RAMC S1VCC0 TM94 COOW: FRAME PAM COLOR LYE 02040 'DINCM' *10800 114541 00.01: /RAM PMT MLR 111E 10010410'1ALLT -040' 411 OFTASS CCU* /RAZE/ /041 001011 °IT 00441* 71NIC SR1004 MIN MOC Min PMT MCP LSE aL11W1r LT-RO 1 4 ORM9 COW. TRAnx PAM COOK 111 02410 1118(' 1114 OETAAS 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BUILDING D. 1ST FLOOR IRNNE, CALIFORNIA 92618 - PROJECT INFONYA110M TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECNANOA PARKWAY 1EUECULA, CAUFORNIA 92592 11RRENT 15SUE DATE. 08/06/10 SSUED F E V.: = GA1E: 8Y:.., ZONING LANS PREPARED BY: Mir-s. E M SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 8905 W POST RD.. 5U1E 100 LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89148 Pit. (702) 367 -7705 0654 (702) 367 -8733 WN BY:= 00(.: . (R. SAN ,IJANIM. CEFALUIC. MENER = UCEN5URE L eer n1LE TRIM IS NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS, COLOR & DoN_ f A6 2 LAX -163 -8 9l= Rt90 ll it/06/1 Z fl ,1 2. /04/ 100 6E SOIVIP LL RS /2$/00 10A 051814 1 t YA1ERIAL: AM:NICHT COM. FRA2EE PAM COLOR LOT MYI161N 'PORTAGE' EAST ELEVATION H2 MAMA: 04101 10 MO1 COLOR MAZE PAM COLOR LIE 4091/848 TOITACe NORTH ELEVATION SAlxa3 11091 cam MADE PAM COIGN IXE 0.410014 •ALLY -80' MGR MANE PAM 0104 COOL IRAEEE PAW 00.08 U80 tom: FRAZEE PAM C0.01 1110 OVALS WE CORM* 1.M`A' SIV000 MIN \` 01100101 'TALLY -N7 IRM 0EIAE5• LITE 0.2641■ 'SLAW S1Df,C0 0054 OCLOR: FRAME PAM COW NPE 04100118 'TALLY - fl7 4.1 (1 IIIIII ll ILIIIiIi� WirAW: STNON° SE48 METAL - MGh FRAZE PAf1T C0.* LSE 03138 1148101' 1MA 00981 coLow mat PMf COIW 410 03410 -RAMC S1VCC0 TM94 COOW: FRAME PAM COLOR LYE 02040 'DINCM' *10800 114541 00.01: /RAM PMT MLR 111E 10010410'1ALLT -040' 411 OFTASS CCU* /RAZE/ /041 001011 °IT 00441* 71NIC SR1004 MIN MOC Min PMT MCP LSE aL11W1r LT-RO 1 4 ORM9 COW. TRAnx PAM COOK 111 02410 1118(' 1114 OETAAS 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BUILDING D. 1ST FLOOR IRNNE, CALIFORNIA 92618 - PROJECT INFONYA110M TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECNANOA PARKWAY 1EUECULA, CAUFORNIA 92592 11RRENT 15SUE DATE. 08/06/10 SSUED F E V.: = GA1E: 8Y:.., ZONING LANS PREPARED BY: Mir-s. E M SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 8905 W POST RD.. 5U1E 100 LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89148 Pit. (702) 367 -7705 0654 (702) 367 -8733 WN BY:= 00(.: . (R. SAN ,IJANIM. CEFALUIC. MENER = UCEN5URE L eer n1LE TRIM IS NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS, COLOR & DoN_ f A6 2 LAX -163 -8 miaarywwwww 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BOLDING D. 1ST FLOOR !RIME. CALIFORNIA 92618 • CT INFORMATION TEMECULA CREEK 44618 PECHANCA PARKWAY TEMECULA. CAIFORNIA 92592 v 5 5 g ` a q 5 5 5 5 5 5 11 ? II ! 1414\ 1 � gh __.. _ _ - . - -� ..- . • - �:. • . - .. • - •. ,.�� UATO6N.: 51NON0 g01 KM 0000 MAW( 1001 05.1 lit =12S1 - RM OVALS CAM FRO•= PAN1 0010 LPL n26A1t •MAID• -.'" •- - -- SMC01141511 • _ •._ COLOR RtOt max P I . PAW 1l[ CL211.0 V ALOR(' CURRENT ISSU ED AYE. 08/06/10 SSUED FOR C ZONING J k EV . : 05ATE'�OESCRIPT/ON:�Y:�. 08/06/102poq 0[59901 3I 1 Tat ORALS I KOOK Li SNOW [NI91 Opp! FRAME PANT 0001 URY O.0'92R'TNLT -LO Imo MU. MOWMa 00/06/00 10011 20[00 SAL 10/59/06 M1R 00120 RS S PREPARED BY SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 8905 W POST RO., 58 100 LAS V ( 70. )3 -A A IMO PH A (702)367 -7705 AK (702) 367 -0733 F BY: .' . wun FRAME[ PANE wa WE nw1001w - 110' -N7 - T T0.1 Lx1Als LL[ 'SLAW Op 2FL OA [RA PANT =COI L[ CL2 WN =CH(. �APV: _ 0 1 ` � SRICW 8077 Ln 1001r ALLY -NO MCA: PRIM PAM COLOR n � 1R0+ _ Cp01: 0102Q PANT C00R UN n2641W V&)2 SN OCO A mm m.� vwT MC. 111 nnao+R �TruY -1.10 R. SAN .URN III. CEFALUf C. WENER UCENSDRE: 7---'-' O \ & IEET MU. SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS, COLOR & TRIM SPECIFICATIONS h31EET NUMBER:' •^ VISION A7 WEST ELEVATION r:-,-.1t 2 SOUTH ELEVATION _�;; 1 LAX-153-8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA09 -0345, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A 40 -FOOT CLOCK TOWER WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY SURROUNDED BY A SIX -FOOT WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND CONSISTING OF THREE SECTORS OF FOUR ANTENNAS EACH (12 PANEL ANTENNAS), TWO GPS ANTENNAS, A PARABOLIC ANTENNA, AND SUPPORTING GROUND RADIO EQUIPMENT CABINETS STORED INSIDE AN EXISTING U- STORE -IT STORAGE FACILITY BUILDING AT 44618 PECHANGA PARKWAY (961- 010 -009) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On December 3, 2009 Michael Crawford of Spectrum Surveying, filed Planning Application No. PA09 -0345, a Conditional Use Permit Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA09 -0345 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.10.E. 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; The proposed use is consistent with all requirements stated in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance of the Temecula Development Code. In addition, staff reviewed the project and has determined that the project is in conformance with the all the requirements of the General Plan. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect uses, buildings or structures; The antenna facility is incorporated into a free standing clock tower that has been designed to match and enhance the architecture of the existing U- Store -lt facility. The project is designed to have negligible impact on surrounding uses. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; Based on the requirements stated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code, the site for the conditional use is adequate to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other features described in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The wireless antennas will be located inside a new clock tower and most equipment for the antenna facility will be housed inside the clock tower or an adjacent storage unit. This will prohibit unauthorized access to the facility. In addition, the project has been reviewed and conditioned by Building and Safety, Fire Prevention, and the Police Department to ensure the conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and the proposed project is consistent with the requirements outlined in the Development Code, and Building and Fire Codes, which contain provisions to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the use is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review per Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction of Small Structures 1. This project includes the construction of a clock tower antenna facility at an existing U- Store -It storage facility on 3.04 acres. The area of construction for the clock tower consists of 796 square feet. The facility meets all development standards per the General Plan and Development Code. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA09 -0345, a Conditional Use Permit for a 40 -foot clock tower wireless antenna facility, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of December 2010. ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA Carl Carey, Chairman I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of December 2010, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Patrick Richardson, Secretary Planning Application No.: PA09 -0345 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT PL -1. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 40 -foot clock tower wireless antenna facility surrounded by a six -foot wrought iron fence and consisting of three sectors of four antennas each (12 panel antennas), two GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store -It storage facility building at 44618 Pechanga Parkway 961- 440 -001 Exempt (developed site) Business Park/Industrial Industrial /Business Park December 15, 2010 December 15, 2012 Within 48 Hours of the Approval of This Project The applicant /developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48 -hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements PL -2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentalitythereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. PL -3. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. PL -4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. PL -5. The Planning Director may, upon an application being filed within 30 days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one -year extensions of time, one year at a time. PL -6. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. PL -7. The applicant shall paint a three -foot by three -foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. PL -8. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. MATERIAL Standing Seam Metal Roof Banding and Trim Arch Detail Tower - Main Body Color COLOR Frazee CL2126N "Minister" Frazee CL2641W "Blank" Frazee CL2844D "Dialogue" CLW 1001 W "Tally -Ho" PL -9. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. PL -10. The City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) PL -11. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit PL -12. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right -of -ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right -of -way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. PL -13. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OUTSIDE AGENCIES PL -14. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 30, 2009, a copy of which is attached. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT General Conditions /Information B -1. Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in- lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Director, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. The maintenance /facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant and shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The agreement shall comply with all provisions set forth in Section 17.40.210 of the Ordinance. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. B -2. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. B -3. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. B -4. Show all building setbacks. B -5. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.060 for any site within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are as follows: Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. -6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. -6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and Nationally recognized Holidays. B -6. Commercial and industrial project trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. Prior to Submitting for Plan Review B -7. Obtain street addressing for Wireless Mono -Pine and Electrical meter At Plan Review Submittal B -8. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, applicable to scope of work for plan review. B -9. Provide structural calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) B -10. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans. B -11. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements F -1. 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. F -2. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4) F -3. 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 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 1410.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -4. 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, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy F -5. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. F -6. 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, Section 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). F -7. 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, Section 506). F -8. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506) . F -9. 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, Section 503.3). F -10. CFC Chapter 23 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section J shall also apply. F -11. 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 34 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F -12. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Fire Department a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report. A full hazardous materials inventory report and color coded floor plan is required for any building storing or using hazardous materials (CFC Chapters 28 through 44, Appendix Chapter 1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). F -13. 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. POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements PD -1. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the proposed equipment structure and slim line poles is kept at a height of no more than three feet from ground level. Plants, hedges and shrubbery shall be defensible plants to deter would -be intruders from breaking into the structure utilizing lower level entry ways. PD -2. Applicant shall ensure any trees surrounding the structure rooftop be kept at a distance to deter roof accessibility by would -be burglars. Since trees also act as a natural ladder, the branches must be pruned to have a six -foot clearance from the structure. PD -3. Berms shall not exceed three feet in height. PD -4. The placement of all landscaping should be in compliance with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). PD -5. All exterior lighting to the structure must be in compliance with Riverside County Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655, low pressure sodium lighting preferred. PD -6. All exterior doors shall have vandal resistant light fixtures installed above the door. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one -foot candle illumination at ground level, evenly dispersed. PD -7. All lighting affixed to the buildings shall be wall mount light fixtures to provide sufficient lighting during hours of darkness. PD -8. Applicant shall comply with the Governor's order to address the power crisis. This order became effective March 18, 2001 calling for a substantial reduction from businesses to cut usage during non - business hours. The order, in part, states, "All California retail establishments, including but not limited to, shopping centers, auto malls and dealerships, shall substantially reduce maximum outdoor lighting capability during non - business hours except as necessary for the health and safety of the public, employees or property." Failure to comply with this order following a warning by law enforcement officials shall be punishable as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $1000 in accordance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. PD -9. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. PD -10. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the structure should be removed or painted over within twenty -four (24) hours of being discovered. Report all crimes to the Temecula Police 24 -hour dispatch center at 951 - 696 -HELP. PD -11. Any roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." PD -12. Crime prevention Through Environmental design (CPTED) as developed by the National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) supports the concept that "the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life." The nine primary strategies that support this concept are included below: a. Provide clear border definition of controlled space. Examples of border definition may include fences, shrubbery or signs in exterior areas. Within a building, the arrangement of furniture and color definition can serve as a means of identifying controlled space. b. Provide clearly marked transitional zones. Persons need to be able to identifywhen they are moving from public to semi - public to private space. c. Gathering or congregating areas to be located or designated in locations where there is good surveillance and access control. d. Place safe activities in unsafe locations. Safe activities attract normal users to a location and subsequently render the location less attractive to abnormal users due to observation and possible intervention. e. Place unsafe activities in safe locations. Placing unsafe activities in areas of natural surveillance or controlled access will help overcome risk and make the users of the areas feel safer. f. Redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers. Separate activities that may conflict with each other (outdoor basketball court and children's play area, for example) by distance, natural terrain or other functions to avoid such conflict. g. Improve scheduling of space. The timing in the use of space can reduce the risk for normal users and cause abnormal users to be of greater risk of surveillance and intervention. h. Redesign space to increase the perception of natural surveillance. Abnormal users need to be aware of the risk of detection and possible intervention. Windows and clean lines -of sight serve to provide such a perception of surveillance. i. Overcome distance and isolation. This strategy may be accomplished through improved communications (portable two -way radios, for example) and design efficiencies, such as the location of restrooms in a public building. PD -13. Business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Unit of the Temecula Police Department at (951) 695 -2773. PD -14. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695 -2773. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements PW -1. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right -of -way. PW -2. All grading and related activities shall conform to the Temecula Municipal Code - Title 18, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control. PW -3. The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. CC�t INTY OF RIVERSIDE • COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY Are DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH December 30, 2009 City of Temecula Planning Department Attn: Matt Peters, Planner P.O. Box 9033 Temecula CA 92589 -9033 Dear Mr. Peters: PROJECT SUMMARY 0 7 2009 VIED SUBJECT: PA09 -0345 — U STOR IT MONOPINE (VERIZON WIRELESS) The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the application for the above project and offers the following comments: This project is proposing a 35 foot monopine wireless antenna facility surrounded by a wrought iron fence and consisting of 18 panel antennas, 2 GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U Stor It storage facility building located at 44618 Pechanga Parkway. The U Stor It storage facility appears to be connected to municipal water and sewer service. No plumbing is proposed for this project. WATER AND SEWER "WILL- SERVE" LETTER A "Will- Serve" letter from the agency(ies) that will be providing potable water (i.e. Rancho California Water District) and sanitary sewer service (i.e. Eastern Municipal Water District) will be required if plumbing is proposed for this project. RIVERSIDE COUNTY - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT BRANCH The facility may require a business emergency plan for the storage of hazardous materials greater than 55 gallons, 200 cubic feet or 500 pounds, or any acutely hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances. If further review of the site indicates additional environmental health issues, the Hazardous Materials Management Division reserves the right to regulate the business in accordance with applicable County Ordinances. Please contact the Hazardous Materials Management Division, at (951) 358 -5055 for any additional requirements. Local Enforcement Agency • P.O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502 -1280 • (909) 955 -8982 • FAX (909) 781 -9653 • 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Land Use and Water Engineering • P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502 -1206 • (909) 955 -8980 • FAX (909) 955 -8903 • 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Matt Peters, Planner City of Temecula December 30, 2009 If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at (951) 955 -8980. Since Michael Mistica, R.E.H.S. Environmental Health Specialist IV Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below PA09 -0345 Spectrum Surveying and Engineering on behalf of Verizon Wireless A Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 40- foot clock tower wireless antenna facility surrounded by a six -foot wrought iron fence and consisting of three sectors of four antennas each (12 panel antennas), two GPS antennas, a parabolic antenna, and supporting ground radio equipment cabinets stored inside an existing U- Store -It storage facility building at 44618 Pechanga Parkway. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA Section 15303, Class 3 New Construction of Small Structures Matthew D. Peters, AICP, (951) 694 -6408 Civic Center, Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street December 15, 2010 6:00 p.m. Notice of Public Hearing Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission, 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 City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at (951) 694 -6408. DATE OF MEETING: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Vacant Lot Area: Total Floor Area /Ratio: Landscape Area /Coverage: Parking Required /Provided: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 15, 2010 Stuart Fisk, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital 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 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road Recommend that the City Council Approve with Conditions Addendum to an EIR; Section 15164 Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. Professional Office (PO) Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay -9 (PDO -9) North: Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Temecula Parkway, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) East: Professional Office (PO), Highway /Tourist Commercial (HT), PD0-8 West: PDO -6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) Existinq /Proposed Min /Max Allowable or Required 35.3 acres 5.0 acres 0.36 proposed 0.30 minimum/1.0 maximum 33.3% proposed 25.0% minimum 1,278 spaces 897 spaces 1 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 ("Project"). On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and was circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at noticed public hearings. After consideration of the project at the noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 06 -02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06 -03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA05- 0302), adopted Resolution No. 06 -04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan (PA04- 0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06 -06 recommending approval of the Tentative Parcel Map (PA04- 0571). On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). Following due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -05, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, adopted Resolution No. 06 -06, amending the General Plan to remove the project site from the Z "Future Specific Plan" overlay designation and corresponding two -story height restriction (PA04- 0462), adopted Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06 -08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 to consolidate the project's eight lots into one lot (PA04- 0571). On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the 2 MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. 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 800 feet west of Margarita Road. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07- 0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08 -02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution No. 08 -03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07- 0199), adopted Resolution No. 08 -04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202), adopted Resolution No. 08 -05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07- 0200). On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05 -0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the project. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07 -0200) at a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 08 -10, certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project, adopted Resolution No. 08 -11 approving the Zone Change (PA07- 0198), adopted Resolution 08 -12 approving the Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 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 3 substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08 -12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08 -13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10 -08 that in approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need to file for a major modification of the entitlements. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. 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 Under the proposed modification plan, the first phase of the hospital would include 140 beds rather than the 170 beds identified in the phasing plan for the previously approved Development Plan, and the first phase would be reduced from 285,405 square feet to 177,486 square feet. The second bed tower and one -story outpatient building expansion is proposed to be constructed in Phase IV of the project and would provide an additional 230,674 square feet of hospital building space, thereby achieving the total hospital building space of 408,160 square feet identified in the previously approved project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. At build -out of the project site, identified as the year 2026 by the project applicant, the project would include a total of 320 hospital beds and all of the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center areas identified in the previously approved Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The total square footage of all the buildings at build -out of the project remains at 566,160 square feet, consistent with the previously approved project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. The proposed modification plan would relocate the truck loading bays and service yard area from the east side of the hospital building to the north side of the building, and would relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building that includes a 5,905 square foot mechanical room. To accommodate this revision, drive lanes and parking areas have also been reconfigured. The previously approved plans included a five story hospital bed tower and a six story bed tower. The modification plans propose that both hospital bed towers will be five stories. Due to a change in the method of construction (from concrete to steel frame), the architect has indicated that the same useable building square footage can be achieved in a smaller building 4 footprint and that the previously approved total square footage of the hospital building of 408,160 square feet will be achieved in the proposed building. Site Plan As discussed above, the proposed modification plan would relocate the truck loading bays and service yard area from the east side of the hospital building to the north side of the building. Mechanical equipment would be relocated from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building, and drive lanes and parking areas will be reconfigured to accommodate this revision. The 16 space parking lot at the front of the cancer center has been eliminated under the proposed modification plan and these parking spaces have been relocated to the parking lot located south of the cancer center. With the elimination of this parking lot, the passenger loading zone for this building has been shifted from the southwest corner of the building to the southeast corner and the previously approved porte - cochere at the passenger loading zone has been eliminated. It should be noted that the proposed modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit would not change the previously approved access points, helipad location, total building square footage, or total parking for the project. Architecture No changes are proposed to the elevations and architecture for the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center. With regard to the hospital building, the building has been redesigned from a concrete structure to a steel framed structure. This redesign has resulted in the reduction of bed tower one from six stories to five stories and a narrowing in the width of the Phase I bed tower. Due to the narrowing in the width of the Phase I bed tower, after providing the required space for the rooftop mechanical equipment and window cleaning equipment areas, sufficient space no longer exists for placement of the tiled mansard style roof equipment screens that were approved with the original hospital plans. To address this constraint, the applicant has proposed vertical panels that incorporate the use of spandrel glass "windows" and a secondary cornice line to create the appearance of an additional floor in place of the previously approved tiled mansard rooftop equipment screens, bringing form and function together in a more streamlined and timeless appearance that remains consistent with the Citywide Design Guidelines for commercial buildings. The proposed modification plan continues to utilize many elements of the previously approved architectural design for the hospital building. As with the previously approved plans, the building design features the use of earth -toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze tinted glass and Indian Red tile at the base. Each building maintains the three required components including a tile base, stucco body and tiled roof elements. In addition, the abundance of windows on each building breaks up the amount of solid surface. An octagon- roofed rotunda divides the hospital towers and reduces massing by providing a separate feature between the towers. The rotunda and the first story elements of the Phase I bed tower will utilize roof tiles consistent with the previously approved plans. The proposed architectural revisions have resulted in a reduction in the height of the hospital bed towers. The previously approved hospital building was a maximum of 106 feet in height at 5 the rotunda and approximately 91 to 97 feet in height at the main body of the hospital towers. The proposed rotunda is reduced to 90 feet in height, and the main bodies of the hospital towers are reduced to 82.5 to 84 feet in height. Consistency of the hospital building design with the City -Wide Design guidelines is achieved in part through incorporation of elements to divide the mass of the building, the use of vertical elements to break up the building, windows and doors that are proportionate to the building elevations, the use of a variety of roof lines and roof form, screening of rooftop mechanical equipment, and a design for the hospital building that compliments the medical office buildings, cancer center, and fitness center through the use of common roofing material, exterior finish materials, and consistent color palettes. Landscaping The landscape plans for the project have been updated to reflect the City's current water efficient landscape requirements. However, consistent with the previously approved plans, perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25 -foot wide bermed landscape planter along Temecula Parkway (Highway 79 South), consisting of 24 -inch box and 15- gallon California Pepper trees, Sycamores and assorted shrubs; DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line consists of a minimum 40 -foot wide landscape /equestrian trail buffer consisting of 24 -inch box and 15- gallon Afghan Pines and Silk Trees; a 50 -foot wide planter along the western property line of assorted street trees; and a minimum 20 -foot wide landscape buffer consisting of an informal planting of assorted trees along the eastern property line. The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The Project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33.3% proposed). As per the previously approved plans, the project is conditioned to provide landscape berms adjacent to public streets to screen the parking lots. Staff has included Conditions of Approval to further buffer the residential area from the Project by requiring berms and mature evergreen trees such as Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees between the Project site and residential areas to the north (Condition of Approval No. 97). Access /Circulation No changes are proposed to the previously approved access to the site. Minor revisions to internal drive lanes and parking areas are proposed to accommodate revisions to the location of the truck loading bays and service yard area and the relocation of mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northwest corner of the hospital building. Temecula Hospital Adhoc Subcommittee On November 23, 2010, the Temecula Hospital Adhoc Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Comerchero and Councilmember Naggar, met to review the proposal. They raised the following questions and requested the Planning Commission to review these issues: 1. Is the revised architecture of the hospital building consistent with the previously approved architectural elevations? 2. Have environmental conditions, specifically in the area of traffic, changed subsequent to the previous approval? 6 3. What is the status of funding for the reconstruction of the 79 South Interchange? Is that relevant to the project? 4. Since the project has been redesigned, are the previously approved conditions consistent with the original findings of fact that the City Council made when adopting Statements of Overriding Consideration. If not, is additional environmental review necessary to determine whether Statements of Overriding Consideration are appropriate given the changes in the project? 5. Should additional mitigation measures be adopted to reflect changes in the project? LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Californian on December 4, 2010 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to the previously adopted Final EIR and Supplemental EIR for the project was prepared for this modification application. The addendum concluded the proposed minor modifications would not cause any new impacts not identified in the EIR and FSEIR and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the EIR and FSEIR. It also concluded that there has been no change in circumstances under which the hospital project will be carried out that would increase the severity of previously identified impacts and that there is no new information indicating that new and better feasible mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and that the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified. Therefore, an addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions Resolution Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B — Draft CC Resolution Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR Adopted 2008 Final Supplemental EIR Notice of Public Hearing 8 250 500 Pit *4 0 % 110.01k 410 la. A *S) 1 00 \\\C') ' Z ,`� � T w as I. 7 011iiiii110 Feet e -p1ARD „5, 1 1 � ,03 7_ 73 ,r) PA10 -0194 411 p Rp APR -BO 114 -1 A..4 �_9 • © perms aHr 0J _ —_ ?I= 1 Pia} 0 47AM . Mt 0001 (OM � OCACPSKT aearz n .srvm :0 -at ra et O@4 ea.). m. c 5 .M lµl lua PORIOLA XOAO CL DAATOSO NO a Tle tJ Kau a 041,141 Mat a Universal Health Services, Inc KiV t4c Tar / D ,ITI2 C.O.S.Modification City Submittal UHS Temecula Merkel Centel 1. FARAWAY 700“14A CA11.2 Ir rot O m..2....., LLOCAINE$ TIO EASEMENTS NS B BLIP g 1 (= .00 CU.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 ci tests Inialat OTC( Vita k . Pi Aoyox ran.. ==r wwnuuem. I •e retmanaex.:.w" 101 �f614Eq ® m.a Y C _ IIY Fi r S�:Th1J I r rrum r y �� ISITEPLAN Universal Health Services. Inc swit 410 70.0 'Winer (0-15A C.U.P. Modification Shy Submittal UN c R A P A . kel Center upun • 1: .\ r= nq C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 310.1116 14E , I6MDM1 M1DA1V1 OW IRA.. • 315311.310111111 GM.; 6 A1.001d1MDIOMICO.1.1V SOUTH ELEVATION (P 9V-AUN VW; uoWR:.DOf lu e 5 AM I- M113233114 n 1. 1.1ussfv5 3301.03301131101013 r I COrJi11� IIr. MNIIDMCIMIM4 OVFAhA111RNRON4 I :TOWN vPSAH ASE 1) SOUTH ELEVATION (P ASE IV) 1 0914.011 IA: 103f 1-C 111) T T 1131 0 113. 1.133'103[1 'wma al` 1331.1 WEST ELEVATION • I tXrU E EAST ELEVATION MC1M M11HMACAMXMCN 1OMM Iu1114CpM111TH E.1 10.5 5 a] T 77 7 9. IwAAA0Drn1 W 14141WY4M WMt% TO MAI..N1WMPS1 tl C �� T""'�:"t,�"" T �� T a 1109 nAS71 0451t(0101111,IM ��11 ff W I� ot Lit r+w NI 311 11 SI 1.1141.1.1 MM1.1r.1YRt Hm0'. IC /C131 CO91.11u Y. L 13'.1.11334.O'(O :w IUSI1N rhW I YCO VNCAC XN fry iO 3104th MD COt04r, %AMA111 HiOAMIM 'HYMN PO' MAca 1W. M3V1 ellO(W(AL S(MIH 113.1301.311RC010A n.iri. 44T 2 4 4 ■ B ■ ■ ® p ■ ® 1 111111 to' 11 I 111111 191 .1.46311/. .51.1.1t 3.13101: YIOOMHAM11lAMC uu111.73 1XRIN n .H1a0KV 11.31' rOMMCH'NOUNmo•iaf(.OA I1:1111. /103743/53.14 10.1(1111.113031.0003. I[03WC1.00336r ,1P. (13011(111093101.031 fCO31M41M. (H� rl 91.1111 YAM 4 0.31330 -1= L -_1 - :.6:10,5;13 ass � '64 t W C Ot M Ab1 ' TCA11,Y4 111D3 .• 1711 «09.1 TOMATO' , I uao t 2R i l 1 ne�lA, 131 -r n1o(�yy B 1 .431131131311.10.10,31/3 MpGiG 10170. INOIAMILIX 1 1 1 I I I I I 1I� I I -� maul 1 I I NORTH ELEVATION r';; ""; ,1rs 1.1.13 we .unIIIIWI 1 ( !Ned tam tits% Efli sit to 1 1 ® m mi./Wino/An Mf.1Al M0111L Auf Wel'NMsatMROM ow. StOWCCIX0 -AeO IPN [ COM..IVP. 13 313.11.t qt l ..31133 110-10 1O YAXN YdAN .11 CIX13e.131 11 '11.1 111.( Cl V/T1N - F F1 11 II IC I Plat PPI Mf1M3.31.1uXNMN ,DMM[N11/311ACO3.13131 I NE I 12■12i.. I IOU 11MA MOt4VP Mn41 0.1 COLOR 1,131. 1 (N M O113 CO *1 14Jr INN ll(hC551(DVMAHINSWf n1n'f10Me1fED'CClO- 8.] tol cc, 11f I1R TTT T 1 ----- , - -;qty 1 11 ■ T . _ �I.lyrn twA1111V11A' 1.43300i Ill I I u,e W ON *ouAlolTUVU<aw1 >. n AI AqM -pMTOt I I _- _.'101 Universal Health Services, Inc 3 MOOITh ; 06 PA IN 1 MCArc. ni� 09 � limMt /p C.U.P. Modification CIty Submittal UHS Temecula Medical Center t S 11311C APMIXWAV, rEMEC01A..01192 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A.02 1:10 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 ECU Universal Health Services, Inc Kfr So" G.t*R.1 Kin, N PM*. PA 1944 TWO. rasuro HMCrrz.,», 1m ��eIr' E y1�s ill; 1 17 to I I -li in ' . « ! `� icYa JT � . ltIA I' P _ -- �_ I 1 �� lid - � '— '� - -- -� —__ -- -- DD @GmGsoieC �� �.,. _ I { , enei_eo oeoaeaaeoee�o ■ 1.3 WIN nw• ea –" —. rul ell � �. ` I \ / _ ,. VIEW FROM WEST n VIEW FROM SOUTH 1 RCS =,w,sw 54.. MX 0•60.4. n _ �� � I I �_ — 11111 I I 'i°�'ww."` , C.U.P. ModlflcaUon CIN Submittal �.,,l= r..,�.....�... —yam` t.I1 ll l I .ill ! �I � .. 1 _ I1 111 1 . l l �I�I�V �hla.Il, dill UHB TemacuW MWksl Center o,usicuAw,anver. rc«ccuu.aws.x <l) I=M11■.■ \�r°°m"'c.yi° r wcw n (0.1. w 0...) TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIO N _ T r-0 — ilirl VAT iiiir PPINNIIII - _ rail; 01010��� inP wl fi Ps sss RI lo TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN rwv .0 yr. rq •� _ uUI. w G PERSPECTIVES B SITE SECTIONS SITE SE S �- TRASH ENCLOSURE 6 6 VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 3 yr. r.o• ns n.t mum DO Iowan oTr • te • ,•• • e •u Av • ,oP tow. .m.. 04.101 EAST /WEST SITE SECTION A l cos m s rt -r nr n a• �r -r nrn• s s -, ,« „ n Y 0 T o o T >! ■ « 1 4 T r tl Q : 414 (4 A.O3 ,._ NORTH I SOUTH SITE SECTION 7 7 NORTH I SOUTH SITE SECTION G .a.... - nrm,o as iJ C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL,' O O 0 U n 0 CJ O O T 0 O ' Universal Nea11h Services, Inc 100 u»°.k . 0 H MC' ,,,, I* TIIIM r l I/ 1 —I1 _I 11 1 i .L. \ v r 111 It �T , a.u.P. ModificModification cn City Submittal �� Modification •xv NH rz�w s Lurr00NWAY Center WAY ��� N ul I I i — j -- rti I fIRST FLWRPInN 1 I j - -� IL 0- I I I vVA � I 0 __ __ -_ -_� I I I ___ _ -___ r I I alb µ —TE. / w .04 A ROO F PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 ry C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL,' C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 © I 0 I I 0 0 % 0 1 O 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Universal Health Services, Inc 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 i 1 Nnac�... Turner A P,R 1 i 1 1 i i 1 --1-- -- -i-- ---4- -- -+ -- -- 1 1--- - - 4 - -- -i- -- --i-- - i 1 1 i i i 1 i 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 i i i 1 i i 7 I i . F .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 1 I 1 6 n 1 R NIF LL A r C.U.P. Modification n City Submittal _ . ■� • . l OP 1 UXS Temecula Medical Center rutcuA ,uwm * l ' ;r 1 11 LL" 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mai I _ V_ 1 1 1 1 L p ' NG FLOOR PUNS Iny W . _ A.05 CURD, ROMP &rlFiN ,fLCO it R 2 SECONOFLOORPtAN - C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 rry" „rrp- 11 senicos.ine p ___ ,pr TM ENTrI MP( OFISTE TV? EarrENTS T .__ ._. 1 MDSTT1Tr 077 4U 5 1 - - - - I -- ntEnto ,,,, NAI —} - " "" ' ""' " .-- -- -- _. ...,..... HNC. ...., at:gar ra.,.....— Tumor fprp,it /ea araa.rayr,a.r., 404 (MIT(RS AT ....• ••••• SOTTOrkST COWER OF Sr( C ..... nil ""Yu'o % . up,. 0' POO tr".5 IT.OrT "(VW, PA3COAT Pin Crk l0-7 PAID. Olk■ 0) . \ \ IP (r ,............ .....--- -t -- • ",,," •••• ZIT‘SaliiTiZ711.7.377-. FT r L _ I C' R WITIr •••• TT- ••• •••------- 1.. r Tr.......11 Prt...'• •••• o ) \ 4......" Urr li U. TER PA. T7T \ • - - • J -anirseemmuszemitaintese . 1 l i I ' cf. \ .i p .,r • #-- r - i 1,- L -- != 1 —' --- _.- , • tunalliterkuttt—a,ammum youserernesminrsvar —...----- --c-- Ingt,Irrnk;4M111111,1 , ,V11114 \ :all LHLZF : 8110■1111:1; I SIP \ .91:::errstormult , .. pin 114 tml I A's,' inatuernsw trnosentr fiLlatitillit sermon a Snit L._ _ --- I I / 14 Il ....at.... „., , -- . C.U.P. Modification City Submittal -. ri ' `'• r r mm UHS Temecula Medical Center tutmettamtmaymt mutat um.. , i't tti 1 • - I , ••:• I , . . f ... ,. . . i tm t--, F., f P., a fret 1, el imi— „ ,.....„,...,... ..... - 11 11 v / 'LlIP ta 4Alig .... • 6 • fo 1.10,4. ,.. rat 11 t r Of?". i 1 .? • b ..01, f i r 4 eerformi re go • Wi il• -i•13 , „.- Fr : , it . 1 II l it- t•ii l i v , aa me_ • • • • i ,■„.,4 1,,e -n i151404 " ,.........m.... . . 1 ' 1 I — Ett w e 0 F irlite 0. r I r ,,t re.A..F77:, • VI b , I I a rfroehlied I PHASING PLAN AND OUTLYING FIRE HYDRANTS • i kw-r. T• - i L S .1.= / \ -L,,t c, lfl.ITICrUNO Vire I CITAVOErr TO Er r r1/1101 Ti &T u l . t 1 A t r t p l E P E V / .i i tTia„ ph „iksr p I a / rro I ....,,.. i J --F., A.06 ,... ,,. SITE PLAN • PHASING 1 c ,. , „_,., r•-... C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 Sr w . ,h y Universal Health Services, Inc at awe aw ova Mg dtnils..17,05 TOO US 3SSI HNCA rn,.ns mss 4. ..G.. zoax- l'RIVA .,.a, IE STREEr ,a, °o,�,., �x SS .,,x.e _ ' / \ Y / O TEMECULA PARKWAY - PROPOSED 111011T I)ONA IYNORA - TYPIETA FXPANSION - TURN LANE - S1911 I1-9Y R9 STA 121-78.49TO iEA(ECNA PARKWAY PROPOSED NIGH TURN Id NE O PRNATE STREET- W.W LYNORA•NPMiL E%PANSION 1 ev G "' ur nh eh en , O.U.P. ModIRcalion City Submittal ° 6 - -- -- - vs w ne UNS Temecula Medical Center e n z... 2 no o r� a,m Si u ,.. evs.. rc T \ m' x+sww.vr �Y e..tu. \\ d 1 on.zva. uunru zr. zor..,aow .vm swan nrax, rovu.rt ... A ynr no TEMECULA PARKWAY - 911010SF.D U05 RAY " UH i POR "fOLA RD. STA-16 WTOSl'A22fl5 STA 01-25.6710 STA 10145.57 TEA1ECUtAPARpYAY- PROPOSED 808 08? DE PORTOLA RD 4 3 TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS vi,:z:n n. . SCA. Er-Sr. nEADVSI. Tr, II p CO M.r Mit " CA oASI1nit Ce a. e. MP .,w ..¢u.c (j n� eon s if GIS WC. ccwass gasp, •.e<Gr o.au-nr. r "..0 a,,,, no a vau SECI ION C0 - DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE acv OPPOSITE COUNTRY OL YN (OW) APPROX. 125' 9401911 I OF CENTERLINE TEMECULA PANAY NOT A PART- FOR INFORMATIONAL PURP0SES ONLY ° _ w "S1/0IE0 F A,07 0RNSWAY ENTRANCE OPPOSITE COUNTRY GLEN C CONSTRUCTION NOTES 5 C.U.P. MAJOR MOD SUBMITTAL 4 p CaIi bo0OPo you Dgg 14,0 - 122-413 OWNER: UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES 361 SOUTH GULPH RD KING OF PRISSIA, PA 19406 PH: (610) 168 -3300 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: KTU■A PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3916 NORMAL ST SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 PH: (619) 294 -4411 0172 u5OREATI0N GROSS NET AREA. AREA. LOT COvERAGE MEDD° AREA 1 A AREA LANDSCAPE AREA EAR (A14.04ABLE) 80.14. 152810.0 1)9 3.911 ACRES STEAD 0.31 (PROPOSED) TelEAS S Te PERCENTAGE 30.42% ”.159 T ec� c V ediccl Cen per 31415 TENECULA PARKWAY TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92592 NoRm NTS KEY MAP SHEET 3 SHEET 6 SHEET 9 ' °SHEET 2 SHEET 8 SHEET INDEX t .' 4020APE TITLE Rcenrn E.1 ECWEET 4300804E nano6 PLAN ANDECAPE PLANO23 PLAN A DEC PST PLAN AN 804E R�TSG PAN ANDECAP0 PLANTS° PLAN 4 PLANT PLAN 02ELPE PLANTS* PLAN '3 DAMP ET PAN end 800E9 P43 PLANT LEGEND az! DETAILS RANT OETAh9 LP-15 PLANT DETAILS u'e 9 u -e LI -9 L 10 LIG LEE LI-E. LAROTTGAITE IRC.GATION PLAN AND80APE IRRwnnM PLAN LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN DO IRRIGATION RAN L ANDOCA E Iaa °ARC.. PLAN A IRRIGATION PLAN M08OAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANDSCAPE 1RR'GATION PLAN ANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN LANVOCAPE 11TRAGATION LANDECAPE FRISGATION AN IRRIGATION IRRIGATION DETAILS NOTES PAY0ATICN DETAILS I321 DETAILO TCESIDECIGN reform • REASSAT 00001 LhOtt PG PLAN ItLk No 2 E 3 efts ••paw urn sro..ro. 0 2 / 32 /0 0 2200 211020 35007 2 CRY CF TEMECULA UH$ TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER TS -1 000 21 th PLAVT MA 24. IAL 1 Th eE I E O P ^NY A 1 M ]P' ACe. i N eL EDGE CP PI . wwPCe. lwiw CORDS. CC SHEET . lee= I 1407[5. P1] LP -IS 1 PGR RI.NL $. eee 9Cer LP-14 I LP.n POR PLAW.N$ DETAILS. Gee GPCGIFICATEONG POrz emEnmw, IWORMAYION CaII before you o8s I- BW- 1 # -I133 Vat PINSOWS MAJOR MOO wsurcup. 6PL G Ead II BD. N+DPOs€ED 1 Pe RPOD o ... SCALE HATCHLINE: SEE 5 — EET LP -4 ntailde.tell DATE nett T80 8 30+ CI9 Mil Ifl GAL. IH III 1 llnymammon, 76Molidi �e CI Y OF TEMECULA rcP.Nn0NI a � 870000 110 TEMECU.A MEDICAL CENTER U DJCAPE PtANTNO MAN L P -1 Fat of X. Lu O 0 4 11:41637111020,012~664004417.0YA Ant llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ./OW .074WilY .47 .00401074.74iMiNiiiiiiIMINIMPIT3 ANI1111111111110111•111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/Ar MaalWARIMPORMISPISSAPP4r - swidas rem... St t 110"11 aZ 4 NLP 40 RRAD 001.406 'A.; ' 3 040, 400 01 ABE PEG' 46 PAP 03-f ebb 4, 4P 0 C ft. HE"Ra - n 0 7 13 A RAC 071 MN AO 24 0.0. OUE 00/351.2 AN PAT LET CON R 4 RIO 26 10 0 PEN ALO 40 RECD GAL. 0,10 11.0 04 0 GAL. COX AB REQ 0 Call before you Dg 1-060-122-410 00041000 IIY. REMY° l ‘ 774 4 F I T NESS CENTER bao co 0 P;.g.lixi 10 10 to 0 6400 • ' 1"i". 1 . AR I PRI 44 i 6 .° RIP I pL uf or o erooreorreeo OAR DY axa. MY& ../PA .4 , • .20'. setetio..- • . • . • . • . • ASV ii l it . . . ... amtanansawnreth. ,,,,.._ aramikaarg, 46716, MAI CP0 PAR f are ,GAL -- .... t i ft i or000fft rfi eTo. 14 , ,coalorawereoLoSyrAo-obab00000 oo yin •-aretiess - v . yr Or pri WI '74ATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LP-5 *VI KA* WA. LORE F-Ce ``;?:?A' A° 10044"d 6+0.000 Mt*, ky 23 400 0. 2 /1 f A1 NATIVE 6011. 0000000020 45 RECAO 0,100 004 2 P5 . pE 6 20 GL 5I0.5046200 BY *Karoo BY: 41.046. 3 45 BARG .66920+0 RAA.C14 art OF TEMECULA 040000- 0. PLANT PAAIERAL 55164. 0< IRSTAILLED A PAINRPIA0 or 24 PROM IRE 2000 Or AST IMPERVIOL, 00040.000 1011.1.01045 ORM TYPICAL. 2. SEE SHEET LP-12.1 LPINI5 FOR PLANT LEOE1A7 MOTES 5. SEE 510021 L0014 4 LP-15 FOR PRANT1N5 CRTAILS. 4.052 SPECIFICATIONS PM ADDITIONAL INAORMATON 00904 0 10 20 40 60 IR° PINGO OF l*EYJO 60400 00I0014 21. 2010 VHSIEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLANTED PLAN LP-2 TYES, P�wM' 0ATE40AL BO IIE0ALLEO A N M MIM OF 15' FROM 14 00 ME ! EO»E Of AMY me 0AL, SWAGE. INC-U/74+6. GABS, 2. 0, 2. 9EE rEET lP -I] T LP -IS PDS PLANT 5, 000 NOTES. 0 T 9, SEE EIEET LP ..If LP-I5 FOR FLAN1106 4. S 0.00 4. SEE ° 0.0100 LATIOT, OCR ADOMONAL IN MA^ORTION Call before. you Dgg 14 -0133 Mt IA. et P:S.Nac wale ouw ! Orr, BY au .. 7 • If II..r 10•641 0] • mvl1 ,a12— 004 0/10/00 CRY OF TEMECULA EXPAMENT o TT m 0 Ui8 TEMECUA MEDICAL CENTER 1-Nescwe RANTwa PUN LP -3 Siwl et 4" PIATCHLI I. WM IMTERIA SHALL BE NOTALLOD A PROM T@ E090 OP .w? 2 "11 7 , 11 OF 9MFAU.. IYALOJNS an .. LYPIGAL. 1 3.000 00 00T LP.I] L LP-19 P00 RAVE LE69W 0 WTES. 9. 500 Z@Ei LP -14 L LP.I5 P00 PLANTING OEIP ILS + o S0 ATI' 400 ADDIiIPNL 'OOMATIOM. AtOR. OS un.t. w00 HLINE: SEE SHEET LP -I r RE00 Ht00050ED 40 REOD 3017 0000400 410 R000 0 It CITY OF TEMECULA DICAL CENTER LA2C0C APE PLANING PLAN A 'LLC'CIFT.LC before you Dgg I -900- 1224193 W z J 2 H AIM MATGHLINE SEE,SHEET LP -2 emu „l. .,,, 9:���O . r. , ..- :XXXX 1111. ALa AL i 5 PEN PLO ww wo'c Pe 5 0 RA P01 AS REOD MIS BW M' M Gd. P.G RAC 2 TUFF 1 A0 REDO (71 000 COB EIE AS 00000 + AN PAT LEY CCN AD \,,, 5° v '‹ ..n _...L } —7 n !_ In•... — a_ / \ 1!! Mw \wow- ' r`S` ' , l !L 1M l .M411%. 1 ate' _.. 0„3:7!; HOSPITAL PG RA EE,':, EE LP-t, ALA W. xw b. wAy u 1000 s.P.x XXXXXACNOXO Fr 0012: .BRA D� .M WWI/ o,.DOH, M415 CA 5/00/04 ATTErtATAT \ 00 1. PLANT MA00R AL 5w4L E2 IA5TALLE0 A M NMATI OF 24' FROM 7 0000 OF ANY IMPERVIOJS 3ACPPLE. 2. °EE SHEET LP.111 LF.I> FOR PLANT 00030 1 l0FE4 01.41211110 500 YEUP 0ATI005 FOR AOOITIONV- II0ORMATIO5. AD REOD KATE ev SET C' DAL. SCALP, r•x0 CITY OF TEMECULA 45114001 00 PuOu< Nrtbrt OCTOBER rt. 20:0 Ui8 TEMECU.A MEDICAL CENTER LMISCOPE PLNTNO PLAN 10 40 60 LP -5 MRB, I. q.AVT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTM-M.Et7 A M N m21 OP 39' FROM ne POSE OP ARP PE0440 GABS SURFACE. 1 2. 3 .Al ]. °.£E SHEET LY.I] 1 001 00 ?OR PLANT LEe.NO . ROres !. SEE SKEET LP-I4 4 LP -I3 POR GRK PUTAIL3. <. see G PICAMONS POR ADDITIONAL MMORMAMON.. belere you r i pig NOR, I- 001 - 172 -1131 00015 KCMG ea Oa. rmFX Y T 4 0 Co 0 0 _�__ _ __®_ _®___ _A_ 'Si4Y4'P_f'TSP' -. - �'6C:'l..i^NFSfOSTL614Yi 6iC ANIS N �' m g tv awe Verner., WW1 ROB 0 00 70 40 60 00 O CAB AP} 3 I O4L. TEN wom 400 woven, M00 PLR insw °Wmm..T e RAA. H. 2702 E SHEET LP -3 to i w ��� R � iO11IIS.7 r �� 44� ■ L `F' ,Sjll s'.n. �� r ttt TW C � �IN '. ► ®R7/ Ham® . �, ;"" 0 0 o nn 4h�i 1 2 , * (1 , f AiN ag Ull r . a lD 1�1h5'dd� 1 14, MATCHLIN :SEE SHEET LP -Q 000Wrex000 e0. w¢ eaeno /mum 0 wan COMP sAe<.R., 0 ves WR ., a /e/0 MY OF TEMECULA oeow0 40 00 000 0 A SC S 0001.0, 00 U18 TEMECULA MECCA'. CE TEn LP -6 INiYCAPE PLAR°C RAN 2M0 DE DAZEnt Dims PNmn ww zP.wa, 01 1 /IBA! ACCEPTED 12D Ts Et NAN RAPE DA caw SCALE V 20' L RA 1 MATERIAL D 00 ID A OP O PROM DE ED9E OP OP ANY ® IMPERVIOUS EUPPPOE, INDLL91N9 CURDS. TYPICAL. L40.8 ExE LP-I2 4 LP-I5 FOR PLANT LQ0&O L NOTES. 0,9.8E SHEET Et LP-I LP -14 L LP -IS PIXt PLASTICS. OETNL9. 4, 9EQ 9PEG FIGniIOTS FOR ADDITIONAL HOSPITAL 018 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLANTNO PLAN PINXXXX ES before •.9 1101)-122-4132 .CORSIFOCIION RCM NoTRA FNIM MATERIAL 9MA_ OE!:5iµLEOP M. or 34 FROM rve ewe or .,m IMPERVI0J5 STRFACR II¢LVDRIS CORR& 2 L. . 00 SE RHEETT LP.I] L LP-IS FOR RIwT C 0.000 50EE0 NOTES. w 1 LP -IS FOR R.M1nNG DETAILS. 00 4.9E0 9FRCIPIOATIO0S FOR A0010IONN INFORMATION. • OATC Ron Won ▪ Tem HOSPITAL PRFLORS CFTC CRP RAMC PEA PtRi ore S'H'EET L.P -S MATOHLINE: SEE SHEET LP -II Rom 2* ' P.rw BY iLl..2* 222 02 RECOWENDEO 44 CRP 25+51 2 /202 0 20 20 ▪ 00 504.E∎ 5'•00' CRY OF TEMECIILA 0002222112T ?URIC FCS 22. U18 TEMECUA MEDICAL CENTER LP -8 LNLBCPPE puma PLAN CO to e+® lir i t y ve PIN ELO AB REOP S 0240 I GAL. v ecX 0 0E00 A0 0E00 CIS 0A 9. I MF 45 RE0'0 OLL. INF ww 'oo�odeUa �o' ID, Atik iteraim v SE TC 420 0 . N PAT LET C 0200 GA L. MOB #2 I. PIAT NA'.L. V MATERIAL S BE 111924.1120 A r'.NM4 IOF 14' 00022 ME WOE OP ANY MPERVIas SEEPAGE. INJLL209µ0.7>9. - YP:GAL. 2. S} 92022 10.12 4 LP -IS 0010 PLANT 1E0E110 • 00225. S. 022 SKEET LP -I4 10 -15 POR 0WITIN9 0E24115. 2. 6E0 9POGINGATOM1S POR f0OITIO2 4- 0244210.1. R09 OFF CI A0 2200 5 GAL. M Call be are you Dgg 1- 000 - 422 -419 CLASIAUCLOI KW* LAN 50ro0 0G. 40 0IP PEN A Br 1} 4200 0-000001 AO 2000 O' OAR • TEMECULA PARKWAY MAN MA. SCPC PON TCH AAA 7142 1 ew^ .. 1 OpPte UM* 042.1 OF Dote znenl OLIA xLM *AL wnas m..a nam CRY OF TEMECULA 0E0/204Da Or Evart PEPS IMB TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LAM :CAPE R AM O PLAN LP -9 SnErl el R 22 2 Vfla ea'-�.oe: 040'0 CfC x y �.*.. N c oe'...oPO''o •," ;a. ~t= 1. PLANT MATERIA SHALL BE INOtA.Leo A MIM M M T YM OF 24' PRON.( E .e Call OF MY IIRERv3oue wwACe.lizu orws Owes nvwA. before you 2. see S`R3 iF -12 4 LP-I5 P014 .PLANT L3Oew T NOTES. 1]g f'f 4. SEE 9490 P -14 L Lv-IS Ppt RAN0IN9 DETAILS. p . SEe 4334 PIGATl %y MR. ODItFONAL IN I -m -III -119 MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LP -7 SIP I} TEMECULA PARKWAY NORTH 0 I0 20 40 to CONSARLIC3911 RECORD NA NOM Ont OY mla uw SCALE 0.064 ISO ex 0303309333 36937 0/30/34 CRY Off TEMECULA DEP.wrveNe aTPILAUpVS U18 TEMECUA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE KAMM PLAN LP -10 Swel of ffi Call beIOTO you Dg 4 ammo dggaret CPIXiltuCTICel 400000 t r1j4 5* 041T BY //0/4 KV. PC Can sc MATCHLINE; 5Eu . 10 3 721=-S Earti v slb ti&s. nine TEMECULA PARKWAY MAAR 47 I 0.7.47 Go Pod. Ku it WO. 1,42 Phaxi Imprit$ UnXix Supotlam Oi OKIX: - 00000000(0 Err OM, •CaPIte tt04 1” 00414 0/30) IVO PAR CITY OF 1EMECULA 7 PIN ELD F1_4 24' cox C19 BAL AS REDO 00 PLANT MATERIAL $MAAL BE METALLED A 71171100+4 OF 1 • FROM TEE EPETE CIPANT 0VIC30 00599400. ITICALDIRS CERES. 2 e.E 9E ,,, CEE. SI n 4712 4 49715 PPR PLAID' S. SE SKEET L DETAILS. 4. 000 IFIRA KRIS POR ADDITIOILAL V it. NORTH 0E90014011 00 01+4.10 Vice1,5 tAtTeM A. 1010 UFO TEMC-CIAA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLANING PLAN 0 IA 00 40 Nor Ax ./To ET LP-11 5 5t 60 GOT APICAL RAM CQ'f%M NPME 4451. 5I2 E REM IM' 0) 401111 . ALB AA 410011AMl844100W BILK TREE 24 DX /p' 40' R4 j04 NL40. • M ]]. BR4 POP BR4CUY04 TON POPJLNCus MOTILE TREE ry Gdl GAL 30'.99' 39' 0Lq I t s � • I•" -� ': '- ILrr - fi• 44 4 M 543 005 0RI00004414 DEFLEX4 BRDi1E Locum' FRA LI L tt FR4%6YB WLUTW MODESTO ASH 5GAL 3d- 90 'M'..19' _ 44.1 ALE 1R1 MFR1IS a'n• •.•: 1TI1St - • HGAL 95'.10' ]9 • G i s-7 t• P.I P�1 �a M y 56 0400 8144 KOE LREUIERIA 6144'149414 0910 FLtl1E TREE PPPE MTR]LE 3 A• BOX }/• 8OX 20' -/0' ]5' >0.40' ]5' . 1• .. • 00 4 t yH•1 , � • [W b 44CI } G i -➢ 11 L7 L AG WD N' L265ROTRDtMIA NDI4 1 LAG ND N' 71; CRAPE MYRTLE 24. 80X ]5' "' 14 FT i. P 3 M ] P4 ELD PN)5 ELD2RIC4 LKNDELL PINE 2/'60% 50.40' 3 444 L 05 044 RAC PLAYA JB RACE/1064 CALIFORNIA 55CAf0RE 6GAL 30.00' ] {IfIKi ;RLL'1n t •i ,4000 it 44.1 27 PY 044 PRIB]0.'R41 PEAR 90' SO -. `••� ga M OR AGR =ERGO AGRTOLI4 00487 LIVE O404 34' 00 ]0'-10 >0' -lO 44.2 1 DUE ILE P)ERWB ILEX HOLY OAK 1 944 IS GAL 19 64E 30'.60' ]0'.20' ]9' /0' ]0'30' ]9' -/0' 001. b..•i• ' 1• • • .� a , • ' �•� PSI PSI 1 L - - 38 0 1 lT RA/ LAN 1740 LA4CE4 AFRICAN &l140 YH riot 5001.06 POLE C46ORl4 PEPPER _. ;03 309 >bb 485 E4: 20! "01' 0 . 001 '69' 2BE C X545 4 0(054300 P424 KA4 PAW 944E I4PL ® ._a. 1 ee:1 N, 1. H H T C 141414 Z. Z. £ CAB Am ] .....:. FEATHERY CASSIA 144 RILL AND &1&NT 000MAF0. r L 9B ®® - 90 IN LILY NEL 5A11 &L2��1�U I0AL fl1 44.6 re BLUE OP] GRAM 6 M - B6 545]0.05 0 26001004.44 105004 6044. 6' -10 P -6 L - N AN PAi 00 .648 PATENT, 04LPORNI44RAY RUN &GAL F.>' 'Y` P b L b O.C. 930 LnbB' LS�EE Y��!0!1�00� {'7a E &985495 L4V 1404 LYME GRASS YORRAG LKN14RASS 144E GM. 5 44 fl� 1'�]' ® • •, .., LL 04.0010 0000 00L0R I:I L M 30'00. b O.C. - ]763 830 39 PT� _ •. REG.. MIST DEER ARABS Is GAL �fl FULL CLAMP/3.600D COLOR 44.6 M 30'O.L. 502 412044E E�N�BEIGI4 R DEER GRAM RILL CL B'G�DC04� P 6 M BB PEN 40 � ". IR - , P R 7 025 44. fl RAL 440 6)041 40 GROM, '�� P-6 446 L 1 3' 0.0, >b» I. PEN 9E] ' G 1 ) PURPLE PLE 009149 GRAM RNA 10 •L• POO OF CI: B4 LEY r RN4PH f IC � LI � PIB U UMA HAWTHORN ROSEMARY �n' 5444E 9 G4 1 P? B4N4 LEUC0RH4 115%4C44 BUSH PAGE 514 tPH B]IPd IENNBBrt14 MEXICAN PO4100R ARABS 144 0® R`4. C1.01 " r•• • P6 n 24' O,C. 6315 RES FRV 1.£51RASGI4ER)1KG04 COAST ROSEMARY 504 3 6'.10' - .. @! P-6 L Ca before yoou DDg Igloos OAR 04 o on. ana 1400 ArtitmAt PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND SCALA PTA OA. -0 " I ALA. go 0242 • gOROw 5000 Sw.H6s 0 Ago Coogof 140/' PLANTING NOTES REFER TO DAL ENaNEER'5 UTILITY M9 PRECIS_ GRADNG PLANS FOR UIILI11100410045 AND FINAL 4RADCY. 0 ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS v4QT FROM WHAT re. PAGAN OJ THE LANDSCAPE ARCA:0E0T 44.ANB, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT Ill. 14ND5LAFE ARCHITECT FOR DIRECTIONS A5 NG. 70 PROCEE0. ]. RANT MATERIAL 5041.1. BE INSTALLED A 7.11N7V1 OF 74' FRR'f ANY RWERV 0.0 640140E iN'CL406G CURBS EXACT LOCATIONS OP RANT MAMMALS SHALL 0.0 APPROVED Err 154E LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT rN N EPELD PR0R i0 B1AL44T G1 LANDSCAPE AREA1ECt RESER✓M. E R40T TO 4DN31 PLANTS TO EXACT LOCATION W THE FIELD. 3 CONTRACTOR SMALL BE REOPCN910LE FOR 904401 G ALL RANT COUNTS AND SQUARE 000140EB. 4. PROVIDE MATCH:NGi FORM5 4AD 512E5 FOR ALL RANT MATERIAL WI1N W EACH SPECIES 490 0I25 DE014NATED 0Y THE OR4WN67. 9. 44089E NEWLY PLANTED TREES CRAY AS OIRECIE0 BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. ALIGN AND 0050NATED PER 4 1910! 00155 AND DRAWINGS. PLANT MATERIAL 641199 EACH 94450158 BD 1. TREES &]4L BEAR SAME RELATION TO FINISH GRADE AS AT RACE OF GROWTH. e. A 4.AN1R4 ARIAS SHALL BE GRADED TO NAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY 4RO1 10E WRONG WALLS AND 50I41KNRE5. 8. ALL TREES WITHN 3' OF RAW* SHALL HdvE ROOT BARRIERS IN014LE0. 10. ALL SHRUB PLANTA* AREAS 2,! SLOPE AND LESS 10 RECEIVE d MNIN.13' LATER CF ICON, FLAILED GRONDCO.•E44 AREA& SHALL RECIE4E 4 n0IIV1 I,5 LAYER OF MULCH. II. PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARDS. A 3' CLEAR ZONE AROND PIE CHECK DETECTOR5 SMALL 0E A 14NE0. Ix. UTILITY 0024 &HALL NOT 0E 40181.E FROM THE STREET. 144400FOR1006 SHALL BE COMPLETELY SCREENED 51 WALLS OR DENSE LANDSCAPE. AND &HALL NOT 01350FACT 0I59113 00 TENANT SPACES. YOL1ENi BK319 OR DRIVEHATB. I vE LOC IO46 OF ALL PERTINENT SITE PWPDYE1ENr5 NBT43LED UNDER OTHER SECTIONS NCLU05 IPAG AND HIRING. IF ANT PART CF 1019 PLAN CARNOT DE FOLLOWED DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE 4FLN1TECI FOR INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO 00?IEFCB4 WORK. 44. AREAS PROPOSED FOR 050130RIEN1 N ANOTHER Fv40E OCOIRRYG NOT WITHIN 01 %TI NTHB OF THE Gd1A 11-10 10 41 v10005 PHASE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY NYDROBEEDED AND RG 0401 ATED FOR IS 4 1100111 CP 1• (2) LANDSCAPE NBPECIWN5 WILL BE 180IRE4 FOR EACH 445440E a CONO1R2011044. E FIRST INSPECTION WILL vERIPY THAT THE IRRIGATION MARONE IS CAPABLE OF BEND PRESSURIZED TO 50 RBI FOR A MNRLt PER00 OF FCUR ■000444 WITHAA1 LOBS OF PRESSURE. 0015 WILL INCLUDE AN INSPECTION CP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WHILE TRENCHES ARE OPEN. THE SECOND NEPECTICN WILL vERIFT THAT 4LE IRRGATION 5151E15 5440E 004D.10.0EAD COVERAGE. ARO 50 vERIPT THAT ALL RANTMG5 VE BEEN INSTALLED CONSISTENT 011TH THE 4PPRQ40 C/_NB0RKTIO4 LANDSCAPE PL445. 150E Aq+LICAN0 /06453 SHALL CONTACT THE PLAWNG DEP4RR1E0i TO 504EDULE NBPEC140045. 11=111_7: I - III -Iii r I- 111 =11 . III -111, 'I = L III II %�.. IIII III; -1 ° SPLIT RAIL PENCE SECTION RDCOAPARSCO Sr Ont. 1. ].10.1 el /ON N 6.N.6H 1607 0 /20/54 CITY OF TEMECULA OCOOGIA 21. 2010 • I'F 1'0" O 6' %6' 00269 FE4CE P0018 • e' 0. • INSTALL POST WITH 5 aX. C01P401404 FOR 14BILIT1' • PROVIDE 45 DEGREE 00A21P.OR • 1044 O 2 RAIL5 (40 L.) O FN10u0RA00 0 &54 COMPACTED 0)9.43400 O CONCRETE 000100. BEE BOILS REPORT © X0.01, GR490L 51144 O SLOPE TO DRAIN NOTE. ALL POSTS SHALL 81 PRESSURE TREATED U78 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER 640304444E 15000 + NJWES Ogrog LP -12 goon g NOVEMBER 29. 2010 OD RR-SUDNErt REFERENCE EEi ITEM OEKRIPi104 /00105 FMISR REMARKS BIPPLIE58 SITE AMENITIES P a CRRNED ROCK Se )i' SIZE. DESERT BEGE N4NRAL MBi4LL PER FINp4CTIAPER8 %RL POCK 1]]49 OAK CpKO . LL CA Pu. 004148 3833 P.9 L P' :3i!EY 14,438 B�F' 9?bI EP COBBLE 4' -0' SIZE. r4)4 COBBLE NANR4L INSTALL PER MAVF4CTURER8 RECIXY£NDATICNO 4RL ROCK Fg jp K KNOOLLRO. Pu. BB6; 12249 0 76 . ,.,,„ �. P 47 CA ^ 120064 034 1148 3992 P ] Q DG. DEC01P0550 GRANITE 0EU 0411P05414 GOLD NATURAL 14L1 055 MAVO44012 14 C4 RE11T04TIONS P 4 NORSE TRAIL COMPACTED WAG BOIL N4nRAL w8T4L1 PER CIR CF TEMECULA STANDARD DETAIL TALE. FE0.'YE 600 BENC4 D4C e4 , POYDEROOAT. MODEL PO0DERCO4T COLOR 78 WALL ALL PER MAN84LTIAERtl RELOY1EV471048 49Aum1 BIRO 5.0 6 UARBOR 10531 931 L4 LLAMA 3 A SC*31 PH.£ ]1k0611 METAL n0 MOCK! 4 TMI300 (w/0 0401) CHI CP)RLY4fA CLEAR 002 O4T, MODEL 14 CHAU 0 C X M RC 4R (6 YDEO4r [MORI YF4Y ) 34834LL PER MNAi40T3RER9 peCO9MEFOAROMP 4441 N T 6 R 4p{µ 1. B 1* 061 i.l CWRR4R73aBLE 4LGIUM TOP 1404E HIM04LVA41ZED STEEL 8404. M0001 3026 PER MNFf4C13!0R 8487411 P551144.44CIURERtl 560031170411044 448) TILE 8 2' N.1 4 4 416 5 5 5 0 5 BLVD 306 L P34, 66] 0061@9631 B1 BOLDER M PL4VTEp AREA ORBITS OR ACCEPTED EO14L WADERS ADL'L 002 LARGER Tuba ]0'NT %]'WIDE %]' SOS L45 M4430' Ni % ]'WIDE %]0 776 L�QR GURU NT % B' NUDE x 4' NATURAL GAGE AT 53000E0 FACE. N SPLIT. CLEWED LR ip4LNE D FACES' 5EF05 TO 14540004PE ARC RECTO Awe%E CRN@ 14111 DE RE6 VIREO i0 SET 80110553 BORDER PLAVB FGR hDER OI/NTIi1E0. ST4HDTAND AICIRRiEMEWLA STANDARD 05Tera1L. F I C.4•;) S LIT RAIL FENCE E WISE FE N'S POSTE, 0 L RATS. ALL HOOD TO BE PRESS/PS 7RE41E0 NATUR41 SUBMIT 5 00P 00.474!00 RN / � F / REDS/000 FADER ] %4 /E0N0. HEADER 4V b' LOU BTAKEO • 4' 0.0. 143 CORKERS NANR41 REFER i0 &°ELPIC4TUCe10 ... 011130•. ECT4NC4 N:11 0011074441E 0zE =Y+Hr B a TRE `za ACN'_L 10444 2E `l14AJ4PU4H.4 HAL L'S H01EYpK%LE FI TB 1 8 3 COLOR LL wxfl[u.ocr4s P.9 L GB 04. :3i!EY 14,438 B�F' 9?bI EP ROB 0R p , RO0 4R•EO gAERRGA3 YITOBVRM PROSTRATE ROSEMARY 01415 FLdTO )•.6' ]' a� N�L PLL 4i0. hELI ltN720.0000 P3 P� 9 L L 40L. 3'O.C. TURF TALE. FE0.'YE 600 CONTACT P4CEIL 400 FOR 1180. N • 1 0830 P£ V41PI4 MKROB1ACHYO LERUS 7RI11001DES RIO AGPO3775 PAL ENB 0EBCH9105I4 CEBPILO04 HOCAEU1 BRACKYAR2HERl1 RROLIVI 0BNB710RP1 PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND (continued) PARE LIVE BEEP LDS/ACRE HTDRD3EED MI% B' WTE LIVE SEED 180 /AG E 00500213 P4LLEN6 PEBNCA AURA MOLARS' D6000NN014 CESPIT004 WLPI4 MICPO6T4LNY0 MNLENBERGIA rEICR0038Ri4 IURDEVI BR40NYAVTNE571 MATERIALS AND FINISH SCHEDULE 4TOROSEED MI %'L' LASING:a 04LPDR4704 L AMA PI.ARGLOSBA 11 174044X1 CALIFORNICA 041 LLWM)9 7105004RFVS DENSIFLORI5 LUPUS SP4FCPLORR & OTRML4NM BELLUM O 014L11112I4 4St0R0P4TL14 VERBENA LAMOBT4041'S CL4R[I4 P,N (ULNA COLWA4R14E B41LET431LTIR4DI474 PENSTE {N SPEC/AWLS EPoCRIYLLW COBERT610411 CILIA 754001OR NEI1001114 EUERIE 1 ENCE114 F4RINO34 PJRE LILA BEER LBO /ACRE Coll c6lo Dgg 1400 -422 1131 LEGEND 3' DEPTU 0Rtlu10 5tt7 00 6' BORDER O B CLE. 0 . ORDER ELNEDL4E. NUALL PER HANFP. REC011NOdi10i6. C) 9376 MM . L01040TED 51EGRADE 6' DEE O 0 04 0 5555 OER/PL R AREA � REFER TO PLAN ® W N V ARAB • REFER TO O AMISH GRADE. 3' MELON 100 CF CRISPED ROCK OR COBBLE. BARK F GALL BE PRUE W ROCK/CO09LE 0JPE4CE. ROCX/WBBLE SN4LL BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF PARA. © FILTER FABRIC 4 CRUSHED ROCK/COBBLE SECTION NTS O OG/CR104105001C.OBBLE/ ® FWIBUEO GRADE NYDRNEED • BEE ?KAYO O Save. RANTNG AREA O ]M REDWOOD READER RASA PAGE TOP OF Arai GRADE OR ENT 04KWi MATERIAL 0 244 55011000 674X.3. 13' 10N' 'NO'O.C. .4R ai M RO.144 TO READER AMR ME NAIL 05071 EACH SIDE. a EDWOOD HEADER SECTION NO SCALE AAA AGE Rum NA GARAY Aux EAKE Sear PIA MAX CAA RR>44 UAW S.4.4 a u x= 3]43 1 M ]lain 411w56014 SY: TAR - Au4E6 MOP f SAW NASA 20113 CITY OF TEMECULA OVARAMI aim a Ui8 TEMECUA MEDICAL CENTER 1fl000PRE LEGEND + NO1E8 LP -13 Ant A R A (S .. before you I -M4 -1D g r TOSET tweesurC • CITY OF TEMECULA MULTI -TRUNK TREE 24" BOX SIZE OR GREATER P -4 • CITY OF TEMECULA VINE PLANTING NOSCALE P -8 .® CITY OF TEMECULA TRIPLE STAKE TREE 30" BOX SIZE OR GREATER P -3 CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB PLANTING ON SLOPE uoscAt P -7 TOMPLJAT CITY OF TEMECULA DOUBLE STAKE TREE ON SLOPE 5 GAL.. 15 GAL.. 24" BOX P -2 CITY OF TEMECULA SHRUB PLANTING P -6 • CITY OF TEMECULA DOUBLE STAKE TREE 5 GAL.. 15 GAL.. 24" BOX P -1 CITY OF TEMECULA TREE ROOT BARRIER P -5 St REsIDONS u00 SuEuxrrA tCW SCALE PER PIA 4.,.,„ ee_„ DOE Nu x8 ell >/WE Scar r Sw4m a a-4 Sy 7/28/XI c[�K 0(0 h 800 w 0/02/04 CITY OF TEMECULA DEAMTUDIT a r�0 � w4 Nib TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE PLMmq CETAL8 n.+.y Se LP -14 n n 1 kW! 11— =fin = Call before you Dgg I WI 422 ND cotsrsvcnoN RECORD CITY OF TEMECULA BOULDER INSTALLATION P - 12 l Krt thathat rr CITY OF TEMECULA SLOPE DRAINAGE ADJACENT TO TURF AREAS P - 16 Clert ODD CITY OF TEMECULA MULCH LAYER P -11 a 0, 11 YARD FEICE CITY OF TEMECULA MA NTENANCE WA K FOR SLOPE PLANTING AREAS P -15 TA PLAN n�n Plea P.41.4 IN* en•+xn pi CITY OF TEMECULA CONCRETE HEADER P- 10 War. �=1 -grin 1 =Tr=n =nan a ir- 1'r I • CITY OF TEMECULA GROUND COVER PLANTING P -9 PON e © O 0 O ©0 0 n CROB9 SLOPE CITY OF TEMECULA LANTING ADJACENT TO ROADWAY pew. P - 14 AcaPro BD DAM SDI wo/09 4 /' DEPM P4.. DCMPOBEO GRSNITE KR C R E OCK 11A GOLD' BY KRG ROOK 95\ MM. COMPACTED BUS.ORADE. 6• DEEP 0 RE06000 uaaoary PAVJGTA• REFER TO PLAN 0 WIDTH WIRES - REFER TO PLANS FINISH 02406. 3' DELAY OP 0 OP OP DECOMPOSED GRANITE. 06. SHALL BE FLW5N W ITN TOP OF PAV6G. FILTER FABRIC PLANTER AREA STABILIZED © DECOMPOSED GRANITE SECTION SCALE: 1 1/2'•6' CRY OF TEMECULA 0.1446111009 OCTOBER 91, e,s UMEI TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LANDSCAPE DSCAPE PLA Vf4O CETALS LP -15 w I. xe xores 0 0 E 6 11 L1-0 FOR al IusnrlpN I.eswo xG 9xeeT L1.10.l1 ]4 rro Lore PoR 0616ATION 0E4610 . xe SPPLIP10ATIO PCR AOOITIp.WJ. IlwoRmA ION MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -4 ■ J H F OAR Orit SCAPA Pal itAN 06696a B. I 0 .6 an O Mal By 2112 —SB 71 ucw 0 4 0 6 D 6 42V150 BV: Pd[mt /on oam 3061/ n E /30/06 CRY OF TEMECULA °E'"B BB ° .mw 21iao VHS IDECU.A MEDICAL CEME1 LAPDBCRPE mGA1DN RAN LI -1 SY:tyl II Call before you Dgg 1- 002 -I2Z -1133 N W W w z J u E • Ut I-OH I ULA -ROAD _. PO HORSE TRAIL - -" Ear -ol, 1 N IF442 94 AfR WP=B YO ■B LOCAYipI ER1 LABEL ARO WATERBBOOF ENOS _..:RACE N VALVE =OX MATC.HLINE: SEE SHEET LI -5 I0 0. Witt. 0 9000 0.1.,7 POR IRRIOATKKJ LE60■ NOTES WRISAT,ON ETn, 9 0. SEE 9 £0P,CAT,005 FOR AOOMOR L INFORMATION FULL 3 01.4r£ W 909 400 T0E Cp4W WRE PRCri CC0IN.LER 0 00 0010 LCCPiKN. TAPE. LABEL 400 WATERPROOF ER08. PLACE N VALVE BOX. DAIC BENCH MARX _11 1 6.M„ OALPs cos sand %P-ha o1 W los 2302 Lm1 /2030 00 0 0m 00,12 w.. CITY OF IEMECULA 00 OF 000S WORKS OCTOff.A 21. 2010 IA-19 TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LNOOCAPE Ri0ATgN RAN 00o.eng No. LI -2 51 x estows mreE, 1. 9ee 98E09 LI -u (OR I1090ATION LeeeMO. NOR, 220 *ICU LE-19. L -9 MO L1-I9 POR IRRISATON OETA L9 9. 900 SPECIFICATIONS NOR AODTONN. 9 oRw M10 ron _10 70 40 60 ALE. 1'.20' wrrer MA TO. HLINE: SEE SHEET L 199.9 P9999N9 woe SO..waal N.9.99 owl of o neat °o wm+ UF6191€CULA MEDICAL CENTER LNIJECAPE HYOATEN PLAN al MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -I CONTROLLER ID: E AVAIAY2et/Mae M •Anau was 94 ivm 10 mwm9.msO 00 O Owinm.OR Rom ax saran POE MlvnawLwxnw,m W 0Nd Ean Ma VYV YM4M ;7011 LERB'O' F' < aW EKNCLOW OCCUPANCY HOSPITAL BUILDING ¢GALE. 0.26' I. 90 QIIQQi LI •I3 PGR 14 LE 4 NOTE _.. .. 1/0410ATION PET AILS SE 92 9PQLPCATIOR 0LR 00014 INFO MATION 0 IO 20 ` t0 6 0 bolore D I -991 -422 -4192 MATGHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -"T J F- unvul 0 209045 cam 809.1 YAPS sua Fa 0.41 0105••M,. I • � i"yata • •pc• Sw. 0 0322 0 toss ]7012 F.M00049 OAR. ..r4P.s0 O.. OAS: CITY OF TEMECULA OCIAR.E119 OF 0001.0 90•110 OCT OW, 21.2010 LI* TEAECULA MEDICAL CB4t8 LM000PPE FF110001,4 PLAN LI -4 222.41 pl Attc; Call benore you Dg 1-800-172-4133 1:1 uJ • • utts st I 29103 tom 7.2 yytu —re -. —ntitn 16) *—dr, MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI-2 MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI-5 \1 11r 1 2 4 :"... N, NI 1. tC0 02800T L1-12 POR 10416A910N920810 4 90900 IRRISATION PeTAILD 5. SOD SPOLIPICADONS 9080 ADDITIONAL 130 0 le 20 40 be 1111.1111 SCALE. roe 00005IOJCI9000 100090 900 . .. 200 ODD. 1•00 PER - 2 1 21101 c.ttow ey 52208 0 230 I WO 0 0 000109 2/22/0 090111011100 130 OA1D 88202100 00 S"0' [sow CRY OF TEMECULA 02091 Of 230.0 2000 0CIOXI2 21, 2000 UHS TEMECULA MEDICAL OMER LANXICAPE mOATfl PLAN P20.2 LI-5 2 i Ca L x [149 o-ta- att -a0 POc, AT RECYCLED SUPPLY L 5 072: OMAN RECYCLED 11.047ER PJLL 2 MARE LLIRED 40912E COMM ORE FROM CONT OLLER'A'707XIB 0 RTEP RO ENDS.R 4 CONTROLLER ID: II u A STA9CW0 WOO 42 MO I Y Rua 7004044x *2 40 00664110.101101 N01A a waf ure CNOMAINB( 2241 r ma' I I I MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI-5 POINT OF CONNECTION 6 WATER MUM SIG 1, /42 011011014 1 YR PIM MGM 43 0/ AMAMI WATER 0004411440 144 4* NMW. WATER UM MIR ICAO EMIR= LVO40f4 AFER*00 x *0444 E01160880 UA4Q NPA VGVE 9C2 POINT OF CONNECTION: 4 WHIM YEIEA 400 WYE 01233 1 UT PPMaYMO µ0A1 AVN � WATER MENPC 0E, NW&WA 4*040 0 20 C) 1010.0110 V1104441 UeA 00R0 W (01244712 IA .on MN Zan POINT OF CONNECTION 3 NOM METER PIM r R wrt01WMER 1 MAX OVUm 41 CPU AVIJASECZ WOOER W 0V0 0 MO FEMME WpNn ROMA x MOM ETW4EO1440(44471 MG VpW! 137 POINT OF CONNECTION 2 WATER 1011111 @.` 11/0 WYE SMARM! 141 4(040 MIRO 4 4 0861 AYN.M{0 WA10 Wf3MCE IA PM MM.WL WATER WC WVx 4110 AWOL WARP IYE VCPT0 227 P.SMA.00 LVIPMEME ARIA 00773 AAA j 0 IA POINT OF CONNECTION: 1 W41E146110 E1g iK WYE Yr MAX 00020 47 A AV Aw1E WARP 004044 APMALL WATER Mt W:Rx E11118840LAN0110.41E AREA MAO ](CB E1vA1EI 10104Pxq Aw VORA w to I L1.12 FOR INRI6AT10N LEGEND 4 007*4 . MEET IM1316*120N 0ETA0.51.16 App 11-1E POR .9EE 54E61710AT 0615 FGR *0017101108- 114.0RH1T0A 20 MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI-9 I F OATC o 400 11 FOOT 1101 SCALE KA KAY o.: W or I I 01 02 02 e`.. o 6 .P. ,.. .«. o 0570101 010102 80 x7(2.004(0 OAT 011 00"ID00 C 7 x. OA( MA or Tax m/ e1. 10001 b 1, 2, 30/40 CRY OF TEAECULA 021020 00.1C weOrTAS 0810001 01. 0010 UH3 TBAC -COLA MEDICAL CENTER Wt6CN£ NIGAIlal RAN LI -6 ANT of coerraou.s s STA1 e ' MEM 113RL 400 OX u.5 von AvanasuLcoxilictusi Org }sso _p s .. _. airy -, 7 I. 995 SKEET 4 -1] POR IRCwni10Y 155050 010 1.96E SCOT LI.13, LI�I.. ADD LI -IS 505 1554651I0N DETAILS - -' vaow wnT10M FOR 11 1 1 1 ore ro I 1' Dgg epic MATCHLINE: SEE 'SHEET LI -4 1 MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -IO SCALE PT.R PLAN OsS, E b,.'s, [ __0944 A Sq.* .0 0l Pa so. }N2 .LTW.00E0 a.: 1015: _ 0.0anrzo a.: o m 300 < /)0/w CRY OF TEMECULA UH$ TEMECULA MEDICAL CENTER LMEOCAPE Ri0APON PLAN U-7 Awe of X MATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -4 Lan 211001 FuruRE . / CANCER a '"'' CENTER be/0M Call (9 I- 000 -432 -4232 ATCHLINE: SEE SHEET LI -II 0. 0 2E 8 9x00r L1013 FOR ERR16ATION LE6ENV L 001E5 2. SEE 90E0 IRR6ATION DETAh9101{ 100 81-19 F00. 9. SEE SPEGI ILATIONS PDR ADDrt0NA, IILPGPNAil0NN 60 00.0 BY 00WIX3 POOP 802.00 PTA KM 001.808 N„• P,•,,« 0,.8. S.00 00 9' P,..0 08 x000000 C0 *cam) BY: 91T. 00,0,00 CRY OF TEMECOLA OPPPA1.E.1 00 1106.0 21. 0 000 UH8 TWO-COLA MECICAL CENTER LMDOCAPE mQ4TICN PLAN 00040 Ne LI -8 Oat et CaII before you Dgg I -200- 122 -1102 CASINC20 22022 114"i S! \I / J am 10 I 11 I II ■ li n ' I Y c , I. SQ. CATE ETIN MATCHLINE: SEE SNEET LI -6 0.;u O RLA 2042 SAN Or n� n m•f 4+e- 5.o4(+I0ft 0 P[IXURpttl BY. O0R: ACCEPTED BY: 200', i I. 505 914020 L ✓I] FOR IRRIOATIW. lLRlm L O NOTES 5E5 SHEET LI -I& LI -14 AWE L2-15 FOR IRRWATION DETAILS 5. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR A0GTI0WL WORMATION 0 10 20 40 00 AORTA OCALE 1' 20 CITY OF TEAECULA 00,200 0CIW020.2000 VHS T6 1.A MECICAL CENTER L NTOCAPE SWAIM FUJI MMq 0e LI -9 EMS 01 X 1 VA 77 _ 1 -o - _- I :o J [�. k t °_.,• - —..— .. dr t .. --:F ?.; 1« Mr4E 0 _C c 1 c__ __. ._.. 1 ._.. _ W J __. 4 IEOr ' ter m•WE_ TEMECULA PARKWAY i•r; it �II_a 02 m S 0 1- Q CaII botore you X89 1 -809 -122 -1199 DA AcxsoNs 114. smatIm DAtc DM. Dux SCAM MATGHL!NE: SEE SHEET LI -11 ow W., I 0„A„ cimAkAs „ PtAn Mime new &-, 0 , 0, OS, IC talc" R1.. II. Om 0[ttu0W[0 Or OAR: m0I0 8 /30/44 0... 888 SHEET LI -I] P0R IPAWPnON 186089 1 NOTES IMMOATION DETAILS 9. SEE S OEPILATION3 POR AD0I110W4. IMORMATION CITY OF TEAECULA NIPARILCIIT Of max %MIAS Urge Teean.A I.OICAL cearel LAWOC -PE MCATION PLAN 1- W W N LI -10 ;':. CBII before you Dg 1 MATCHLNE: SEE SHEET L.1-S2 0009. �. 000 9 POR IRRi6ATIW LeKND NOTES SEE 940e7 A1519 A904 ARP 44S FOR IR 0. 0TION 000599 0 9. 5E0 A1ECIPIC CAT00 �TION9 FOR /DOmORAL INROR+UTION oomov9911 RECORD CARERnie la two. DAR OAR CatioCol SCut o,,.,,. 1 O :Aw ay :ALAXe 0 Pads 0592.5 o 5.95999A Of L 0/30 /I 550922.(0002. RAM: 0000(0 05 0 05 tIMIDCI1T 4R 5 / 00 M CITY OF TENECULA 708.4 CIRCE OCTOEICR El. 2010 VHS 1EMECU -A MEDICAL CEMEi WOBCRPE MY1AT1N PLAN LI -11 9E411 RI fry E. PoPTION o' t11r cac�'SsJ1 56.. :01: 6- -� F„ P1 -. L E 3u11..i" nay � r- UDC Y ➢I 7MiRF RT t insia -' SIC -zr.r =- mr- G - . .. .v is ]r�19d.Lw- -t.54r -, R - ( �. •■c r. 10 5141 CA z a�lmF= rrr'Pa3rMai, ) ° , , 0. R 4 u _ m. L 8i e 10 'T)T f T� 30 L ©ug�u.SyICQ[,� y � MEN5M Y L . P3l Tar •..EE�]IISR�� FU +r0. . WMCV W+CO"R GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES E :ROGATION SYSTEM DESIGN 16 BASED M qV AVAILABLE WATER P6CB7471 CP Vh PEI AL THE PONT OF CONVECTION TUE CONTRACTOR IB REBPPV015' -E FOR 556315 5 G WATER PRESSURE PRIOR 10 OR016770 INA',ERPLB OR BEGPN N* CCNBTR4CIGN 6770 PROMPTLY REPORT ANT 05656ENCE5 70 CUN16 4VDROR OWERB REPRESENTATIVE. ]. TIPS SYSTEM IS 05514NED FOR 55E G POTABLE 5541ER AT 41410 TIME. BEE PLANS FOR %ORALS FOR ALL PORTS CO CONNECTION. 3. 1E IRRIGATION 0 3 5115 1 15 55 404E DIAGRAMMATICALLY FOR CLARK. LOCATE 4 14 LL PIPS*, 554LVEB, BAW FT44ENTICN 0134055. AND OBER IRR 501113ENL ORAN LN4OBC4PE AREAS 05E55 NOTED OR DIRECTED OTNERYBE. 4. PRIOR 50 ANT ENC4VPTWN OR TRENCE50. LOCALE 410 vERFT ALL CABLES. CCNDUI15. ARP 5 50150RON0 511155155. TFE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING AN 1.140ERGWNND 55■1I11 LOCALE* 5ER.10E 70 LOCATE AND MARK ALL UTILITIES 114E CONTRACTOR 3711 TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS NOI50 DP11405 OR 05515!5 &CR LNDERGFO.Z.O UTILITIES. NOTRT THe OWNER A'U3ROR =HERE REPREOENTA1Ive 611101A5ELT 6 4 CONFLICT E %1015 BENEEN &JCIL 05574CLE& AND TFE FROPOSED 59RC PROCEED IN 5NIE MANNER F ROCK LATER9 OR ANY OTTER CONDITION& AP E%}N11610 5.1D8R560.440. 1. 155E CONTRACTOR SNAP. NOT WLLWLLY N5541L THE IRR541504 5151E11 At hCW4 ON TOE 0640740531-EN IT IB 0044045 N NE FIELD 11451 OBSTRUCTICRS.GRADE 0If6ERE24055 OR DIFFERENCES N THE AREA 0NENBCNO ERISE. SUCH OBB5RGTCN5 OR DIFFERENCES MOLL BE BROWN" 16051311110131641555574040 7145 LANDSCAPE SWORD THE CONTRACTOR FAIL 50 NORM' 5411 14WBC4F4.RCNneer CP ANT DIEGREPb.V5E5. NNEN NNE CONTRACTOR &PALL 05 5654045565.1 FOR ANY 0.34&050 NECESSARY AT NO4DDITCN41 COST TO 554E CVNER 6. LNE CONTRACTOR &NALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDMA55G AND Tu Y 5 Tut ARF4.4C314 550104 W1 Bp5RO.LERM vAILADL1 IN 144E LOCATION LWOVN 14EN TUE CO TR405OR 515050 TARTEST REMOTE PROMPTLY 140595 we LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR u INSTALLATION. OR oPMCEeoPGw r 1. 'NE CONTROLLER p, 415.5 4 551 0 55 5155111 EKS PRIOR 4 IB 10 DE a FER AL 4EM5 446 GIB 4 4B 00456 6 05 GRO AT 1001 05 5 PR WE 55 14E FINAL WK iNRO*X, 16 TNEI RREP RCLRALLv 6 E E'5 /OR W 5445 4 314 TON VAS 11 M IR SPEC15 410PWIDE N B. ALL tRG B1 54. 1 BE AvA514B NHPS 50650. 0 R A5CFCt FPWL ATC50. 41646 STATEMENT 00 5ROL AL0E 4VdL1 E A PRICK -01 0 4 0R 5GENERAL ARE 50 B CONT ON 5 PLAN. 55415 BE RL1151 LOCATED NO G PPEO N GENERA NOL4 EL J CE 10 B NT LO BRAN_ B_ CURDS. PRANG N P1.04150 S AREAS AND I AND BET At r TA410115 i 01001 WALKS. 513141 D BALL V 1625 5 OE 4 LEO 0 41560 MANVO O PIPE AN 811 ALVE EB 514 ALL C 41 TIROL VAL 10 ve 0/354.156 545 MANIFOLD. THW iuE SUE OF TIN LARGEST VEMMB MA 9. P SNEIL.1 AND WE T 455 51 BE 1450505/3 M PE AREA EDGES 0555 0 W5 104 0101155E ND WWN IY 6 L490CP EP'i 740104510 iED 10. ALL IRRIGATIONLNE& UNDER PALING B BE 15516 W51GRET PVC RCN 40 PIPE. SLEEVE &1411 BE ] TIMES THE ME pIg OF RIFE t0 BE &EEVEO (]' FEN. DI41. 1. ALL CONTROL WRCB 4UER PAVED SMALL 5E WALLED N PLO KH 40 GRAY COMPAT AL LEAST ] 555E5 LEE 0I51_LER OF LORE &N0L5. KEEP SEPARATE FROM WATER LOP SLEEVED AS 50504550 ON PLANE ORE C_N0UI5 5NAL D6 A ERN. ]' 05451EtER 1]. 0650/1 THE AREA TO BE IRRIGATED 5 W T ED 514155501R65505 0E5 055E0 ON Me PLANS. 13. ALL SPRINKLER 4451105 &ULL De INSTALLED AND ADAPTED TO KEEP WATER AND (RAY OW ALL PAWN,. WALKS. WALE 0055153C550 5, AND AREAS N05 ENDER 55E CONTRO OF 5446 054ER AT ALL 55115.40A51ALL MEADS TO 5MNI55 DAOCOP.4S5 AND DEFLECTION 5601 PLANTS OR ANT OMEN OBSTACLES. 5. NEPALI. FI550 ARC NOZZLES E ENevER 1305515Le. v4Poe&.l ARC N'OZZL55 SHALL O LY 0 5 1 ) 4 4 6 5 4 31 1 56 5 5 5 1 4 13 / 0 4 0 5 55 5 . 5 5 CANNOT 4CNI14'5 ERECTILE 00551640E OR WOULD CAUSE 1KCEB &v6 Ov16SPRAT. DURING MC NEAL 01051 FT ROIERIR5. NOME CN45015 MAT 05 560455550 AT NO A23055501451 E3(1E1451 50 5510YE6 before CaII a: D $9 aNsmector Rom TNamov oFTE FRP EcwrONS MAN 6, S4PRO 551 CONTRACTOR MAKE NOZZLE CIONGEO OR ADD NEAPS AB 4 RE5215 OF SITE OBSTACLE& OR CCNBTRIC1ICN 0■5 TNFN 144E CONTRACTOR 014411 BE R ENFREB1E FOR CALCULATION AND ADIJOTMENTO IH PIPE SIZES. IN NO CASE SHALL PRE001RE SUPPLY LNE FLOE VELOCITIES ExCEED 4 FEET PER SECOND.3 FEET PER SECOND 04 LATERAL LY.EO. K. ORE DOLOR SMALL BE AB FOLLOWS. A) CONTROLLER 004560. V44E05 OR4101. C01KN WIRE TO BE WRITE WTN ORA341 STRIPE. 004560AIER 5' CONTROL VALVES, YELLOU. CCtt1ON WRE TO BE WRITE WM YELLOW STRIPE. CONTROLLER F' 004160L VALVES. PINK 001106 ORE TO BE WARE WON PINE &TRIPE B) 45.1 MASTER v0. 5515, BLACK COf CN WEE 50 BE WRITE Oar BILK STRIPE. C) ALL 510Y1151ERO. RIO MO BLUE. 133 ALL 1 WTE5, GREEN 51, ALL FARES MILL BE LABELED AL 513E TEM C5PoP W(5NI24 ONE ECM GP 541 END W 544E WIRE WITH TAE APPROPRIATE OKAR N NZ18ER. N REFER 50 NNE DE5451& 450 561055OATIO* FOR KERLNER 411 C 00 NOT M. RELY ROVTYGB LT SOLELY V OX4L BE RELY WATERED 15 Y 0 411 MARTEN. UTILIZE BV PEON 114! AI RING C I A B RRIG4LKN 555 T 5 04 RENS R-L . 155ABLI& WATERING A AS0IR5060 45 0 AM PLANT EBi5BLMENL E PERIOD. SOP TE AB 50 THE ENTIRE 5 i0 ENSURE ALL L 30. 1 1 445400 455.106 AON WATER 500 40 8 D r0 THE RE£ .45 L54 NEZOE. 16405 PATTERN OR 5166BEEAP CREMATION, , AB *Ni. A LLOW REE BL RICION CP1 O RAY PA 7 E 05 i T 534545 51411 4 NOT A A T IN ROTFERIC 45 545O 0 5R B RANt MATERIAL L MAT TIM CABLE PLANT 0101545 OR DETIIBE. 26 54 1 0 8 4 5 4 2 0 1 5 5 61 8 1 5 5 5 1 0 , 2 1 1 1 4 5 4 4 1 4 0 0 6 44 4 4 0 1 15 41 1 READ 0E CORRECTED BY T141 CONTRACTOR BPI614 C5ECK A 0R0Q 5 C4ECK v4KB WALL Be NBi41E0 VETERE NEEDED At NO 4005550NA. 0001 THE OIWER IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONTROLLER WIB TO BE WRIT CONTROL 1 GREY STRIPE. GREY. COMKN CONTROLLER 0' CONTROL v4LVCB. &COW. 006NN WRE i0 BE UNITE WITH BROWN STRIPE CCN5ROLLE6 5' CONTROL VALVED. PURPLE. COMM ORE 5005554511535513516 511ED5A1ELT 00NO5RRM1 O T11 METER 54554.1118 !PEENED DEVICE PER 55 PETER AGENCY BACAOLOW 554104 554 00 115 16542061 41F1Y 114! 54 51500 41 5 5.00 5505 5 5 05 40. 11 001 51 Pl. 00 5x5150 TIE R@60F@ SWIRLY LINE AS 04401NN ON Re RAW. 100451 540 444645115535111 EWER MIME 506 BR CONTROLLER t 41 PRIOR 10 4NRACT066544L 004B� 0 1MC Ex405 LOCATIONOF COPROLLRS ON THE REPRESENTATIVE E WA IKE 5 54AL LOCATION MAR 1515 DW1RIX! D DO RAN. TIN CONTROLLER PER DETAE 4.0455 M6v3OENH 5PLEPK4TC14 nC CONTRACTOR IS R WANS:5LE 10654500545.14011540 410 TKE CONNECTION IM C AL55.MABreR 444'1 MD 5045 BIN!540 WIRES TO 514E R 5.1 RA RAN TARR R.L.F. I OWN 5. 53 5 414015 Dyss ET RRIGAT ION LEGEND ]' POP.UP SPRAT ON 5548x101 HM nPR40.51.0 01161000.310 NP COVER POPN1 B^RPT (54 0558364 �i ' POPNP BPR4 40.5] V 511AKV'0 360 HP COVER N SXmB) MZi. M1PR'10.1]- GV.MPR060.M N''R T IN BW301 LEN_ 51 PRP0- 51 -CV -II 000.550 NP COYER IN POP -UP ...RAY (M 5HAI05 I] PCP.UP SPRAY (N BN.W05 MPR40.1T.DV.MPR3C00.SO NP COVER 1464 MPR40.13- CV.MPR3000.180 RP COVER t I]' POP-UP ! RAY(N &V3B5 FNi 511840-13-Cv.5PW000- 500 HP 00311E 52' PCPNP SFRA1' IN B55A10) rb 360 NP COF !R 30' 30 301 40 40 40 40 40 40 -a._ 41 M 533 LIT 344 resod 44II 59 I DESORPTION RILL n LE RPL A (5) DEOC 515104 51' PCP.UP SERB ROTOR O POPP/. ONR50 ROTOR O POP -UP SPRY!' Y!' ROTOR m POP.UP 014830 ROTOR n' POP.UP B ROTOR .5 BR (PIRM1E) LLN1ER 5.25.44 m BR 481RF1.53 1424/ER 5.10 -00 (P561153 SO MAPLE/ RADE. PSI SO 30 0551 15 16 14 DEl451 G P51W 5EM4IX0 171 4'1' 44 ' .i 5 IEL MRRT 3 06 WO L00 y.. .� 5/5555 OD 1160 IMMOOESIMEaCTCEITOMMIWN 1555 5545105 RCA COmeR L VALVE (nA310.053 L v.LVE (56 5E VALVE (5501414043 LEC561C CONTROL VALVE ® 0651VA.VE ASSEMBLY O O8P END NISI VALVE GRIP AIR WORN RELIEF fl s CONTRACTOR 540NC45ED RAN BIRO 4450 SPEAPorR25.w504 545500 5 FP.600 145500 5.69.63 TOPER 5055.10 RAM BIRD X0Z.PR6•100.001 CONTRACTOR F45RIC451D '5AF5.ARJ -S " BOX 0Oi164050¢. F4ERK4110 "'R PLAN 015451 CV 1556453 E REGULATOR FORM ACLU SET ON L 0164Y SYSTEM 7741455 04LBENBE 405145504 'S' CONTACT C40EN51 C45EN51 NUMBER/ OPTION. - 4SBBRLED CONTROLLER CABLE 14555 NBVEW 0P15ON5 .200154 L50 CONTROLLER 0415055E 5555ERR OPTIONS En0005.48.351.51•RRA.05E•D.R BR. T4GIM1MR400015064pAYi.PRTRNSILIER .465EM6LCD CONTROLLER OA.5EN5E 40 STATION D' • PRP/IDE 4 C45 5 CABLE WM A RI -45 JACK P'11353 .0410EMBLE0 CCN7RYLER CALBENBE 45 STATION 'E' •5BBEt1BLED CONTROLLER 04LBEN55 75 STARCH P' 041615455 W10ER/ OPTION 5170006a4.n.RR5 WAND-FELD RADIO REMOTE 04L5EN55 WU.1RAN RAN 5 5 GAGE RE N STAINLESS STEEL 040E555E 40 552510N 530 CPLBEN5S 46 WEAPON 0' 6A.I CAL 41.510E 551PS4 BUCKET 04LDENBE ETG, E5GE CALL 1.500.511.5605 PER DETAIL PER PETAL SIZE PER LAGEB5 ROV SUPPLY 154EE UP i0 ]' SUPPLY 1E4E9 ]Al' AND LARGER NEE PER R/N SIZE PER PLAN •5 ALL ENDS OF PRP LATERAL AT 151E85 10745 O SYSTEM 0045405 C4515555 160.4)0.05]5 CONTACT O4LBEWE 160.434.0]5 04,0556E O' R F' W WAL 554010006E CONTACT CALOE5E 150.435.0320 CONTACT 04L055551 0' M MAL E501065E 558545 CABE.045 TOTAL PIPMEI ® 7 PL - ' - I0RR c HE TPPM IECNLNE 0 F c14Ne 08l#16.541 514CIKG 5514' AP NETAY MI I50451NE DPoPP1RNI CX.NE OR RL N &7730 N8e0 Ni RS IB OX CF I AR IT R21 11' GN CEN51 TA meN c al CONTROLLER ID. Br TION 5101PNCE WATER 550 CL4055IC4LICN v4LVE O ECIN%E(ARPROX. GNI -PLANT MATERIAL OR IRR8411ON TYPE APO PAECIP5141501 RATE CT nASSlR VALVE FLOW OCNBCR1 1 F 8 -I a 51 1F 1/4' R MARTYR LW FLOW SENSOR BRIE PRIGATON ULARE FOOTAGE PER VALVE 1y. CO4554GTICN NOTE 4LVE BIZ1 RePANN5<5 545 5550. NIP San 504 5 /15/11 MA'FPCNRER110051 401 NOZZLE 55 0' AP 0551'D 15601445.4 8 00 e AN 4' n x1121 F5w WASTER VALVE 0 64054 Fe' GPt 0E5451 54 1 42 A B M' 10 91 B R 54010 GITY OF TEAECULA cwFFPRET OCTOBER 3L 0045 5 1159 TEMECU.A MEJICFL (ENTER LANDSCAPE FIROA104 PLAN LI -12 977.7 of Call borore you X89 I- am -IU -aw ® DEEP ROOT TREE BUBBLER mcroome O MASTER VALVE 00 .12 p,R........,w,.... O.•••• oy.L,....,.e OO� 101.5.0 ICA r1000 I ® ro 0 a .=0•170 2 ®444x04 30 004 ®L:1O a."R3(flt" po.AKL wse ww.. ®Ne bell 0a 02021210 14! @nam DSc WA 400W( CO2Ccir Onit BOCCH 110/1% ©12' POP -UP SPRAY HEAD o mRe om o C R^ SCNE PUYI O T 12441 02■0 0.21, @ Pr ' . 32 62011 1 O ELECTRIC CONTROL VALVE 11.12n id e w, 2310 o-..., e3 I o...., 03 o.e. 4 .04+.1.0 0 03 w Owe �..e. o. po q,.So..,,,.,..,.... O"' L..,O.,.w. 0 12' POP -UP ROTOR 0000Au>R034000on m.. o '« .. 4001112.00.1102Z. 2122222 TO 1.520/2 ?OA CLAN, 0 .n..e.zu O, ecL<. O a eacatk memo- Ltente 0 ,a cee 0015040 ®". 0. 3.3•.',w..,le © ISOLATION BALL VALVE . a POECOMI0000.0 011 11022: _ .k01001[0 er o 00 2000011 _ M07 o_ E.]JttC 0 D QQ m¢ 00.02GTOft 0 04o228 8 �. ew , PPE. SRAM. O opr .c =rortr, late O PLOW METER O ASOITIONAZIOLt• 34E000 @ 0 ALN. w ® a C>NC KA 00 Ott 0.020001 p . ems«. ramme M t tc Wi , 0 C2 o v O a 04 Ma) ( o a ea. • I , :Iowa. rrn I O QUICK COUPLING VALVE .a CRY OF TEMECULA rimoryeta CC 00a/C 220200 0000001 21, 2010 UM9 T9£CIAA MEDICAL MITER LN -BCAPE ffMMON PLAN 0440 02 LI -13 S0011 01 earo Call Dgg 1- 600- 122 -4111 0 w..)4WW1 0 0 p re aa.,e,1,,.,, �, 0 nu A no no mom tom gnom.. . ...TA Ma 08112288088220228 " 28 2 1827.2, O WYE - STRAINER IN BOX r,1. o„ 0 ® K Loremo Lim trua m era W WV. 10 ® �.r. .°.o,...wa.a . ,0.k.5�„ 1 .. ©TRENCH IN HARDSOAPE .e. mre vALvIE o u 2 e 22030 = 6 . ® o ` r ot m 6( o as 'amino !am p r4... (KK sot .,e.0 O.e �, see enc.. /OR DEP11.1 p ., .2.,.Nn SR., 0 182 0820/ 2 1 1 01 81 01 6)10. Mwn°. ° .K100.. ..e, m MOM IabP/181.! MOT �:�ua 01 WALL PLUG CH .>w O GATE VALVE y _ * I o Slagd el ;so ... at MS to 08182.880012.1100.0212/1,1a/l. o;, o ` ° o C/ 0 00.16) mom (moo AL (ammo A © CONTROLLER 1� °Pw� e�on m. TOP - OPENING PEDESTAL 60 rewaroormr cm mom* ow mom manor.. ozeeo so. Germ m cm (worm PRIftea 110•88Y Lt.. groom Arm .6 ,�„ ()PC Eno ,srmps on vox to c-slec al 1#1 0 BE GREZN N COW, A•0124 CO2 ©SPARE WIRE BOX MM. ... O p NM. mioso O p .,« .e.1 © 611022/82121/0 CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL TEST STATION rm. woe „°. ° K CIA ® 'gin , O TRENCH IN LANDSCAPE NOL or 0021/10.201. HO. 6 N WOW 01.011 ® 040 1 < 3 =g nLie.na R CONTROL WIRE PULL BOX o am. OA 0 OUT 1.511 01=1:170r. ®" ..0..,1. , .1...0..5 0.289.0225 oirroo OLSCH MAW 04241• 260 j 0(60 ?) 040. ey s 'pow 0 u..0 Ent x000 x016 (.R. .[W1T11 6n. 8.22208120002 3050 0.271 6 /140 CRY OF TEAECULA 02.2. or PEISJC 80885 °Grocer 21.2010 • UHB TE ECU A MEDICAL CENTER LANCOCPPE (MASON DEMOS WeVap NO. U -14 012•21 011 00 Cali Sofro you Dg I42-172 -011 o O THRUST BLOCK .0N10401. O 50 ON, �a ®P 000 400 0 4 . ._.. 101020 N °DRIP END FLUSH VALVE 0 cuen vsLve IA TAG. I1000 O,awa. , rz 8000 .A0 P.0120 70.0 TAM 0.4 All ...tape, GPAECTMII xo.10 . , . , e. 0 ry R aY o MAO MO OAT WM IT WIRE CONNECTOR GOO notes O DRIP AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (Pt.UMBED TO FLEX PVC) o R ooze 0 rucareir [an LecAnw lose* DENG oat 1 LA, len U RAIN SFN5OR/RAIN TIPPING BUCKET Qtafw e.. ° 'DO NOT DRINK' SIGN 541101 • NT b. Qi Q rote AT 051,12501 P.M PREP 511)71r■ No:00 0 mm © aa evv pan; . ro R DRIPLINE TUBING SPADING 4 ° LAYOUT: IRREGULAR AREAS o 8 MagaiMfalik 4 arum coon ',.K Or tot. can_ too oM PUPPLE Ara, vaLvE 00).01 IXST Ot0 Mani, 51S19. ▪ 51,R.. • 4 ® ° ORPI.00"/ 00H o w l Q. .0500 TORO. ®g■wu u0x 0M o v R .w SUE 19. .ama,O.K Dire 0 SUBSURFACE DRIPPERLINE .. et. 20,4005 a ®, PVC teal 4e. waved., bED PLAN 011. TYPC/6172. 0 - e=4 ® M, 01060 Mt 0 R VOL! N vsavt ID. 00.084640 Pra0 05 T12 rlicabla HOLE NOM UM 1171.0 TAWS 0 ALL INRE4050 0.00001100 O W REMOTE CONTROL VALVE W/ u .x FILTER 4 PRESSURE REGULATOR 00(51INCTION 5 Alt 555,50., I 5000, I a _ a WV 5 R VENDED are ACCEPTED 81'2 D FE: ,e„, 5/30/04 CRY OF TEMECULA OCIOECR 21, 200 USS TEAECU.A MEDICAL CENTER WiIBCAPE RATION EETMS LI-15 SIMI el 22 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED " A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07 -0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959- 080 -001 THRU 004 AND 951- 080 -007 THRU 010)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ( "UHS "), filed Planning Application No. PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959- 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959- 080 -001 THROUGH 959- 080 -004 AND 959- 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463, PA04- 0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07- 0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04 -0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04 -0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04 -0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959- 080 -010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080- 001 THROUGH 959 -080 -004 AND 959- 080 -007 THROUGH 959 -080 -010 (PA07 -0198, PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. CC. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.030.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a development plan: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds, determines, and declares that: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital, and on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital. B. The City determined that the proposed modifications to the project do not trigger any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that an Addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. C. The Addendum relied on use of an Environmental Checklist Form as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) to evaluate whether there were any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under the Addendum and the proposed amendments and to review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. The analysis in the Addendum indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by the proposed modification to the project, nor will the proposed modification increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Hospital FEIR and FSEIR. D. The Addendum also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Addendum found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. E. Further, the Addendum analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in facts feasible. The Addendum found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. F. Because the Addendum finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the Planning Commission finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed modification application. G. The Planning Commission finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certifies and approves the Addendum prepared for the proposed modification application. The Planning Commission further finds that the conclusions reached in the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. H. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, and the Addendum for the modification application and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application, PA10 -0194: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA) Section 15164, an Addendum to the FSEIR adopted in 2008 was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification Application, as described in the FSEIR Addendum ( "the Project "). B. The Planning Commission has reviewed the FSEIR Addendum prior to and at the December 15, 2010 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the FSEIR Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) Based on the findings in the FSEIR Addendum there is no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified; and (3) The FSEIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA), the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Major Modification Application. The Planning commission has also reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Project, approved by the City Council as Planning Application No. PA07 -0200 on January 22, 2008, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the Planning Commission also finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FSEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Major Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FSEIR. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Major Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. D. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the FSEIR Addendum prepared for this project. Section 5. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing 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 35.3 acres generally located on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 thru 959 - 080 -004 and 951 - 080 -007 thru 951 - 080 -010, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of December, 2010. ATTEST: Patrick Richardson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA )ss Carl Carey , Chairman I, Patrick Richardson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 10- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of December, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Patrick Richardson, Secretary EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA10 -0194 Project Description: MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Office TUMF Category: Service Commercial /Office Approval Date: December 15, 2010 Expiration Date: December 15, 2012 WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Planning Department A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project 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 on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road Assessor's Parcel No. 959- 080 -001 through 959- 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959 - 080 -010 1. The applicantideveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty -Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48 -hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). 2. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the 1 City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 4. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; any time extension beyond the initial two years from approval of this modification will require the preparation of a new environmental document. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two -year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 5. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 6. Prior to the approval and issuance of any permanent signs, a sign program shall be submitted for review and approval for the project site. 7 The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 8. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 9. The applicant shall paint a three -foot by three -foot section of the building for Planning Department inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 10. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs' prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Condition of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. 2 Material Color Exterior Plaster Color No. 1: Dryvit #456, "Oyster Shell" in Dryvit "Sandblast" texture Exterior Plaster Color No. 2: Dryvit #383, "Honey Twist" in Dryvit "Sandblast texture Tile Base: Daltile #CS51, 12" x 12" Continental Slate, Indian Red Painted Trim: To match color of "Indian Red" in tile base Ceramic Roof Tile: Monier Lifetile, Duralite Villa Tinted Glass: Viracon, Bronze VE 4 -2M Window Frame: Kawneer, Medium Bronze 12. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 13. All utilities shall be screened from view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. A three -foot clearzone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Utilities shall be grouped together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities shall not look like an after - thought. Planting beds shall be designed around utilities. All light poles shall be located on the landscape plans and the applicant shall insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 14. The applicant shall insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities, adjacent site existing structures and landscaping and traffic sight lines. 15. All requirements of Development Code Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) are required to be met. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. 17. The split rail fencing for the multi -use trail proposed along the northern property lines, adjacent to the residences shall be extended from the current location to the western edge of the property line. Said fence shall be a continuous fence beginning from the secondary driveway at DePortola to the western property line. (Added by City Council, January 22, 2008). 18. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 19. All trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as a regular solid waste container. 20. The property owner or private maintenance association shall maintain all parkways, perimeter landscaping, trail, walls, fences and on site lighting. 21. The developer shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Police Department 22. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within 3 twenty -four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a report can be taken. 23. Any business desiring a business security survey of their location can contact the crime prevention unit of the Temecula Police Department. 24. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the building should be placed in a well - lighted, highly visible area, and installed with a "call -out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the building. 25. Applicant shall ensure all landscaping surrounding the building are kept at a height of no more than three feet or below the ground floor windowsills. Plants, hedges and shrubbery should be defensible plants to deter would -be intruders from breaking into the building utilizing lower level windows. a. The placement of all landscaping should comply with guidelines from Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 26. All parking lot lighting surrounding the complex should be energy- saving and minimized after hours of darkness and in compliance with the State of California Lighting Ordinance. Furthermore, all exterior lighting must comply with Mt. Palomar Lighting Requirements. 27. All doors, windows, locking mechanisms, hinges, and other miscellaneous hardware shall be commercial or institution grade. 28. All exterior doors should have their own vandal resistant fixtures installed above. The doors shall be illuminated with a minimum one foot candle of light at ground level, evenly dispersed. 29. Upon completion of construction, the buildings shall have a monitored alarm system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company to notify the Temecula Police Department of any intrusion. All multi- tenant offices /suites /businesses located within a specific building shall have their own alarm system. This condition is not applicable if the business is opened 24/7. 30. All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with Section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. 31. Any emergency generator system shall be inside a secure enclosure to prevent theft of fuel or tampering with the equipment. 32. All pressurized gas cylinders not in use shall be stored in a secure location to prevent theft. Building and Safety Department 33. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 34. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0- 90 -04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence. 4 Fire Prevention Monday- Friday 6:30 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. — 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 35. 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. 36. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial 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. The fire service loop will be a complete looped system with two points of connection (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R) . 37. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. A combination of on -site and off site 6" x 4" x 2 -2 '/" outlets on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210feet 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 hydrants in the system. The fire hydrants will provide coverage for the entire site, including all buildings, open space and parking areas (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020, Section R). 38. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on -site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided (CFC Chapter 5, Section 508.5). 39. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. This includes the fire service lines and hydrants must be completed for the entire site prior to combustibles being brought on site. (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.4 Public Works Department 40. A Grading Permit for either rough and /or precise grading, including all on -site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City- maintained street right -of way. 41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right -of -way. 42. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 43. All on -site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or 5 property owner. 44. The undergrounding of electrical and telecommunication facilities per Temecula Municipal Code, Section 15.04.080 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3 (Medical Office Building 2). 45. The driveway on De Portola Road will be restricted to right -in /right - out /left -in movements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS Planning Department 46. The applicant shall submit a separate plan, entitled outdoor furniture detail plan, showing details of all outdoor furniture, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Outdoor furniture shall be decorative and of high quality appearance. 47. The applicant shall submit cross sections verifying that all roof mounted equipment will be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 48. The elevations and roof plans shall show internalized downspouts for all buildings and structures, excluding trash enclosures. 49. Trash enclosures shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and elevations and shall comply with the following: a. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. b. All trash enclosures shall blend with the architecture of the overall center and include a decorative roof type feature as approved by the Director of Planning. c. Trash enclosures shall be screened from view. The applicant shall provide shrubs and wall vines on three sides of enclosures as required to provide screening. 50. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting and wall mounted lighting, shall be provided on the plans. 51. The Applicant shall provide a detailed elevation drawing to show a decorative fence no less than four feet in height around the helipad, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Said fence shall be constructed in a manner that deflects horizontal wind velocities caused by the rotation of rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface of the area remain obstruction free, per Section 1710.020.P of the City of Temecula Development Code. 52. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 53. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right -of -way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 6 54. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation /construction of the site, archaeological /cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his /her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and /or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological /cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notifythe property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological /cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notifythe property owner that no further excavation or development maytake place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning." 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the Project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors. 56. If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. 57. 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. 58. Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the developer. 59. 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. 60. All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved. 61. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological / archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/ archaeologist, Planning Department staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. The applicant shall provide written verification that services for on -site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring has been contracted during all phases of earthmoving activities. 62. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground- disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The applicant shall submit correspondence to the Planning Department that confirms that such contact has been made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 63. The Applicant shall enter into a pre- construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement /treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground- disturbing activities. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of the pre- construction agreement/treatment plan to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 64. The Applicant and /or landowner agrees to relinquish all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 65. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 66. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. This mitigation measure shall be placed on the grading plan as a note prior to issuance of a grading permit. 67. The applicant must enter into a written pre- excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on -site. A copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 68. The grading plan shall include the following: a. Earth berms as required along the northern property lines and along Highway 79 South as discussed in these Conditions of Approval. b. A note on the plans indicating all areas not proposed for development within six months shall be hydroseeded and irrigated for soil and dust erosion. c. Show the five -foot landscape dimension for all parking islands, including the 1 -foot concrete landing strip (seven feet total width). One parking island is required per ten parking spaces. 8 Public Works Department 69. A copy of the grading, improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right -of -way. 70. Each phase must install its respective WQMP BMP(s) as shown in the master plan. The applicant shall update the WQMP as each phase is developed and include slip sheets or other means to reflect the changes as each phase is developed. 71. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 72. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 73. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 74. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of liquefaction. 75. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 76. NPDES - The project proponent shall implement construction -phase and post- construction pollution prevention measures consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) and City of Temecula (City) NPDES programs. Construction -phase measures shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance, the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. Post - construction measures shall be required of all Priority Development Projects as listed in the City's NPDES permit. Priority Development Projects will include a combination of structural and non - structural onsite source and treatment control BMPs to prevent contaminants from commingling with stormwater and treat all unfiltered runoff year -round prior to entering a storm drain. Construction -phase and post- construction BMPs shall be designed and included into plans for submittal to, and subject to the approval of, the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The project proponent shall also provide proof of a mechanism to ensure 9 ongoing long -term maintenance of all structural post- construction BMPs. 77. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 78. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 79. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 80. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off -site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 81. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 82. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone X. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Fire Prevention 83. Maximum cul -de -sac- length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum outside turning radius on any cul -de -sac shall be 45 feet (CFC Chapter 5, 503.2.4.and 503.2.5.along with Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 84. 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 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 1410.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. All fire service access roads shall be installed and complete for the entire site prior to combustibles being brought on site.(CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 85. 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, Section 503.2, 503.4 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 86. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent (CFC Chapter 5, 10 Section 503.2.7. and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 87. This development shall maintain two points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 5, Section 503.1.2). 88. 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, Section 503.2.5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT Planning Department 89. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 90. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 91. The final construction plans shall include a photometrics plan showing foot - candle illumination in the parking lot, driveways, drive aisles, pedestrian paths of travel and building entrances. A minimum of one -foot candle illumination shall be maintained throughout the site and a minimum of two foot - candle illumination shall be provided at primary building entrances. 92. Final Construction plans shall provide decorative lighting fixtures shall be provided at the primary entry of each building /structure, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Final construction plans shall provide details of all light fixtures, including decorative entry lighting, parking lot lighting and wall mounted lighting. 93. The applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan for the helipad facility. 94. The elevations for all buildings shall be revised in a manner that all exterior ladders are screened from the public view of Temecula Parkway. 95. Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs, walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. 11 c. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the Tentative Map. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long -term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head -to -head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant /owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. 96. The final construction landscape plan shall include the following: a. A calculation indicating the percentage of the site that is to be landscaped shall be provided on the construction landscape plans. The applicant shall insure that minimum required code percentages for landscaping are provided to meet the specific zone requirements. b. The applicant shall field verify adjacent existing street plantings and coordinate proposed plantings to be compatible as approved by the Director of Planning. c. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. d. Street trees shall be provided along all streets at the rate of one per every 30 feet of street frontage. e. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily tufted, seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. A note on the grading plan and landscape plan shall be provided. f. A minimum five foot width planting area shall be provided at the ends of all parking rows. Curbs and concrete walks shall not infringe on this five foot width. The planter length shall be equal to the adjoining parking space. The planter shall contain a minimum of one tree, shrubs and ground covers. Accent trees (minimum 36 -inch box size) shall be installed at entries to parking areas in order to define the entry and provide a focal point. g. 12 h. Indian Tribe, Faurei varieties shall be provided for Crape Myrtle. Additional trees shall be added on the north, east and west sides of building MOB #2 as approved by the Director of Planning. A combination of large (no less than 24 -inch box) Afghan Pines and California Pepper trees (or other large screen trees) shall be provided along the northern perimeter of the project to screen off -site views of the development as approved by the Director of Planning. k. A landscaped berm shall be provided along the northern property lines adjacent to the residentially zoned lots and DePortola, with mature (24- inchand 36 -inch box) screen trees to screen the view of the buildings and reduce the amount of glare from the project site, subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A cross section shall be provided on grading and landscape plans verifying the buffer area. The landscaped area along Temecula Parkway shall include a meandering berm with large shrubs to provide additional screening of the parking lot. The applicant shall provide a combination of shrub plantings and earth berms that can be maintained at a minimum height of three feet around all parking areas to screen parking from off -site views. m. All areas not designed for buildings, parking, driveways or other useable features shall be landscaped, unless approved by the Director of Planning. The area along the eastern property line, adjacent to the access driveway shall be landscaped, unless it is determined critical habitat not to be disturbed. n. The Landscape construction plans shall include final color and finish details for all decorative hardscape throughout the project site. Decorative hardscape shall be provided at all primary building entrances and outdoor gathering areas (including the hospital, medical office buildings, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center). 97. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after - thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 98. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, and hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 99. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 100. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine -inch grid pattern with 45 -inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine -inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 13 101. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view as determined acceptable by the Director of Planning. 102. All exterior wall mounted ladders (for all buildings) shall be located in a manner that they are not visible from Temecula Parkway. 103. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 104. Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of arterial street lighting on Hwy 79 South into the TCSD maintenance program. Public Works Department 105. Prior to the first building permit, Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 106. Improvement plans and /or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval bythe Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Numbers. 400. 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut -off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 107. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards -134' RAN) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Improve De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) -88' RMI) to include installation of pavement, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. State Route 79 /Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) - Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. d. The traffic signal at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way shall be modified to allow a full movement intersection. 14 108. Private roads shall be designed to meet City public road standards. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of private streets: a. Dona Lynora (66' R/W) to include the installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Private 28 -foot wide ingress /egress road to include installation of paving and curb per the approved site plan. 109. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 110. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. The Traffic Control Plan shall indicate that construction traffic may not use the entrance from DePortola Road to access the site. 111. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 112. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 113. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 114. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. In addition to the above Public Works Department Conditions of Approval, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT IN PHASE I — (A 140 -bed hospital) 115. Parcel Map No. 32468 shall be recorded, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. 116. The Developer shall design the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: 15 a. Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R /W) to include installation of sidewalk, street lights, underground utilities, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Westbound a) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long b) Provide three thru lanes c) Provide one left turn lane ii. Eastbound a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide two thru lanes and c) Provide one shared thru /right lane b. Dona Lynora (66' RAN) Installation of half- street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in /right out vehicular movement c. Main entry (Country Glen Way) and Highway 79 South Signal modification ii. Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 -foot wide shared thru /right turn lane iv. Northbound (entering site) — 28 foot wide d. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) — 88' R/W) Installation of half- street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Provide a 28 foot wide internal ingress /egress connection to De Portola Road e. State Route 79 /Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) Provide southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap. Building and Safety Department The Conditions of Approval herein (Building and Safety Department) are not applicable to the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of California OSHPD. These conditions are applicable to the construction documents for projects, specifically the medical office buildings that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula Building and Safety Department. 117. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building, 16 Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code in place at the time of building permit application submittal. 118. A complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street - lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights -of -way. 119. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 120. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 121. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 122. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 123. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 124. Provide number and type of restroom fixtures, to be in accordance with the provisions of the California Plumbing Code in place at the time of building permit application submittal. 125. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 126. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 127. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 128. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 129. A pre- construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention 130. 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 as required in these conditions. 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 17 being issued (CFC Chapter 14, Section 1412 and Chapter 5, Section 501.3). 131. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for all medical office buildings, except the actual hospital as that is handled by the State. 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. 132. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval for all medical office buildings, except the actual hospital as that is handled by the State. 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 RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT Planning Department 133. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, shall be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined the initial study, under cultural resources. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. 134. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right -of -ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right -of -way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 135. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 136. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 137. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- 18 street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (951) 696- 3000." 138. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 139. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 140. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department PHASE I - A 140 -bed hospital. 141. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy in Phase I, the following improvements shall be constructed and operational: a. Highway 79 South Traffic signal modifications at the intersection of Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way ii. Roadway improvements a) Westbound (i) Provide a dedicated right turn lane - 12 foot wide by 200 feet long (ii) Provide three thru lanes (iii) Provide one left turn lane b) Eastbound (i) Provide two left turn lanes (ii) Provide two thru lanes and (iii) Provide one shared thru /right lane b. Main Entry/Country Glen Way Provide a 245' continuous median from Highway 79 South to main drive aisle ii. Southbound (exiting site) a) Provide two left turn lanes b) Provide a 20 -foot wide shared thru /right turn lane Northbound (entering site) — 28 foot wide 19 c. De Portola Road (Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lane separated) — 88' R/W) 28 -foot wide internal ingress /egress connection from project site to De Portola Road ii. Roadway improvements d. State Route 79 /Redhawk Parkway (Margarita Road) Southbound and eastbound right turn traffic signal overlap e. Dona Lynora (66' RAN) Installation of half- street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) ii. Restricted to right in /right out vehicular movement 142. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 143. All public improvements, including traffic signal modification, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 144. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Building and Safety Department 145. Developments with multi- tenant buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. Fire Prevention 146. Hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers (blue dots) per City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E. 147. New 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, multi - family residential and industrial 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, Section 20 505.1 and City Ordinance 15.16.020 Section E). 148. 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, Section 506). 149. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5, Section 506). 150. 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, Section 503.3) . 151. 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 34 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 152. 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 Police Department 149. Marked Parking for Disabled Vehicles: All disabled parking stalls on the premises shall be marked in accordance with section 22511.8 of the California Vehicle Code. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 150. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated July 24, 2004, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date bythe District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 151. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 7, 2007, a copy of which is attached. 152. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Authority's transmittal dated July 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 153. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 21 152. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Authority's transmittal dated July 21, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 153. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 2004, a copy of which is attached. 22 rrnaugEI1 L'. vv 1WdhZYLJ General Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Post Box 9033 Temecula, Caltforrda 92589 -9033 Attention: DA1J t. 0P t Ladies and Gentlemen: c:,4t,.d o(3rP1 J D { . 4 J c WrrltJ Pct bt$114cT tAit -te am tp- 4rrtt• of d- qu TI . rt Ml° cAt. c. c. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CO AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS ARTURO Senior ChM Engineer • Dater7<y ' JUL 2 8 2004 Re: 04 -15 fA• 0'{' —ot43 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX • 511110.1 The District does not normally recommend cQnditlons for land dMsions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check kill( land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District cormre endafions for' such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drain _facilities whtch.00uld be considered a • • cal en > r extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mill r � I fees). In addition; Mformation of a general nature is The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked corrunents do not In any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard. public health and safety any. other such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project Involves District Master Plan facilities. The District wiA owr'sht of such facilities on i b required Facilities Dl� a�tancce.�Pllan check, inspection and District t fees will be required. This project proposes channels. storm drains 98 inures or larger in diameter. or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a t•l extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The-District would consider accepting owns of s.taairties on written requesf of bberequired fa �ptance�Plan d to ea, Inspection standards, a�ddml�ivucnvefees check will mrequired. sn will This project is Located within the limits of the District's • Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopteu; appilcabte tees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only M the Flood Control MUM. Wror to issuance of building or uradleg Permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should beat the rate in effect at the time or issuance of .actual GENERAL INFORMATION • • This project ma _require a National Pollutant Discharge EEllnrinatlo n System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources _may Bored Clearance for•gnading, recordation, or other final approve( should not be given until the City has determined that;the project has been granted a peril er is'ahovat to be exempt If this woJect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (F mapped flood plain, then the City should require' applicant to provide all studies calculations, • and' triformallon requited to meet FEMA requirements, and should farther regw alit appli cant • • - n a Condit onal Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other approve[ of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped Rood_ plain is impacted this ems, the City should require the t to obtain a Section 1801 /1603 tem the CaUtorda � P of Fish and Genre and a Clean Water Ad Section 404 Permit from the A tl .Allan Corps of Engineers, or correspondence from iese endes indicating the p is a� es ren Clean c arter Section 401 wader Q on may be requited fin the California Quality Control Board .prior to issuance of a cups 404 I X t _ ! + f* 4.1r pps4.wr 4;- $1 Very tnuly yon, • aa.:A4 • • COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY DEP�ENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEALTH • July 7, 2004 • • RE: Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04-0463 • City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Attention: Dan Long Sincerely, Dear Mr. Long: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA04-0462 & PA04 -0463 to construct Temecula Regional Hospital and has no objections. Water and sewer services should be available in this area, although we have not in receipt of any information concerning those services. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "Will- serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) Any food establishments, ('including vending machines), shall require three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 600 - 6330. c) Any hazardous materials handling or storage shall require a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (955 - 5055) San Martinez, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist (909) 9554980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. " cc: - Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials local Enfineement Agency • P.O. Box 1280, Rivetside, CA 92502.1280 • (909) 955-8982 • FAX (909) 7819653 • 4080 Lemon Sheet, 9th Root Riverside, CA 92501 :end Use and Water Engineering • PO. Box 1 206, Rtveaside, CA 92502 -1206 • (909) 955 -8980 • FAX ( 909) 9554903 • 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Roor, Riverside, CA 92501 • July 21, 2004 Mr. Dan Long, Case Planner Planning Dept, City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 SUBJECT: PO4 -0462 and PA04 -0463 — Temecula Hospital — Comments from RTA Dear Mc Long: Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed 535,000 sq ft medical complex at Temecula Hospital along State Route (SR) 79. A copy of RTA Planning's internal Development Review Memo is enclosed and provides additional rationale and technical detail in support of the requests for transit amenities that would expand mobility options for this project To encourage and enhance future transit options at Temecula Hospital, RTA recommends the site plan or street improvement plans be revised at to show the following features: • A paved, lighted, and ADA- compliant transit bus stop with a 220 ft -tong turnout configure- • tion capable of accommodating two parked buses, to be installed along the N side of SR 79, just west of the primary hospital entrance. The bus stop should Incorporate a paved passenger waiting area and space for installation of benches and passenger shelters. . • • information note: Sufficient right -of -way appears available for this turnout without significant adjustment to sidewalks, loss of parking spaces or required landscaping and with minimum disturbance of future street tree or utility structure Installations. • RTA staff is also recommending designation on the of an additional specified clear path of travel from the bus stop to the entrance of the main hospital building. • RTA staff alsoedvises that the project proponents work with the City to install two new passenger shelters at the new bus stop that are complimentary to the hospital's design and architectural themes. RTA requests these recommendations be made conditions of approval for PA 04 -0462 and PA04-0463. If you need further clarification orl can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565 -5164 or contact me online at jnm000v@mrersidetransitcom. Michael McCoy Senior Planner F:ldatalPlanning1MiketAWordlOev RevievATemeaila120041RTA lurid - Temec Hosp.doc Riv rstde Transit Agency 1825 ThNd Street P.O Box 59988 Riverside. CA 92517.1968' Phone: (909)565.5000 Fax (909)5655001 Silverside Wendt Pony PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Patatino, Director of Planning From: Michael McCoy, Senior Planner Subject City of Temecula, Cases PA04 -0462 & -0463: Piot Plan review andCUP for 535,000 sq ft of hospital and medical - related fadliities, N of State Route (SR) 79 and W of Margarita Rd; Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Comments Bus routes involved: E dsting Route 24 and future bus routes Summary: Universal Health Care Services Inc proposes a site plan and conditional use permit for the Temecula Hospital project, 535,000 sq ft of medical facilities located on 35 now vacant acres 1 /4 mile west of the SR79- Margarita Rd intersection in a rapidly expanding commercial district of Temecula. This will be the first full - facility medical institution In Southwest Riverside County and will be a distinct asset to the community, challenging planners and engineers to provide it robust suite of mobility options for access to it. The project includes the following components: July 21, 2004 • 176 -bed, 6-story hospital building, Including Emergency admittance • A 5 -story expansion of the hospital • Two multi -story medical office buildings • Cancer center • Fitness center • 1280 parking spaces The site plan's perimeter and interior circulation patterns are very good, with primary access provided directly off a signalized Intersection at SR 79 and Country Glen Wy. The hospital's main building entrance will have a covered drive thnt loop sulltable for van - pools, paratransit and most private vehicles. Several ADA paths -of- travel are specified on the site plan for connection between the main hospital and ail perimeter driveways. RTA operates Route 24 along some portions of SRT9 but the bus currently does not stop at this site. RTA is currently studying a general reconfiguration,of bus routes in South- west Riverside County and anticipates additional bus service along SR79 and Margarita Rd in the relatively near future since it Is an Important•artertal that would serve many commercial generators of bus traffic. In considering what transit amenities would be appropriate for the Temecula Hospital site, RTA staff looked at other comparable hospitals in the inland Counties. In some cases, such as Route 17, the hospital is important enough to be the route terminus or name of the line as Identified on the bus itself. Also several distinct transit routes often serve a single large hospital, as listed on the next page. It was found that in general, buses would come onto the site, close to the main building, to drop off and pick up passengers lithe facility was publicly owned, such as Riverside F:ldatalPtanningWikeMlWordlDev RevtevATemeada120041Temecu1aHosp doc County General Medical Center in Moreno Valley. For privately owned hospitals, like Kaiser or San Gorgonio, the transit stop was always off the property along a nearby street. Some examples of transit service and stops are: • .Kaiser Hospital In Riverside: 2 lines, with transit stops along Magnolia having multiple turnouts, benches and shelters, etc; • Loma Linda Hospital: 3 Ones, with transit stops at several locations on perimeter of complex and other nearby medical facilities such as the Veterans Hospital; . • Riverside General: 3 lines, with transit center and bus turn - around on site, very close and convenient to main building; • Riverside Community: 2 lines, bus stops along Magnolia, off the property; • Corona Regional Med Ctr: 2 lines; bus stops along S Main St, off the property; • SL Bernardino Med Ctr: 3 lines, multiple bus stops along various perimeter sts Smaller hospitals such as Menifee Valley Med Ctr or the Inland Valley Regional Medical Ctr are not expected to be comparable to the planned Temecula facility upon its full build -out. RTA staff believes Riverside's Kaiser Hospital bus stop configuration would be most comparable with the future needs of the proposed Temecula facility, since the former also has several medical towers, doctor offices and a similar perimeter access road network. No on -site access for regular transit buses is anticipated at either site. To ensure safety and convenience of future transit operations at the Temecula Hospital, RTA is respectfully requesting the site plan or associated street engineering plans amended to include a two or three -bay bus stop and bus turnout located at • North side of State Highway 79, on the far side (west of) the proposed signalized Intersection with Country Glen Wy and the primary hospital entrance. The stop's taper, or entrance area, should begin no closer than 50 feet from the end of the Intersection's radius and extend for no less than 220 It to accommodate two parked buses. The exact position would depend on location of utility structures, commer- cial signs, street lighting, key landscaping and other factors. The minimum depth (i.e. width) of the turnout is 10 ft, however this may be reduced to 5 ft if a designa- ted, striped bike path is installed along this portion of State Highway 79. • Additionally, RTA requests the site plan specify another clear path of travel from the main building going directly out to the requested bus stop location. • RTA staff also requests that the protect proponents consider investing in some additional architectural amenities for the bus stop, Its benches and shelters by perhaps taldng this opportunity to make a positive visual statement at this site in the, interests of maintaining the community image of Temecula. Because this facility will be one of the most well -known and visited places in the city, its bus stop is deserving of a high -quality bench and shelter that are visually compatible and complimentary to the main building architectural theme. The applicant's architect or engineers are urged to contact RTA staff for further details. RTA staff will request the multi •bay bus turnout and the path of travel discussed above be made conditions of approval for cases 04 -0462 and 040463. RTA staff will work with future developers of the eastbound bus stop site (across SR 79) to ensure it is comparable and compatible with the stop in front of the Hospital. INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: July 21, 2004. F data1PlannThgM 1keM.WoMlbev ReviewiTemeculal20041TemecuIaHosp.doc Rancho mil' Bond ofDit.ctod John E. Soagtand President Gobs F. Ea Sr. via ?readout Stephen J. Cowan* Retph R. Daily Fen R. Drain Lira D. sermon John Y. Rood Officers: Bdan.L Brady General Manager Phillip L. Feria Director of F6oroosakesartr SP.'Solf Lesson. Dind.rotEoataaedng Paa7n. Loaeh Controller Linda M. Ftegeoo Dtetrid eemet q ddtabnal .rtw Seraoa Manager C. Michael Cowett Sad Best ,' Krieger LLP Gc. se1 arum el July 12, 2004 Dan Long, Project Planner City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 - 9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, TEMECUL GIONAL HOSPITAL; PARCELS NO. 1, NO. 2, AND NO. 3 OF PARCEL MAP 13043; PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP 6813; AND PARCELS NO. 1, NO. 2, NO. 3, AND NO. 4 OF PARCEL MAP 13734; APN 959 - 080 -001 THROUGH APN 959 -080 -004, AND APN 959 -080 -007 THROUGH APN 959- 080-010; PA04-0462 AND PA04 -0463 Dear Mr. Long. Please be advised that the above- referenced property, is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water . District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on -site and/or off - site water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required; the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. All on -site public water facilities will require public utility easements in favor of RCWD. The project proposes to relocate RCWD's 12 -inch discharge pipeline and the associated easement from RCWD Well No. 120. This pipeline must be contained within a minimum 20 -foot -wide easement, which is located such that no permanent structures or trees are located within its boundaries. The projei t proponent should schedule a meeting with RCWD to confirm and detail these requirements. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Mlcl(ael,G. Meyerpeter, P Development Engineerin oavtgwcA c Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Tones, Engineering Project Coordinator ) , e t3eadaoCa lforala Rater Dlaterct 42136 W. tmrEsa6 • Pate:Mice Sac 901.7- • Tesoro a.CaUfends925639019 • (909) 286.6900• FAX (209)2866960 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA10 -0194, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07 -0200) FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 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 35.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959- 080 -001 THRU 004 AND 951- 080 -007 THRU 010) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. RESOLUTION NO. - A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ( "UHS "), filed Planning Application Number PA04 -0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05 -0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04 -0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04 -0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959- 080 -007 through 959 -080 -010 ( "Project "). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06 -04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04 -0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05 -0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04 -0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04 -0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959- 080 -001 THROUGH 959- 080 -004 AND 959- 080 -007 THROUGH 959 - 080 -010 (PA04 -0462, PA05 -0302, PA04 -0463, PA04- 0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04 -0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Numbers PA07 -0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07 -0199 (Zone Change), PA07 -0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07 -0200 (Development Plan), PA07 -0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959- 080 -001 through 959- 080 -004 and 959 -080- 007 through 959- 080 -010 ( "Project "), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08 -04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07- 0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application 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 property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959 - 080 -001 through 959 - 080 -004 and 959 - 080 -007 through 959- 080 -010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07 -0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959 -080- 001 THROUGH 959 - 080 -004 AND 959- 080 -007 THROUGH 959- 080 -010 (PA07 -0198, PA07 -0199, PA07 -0200, PA07 -0201, PA07- 0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10 -0194 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. CC. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. DD. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the City Council adopted Resolution No. subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Development Plan modification is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula because the project, as designed and conditioned, is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines, and declares that: A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital, and on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Temecula Regional Hospital. B. The City determined that the proposed modifications to the project do not trigger any of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and that an Addendum is appropriate for the proposed modification to the hospital project. C. The Addendum relied on use of an Environmental Checklist Form as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) to evaluate whether there were any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under the Addendum and the proposed amendments and to review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. The analysis in the Addendum indicates that no new significant effects will be caused by the proposed modification to the project, nor will the proposed modification increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact. The impacts will remain the same as analyzed in the Temecula Regional Hospital FEIR and FSEIR. D. The Addendum also analyzed whether new circumstances would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Addendum found that no new circumstances exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects. E. Further, the Addendum analyzed whether new information exists that indicates that the project would introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or whether any new information suggests new mitigation measures or shows that the mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible are in facts feasible. The Addendum found no new information that suggested new significant effect or increased the severity of previously identified effects. Nor did any new information suggest new mitigation measures or suggest that mitigation measures previously identified as infeasible were in fact feasible. F. Because the Addendum finds no new significant effects, no increase in the severity of previously identified effects, no new mitigation measures and no change in the mitigation measures previously discussed, the Planning Commission finds that a supplemental or subsequent EIR need not be prepared, and that the City may rely on the Addendum to approve the proposed modification application. G. The City Council finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the Addendum prepared for the proposed modification application. The City Council further finds that the conclusions reached in the Addendum represents the independent judgment of the City Council. H. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, and the Addendum for the modification application and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, is the Planning Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification Application, PA10 -0194: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA) Section 15164, an Addendum to the FSEIR adopted in 2008 was prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification Application, as described in the FSEIR Addendum ( "the Project "). B. The City Council has reviewed the FSEIR Addendum prior to and at the December 15, 2010 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the FSEIR Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) Based on the findings in the FSEIR Addendum there is no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts, and the mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as modified; and (3) The FSEIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA), the City Council has considered the proposed Major Modification Application. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Project, approved by the City Council as Planning Application No. PA07 -0200 on January 22, 2008, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, the City Council finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, the City Council also finds that the proposed Major Modification Application does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance which shows that the Major Modification Application will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the FSEIR. All potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Major Modification Application are adequately addressed by the prior FSEIR. An Addendum pursuant to Section15164 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15164) is therefore the appropriate type of CEQA documentation for the Major Modification Application, and no additional environmental documentation is required. D. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the FSEIR Addendum prepared for this project. Section 5. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing 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 35.3 acres generally located on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Numbers 959 -080 -001 thru 959 -080 -004 and 951 - 080 -007 thru 951 - 080 -010, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA10 -0194, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) , Mayor I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly 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: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005031017 Prepared for City of Tem ecula December 2010 r ESA 11- 011:".jr - • 1 ' 4 t, • T ibm't • isstAl• Ara Awn,. ..•,pr4,;, 'RIP 1 4 11 `4, - • • .A4101:•••1411r1.0 • ji I :7•72 ups , sgs s I li iii a I so I SI i aut, 1 Art I '— ----■ . °- 4 ha sgrigl in., to .--.= winow go isr lis Ill!: ;IIII attitViigi 01 i a tar- • , ■ Jo mw - — 11011110 ml - 4 ' TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SGH# 2005031017 Prepared for December 2010 City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction 1 -1 1.1 Findings of this Addendum 1 -1 1.2 Contact Information 1 -4 2. Project Description 2 -1 2.1 Previously Approved Project 2 -1 2.2 Revisions to the Approved Project 2 -4 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3 -1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3 -1 3.2 Noise 3 -3 3.3 Traffic 3 -5 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4 -1 4.1 Acronyms 4 -1 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted 4 -4 5. References 5 -1 Appendices A. SCS Engineers Letter Report A -1 B. City of Temecula Director of Public Works /City Engineer Memorandum B -1 List of Figures 2 -1 Regional Location Map 2 -3 2 -2 Project Vicinity Map 2 -4 2 -3 Addendum Site Plan 2 -6 2 -4 2008 FSEIR Site Plan 2 -7 List of Tables 2 -1 Comparison of Previously Approved Phasing to this Addendum 3 -1 Comparison of Existing Traffic Conditions Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -8 3 -5 ESA / 0207434.01 December2010 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Findings of this Addendum Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed changes to the project will result in new impacts or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 1.1.1 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 1. Introduction B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions is met, the City may require preparation of an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. This Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, as presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained herein, the mitigation measures remain unchanged from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Comparison of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR with the revised project under Addendum, as described in Chapter 2 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project under this Addendum and mitigation, as described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. This Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Checklist Form is used: • To evaluate whether there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under this Addendum and proposed amendments; and • To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. Section 3.0 of this document contains the discussion summarizing the responses to the questions on the form covering required environmental issues. Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined in this section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the project. Any document incorporated by reference is available for review at City of Temecula Planning Department. • Temecula Regional Hospital EIR (Original EIR) - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 24, 2006. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -2 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 1. Introduction — Technical reports and analyses are included therein. • Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 22, 2008. — Technical reports and analyses are included therein. 1.2 Contact Information The Lead Agency for this Addendum for the revised project is the City of Temecula. Any questions about the preparation of this Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Stuart Fisk - Senior Planner City of Temecula - Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Stuart.Fisk @cityoftemecula.org (e -mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -3 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the previously approved hospital project as described in the 2008 FSEIR and the changes to the previously approved project under this Addendum. 2.1 Previously Approved Project As part of the previously approved project described in the 2008 FSEIR, the applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposed to develop a 320 -bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the previously approved project would be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. Construction of the previously approved project would last approximately 12 months. The total parking provided was 1,278 spaces, which exceeded the City's parking standards, which required 663 parking spaces. The City and Applicant Objectives have not changed under this Addendum from the previously approved City and Applicant Objectives under the 2008 FSEIR project. Please refer to Figure 2 -1 for a map of the project's regional location and Figure 2 -2 for a project vicinity map, neither of which have changed as part of this Addendum. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 ■•■ Temecula City Boundary Addendum to the Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434.01 Figure 2 -1 Regional Location Map 0 300 Feet SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Addendum to the Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434.01 Figure 2 -2 Project Vicinity Map 2.2 Revisions to the Previously Approved Project Figure 2 -3 illustrates the newly revised site plan as part of this Addendum. For comparative purposes, Figure 2 -4 displays the site plan from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. The proposed changes to the project include the following: Truck Loading Area /Service Yard /Infrastructure Support • Under the 2008 FSEIR, a truck loading area and facilities plant was to be located at the eastern edge of the hospital building, south of the helipad. As detailed in the 2008 FSEIR, this area was intended to provide infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. Under this Addendum, the hospital building footprint has changed. As a result, these components, along with the truck loading area, have moved towards the north end of the hospital building on the eastern side of the hospital, just west of the helipad (location of 91 parking spaces under 2008 FSEIR site plan). This area would include a service yard and a tank farm enclosed by a 12- foot -high wall. The previous loading area under the 2008 FSEIR site plan is now landscaping and future "B" building expansion area under this Addendum (see Figure 2 -3). • The cooling towers have been removed from the project and replaced with rooftop package units. Underground fuel /oil storage has been relocated along with the generators and electrical transformer area to the northwest edge of the hospital building (see Figure 2-3). Hospital Building 2. Project Description • The one -story hospital building footprint of the 2008 FSEIR has been reconfigured under this Addendum. The revised one -story hospital building extends development along a portion of the northwest corner of the institutional occupancy building footprint in comparison to the original design. The extended area is narrower than the previous design and includes areas for expansion. In addition, the revised design reduces the development footprint of the business occupancy building along the east edge adjacent to the Cancer Center and leaves another occupancy expansion area. A five -story bed tower rises from the single -story ancillary hospital building as compared to a six -story bed tower under the 2008 FSEIR (see Figure 2 -3). The previously approved hospital building was a maximum of 106 feet in height at the rotunda and approximately 91 to 97 feet in height at the main body of the hospital towers. The proposed rotunda is reduced to 90 feet in height, and the main body of the hospital towers are reduced to 82.5 to 84 feet. Architectural changes to the hospital towers are also proposed as a result of these changes, including the elimination of some tiled roof areas and their replacement with vertical metal panels that incorporate spandrel glass "windows" and a secondary cornice line to create the appearance of an additional floor. The approximate total square footage build -out remains unchanged. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -4 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 2. Project Description • The ambulance drop -off area, previously located at the northwest edge of the hospital building footprint, has shifted just north of the passenger loading zone along the southwest edge of the hospital building under this Addendum (see Figure 2 -3). Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -5 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 Isll lliPlRNliti11r 11111111 P1111111R �1IIIIIIR � ellllllll1lllllil 1 inn - �� 11 ■ rWr■ fArralMnra ■YlarlrauiY2lraMa■�rr:luy:: €i 0 �n4rfl nn ®nn +aon mn.nnKnn <nn nomnn <,z -:::. aRi aR�< aaim - - ar�� any RANCHO PUEBLO RD. onnE ■■P eUP POI P.M R Illll ° I I NIINW -,•=.- A ! sa 0 L E G E N D PROPERTY UNE. ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL •FH FIRE HYDRANT •FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION •PTV POST INDICATOR VALVE 17 0 090 0 TRANSFORMER, PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FIRE LANE PROPOSED BUILDING EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE, PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL, WHEEL STOP, SICNAGE AND LOADING ZONE FIRE LANE TURNING RADIUS INSIDE DIAMETER: 21' - OUTSIDE DIAMETER: 45' - O' 400 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2 -3 Addendum Site Plan SOURCE: HKS, 2007. �III�IIIIIIIIIII,IU�III! - �. _!IIIIIIIIIIpII �� °ullluiVlli1i1i ii PARKING CALCULATIONS . Source: C.O.T OEV. CODE, CH. 17.24; Table 17.24.040 1. 1 SPACE PER 20 REQUIRED PARKING (Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24.040.F) RANCHO PUEBLO R ' 1j11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �_ 1111 1 � - — 48TORIED. —11.. u q1111111111111111111111111111100111 L %� �dlllillllllllllllll!' = 11=!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I! �Iiiifi !!!9�IIIliI- uuplliluivalllll — .° ° 11111111111111111111111111 =1 IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 111.11Iu 01f111 111:111!'- --- 1P;o: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllllllllllllllll 11 III IN -' 11 -1 1111111II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111V -- - lla - i111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111CIIIIIIIIIIU -- PHASE IB PHAISEII E$T - -": 11111111111111 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111IIIIIIII - " 1 "91 21ri ..r..a.. .. 64 46 .. 111111IIIIIIIIIIII-=° 11 1 1 911 1111 II @I • -��-s� WILIiL44L1��YYW PHASE I — PHASE ORS RAIL _ ! ,111111111111111! 1 II IN SPACES' 111111111 I• LIZIE • s L -H440 P IA I21D PACIN 71 VANN urn INS SPANN I - STATE HIGHWAYROU 79 tl I� HAS 4 DE PORTOLA ROAD HORSE TRAIL SPLITTRNL FENCE APPRG0GH/13KEOFF SORFAf£ PROFNED BMX CORGENN STORAGE (APPROX. 3000 GAL) PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKING (APPROK 300 SPACES) • MAIN ENTRY DRIVE PHASE IB • HOSPITAL/ 8 STORY BED TOWER • HOSPITAL PARKING PHASE II • HOSPITAL 3 STORY BED TOWER PHASE III • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1) • MOB/ HOSPITAL CONNECTOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FITNESS CENTER • JOGGING TRAIL 0 2 Feet 400 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2 -4 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Site Plan AREA/ SIZE REGD. SPACES PROUD. SPACES HOSPITAL .1 SPACE PER 3 BEDS 316 BEDS 106 644 HOSPITAL HANDICAPPED 201 -1000 SPACES = 27 OF TOTAL 14 42 M.O.B.1 *1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. (LS AREA) 80,000 S.F. 267 280 M.O.B. 1 HANDICAPPED 201 -300 SPACES = 7 H.C. SPACES 7 16 M.O.B. 2 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. (LS AREA) 60,000 S.F. 20q 233. M.O.B. 2 HANDICAPPED 201 -300 SPACES = 7 H.C. SPACES 7 10 CANCER CENTER '1 SPACE PER 200 S.F. (LS AREA) 10,000 S.F. 50 55 CANCER CENTER HANDICAPPED 26 -50 SPACES = 2 H.C. SPACES 2 4 FITNESS CENTER '1 SPACE PER 200 S.F. (LS AREA) g,000 S.F. 40 66 FITNESS CENTER HANDICAPPED 2010 OF REGULAR PARKING 10 1 Q TOTAL 663 1278 BICYCLE PARKING 34 40 (3 RACKS) SOURCE: HKS, 2007. �III�IIIIIIIIIII,IU�III! - �. _!IIIIIIIIIIpII �� °ullluiVlli1i1i ii PARKING CALCULATIONS . Source: C.O.T OEV. CODE, CH. 17.24; Table 17.24.040 1. 1 SPACE PER 20 REQUIRED PARKING (Source: C.O.T DEV. CODE, CH. 17.24.040.F) RANCHO PUEBLO R ' 1j11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �_ 1111 1 � - — 48TORIED. —11.. u q1111111111111111111111111111100111 L %� �dlllillllllllllllll!' = 11=!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I! �Iiiifi !!!9�IIIliI- uuplliluivalllll — .° ° 11111111111111111111111111 =1 IIIIIIIIIIIII 1 111.11Iu 01f111 111:111!'- --- 1P;o: IIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllllllllllllllll 11 III IN -' 11 -1 1111111II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111V -- - lla - i111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111CIIIIIIIIIIU -- PHASE IB PHAISEII E$T - -": 11111111111111 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111IIIIIIII - " 1 "91 21ri ..r..a.. .. 64 46 .. 111111IIIIIIIIIIII-=° 11 1 1 911 1111 II @I • -��-s� WILIiL44L1��YYW PHASE I — PHASE ORS RAIL _ ! ,111111111111111! 1 II IN SPACES' 111111111 I• LIZIE • s L -H440 P IA I21D PACIN 71 VANN urn INS SPANN I - STATE HIGHWAYROU 79 tl I� HAS 4 DE PORTOLA ROAD HORSE TRAIL SPLITTRNL FENCE APPRG0GH/13KEOFF SORFAf£ PROFNED BMX CORGENN STORAGE (APPROX. 3000 GAL) PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA • SITE GRADING • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 2 (MOB 2) • MOB 2 PARKING (APPROK 300 SPACES) • MAIN ENTRY DRIVE PHASE IB • HOSPITAL/ 8 STORY BED TOWER • HOSPITAL PARKING PHASE II • HOSPITAL 3 STORY BED TOWER PHASE III • MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 1 (MOB 1) • MOB/ HOSPITAL CONNECTOR PHASE IV • CANCER CENTER • CANCER CENTER PARKING PHASE V • FITNESS CENTER • JOGGING TRAIL 0 2 Feet 400 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2 -4 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Site Plan Landscaping Construction/Phasing Phase • The landscaped area adjacent to the northwest edge of the institutional occupancy building has been removed to allow for the new location of the generators, and electrical transformer (see Figure 2 -3). • A landscaped area has replaced the 16 parking spaces located immediately south of the Cancer Center (see Figure 2 -3). • Construction of the project under this Addendum would occur in six phases as opposed to five phases under the previously approved project. However, the order in which various project components would develop has been changed under this Addendum in comparison to the 2008 FSEIR as described below in Table 2 -1. Phase IA • Site Grading • Medical Office Building 2 (MOB 2) • MOB Parking (Approximately 300 spaces) • Main Entry Drive Phase IB TABLE 2 -1 COMPARISON OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PHASNG TO THIS ADDENDUM Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Previously Approved Phasing • Hospital /Six -Story Bed Tower • Hospital Parking Phase II • Hospital Five -Story Bed Tower Phase III • Medical Office Building 1 (MOB 1) • MOB /Hospital Connector Phase IV • Cancer Center • Cancer Center Parking Phase V • Fitness Center • Jogging Trail SOURCE: Universal Health Services, Inc., 2010 2 - 8 The Proposed Phasing 2. Project Description • Now referred to as Phase I • Site Grading • Main Entry Drive • Off -site Improvements • Hospital (140 Beds) 5 -Story Tower • Hospital Parking (434 Spaces) • Horse Trail • Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III • Now referred to as Phase II • MOB1 • MOB 1 Parking (326 spaces) • Final Underground WQMP BMP Chambers at Southeast Corner of Site • Now referred to as Phase III • MOB2 • MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase IV • Hospital (180 Beds) 5 -Story Tower • Hospital Parking (128 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase V • Cancer Center • Cancer Center Parking (50 Spaces) • Now referred to as Phase VI • Fitness Center • Fitness Center Parking (40 Spaces) • Jogging Trail ESA / D207434.01 December2010 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In many instances, there has been no change in the existing setting since 2008 when the FSEIR was prepared and certified. Further, changes have been minimal since the preparation and approval of 2008 FSEIR. In these instances, appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference into this Addendum. This discussion will be followed by evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed changes. Where there is insignificant or no change in potential impacts between this Addendum and the adopted 2008 FSEIR, the appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference. 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazardous conditions remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified. Refer to pages 3.1 -1 through 3.1 -11 of the FSEIR, which provides information and data related to the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards within and adjacent to the project site. In addition, please refer to the recent technical letter memo from SCS Engineers that further describes existing conditions on the site, dated November 19, 2010. A copy of this technical letter memo can be found in Appendix A of this Addendum document. Based on a review of the previous reports and assessment activities associated with the 2008 FSEIR, SCS Engineers conclude that: • The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the proposed project site from the off -site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the 2008 FSEIR. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -1 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures • There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the proposed project site. Because no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS Engineer's opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk. • There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the proposed project site, caused by an off -site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the proposed project site (i.e., the proposed project site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). • In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital FSEIR, dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. As concluded, there has been no change in circumstances that would indicate an increase in the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. In addition, there is no new information concerning mitigation measures for these previously identified potential impacts. 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding hazards and hazardous materials have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: MTBE Plume • Potential that existing and /or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction /phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. There would be no new impacts as a result of the changes to the project as discussed in this Addendum. As described in the 2008 FSEIR, and confirmed by the technical letter memo submitted by SCS Engineers on November 19, 2010, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off -site USTs and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site (as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components). Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -2 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3.2 Noise 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. The changes to construction /phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the likelihood that construction excavation and grading could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is still considered to be unlikely with the proposed changes. There will be no significant change in MTBE plume impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as described in this Addendum. They will be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No new mitigation is required. 3.1.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation The impact of the proposed changes to the previously approved project, as described in this Addendum, are not considered significant due to the continued implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures ensures that project - specific and cumulative impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the existing ambient noise setting and environment remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified (refer to pages 3.2 -1 through 3.2 -11 of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). There is no new substantial information indicating that the severity of the impacts might have changed. The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise; as such, refer to Section 3.3 (Traffic) of this Addendum and the City of Temecula Director of Public Works /City Engineer Memorandum dated October 4, 2010. 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding noise have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -3 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Construction Noise • Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not substantially change or increase temporary construction activity noise level impacts at and/or near the construction areas or increase construction - related material haul trips that would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes to a more severe level than those described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. There will be no significant change in construction noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Emergency Vehicle Sirens • Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as detailed in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the severity of noise levels along roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise that would cause additional significant environmental effects. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB under both this Addendum and the previously approved FSEIR. None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise, would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. There will be no significant change in siren noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better noise mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to noise. Although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant under this Addendum (similar to the previously approved FSEIR), there are no mitigation measures that can be placed on this type of noise. 3.2.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project under this Addendum would still result in construction activities that would exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB in the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the site. With implementation of mitigation measures in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -4 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008, the construction noise levels under this Addendum would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south (similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). As with the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the project under this Addendum would be considered a significant impact. As noted in the 2008 FSEIR, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. 3.3 Traffic The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding traffic have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: 3.3.1 Existing Conditions There has been no significant change in the existing traffic counts and there is no new substantial information that would worsen the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. The City Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the traffic count data, collected in September 2005, and shown in the 2008 FSEIR (City of Temecula Director of Public Works /City Engineer Memorandum, November 12, 2010 — Appendix B). The September 2005 count data was compared with traffic count data collected for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, July 2010, at the same study locations on Temecula Parkway, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) are shown in Table 3 -1: Location Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway De Portola Road west of Margarita Road Source: City of Temecula, 2010 TABLE 3 -1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Year 2005 Year 2010 38,700 (LOS "C ") 38,200 (LOS "C ") 23,500 (LOS "B ") 24,000 (LOS "B ") 7,000 (LOS "A ") 7,500 (LOS "A ") Although the data indicates there was a slight increase in traffic volumes (500 ADT) on Margarita Road and De Portola Road over a five (5) year period, it is not a significant increase since the capacity of the roadway remains unaffected. As shown, the LOS is maintained at LOS "C" or better, at all locations and the locations with the increases still perform at LOS "B" or better. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-5 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Since the approval of the 2008 FSEIR, Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6: SR 79/Pechanga Parkway — (dual right -turn lanes) and Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 have been completed (identified as mitigation measures 3.3 -6 and 3.3 -8, respectively, in the FSEIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). The completion of these mitigation measures reduced the severity of the traffic impacts identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Outside of the implementation of these mitigation measures, there has been no significant change to the existing traffic information since the 2008 FSEIR was approved (refer to pages 3.3 -1 through 3.3 -11 of the 2008 FSEIR). 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts Direct Impacts The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction /phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant direct traffic impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga P arkway and Margarita Road • Highway 79 /Country Glen Way None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to direct traffic impacts would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The proposed changes would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential direct traffic impacts have been adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Intersections) The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction /phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative intersection impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • State Route 79 /I -15 Southbound Ramps • State Route 79 /I -15 Northbound Ramps • State Route 79 /La Paz Street • State Route 79 / Pechanga Parkway • State Route 79 /Jedediah Smith Rd; State Route 79 /Avenida De Missiones; State Route 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 /Redhawk Parkway /Margarita Road • State Route 79 /Avenida De Missiones • State Route 79 / Country Glen Way • State Route 79 /RedhawkParkway /Margarita Road Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -6 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative intersections would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential cumulative traffic impacts to intersections have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects entitled, "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right -Turn Lanes" has added a second eastbound right -turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersection located at State Route 79 / Pechanga Parkway. In addition, since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects for Fiscal Years 2007 -2011 entitled, "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase IP" has been completed. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersections located at Pechanga Parkway south of State Route 79. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Segments) The changes to the truck loading area /service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction /phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative segment impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below): • State Route 79 West of I -15 • State Route 79 between 1-15 and Pechanga Parkway • State Route 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road • State Route 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 • Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 • Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative segments would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project's potential cumulative traffic impacts to segments have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Project entitled, "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right -Turn Lanes" has added a second eastbound right -turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement also provides mitigation to the cumulative impact segment located at State Route 79 between I -15 and Pechanga Parkway. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -7 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better traffic mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to traffic. 3.3.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project with the proposed changes would still result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts as identified in the previously approved document. Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, no additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in the previously approved document, are feasible for the traffic- related impacts that would result from this Addendum due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right -of -way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right -of -way for additional circulation system improvements. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3 -8 Preliminary — Subject to Re vision ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 4 Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4.1 Acronyms µg/L micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above - ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CHI methane CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalents CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel dBA A- weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day /Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control EIR Environmental Impact Report ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSEIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers L energy- equivalent noise level day -night average noise level LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers L maximum noise level LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -2 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether N20 nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA's National Priorities List OPR Office of Planning and Research PFCs perfluorocarbons RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SF6 sulfur hexaflouride SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank vlc volume -to- capacity VMT vehicle miles traveled Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -3 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 VOC volatile organic compounds 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency — City of Temecula Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - Traffic Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface /Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional /Geologist 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Gus JaFolla, Word Processor Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -4 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 CHAPTER 5 References California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, August 29, 2007b. Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation at Cal/EPA Headquarters. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework for change. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /LandArchlscenic_highways, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula Director of Public Works /City Engineer Memorandum — Temecula Regional Hospital Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, November 12, 2010 City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data /Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -1 ESA / D207434.01 December 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http : / /www.epa.gov /mtbe /water.htm, March 2006. 7. References Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. — Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. SCS Engineers, Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical CenterAPNs 959 -080 -001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California, November 19, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -2 ESA / 0207434.01 December2010 Appendix A SCS Engineers Letter Report SCS ENGINEERS Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959- 080 -001 , -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, - 009, and -010 Temecula, California Presented to: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San Diego, California 92123 (858) 571 -5500 December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com City of Temecula December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Mr. Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Limited Regulatory File Review (Review) Dear Mr. Fisk: Limited Regulatory File Review SCS ENGINEERS Hospital Site: Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959959 -080 -001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California SCS Engineers (SCS) is pleased to present this Review of three leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the Hospital Site vicinity. This report summarizes the results of the Review that was conducted to evaluate specific environmental conditions at the Hospital Site. The work described in the Review was performed by SCS in general accordance with Exhibit 01 to the consulting Agreement (Contract) between SCS and the City of Temecula (Client). City of Temecula Should you have any questions regarding this Review, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at (858) 571 -5500. Sincerely, Tom Wright, P.G. 7972 Project Professional SCS ENGINEERS Chuck Pryatel Vice President SCS ENGINEERS TW F:\Projects\207\500 -550 \01207522.00 (City of Temecula) \01207522 00 Flle Review_final.docx Limited Regulatory File Review SCS ENGINEERS City of Temecula Table of Contents Section Page 1 Background 1 2 Objective 1 3 Scope of Services 1 4 Regulatory File Review 1 Known, Reported, or Suspected Releases within the Hospital Site Vicinity 1 Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California .1 Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California 3 Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station 4 Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California 5 Previous SCS Environmental Investigations 7 Soil Vapor Survey 7 Groundwater Sampling 8 5 Discussion 9 6 Conclusions 10 7 Recommendations 11 8 Report Usage And Future Conditions 12 9 Likelihood Statements 13 List of Figures 1 4 -Way Site Location 2 Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results Limited Regulatory iii File Review SCS ENGINEERS City of Temecula 1 BACKGROUND SCS ENGINEERS Based on our conversations and a review of Client - provided documents, we understand that the Hospital Site consists of approximately 35.31 acres of land in Temecula, California (Figure 1). The Hospital Site is currently undeveloped land (APNs 959 - 080 -001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010) and is proposed to be developed into facilities for the Inland Valley Medical Center. We understand that the Hospital Site improvements will consist of slab -on- grade medical offices and support buildings, as well as a two -tower 320 -bed hospital and related physical plant, parking and hardscape/landscape improvements. It is our understanding that below grade improvements are not currently planned. We also understand that potable water will be supplied by others and that no on -site groundwater production wells are planned. 2 OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed scope of services is to assess the current status, conditions, and progress of the investigation, migration, and remediation of constituents of concern (CoCs) from leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases in the site vicinity. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services designed and conducted to meet the objective was as follows: • Regulatory File Review for the adjacent LUST cases • Data Evaluation and Report Preparation 4 REGULATORY FILE REVIEW KNOWN, REPORTED, OR SUSPECTED RELEASES WITHIN THE HOSPITAL SITE VICINITY Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California The above - referenced Chevron Service Station is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). The first quarter 2009 quarterly groundwater monitoring report and historical Chevron assessment report were reviewed and included both groundwater gradient and analytical data. The Chevron Service Station has six groundwater monitoring wells that are all located on the property. Groundwater monitoring has been on -going since at least August 2001 and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been reported in all the wells at some point between August 2001 and January 2007. MTBE and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) have been reported at maximum concentrations of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg /L) and 420 µg /L, respectively. The latest report available for the Chevron Service Station was for the first quarter 2009. Based upon this report, the groundwater gradient was reported to be to the west to northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 21.88 and 24.660 feet below ground surface (bgs). Limited Regulatory 1 File Review Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Slte sampling Date Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (pg /L) MTBE (pg /L) TAME (pg /L) ETBE (pg /L) TBA (pg /L) MW -1 300 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.87 <50 4 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.09 <50 2 <2 <2 <10 MW -2 360 feet southeast Oct 2008 23.79 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 21.88 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -3 200 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.27 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.37 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -4 320 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.31 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.39 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -5 255 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.53 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.66 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW -6 250 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.57 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.72 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 City of Temecula Based on the historical data and reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater likely migrated towards the Hospital Site. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target CoCs and depth to groundwater for each well at the Chevron Service Station. MTBE concentrations have not been reported above the maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) in the Chevron Service Station monitoring wells since April 2006 (MW -5). Please note that based on the data we have reviewed, benzene has not been detected in the wells this facility during remedial sampling activities. Table 1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 Limited Regulatory File Review SCS ENGINEERS TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di- isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Chevron Service Station. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. In a letter dated December 3, 2009, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter for the Chevron service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions are planned to mitigate the previous release from the USTs. Maximum contaminant levels taken from Title 22 California Code of Regulations California Safe Drinking Water Act & Related Laws and Regulations, September 2009. City of Temecula Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California SCS ENGINEERS The above - referenced Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east - southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the Shell Service Station to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on -site USTs. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 resulted in the installation of an additional thirty -two groundwater monitoring wells and the completion of thirty -five cone penetration test (CPT) locations at downgradient locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE, TBA, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted at the Shell Service Station between 2001 and 2008. MTBE and TBA had been reported at maximum concentrations of 17,000 µg /L and 3,000 µg/L, respectively, from groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells (MW -7A) located at the Shell Service Station. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater containing dissolved -phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the Shell Service Station as a groundwater remediation system to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the Shell Service Station from July 2004 to August 2006. As of April 2007, the groundwater remediation system is offline pending evaluation of the rebound of the CoCs. The last quarterly groundwater sampling event conducted at the Shell Service Station was during first quarter 2008 (January 2008). Groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to be approximately 22 feet bgs. The following table summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. Limited Regulatory 3 File Review Well Number Distance and Direction from Depth to Groundwater TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA Hospital Site (feet) (leg /I.) (Ng /L) (1 (1- (pg /L) MW -22A 140 feet southeast 22.55 <50 <1 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -23A 130 feet south 22.31 <50 3.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -24A 10 feet south 22.09 <50 1.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -25A 90 feet southeast 22.78 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 City of Temecula Notes- TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di- isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Shell Service Station. pg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime and groundwater sample analytical results from the Shell service station, SCS considered there to be a likelihood that MTBE impacted groundwater had potentially migrated onto the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected in January 2006 from soil boring B 10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Shell Service Station. In a letter dated May 30, 2008, the RWQCB issued a NFA letter for the Shell service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions on- or off -Site are being directed by the regulatory agency due to the previous release from the USTs. Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed Hospital Site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or DIPE were reported above the laboratory reporting limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 2 3 Table 2 FIRST QUARTER 2009 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Limited Regulatory 4 File Review SCS ENGINEERS LetterReport of Soil Vapor Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center, SCS Engineers, October 27, 2007. Summary of Additional Site Assessment Activities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California, Case Number R9-2002-0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS tg /L to 1.1 pg /L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 pg /L to 2.22 µg /L. Fourteen of the forty samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 µg /L to 77 pg /L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 pg /L) in groundwater was reported in location CPT - 50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side of Highway 79 South. The above - referenced assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: • "there does not appear to be the discrete water - bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. • "PPD (pore pressure dissipation) tests from these four CPTs (CPT -46, CPT -47, CPT -49, and CPT -53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities." Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from the above referenced report, SCS interprets that MTBE impacted groundwater may have migrated onto the southern edge of the Hospital Site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the Hospital Site (Figure 2 and 3). Delta Environmental (Delta) collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Arco Service Station. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and MTBE. The soil samples were reported to contain concentration ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 to 1,300 mg /kg), benzene (1.3 mg/kg), toluene (0.012 to 20 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 to 47 mg /kg), total xylenes (0.029 to 105 mg /kg), and MTBE (0.011 to 43 mg/kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated ( Secor) installed three monitoring wells (MW 1, MW2, and MW3) at the Arco Service Station. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT -1 though CPT -6) at the Arco Service Station, and soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. Limited Regulatory 5 File Review City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 6 File Review SCS ENGINEERS Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT -7 though CPT -17, CPT -18, and CPT -19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW 14). Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW 1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the Arco Service Station. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off -site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW -1, IW -2, and IW -3) were installed along Dartolo Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the Hospital Site. The groundwater remediation via extraction was conducted from 2003 through September 2007. Groundwater pumped from the Arco Service Station remediation system was treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells. The groundwater extraction system was shut down in September 2007 due to low hydrocarbons levels. As of the second quarter 2010, the Arco Service Station has a monitoring well network consisting of fourteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW- 10S -A, MW- 10S -B, and MW -10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. MW -10S -A and MW -10S -B were reinstalled in March 2008. Groundwater monitoring has been on -going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected up to concentrations of 1,900 µg/L (MW -6). During the second quarter 2010 groundwater was reported to flow to the west - northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 22.51 and 24.39 feet bgs in the shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to have migrated towards the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected from in January 2006 soil boring B 10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Arco Service Station. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (pg /L) MTBE (pg /L) TAME (pg /L) ETBE (pg /L) TBA (pg /L) MW -1 305 feet east <50 9.6 <2 <2 14 MW -2 325 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -3 330 feet east <50 0.63 <5 <5 <25 MW -4 340 feet east <50 0.45 <5 <5 <25 MW -5 350 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -6 315 feet east <50 2.9 <5 <5 <25 MW -7 370 feet east <50 0.32 <5 <5 <25 MW -8 270 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -9 225 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -1 1 340 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -12 230 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -13 250 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW -14 200 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 City of Temecula Table 3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO #5695 SERVICE STATION Notes. TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di- isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Samples collected by Delta Environmental on January 31, 2007. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. PREVIOUS SCS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS Soil Vapor Survey Limited Regulatory 7 File Review SCS ENGINEERS In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed at the Hospital Site in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the shallow subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings. Soil vapor samples were collected from 7 locations within the footprint of the proposed buildings (SV1 through SV6, and SV8). Three additional locations (SV7, SV9, and SV 10) were located in the southwest portion of the Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the Site. Samples collected from SV1 through S V 10 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits. The locations and sample results of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 2. In July 2007 and August 2008, soil vapor samples (SG1 through SG14) were collected at the Hospital Site in locations of the footprint of the proposed Hospital Site buildings and locations to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may have been migrating onto the Hospital Sample Number Benzene (1.1g /L) Toluene (pg /L) Be Ethyl- nzene (1.19/14 Total Xylenes (�9/L) MT BE (I.Ig/L) B 1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 City of Temecula Site. Soil vapor samples collected from SG1 through SG14 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits (Figure 2). Groundwater Sampling SCS ENGINEERS In July 2006, SCS personnel mobilized to the Hospital Site and advanced ten groundwater sampling locations at the proposed Hospital Site buildings. The locations of the soil borings were co- located with the soil vapor sampling locations in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the Hospital Site (B1 through B6, and B8). Locations B7, B9, and B10 were drilled in locations in the southwest portion of the Hospital Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may be intruding onto the Hospital Site. The groundwater samples from each boring were collected using a Hydropunch• sampler. The sampler was driven into the first encountered water - bearing zone and an in -situ groundwater sample was collected and placed in a laboratory - supplied container provided by the laboratory. Groundwater samples collected were submitted to a on -site state - accredited mobile laboratory, and were analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. The locations of the groundwater samples are shown in Figure 3 and the analytical results are summarized in the following table. Table 4 Hydropunch® Groundwater Sample Analytical Results Notes: Samples collected by SCS on January 3, 2005. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. pg/L = micrograms per liter. Limited Regulatory 8 File Review City of Temecula 5 DISCUSSION SCS ENGINEERS MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells in the Hospital Site vicinity have decreased steadily since the previous environmental Site assessments conducted on the Hospital Site and adjacent LUST facilities. Two of the LUST facilities (Shell and Arco) have been issued NFA letters from the RWQCB. The issuance of NFA letters does not, precluded there from being off -site impacts that could potentially impact the Hospital Site. Based upon the soil vapor and groundwater sampling previously conducted by SCS at the Hospital Site detailed in Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, dated October 25, 2007, SCS concluded: • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were not reported to be present at detectable concentrations in the eleven multi -depth soil vapor sampling probes beneath the footprint of the proposed Site buildings across three sampling events. • Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected, it is our opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant human health risk. Coupled with the multi -event soil vapor sampling and on -Site groundwater sampling and the reported reduction in MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells adjacent to the Hospital Site, it is SCS' opinion that there is a low likelihood that dissolved phase MTBE that has historically migrated onto the Hospital Site would pose a Significant human health risk. In SCS's experience, there is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off -Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). Based on these factors and SCS's experience, it is unlikely that the Site would be named a "responsible party" or be required to assume responsibility for the remediation of the source of these releases. However, as the Hospital Site is developed, the developer may incur costs associated with management of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the Hospital Site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). 4 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E -6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as significant. For the purposes of this limited HRA, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site's current zoning, is assumed. Limited Regulatory 9 File Review City of Temecula SCS ENGINEERS Depending on Hospital Site development plans, you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons and assist with management of petroleum hydrocarbons bearing soil and / groundwater. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. 6 CONCLUSIONS Based on the above review of previous reports and assessment activities conducted by SCS, it is SCS's professional opinion that: • The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent LUST facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the Hospital Site from the off -site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January 2008. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the RWQCB issued a NFA letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary. • There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the Hospital Site. Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS's opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk. • There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off- Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). • In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. Limited Regulatory 10 File Review City of Temecula 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Limited Regulatory 11 File Review SCS ENGINEERS Based on the data obtained during this Assessment and our conclusions, SCS recommends: • That depending on Hospital Site development plans you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of oversight and management activities during construction consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January, 2008. City of Temecula 8 REPORT USAGE AND FUTURE CONDITIONS SCS ENGINEERS This Report is intended for the sole usage of the Client and other parties designated by the Client. The methodology used during this Review was in general conformance with the requirements of the Client and the specifications and limitations presented in the Agreement between the Client and SCS. This Report contains information from a variety of public and other sources, and SCS makes no representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, suitability, or completeness of the information. Any use of this Report, whether by the Client or by a third party, shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement between the Client and SCS. Any misuse of or reliance upon the Report shall be without risk or liability to SCS. Reviews are qualitative, not comprehensive, in nature and may not identify all environmental problems or eliminate all risk. For every property, but especially for properties in older downtown or urban areas, it is possible for there to be unknown, unreported recognized environmental conditions, underground storage tanks, or other features of concern that might become apparent through demolition, construction, or excavation activities, etc. In addition, the scope of work for this project was limited to those items specifically named in the scope of work for this Report. Environmental issues not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work for this project are not included in this Report. Land use, condition of the properties within the Site, and other factors may change over time. The information and conclusions of this Report are judged to be relevant at the time the work described in this Report was conducted and was based upon information obtained from public agencies, which SCS believes to be accurate. This Report should not be relied upon to represent future Site conditions unless a qualified consultant familiar with the practice of Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments in Riverside County is consulted to assess the necessity of updating this Report. The property owners at the Site are solely responsible for notifying all governmental agencies and the public of the existence, release, or disposal of any hazardous materials /wastes or petroleum products at the Site, whether before, during, or after the performance of SCS services. SCS assumes no responsibility nor liability for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury which results from hazardous materials /wastes or petroleum products being present or encountered within the Site. Limited Regulatory 12 File Review City of Temecula 9 LIKELIHOOD STATEMENTS Limited Regulatory 13 File Review SCS ENGINEERS Statements of "likelihood" have been made in this report. Likelihood statements are based on professional judgments of SCS. The term "likelihood," as used herein, pertains to the probability of a match between the prediction for an event and its actual occurrence. The likelihood statement assigns a measure for a "degree of belief' for the match between the prediction for the event and the actual occurrence of the event. The likelihood statements in this Report are made qualitatively (expressed in words). The qualitative terms can be approximately related to quantitative percentages. The term "low likelihood" is used by SCS to approximate a percentage range of 10 to 20 percent; the term "moderate likelihood" refers to an approximate percentage range of 40 to 60 percent; and the term "high likelihood" refers to an approximate percentage range of 80 to 90 percent. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory File Review FIGURES SCS ENGINEERS Carnp Pendleton - rUSIVIC) OCEANSIDE ENCINITAS CANDIFFN,TNE-SEA SO,. BEACH ' Zi n an n :gr FEMEGLIL A 1 LA JOL, - tVit Wro PACIFIC BEACH lo145SION BEACH OCEAN BEACH IMPERIAL BEACH kls Cleieloo tio DieerDde Count San Diego County ARg t ONNEGO SPRINGS Reference: Terra Server Aerial Photograph Temecula, California - May 2002 Disclaimer: This figure is based on available data. Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. REGIONAL SITE LOCATION SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 0 315 630 945 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North (Not to scale) 114 North Reference: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle map Pechanga, California - 1977. Photo revised 1982. Reference: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle map Pechanga, California - 1977. Photo revised 1982. SCS ENGINEERS Environmental Consultants 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San Diego, California 92123 2-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION 3-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet 4-WAY SITE LOCATION MAP City of Temcula State Highway Route 79 South Temecula, California North North (Not to scale) Project No.: 01207522.00 Figure 1 Date Drafted: 10/15/10 N. SG5 SG6 SV6 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 7/16107 5,15 ND ND 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 1/3105 5 ND ND SV 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date S Depth BTEX MTBE ' 5 ND ND Date h Depth VOCs VOCS MTBE 7/3/05 5G7 7/16/07 5 ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE Date Depth VOCs MTBE SG11 7116/07 5,15 ND ND 7/78107 5,15 ND ND 1/3/05 5 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE 5,15 ND ND 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 7/18/07 $G4 \ 7118107 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE - . i 7 7/16/07 7118/07 5 ND ND $G13 Sy 5,15 ND ND 5 V 4 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 8121/07 5,15 ND ND 4� i SV2 713/05 5 ND ND 8/24107 5 ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE $G8 Arco 1/3105 5 ND ND - ` SV1 0 SG2 Date Depth BTEX MTBE Date 7116/07 Depth 5,15 VOCs MTBE ND ND _ 1/3/05 5 ND ND _ Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND 7/16/07 (`i 5,15 ND ND $V7 $G12 n SO � It e • Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE II 1/3105 5 ND ND - 8/21/07 5,15 ND ND 1 i . 8/24/07 5,15 ND ND Shell SG3 SG9 1 5V9 Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date Depth BTEX MTBE 7/16/07 5,15 ND ND 713/05 5 ND ND 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7/16107 5,15 ND ND SG12 SV1 7/18/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth VOCs MTBE Date 113/05 Depth 5 BTEX ND MTBE' ND SV3 8/21/07 5,15 ND ND Date Depth BTEX MTBE 8/24/07 5,15 ND ND 1/3/05 5 ND ND SG1 -, Chevron {� %, 0 125 250 375 Date Depth VOCs MTBE 7116/07 5 ND ND 7/18/07 515 ND ND Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North EXPLANATION Soil vapor sample analyzed for •O Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Soil vapor sample location. Delta Environmental (Shell [Jan 2008]), Holguin Fahan, & Associates (Chevron [Jan 2009]), Disclaimer This figure is based on available data. volatile organic compunds (V005) including and Stantec (ARCO May 2009]). Actual conditions may differ. All locations and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total dimensions are approximate. SG3 xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE in general SCS ENGINEERS Environmental Cons u ltants 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San o Die g California 92123 CURRENT AND PREVIOUS SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING LOCATIONS WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS City of Temecula State Hi Route 79 Temecula, California Project No.: 01207522.00 Figure 2 theca, „Os MTBE accordance with EPA Method 8260B. 1 ND ND Results reported in per N hs ND ND = net . liter of vapor (pg/Lv). ND =ot defected above the laboratory reporting limit (1 pg /Lv). Samples SV1 through SV10 collected in January 2006, samples SG1 through SG11 collected in July 2007, and samples SG12, SG13, and SG14 collected in August 2007. All samples collected under the supervision of SCS Engineers. Date Drafted: 10/15/10 B6 B5 T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 \-- B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 1.3 B T E <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 X MTBE O s. • Ilk B2 0- I Vt , B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 < 1.0 B3 O ra' ., B T E X MTBE <0.5 <.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 rt Arco ( "ti / B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 oa N Shell 8 T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <,.0 B7 111° B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 9 y i11�h� B1 T T X MTBE <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 8 T E X MTBE <o.5 ' <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Q Chevron G\ 0 125 250 375 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet North EXPLANATION Reported groundwater gradient, as reported by Delta Environmental (Shell [Jan 2008]), Li G roundwater sam Ie location. Holguin, Fahan, & Associates (Chevron [Jan 2009]), Disclaimer This figure is based on available data. p and Stantec (ARCO May 2009]). Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. Project No.: 01207522.00 B 1 Groundwater sample analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethyibenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and MTBE in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. Results are reported in micrograms per liter (pg/L). Groundwater samples collected by SCS Engineers in January 2005. SCS ENGINEERS GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS Environmental Consultants City of Temecula 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 Y B T E X MTBE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Figure 3 Diego, California 92123 g State Highwa Route 79 State Temecula, California Date Drafted: 10/15/10 r ESA Appendix B Ciy of Temecula Director of Public Works /City Engineer Vemorandum TO: FROM: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner DATE: November 12, 2010 Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway De Portola Road west of Margarita Road MEMORANDUM Ruth Smith, T.E., P.T.P., City Traffic Engineer Greg Butler, P.E., Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital - Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared By: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer — Traffic As requested, the Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic count data, collected in September 2005, and shown in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), January 2008. The September 2005 count data was compared with traffic count data collected for the City's Annual Traffic Count Program, July 2010, at the same study locations on Temecula Parkway, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) is shown below: The traffic count data suggests there was a slight increase in traffic volumes (500 ADT) on Margarita Road and De Portola Road over a five (5) year period. The increase is not significant since the capacity of the roadway remains unaffected, performing at LOS "C" or better at all locations, and the locations with the increases still perform at LOS "B" or better. Since there is no recent turning movement count data available for the study intersections analyzed in the 2005 FSEIR, a comparison of count data could not be performed to determine if there has been a change in conditions at each study intersections. It should also be noted that since the preparation of the January 2008 FSEIR, the dual right - turn lanes on Temecula Parkway (SR79) at Pechanga Parkway and the Pechanga Parkway Improvements (south of Temecula Parkway SR79) have been completed. These two improvements were identified as mitigation measures 3.3 -6 and 3.3 -8, respectively, in the FSEIR's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2005 2010 38,700 (LOS "C ") 38,200 (LOS "C ") 23,500 (LOS "B ") 24,000 (LOS "B ") 7,000 (LOS "A ") 7,500 (LOS "A ") Since the proposed project is not increasing the square footage or changing the approved land use, the project's potential traffic impacts were adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, which is included in the FSEIR. Therefore no additional analyses are required with the Addendum to the Final Supplemental EIR. Ruth Smith, T.E., P.T.P., City Traffic Engineer City of Temecula El 12 l 0 D ate -2- ?WESSON 4 4 El tS cc cr Vt TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for City of Temecula January 2008 ....... -. - , All - , 1 411 1 . 1 2.Lasisii- -01 1 ri 1 I 71 i 1(111 V or- I 4 . _pl T ill . s Ji l l i II e • 1 il 1 4 1 1111 11111!ifi a .: ..:1 1 rj: l i t w rit!: il 1 1 ,1 ' rairartiskjele I 3 1 ., I 111010 1,11:10LIIMI :Ill lit ii,1111 - ,isi '‘ OF-Pt; -,.. " - ,... — ..._,..,...____ ._.:_.-1.0 „,,,...lit.,_...._ a ,2,7z441111111 OF ‘-' , _ 4-- 1. e l I' elk ' At At i I 11.0A • / Vat - -- It 7 1 • • 1— ' e . "1 a .1, sitm V,4 , ■ lit L i .-- SP 2 ' F.,r .."9111:111111: lam IP ?NE jr0.41 ti.. li• . 1 4 M •;:3 _.2d . „ . 7: gyr e sv olt,- - 1 :- ._,..... s - rnor ....._„ ... cu.. ..,:--,, TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 Prepared for: January 2008 City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 ESA TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Page S -1 1. Introduction 1 -1 1.1 Project Background 1 -1 1.2 Environmental Review 1 -2 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document 1 -3 1.4 Approach to this SEIR 1 -4 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR 1 -4 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1 -5 2. Project Description 2 -1 2.1 Introduction 2 -1 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives 2 -1 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2 -2 2.4 Project Characteristics 2 -4 2.5 Discretionary Approvals 2 -9 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3 -1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1 -1 3.2 Noise 3.2 -1 3.3 Traffic 3.3 -1 4. Project Alternatives 4 -1 4.1 Approach to Analysis 4 -1 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed 4 -1 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Selection of Alternatives 4 -2 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative 4 -3 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4 -9 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5 -1 5.1 Acronyms 5 -1 5.2 References 5 -3 5.3 List of Preparers 5 -4 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A -1 B. Responses to Notice of Preparation B -1 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / D207434 January 2008 Table of Contents Appendices (Continued) C. Soil Vapor Survey • Analytical Data and Chain -of- Custody Documentation • H &P Mobile Geochemistry Standard Operating Procedures for Soil Vapor Sample Collection • DTSC's Screening -Level Model for Groundwater Contamination Spreadsheets • Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline • User's Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings • Interim Final — Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Page C -1 D. Traffic Impact Analysis Update D -1 • Memo: Alternative 7 Build -Out Segment Operations • Intersection & Segment Manual Count Sheets and Historical Traffic Volumes on Highway 79 • Riverside County Roadway Classification Table • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Existing • Cumulative Projects Data • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Without Project • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Project Phase I • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project (Phases I & II) • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects • City of Temecula Year 2025 Segment Volumes and Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets — Build -out (Year 2025 with Eastern By -Pass) • DIF Information • CIP Project Summary Sheets • TUMF Information • Assessment District Information • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects (Mitigated — With Implementation of CIP projects & No Eastern By -Pass) E. Noise Impact Analysis Update E -1 F. Scoping Session Speaker Slips F -1 G. Response to Comments G -1 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H -1 List of Figures 2 -1 Regional Location Map 2 -3 2 -2 Project Vicinity Map 2 -5 2 -3 Proposed Site Plan 2 -6 3.1 -1 Reported Groundwater Gradient 3.1 -3 3.1 -2 Current and Previous Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1 -5 Temecula Regional Hospital I I ESA /D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 List of Figures (Continued) List of Tables S -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 -1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 3.1 -2 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Shell Service Station 3.1 -3 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Arco Service Station #5695 3.1 -4 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Project Site 3.1 -5 Soil Vapor Sample Analytical Results 3.2 -1 Summary of Siren Noise Measurements 3.2 -2 City of Temecula Noise Standards 3.2 -3 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements 3.2 -4 Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.2 -5 Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels 3.2 -6 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year, Project Phase I 3.2 -7 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Entire Project, Phases I and II 3.2 -8 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year + Cumulative Projects 3.2 -9 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Buildout 3.2 -10 Estimated Ambulance Operations 3.2 -11 Estimated CNEL due to Ambulance Operations Table of Contents Page 3.1 -3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1 -7 3.2 -1 Common Noise Sources and A- Weighted Noise Levels 3.2 -2 3.2 -2 Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations 3.2 -2 3.2 -3 Site Plan 3.2 -8 3.2 -4 Noise Measurement Locations 3.2 -10 3.3 -1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3.3 -2 3.3 -2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -5 3.3 -3 Opening Year without Project Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -13 3.3 -4 Project Traffic Distribution AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -14 3.3 -5 Proposed Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -15 3.3 -6 Opening Year with Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -16 3.3 -7 Proposed Project Phase 11 Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -17 3.3 -8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase 1 + Phase 11) Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -18 3.3 -9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -19 3.3 -10 Cumulative Projects Locations 3.3 -25 3.3 -11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -26 3.3 -12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -27 3.3 -13 Build -out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3 -37 3.3 -14 TUMF Facilities 3.3 -41 3.3 -15 Riverside County Assessment Districts 3.3 -43 4 -1 Alternative Site 4 -4 S -14 3.1 -4 3.1 -8 3.1 -10 3.1 -11 3.1 -16 3.2 -3 3.2 -6 3.2 -9 3.2 -11 3.2 -12 3.2 -14 3.2 -14 3.2 -15 3.2 -15 3.2 -16 3.2 -16 Temecula Regional Hospital III ESA /D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Table of Contents List of Tables (Continued) Page 3.2 -12 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3.2 -17 3.2 -13 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 3.2 -18 3.3 -1 Existing Segment Volumes 3.3 -4 3.3 -2 LOS Definitions 3.3 -7 3.3 -3 Volume Capacity /Level of Service for Riverside County Roadway 3.3 -8 3.3 -4 Existing Intersection Operating Conditions 3.3 -9 3.3 -5 Existing Street Segment Operations 3.3 -10 3.3 -6 Projects Trip Generation - Total Trips 3.3 -11 3.3 -7 Cumulative Projects List 3.3 -20 3.3 -8 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation 3.3 -22 3.3 -9 Project Opening Day Intersection Operations 3.3 -28 3.3 -10 Project Opening Day Segment Operations 3.3 -29 3.3 -11 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Intersection Operations 3.3 -30 3.3 -12 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations 3.3 -31 3.3 -13 Build -Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3 -36 3.3 -14 Build -Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3 -37 3.3 -15 Cumulative Traffic Improvement Mitigation Measure Summary 3.3 -46 3.3 -16 Existing + Project + Cumulative intersection Operations With the Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -52 3.3 -17 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations - With Mitigation 3.3 -53 4 -1 Alternative 7 Build -out Segment Operations 4 -8 4 -2 Comparison of Impacts to Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project 4 -10 Temecula Regional Hospital IV ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for this project and certified by the City of Temecula (City). The project was approved by the City in January 2006. A legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two groups and resulted in a ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: • Construction noise impacts; • Siren noise impacts; • Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; 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. The court directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed and considered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. This SEIR was prepared to address those issues. Other issues were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and will not be addressed in this SEIR. The prior EIR may be reviewed in the City's planning department and copies may be obtained from the City Clerk's office upon payment of the duplication cost. By necessity, this summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found in the document, but rather is intended to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project's objectives, design features, impacts, proposed alternatives, and long -term implications. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences. Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -1 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). The proposed PDO -9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital; • A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320 -bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses; • A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160- square -foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000- square- foot cancer center, and an 8,000- square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site; and • A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surroundings The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single - family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they have since been demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single - family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single - family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately two miles to the west. Project Design Features The proposed 566,160- square -foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility would consist of: • An approximately 408,160- square -foot, two -tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be six stories /106 feet high, and the second five stories /83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in- patient and out - patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit; • Two medical office buildings, one four stories /73 feet high and the second three stories /60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers; • A 10,000- square -foot cancer center housed in a one -story building; • An 8,000- square -foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one -story building. The center will be available only to patients and on -site staff; • A 60 -foot by 60 -foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -2 ESA! D207434 January 2008 approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading; • A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area; • A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole - mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses; • Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area; and • Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. The project will include the following four access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location; • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted; • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west; and • Right -out access from Highway 79 South at the intersection of Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -3 Executive Summary ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • 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. Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high- quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state- of -the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; 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. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases, some of which may occur simultaneously. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three - story, 60,000- square -foot medical office building (medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one -story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -4 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320 -bed configuration with the addition of the five -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four -story 80,000- square -foot medical office building (medical office building #1) and the hospital connector. Executive Summary feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase IV consists of construction of a one - story, 10,000- square -foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000 - square -foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR The City of Temecula has prepared this SEIR to address noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes, in order to comply with the County of Riverside Superior Court's writ of mandate. In addition, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S -1 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the SEIR uses the words "significant" and "less than significant" in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this SEIR. As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mitigation measures have been included in this SEIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." Lawsuits Challenging the January 2006 Approval of the Project As noted above, the Court's rulings in the challenge to the prior EIR found that the previous document did not adequately analyze noise impacts, did not adequately address mitigation for traffic impacts and did not address the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the project site, which were generated by leaks from three gas stations in the vicinity. The Court further ordered the City to set aside its approvals of the project and to not reconsider the project unless it first addressed these issues in an SEIR. This SEIR has been prepared to comply with that order and addresses noise impacts, traffic mitigation measures and the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -5 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Although the Court's ruling required further consideration of mitigation measures for the traffic impacts identified in the prior EIR and did not fault the traffic analysis or identification of impacts, this SEIR contains an updated traffic study that all impacts are identified and ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are identified. If any significant adverse impacts remain after all feasible mitigation is required, the City could not approve the project unless it adopted a Statement of Overriding Concerns pursuant to CEQA §15093. Because the Court found no problem with the prior EIR other than the issues identified above, this SEIR does not address any impacts other than those the Court found should be addressed in an SEIR. Therefore, when reconsidering whether to approve the project, the City will rely on the sections of the prior EIR not invalidated by the Court as well as this SEIR. The prior EIR can be reviewed in the City Clerk's office and copies can be obtained from the Clerk's office upon payment of the cost of duplicating the report. The prior EIR found the following project impacts to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality, 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning; found the following impacts to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare; and found the following impacts to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 2) air quality - short -term, long -term and cumulative impacts. Further, because an alternative site not available at the time the prior EIR was prepared has now become available, this SEIR analyzes that additional alternative (Alternative 7). Potential Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant In response to the Court's decision, the following potential project impact has been analyzed and found to result in a less than significant impact: • MTBE Plume MTBE Contamination According to the Court's review and analysis, the EIR failed to analyze the MTBE plume allegedly migrating towards the project site. The court found that the previous EIR did not address the site's exposure to potential MTBE contamination despite evidence of contamination threatening the project site and despite requests from the public and other agencies to do so. The Court also found that the City was required to analyze any and all significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The Court did note that the City eventually responded to the comments to the prior EIR regarding the alleged contaminant plume relying on, among other things, an analysis by an expert taken on by UHS. It was found by the Court, however, that the City's response was insufficient, as it was required to be considered in the Draft EIR report itself. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -6 ESA! D207434 January 2008 SEIR Objective This SEIR analyzes the extent and concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including MTBE in soil vapor and ground water at key locations of the site and significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The SEIR assesses the likelihood of a significant human health risk in association with VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons as well as the possibility of the MTBE plume migrating towards project site. SEIR Conclusion As a result of further investigations and review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the site vicinity, MTBE- bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed project site along the southern boundary fronting Highway 79 South. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, it has been interpreted that there is a less than significant risk of related human health risk at the proposed project site because of the possible presence MTBE- bearing groundwater beneath the site. Consequently, no detectable concentrations of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed site buildings footprints. Under the current existing conditions there is a less than significant risk of exposure to MTBE in soil vapor and thus a less than significant risk of related significant human health risk from soil vapor migration into the proposed buildings. As such, it has been concluded that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant human health risk; therefore the risk would be less than significant. The likelihood of exposure to MTBE- bearing groundwater is increased during construction activities, such as excavation. Depending on site development plans, a qualified environmental professional may be required during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. It is also recommended that final construction plans are reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. To the extent the site is developed, a developer may be required to manage or incur costs associated with the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). Section 3.1 and Table S -1 below include mitigation measures to address the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Upon reanalysis, the SEIR identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable: • Noise impacts associated with emergency vehicle sirens; • Noise impacts associated with project construction; • Direct project - related traffic impacts; and Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -7 Executive Summary ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary • Cumulative traffic impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. As required by §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency where it is found that the benefits of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. Noise Impacts Siren Noise The Court's review found that the City's analysis of siren noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court did not agree that noise impacts from emergency vehicles associated with the proposed project would be less than significant to nearby noise - sensitive receptors simply because these impacts would be sporadic in nature and short-lived in duration. The Court also did not find substantial evidence in the prior EIR to adequately explain why ambulance noise would be reduced to insignificant levels as a result of decreased distances traveled during emergency trips. SEIR Objectives In response to the Court's findings, this SEIR assesses in greater detail the noise levels and potential impacts associated with the sirens used by emergency vehicles transporting patients to the hospital. Should it be found that operational noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. However, the City of Temecula does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. The use of sirens is required by law under specific circumstances, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Ambulance routes are selected by the drivers based on traffic conditions and expediency, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. Construction Noise The Court's review found the City's analysis of construction noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court found that the City failed to adequately explain how significant construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -8 ESA! D207434 January 2008 SEIR Conclusion Executive Summary SEIR Objectives In accordance with the Court's decision, this SEIR provides a more detailed analysis to demonstrate how construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Should it be found that construction noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. The SEIR concludes that noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, provided in Section 3.2 and Table S -1, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Traffic Impacts The Court's review and analysis of the prior EIR found that the City had not required or had not shown that it had required all feasible mitigation for traffic impacts. The court indicated that requiring payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Temecula fees, at least without more information concerning how and when the fees would be used to construct the improvements identified as necessary to mitigate project impacts, was inadequate. Accordingly, the Court did not validate the City's finding that it adopted all feasible mitigation on this ground. SEIR Objectives The SEIR contains an updated traffic study, further analyzes and identifies all feasible mitigation and explains the reasons that additional mitigation is not feasible when that is the case. Specifically, this SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated October, 2007. This SEIR also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project - related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -9 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary SEIR Conclusion Based on the established significance criteria, specific significant impacts were calculated as detailed in Table S -1 below. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Please refer to Table S -1 for further details of the project - related traffic impacts. Direct Impacts Specified regional circulation system mitigation measures (see Table S -1 and Section 3.3) shall be complete prior to occupancy of any building in Phase IA.. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are complete, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Site Access and On -Site Circulation In addition, the project proposes three access driveways, two on Highway 79 South and one on De Portola Road. The improvements listed in Table S -1 shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3 -15 in Section 3.3). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3 -15 of Section 3.3 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be feasibly acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed in Section 3.3, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -10 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Intersections Executive Summary The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • Highway 79 South Widening — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Highway 79 South from two lanes to six lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one -story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3, and 3.3 -4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding mechanisms to the hospital, if in fact the improvements are not completed before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4 require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in Table S -1 below and Section 3.3, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less- than - significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less- than - significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3 -16 and 3.3 -17 respectively of Section 3.3. As seen in Tables 3.3 -16 and 3.3 -17 of Section 3.3, all of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -11 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Highway 79 South /I -15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Highway 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternative locations for the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the SEIR. Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) The following project alternatives were examined in the original EIR: Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section15126.6 (2).) Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the 7th alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City of Temecula as an education complex, including Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -12 ESA! D207434 January 2008 an education center, a research and development /conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4 -1 in Section 4. The Temecula Education Center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City of Temecula and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include Open Space to the north, Murrieta Creek and Open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. All properties would need to be under the applicant's control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. This alternative site has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts of this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S -13 Executive Summary ESA! D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less Than Significant Section 15128 of State CEQA Guidelines MTBE Plume Impact 3.1 -1: Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. Impact 3.1 -2: Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. Construction Noise Impact 3.2 -1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE S -1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on -site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by 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. Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified 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 during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC- containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts Lead Agency must issue "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under Section 15093 and 15126[b] of the State CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are significant and approves the project. Noise Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1: The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: • Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. • Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days S - 14 Level of Impact after Mitigation Less than significant. Less than significant. Significant and unavoidable. ESA / D207434 January 2008 Potential Environmental Impact Emergency Vehicle Sirens Impact 3.2 -2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. Direct Impacts (Phase II only) Impact 3.3 -1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road — This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3 -2: Highway 79 / Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) — This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. • All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above - mentioned mitigation measures. Mitigation: None Required. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, there are no mitigation requirements placed on this type of noise. Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road ". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DI F fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, the applicant shall fund and implement the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: • Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79 / Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T- intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related change! to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: 0 A dedicated westbound right -turn lane on SR 79, S -15 Executive Summary Significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Potential Environmental Impact Cumulative Impacts Intersections Impact 3.3 -3: SR 79 / 1 -15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 79 / 1 -15 NB Ramps Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left -turn lanes and a shared through/ right -turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. • Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in /right -out only access. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right -in / right -out and left-in only access. Left -turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3: SR 79 / 1 -15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 /1-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be complete prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal S -16 Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. ESA / D207434 January 2008 Potential Environmental Impact Impact 3.3 -5: SR 79 / La Paz St Impact 3.3 -6: SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3 -7: SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway ", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right -Turn Lanes', which will add a second eastbound right -turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -7: SR 79 /Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 /Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / S -17 Executive Summary Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. ESA / D207434 January 2008 Executive Summary Segments SR 79 West of 1 -15 Potential Environmental Impact SR 79 between 1 -15 and Pechanga Parkway Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road Impact 3.3 -8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79 /Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. However, Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4, require coordination with Caltrans and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be in place or prior to occupancy of the hospital project, even though the interchange improvements are fully funded and expected to be in construction in the year 2011. Therefore, the mitigation is deemed infeasible, because of the uncertainty associated with control of the project by an outside public agency (Caltrans) and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, the interchange impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3 -5 and 3.3 -6 will also mitigate this impact. The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3 -7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007 -2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II" — Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Impact 3.3 -9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation S - 18 Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. Significant and unavoidable. ESA / D207434 January 2008 Potential Environmental Impact Impact 3.3 -10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 Impact 3.3 -11: SR 79 West of 1 -15 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 Significant and unavoidable. The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -11: To ensure the improvements are completed prior to occupancy of the hospital building, occupancy of any building outside of Phase IA shall not be permitted until after the City has issued a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. S -19 Executive Summary Significant and unavoidable. ESA / D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter describes the background of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the relationship to the previously certified project EIR. 1.1 Project Background This SEIR has been prepared to augment the Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Original EIR - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017) certified on January 24, 2006 pursuant to a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by the Riverside County Superior Court (Case Nos. RIC 445394 and RIC 445411). Following certification of the original EIR by the City of Temecula, two lawsuits were filed seeking to set aside the certification of the EIR (RIC 445411 and RIC 445394). On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the project, including, without limitation, its certification of an EIR and approvals of PA 04 -0462, PA 04 -0463, PA 04 -0571, PA 05 -0302 and all subsequent approvals and permits. The court concluded that the original EIR failed to adequately address the construction noise impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not address 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. In addition, the court found that the City of Temecula failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As previously mentioned, several other areas of the original EIR, including aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, land use, air quality that were challenged by the petitioners were upheld by the superior court and do not require any additional analysis. This SEIR therefore evaluates the above outlined issues that the Court determined were not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues /factors: noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. In addition to the court mandated EIR analysis, a new alternative site has recently become available for consideration and will be included in the SEIR. The Project Description is contained in Chapter 2 of this SEIR and has not changed from that contained in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts to the following environmental issue areas have not changed and are therefore not evaluated in the SEIR: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, and 3) land use Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 1.2 Environmental Review Section 21168.9 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: 1. Introduction and planning. All other potential environmental factors were eliminated from consideration in the original Draft EIR by the original Initial Study. The City has prepared this SEIR in order to comply with the Court's writ of mandate, in light of the sections of the initial EIR that were found sufficient by the Court. The EIR has been revised pursuant to Public Resources code §21168.9, which addresses the remedies that can be required by the court when it finds an EIR, or a portion of an EIR, to be inadequate. Thus, this SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the order of the Court under §21168.9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: • A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. • If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. • A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. (b) Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with this division. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -2 ESA /D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction (c) Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this Section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court. 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report The Temecula Regional Hospital EIR assessed impacts related to: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, 3) hydrology and groundwater, 4) land use and planning 5) noise, and 6) transportation. In addition to these topical areas, the EIR evaluated the following six (6) alternatives to the proposed project: 1) No project -No Build, 2) No Project — Development to Current General Plan, 3) Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties, 4) Access from Dartolo Road, 5) Access from De Portolo Road and Dartolo Road, and 6) Construction of Hospital Only. Alternative 6 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The original Draft EIR is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The original EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse significant impacts to: 1) short-term, long -term and cumulative air quality impacts, 2) noise impacts associated with emergency helicopter flights, and 3) cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. The original EIR considered the following impacts to be less than significant without mitigation: 1) aesthetics — scenic highways and visual quality, 2) air quality — construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, 4) land use and planning, and 5) noise — non - helicopter. The following impacts were considered potentially significant but could be mitigated to less than significant levels: 1) aesthetics — light and glare, 2) noise — operational impacts, and 3) transportation — project impacts. The Initial Study determined that the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant or no impact to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology /soils, hazards /fire safety, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation and utilities and service systems. The City of Temecula circulated the original EIR (Temecula Regional Hospital EIR — SCH No. 2005031017) on September 28, 2005. In January 2006, the City certified the EIR. Subsequently, the Court held that the noise analysis was inadequate; that the analysis of traffic mitigation measures was inadequate and that the EIR should have, but did not, address the potential impacts of the underground MTBE plumes in the groundwater in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. The Court did not invalidate the original EIR's remaining analysis of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. As such, this SEIR does not address the impacts and mitigation addressed in the original EIR that were not invalidated by the Court. In specific, these areas of the original EIR include the following: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -3 ESA! D207434 January 2008 • Project impacts found to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality), 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning. • Proiect impacts found to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare. • Project impacts found to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 1) air quality - short -term, long -term and cumulative impacts. 1.4 Approach to this SEIR 1. Introduction CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR or, in this case, an SEIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR or SEIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the SEIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less -than- significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less- than - significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR is organized to allow the reader to quickly and logically review a summary of the analysis, review recommended mitigation measures, and identify the residual environmental impacts after mitigation, if any. Those readers who wish to read the Draft SEIR in greater detail are directed to the main body of this document. The Draft SEIR begins with an Executive Summary, which describes the proposed project, its environmental effects, and alternatives to the project (including the No Project Alternative). The Executive Summary culminates with Table S -1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This table lists each identified environmental impact, mitigation measures identified, and the level of significance following mitigation. The Executive Summary is then followed by this Introduction. Following the Executive Summary, the Project Description (Chapter 2) includes the project location, project proponent's objectives, a description of the proposed project, and an outline of the required approvals. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -4 ESA /D207434 January 2008 1. Introduction Chapter 3 contains a focused discussion of environmental topics required by the Court as they relate to this project, including the setting (existing conditions), and the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. Although the Court found no fault with the analysis of alternatives already considered in the original EIR, the SEIR identifies a new alternative to the proposed project in Chapter 4 that was not available when the original EIR was prepared. The alternative also includes the No Project Alternative ( "build" and "no build "), required by CEQA for all EIRs. The report authors, agencies and persons contacted during the preparation of the Draft SEIR are listed in Chapter 5. The Appendices include the NOP, response to the NOP, as well as background and supporting documents and technical information for the impact analyses. 1.6 Public Involvement and Review A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in this SEIR. NOP Comments were received form: 1) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 3) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 4) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and 6) Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NOP and the responses to the NOP are attached to this SEIR as Appendices A and B, respectively. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 12, 2007 at 6 p.m. at the Temecula City Hall. Comments were received from: 1) Wayne Hall, 2) A. Evan Harbottle, 3) Pauline Nelson, and 4) Kenneth Ray. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1 -5 ESA! D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital (proposed project). This chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site; entitlements; required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City and the applicant. 2.1 Introduction The applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposes to develop a 320 -bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the proposed project would be also be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this SEIR, the proposed project was evaluated in the original EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital, certified January 24, 2006. This SEIR evaluates the issues outlined in Chapter 1 that the Superior Court determined was not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues /factors: noise impacts (sirens and construction noise); traffic impact mitigation and the potential impact of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. In addition, because an alternative site not available when the prior EIR was prepared is now available, the City determined that this SEIR should evaluate use of that site as an alternative in addition to the alternatives that have already been analyzed in the prior EIR. 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state -of -the -art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description • 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. Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high - quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state- of -the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; 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. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 2 -1. Project Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non - native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one -third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single - family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single - family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single - family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -2 ESA! D207434 January 2008 ■•■ Temecula City Boundary SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2 -1 Regional Location Map commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. A regional location map is provided in Figure 2 -1; a project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2 -2. 2.4 Project Characteristics 2. Project Description Project Description The proposed 566,160- square -foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: • An approximately 408,160- square -foot, 2 -tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories /106 feet high, and the second five stories /83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in- patient and out - patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. • Two medical office buildings, one four stories /73 feet high and the second three stories /60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. • A 10,000- square -foot cancer center housed in a one -story building. • An 8,000- square -foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one -story building. The center will be available only to patients and on -site staff. Project components are shown on Figure 2 -3. A 60 -foot by 60 -foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any 12 month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.' Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. Temecula Regional Hospital 2 -4 ESA /D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Q 4 009 9L 090 0L FEZ 09 99 (51191 U 06 9LZL 91 901 LSE 000 09 o 099 an mw 9039 9LE 'J's 000'00 'A'S 00009 000'01 'J'S 000'9 IAL11. JD YL - S337AS 0001 - L05 Oidd1010NM1 Tak11011 5039 F 93d 301/d5 lr lYakpN MAILS •1 SPACE PER MO S.F. (LS AREA) 11,0-1.1 HN1DICNTOI 201 -300 SPACES - 7 X.C. SPACES 930VAS '0'X G - 530'495 00E - 19E CEMOJIONV113-100 haw SO 'A'S oar 93d 30Vd5 131 11 E300dS 'D'H Z - 9394AS 05 -99 ad 1VOIC NIN 101167 Ni711M7 May 511 'A'S 00Z 939 30MS lr NM= IMMO 1000 511 '3'S 00Z 939 30tldS lr OONa!111X11. 91119Wl9 urns 90 'LW OiidYOlOMI YillOO YiLLI� CROW i'10101n 7tl10a a 7,81 4 ,.. 111 // e. / / / / ,. / /OH Wo+ffti _ a iii�iioii 10111fiioi t_l1 PHASING DESCRIPTION PARKING CALCULATIONS SOU RCE: H KS 2. Project Description A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole- mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three - story, 60,000- square -foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one -story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320 -bed configuration with the addition of the five -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four -story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one - story, 10,000 - square -foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000- square -foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months. As shown on Figure 2 -3, the total parking provided will be 1,278 spaces, which exceeds the City's parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per three beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason. In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -7 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Parking Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. 2. Project Description • Hospital — one story /27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers); • Bed Tower 1 — six stories /106 feet; • Bed Tower 2 — five stories /83.5 feet; • MOB #1 — four stories /73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces); • MOB #2 — three stories /60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces); • Cancer Center — one story /27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces), and • Fitness Center — one story /27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces). Access to the Site As shown on Figure 2 -3, the project includes the following three access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location. • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west. • Right -in and right -out access from Highway 79 South at its intersection with Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -8 ESA! D207434 January 2008 2. Project Description • The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). The proposed PDO -9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. • The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320 bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. • The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160- square -foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000- square -foot cancer center, and an 8,000- square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site. • The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. 2.5 Discretionary Approvals While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in this Draft SEIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non - hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency City of Temecula City Council California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development City of Temecula Fire Department Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2 -9 Action • Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO -9, and the incorporation of PDO -9 into the Temecula Municipal Code which will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30 percent of roof areas for hospitals • Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project • Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects • Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits • Re- certification of the EIR and certification of this SEIR • Hospital building and occupancy permits • Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems ESA /D207434 January 2008 Agency City of Temecula Police Department City of Temecula Public Works City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Riverside County Flood Control Riverside County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Action • Review of security plans and systems 2. Project Description • Approval of Mitigation Plan • Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans • Approval of Water Quality Management Plan • Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits • Review and approval of encroachment permits • Review and approval of street trees • Approval of burrowing owl report /surveys • Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Permit) • Review of helipad • Cultural report approval and pre- excavation agreement • Possible review and approval of stormwater permits • Possible review and approval water service permits • Possible review and approval of permits • Possible review and approval of permits • Possible review and approval of permits 2 -10 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3.1 Hazards 3.1.1 Introduction The presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards has the potential to affect residents, workers, and visitors within and adjacent to a project site. In this case, the court order in the litigation challenging the proposed project found that the original EIR failed to address the potential risk arising from plumes of MTBE in groundwater caused by leaking underground storage tanks at three nearby service stations. The service stations are under an order to clean up the plumes and remediation is ongoing. The issues to be evaluated in this EIR are what risks to patients, staff and visitors to the proposed hospital, if any, might occur if the MTBE plume were to migrate under the proposed hospital site. Because the groundwater will not be used for drinking or any other uses in the proposed hospital, the potential risk of adverse impacts on the patients, staff and visitors to the proposed buildings would arise from toxic vapors that might migrate upward if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site. Other than MTBE, the main volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of concern near the proposed project site are total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA). TPHg is a broad term that describes any of a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that come from crude oil. Exposure to some TPHg compounds can cause various immediate and long -term health problems. Like MTBE, TAME is volatile, flammable, and highly water soluble. ETBE is a gasoline additive that has become more commonly used as MTBE has been taken out of use. It performs the same task as MTBE, reducing air pollution by helping gasoline bum cleaner, but without as many environmental and health ramifications. However, ETBE still has its setbacks. It is highly flammable and can seep into water systems if it leaks into soil. TBA in the groundwater is typically considered a breakdown product of MTBE. Laboratory tests have shown an increase in cancer and thyroid disease when TBA is mixed with drinking water. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the petroleum above - ground storage tank (AST) program. The program covers facilities that store petroleum in a single tank, or multiple tanks with an aggregate capacity in excess of 1,320 gallons, and requires that tank owners or operators file a storage statement, pay a facility fee, and prepare and implement a federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC Plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment in place at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. The RWQCB also administers the UST program. State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs, release reporting requirements, corrective actions, cleanup, and closure. The Riverside County Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Environmental Health Department enforces applicable regulations, which include permitting and inspection requirements. The Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB is the local enforcement agency for leaking underground storage tanks. For example, the San Diego RWQCB is currently overseeing the investigation and remediation of leaking USTs that resulted in releases near the site. Setting There are three existing or former gasoline service stations within 1,000 feet of the project site with USTs that warrant investigation for soil or groundwater contamination. Due to leaks from these tanks, all have undergone regular groundwater monitoring since 2001. The existing service station locations in relation to the project site are shown on Figure 3.1 -1. Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast, Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast, and Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the project site.' Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1 -1. The station has six groundwater monitoring wells, and monitoring has been ongoing since at least August 2001. Monitoring and remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE has been reported at all six wells at some point in the last seven years. MTBE has been reported at a maximum concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and TBA has been reported at a maximum concentration of 4201u.g/L. On January 24, 2007, Holguin, Fahan & Associates sampled groundwater at the Chevron site. Figure 3.1 -1 summarizes the recently reported concentrations of concern (CoCos) and depth to groundwater for each well at the service station. MTBE was detected at levels of 11 .tg /L and 4 µg/L at two of the six wells, one 300 feet southeast from the project site and the other 255 feet. No other VOCs were detectable at this facility. Based on the project site's gradient and the direction of groundwater flows and the low levels of MTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from this service station has migrated onto the project site is very low. This opinion, is corroborated by groundwater sampling conducted at the hospital site in 2006. MTBE was not detected in groundwater samples downgradiant from the Chevron release. A report prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates (October 2005), provided the following information in connection with the groundwater sampling: • The report concluded that "MTBE concentrations are consistent with the historical levels and show a general overall concentration downward trend." 1 SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. 2 SCS Engineers, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -2 ESA! D207434 January 2008 N k pi 0 0 e t $# 1 CO C 0- as (/ To c } § f 2 0 7 ) \ § CC 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards TABLE 3.1 -1 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #204029 Well Number Distance and Depth to Direction from Goundwater Hospital Project (feet) MW -1 300 ft southeast 26.08 <50 11 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW - 360 ft southeast 23.93 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW - 200 ft southeast 24.52 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -4 320 ft southeast 25.56 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -5 255 ft southeast 26.80 <50 4 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -6 250 ft southeast 25.78 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pgIL = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, October 2005. Based on a review of previous reports for the Chevron facility, the MTBE- bearing groundwater is interpreted to have migrated beyond the boundaries of this facility. Based on the reported gradient and the proposed hospital site's proximity to the release, it is possible that the MTBE- impacted groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site. However, MTBE was not currently detected in any current groundwater samples collected from soil boring B9 (Figure 3.1 -2) at the hospital site, downgradient from the release in January 2006. Samples were also collected in 2007 and are discussed below. Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway The Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1 -1. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on -site USTs. Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment at the Shell site. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 have resulted in the installation of an additional 32 groundwater monitoring wells at downgradient locations and the completion of thirty -five cone penetration test (CPT) locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells have had reported concentrations of MTBE, TBA, TAME, and ETBE. Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since 2001. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1 6 million gallons of groundwater Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1 -4 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) ESA! D207434 January 2008 0 k | 0 0 0 k 2 cn ) 2 2 ) CO 0 02 2 0 \ k)\ $ $ | 0 \ \ 0 �) 2 co \ / D 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards containing dissolved -phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration, and to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006. In August 2006, the groundwater remediation system was taken offline due to the reduction of MTBE in the Shell Service Station's groundwater monitoring wells network. Evaluation of the possible "rebound" of the contaminants of concern in groundwater is on -going at the facility and reactivation of the remediation system in this area will resume should it be found that these contaminants of concern exceed regulatory limits. As of April 2007, there has been no reported rebound of contaminants of concern at the Shell Service Station. During the first quarter 2007 (January 2007) groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to range between 25 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs). The monitoring wells closest to the project site that screen what is reported as an upper groundwater zone are MW- 22A, MW -23A, MW -24A, and MW -25A. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime (westerly) and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is potentially migrating onto hospital project at very low concentrations. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1 -3) at the hospital project site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on -site monitoring well. Table 3.1 -2 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity. The samples taken from MW -22A and MW -23A were collected on July 27, 2006, and the samples taken from MW -24A and MW -25A were collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Additional Assessment of the Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed hospital site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or diisopropyl ether (DIPE) were reported above the laboratory reporting (or "detection ") limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 µg /L to 1.1 µg/L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 µg /L to 2.22 pg /L. Fourteen of the 40 samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 µg /L to 77 µg /L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 pg /L) was reported in location CPT -50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side Highway 79 South. 3 Miller Brooks reported three groundwater regimes that were investigated: upper, intermediate, and deep. For the purposes of the fate and transport analysis, the analysis focused on the upper groundwater regime, due to its proximity to potential receptors and proposed hospital site buildings. 4 Summary ofAdditional Site AssessmentActivities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 RedhawkParkway, Temecula, California, Case Number R9 -2002 -0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1 -6 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA! D207434 January 2008 ]\ 1 f/\ ]> 3.E 'OL 0 E chE. \ o 03 go az-a— / f £ 2 m'- = \ $ (1) @_ §mo / § 0 § _ _ « / - 2 / _ m f t 2 E = § 0 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Well Number MW -22A 140 ft southeast 22.72 <50 4.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -23A 130 ft southeast 22.46 <50 7.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -24A 10 ft southeast 24.00 <50 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW -25A 90 ft southeast 24.56 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: TABLE 3.1 -2 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Samples from MW -22A and MW -23A collected on July 27, 2006, and samples from MW -24A and MW 25A collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Samples reportedly not collected for the last two sampling events from MW -22A and MW -23A because wells were inaccessible. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pgIL = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Delta Environmental. Distance and Depth to Direction from Goundwater Hospital Project (feet) The above - referenced Shell property site assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: • There does not appear to be the discrete water - bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. • Pore pressure dissipation tests from these four CPTs (CPT -46, CPT -47, CPT -49, and CPT -53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities. In other words, the geology varies around the proposed hospital site. Based on work done by other consultants, the groundwater at the proposed hospital site was reported to vary from 8 to 18 feet below grade. However, based on permanent groundwater monitoring wells located in the proposed hospital site vicinity and on the proposed hospital site itself, the depth to groundwater is approximately 24 to 30 feet bgs. Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from this report, MTBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the southern edge of the proposed project site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the proposed hospital site. Delta Environmental collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) (pgIL) 3.1 -8 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Arco station. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 mg /kg to 1,300 mg /kg), benzene (1.3 mg /kg), toluene (0.012 mg /kg to 20 mg /kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 mg /kg to 47 mg /kg), total xylenes (0.029 mg /kg to 105 mg /kg), and MTBE (0.011 mg /kg to 43 mg /kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated installed three monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, and MW3) at the proposed hospital site. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT -1 though CPT -6) at the Arco facility, soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations, and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT -7 though CPT -17, CPT -18, and CPT -19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW14). Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells MW1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the proposed hospital site. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off -site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW -1, IW -2, and IW -3) were installed along Dartola Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the proposed hospital site. Since the third quarter 2003, groundwater pumped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells, which further minimizes contaminant migration to the proposed project site. As of the first quarter 2007, the Arco site has a monitoring well network consisting of thirteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW- 10S -A, MW- 10S -B, and MW -10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. Groundwater monitoring has been on -going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected at a maximum concentration of 1,900 micrograms per liter (tg/L). During the first quarter 2007 groundwater was reported to flow to the west - northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 25.83 and 27.83 feet bgs in the 5 Atlantic Richfield Company Quarterly Report First Quarter 2007, Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, CA, Secor International Incorportated, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -9 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site as a result of this release. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1 -3) at the site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on -site monitoring well. Table 3.1 -3 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for all wells in the immediate vicinity of the Arco site. TABLE 3.1 -3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO SERVICE STATION #5695 Distance and Depth to Well Direction from Groundwater TPHg MTBE TAME ETBE TBA Number Hospital Site (feet) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg /L) MW -1 305 ft east 27.17 <50 16 <2.0 <2.0 25 MW -2 325 ft east 26.02 <50 1.6 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -3 330 ft east 26.38 280 1.9 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -4 340 if east 26.13 <50 3.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -5 350 ft east 27.70 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -6 315 if east 27.83 <50 2.2 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -7 370 ft east 27.32 <50 19 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -8 270 if east 27.75 <50 0.75J <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -9 225 ft east 26.90 <50 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -11 340 if east 46.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -12 230 ft east 45.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -13 250 if east 25.53 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW -14 200 ft east 26.91 <0.32 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. pg/L = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Previous Hospital Project Site Investigative Activities Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed site buildings (SV1 through SV6, and SV8). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -10 ESA / D207434 January 2008 SOURCE: SCS Engineers Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Three additional sampling locations (SV7, SV9, and SV10) were located in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off -site MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the proposed hospital site. The samples collected from locations SV 1 through SV 10 reported no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 3.1 -2. Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS Engineers bored ten groundwater sampling locations in the vicinity of the proposed hospital site, and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE contaminated building footprints (B1 -B6, and B8), and the other three were drilled in the southwest corner of the proposed hospital site (B7, B9, and B10) with the goal of intercepting the possible MTBE groundwater plume from the nearby service stations (Figure 3.1 -3). Groundwater samples were collected using a Hydropunch® sampler and analyzed at an on -site state - accredited mobile laboratory. The samples were analyzed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 tg /L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 (see Table 3.1 -4) at a concentration of 1.3 µg/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. TABLE 3.1-4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY PROJECT SITE Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl- Benzene Total Xylenes MTBE Number (pgIL) (pgIL) (pg1L) (pgIL) (pgIL) B1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 1.3 BE <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Environmental Business Solutions in July, 2006. pgIL = micrograms per liter <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit ND = Not reported at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene. And total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. 3.1 -11 3.1 Hazards ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards 3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to hazards and hazardous materials, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Impact Assessment and Methodology In July 2007, SCS Engineers assessed the proposed hospital site to evaluate certain environmental conditions in the shallow subsurface soil vapor. The objectives of the scope of services described in their report were to: • Assess the extent and concentration of VOCs including MTBE in soil vapor in selected locations of the proposed hospital site. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -12 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards • Assess the likelihood of a (significant human health risk in association with detected VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons.? SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey at the proposed hospital site on July 16 and 18, 2007, to assess whether or not any VOCs, specifically MTBE, were present and, if so, in what concentrations. The soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations (SG1 through SG14) within the proposed hospital site boundaries (see Figure 3.1 -2). Additional soil vapor samples were collected on August 21 and 24, 2007. Sample locations SG12, SG13 and SG14 were located at in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off -site MTBE groundwater plume that may have migrated onto the propose hospital site. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown on Figure 3.1 -2. The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC guidelines. Prior to collecting a soil vapor sample, a one -inch diameter hole was drilled at each sampling location. Then, a soil vapor probe was inserted and a soil well constructed. Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 5 and 15 ft bgs at each sampling site. They were then analyzed by a technician from H &P Mobile Geochemistry in a state - accredited on -site mobile laboratory. Soil vapor drilling equipment was either cleaned or changed out between each soil vapor probe to minimize the likelihood of cross - contamination. Below are the results of the SCS survey. No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. Detection limits refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured above the instrument background noise. Reporting limits (quantitation limits) refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy. Thus, when quantitation limits are used as reporting limits, the laboratory concludes that the analyte is not present in a sufficient amount to be reliably quantified. Therefore, a compound could be present below the reporting limit and above the method detection limit; however, it can not be measured with an accuracy or precision. Hypothetical Health Risk Scenarios In the order to better understand the hypothetical risk of MTBE- bearing groundwater migrating from off -site sources onto the proposed hospital site and under the proposed buildings, several scenarios were evaluated based on data collected from the groundwater monitoring well networks associated with the gas stations in the proposed hospital site's vicinity. All scenarios were modeled using the DTSC Screening -Level Model for Groundwater Contamination, last modified January 21, 2005, which is based on the Johnson - Ettinger vapor intrusion model. The default values were used for most parameters to be conservative. The following assumptions were used to estimate health risk: 6 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E -6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as "significant." For the purposes of this limited health risk assessment, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site's current zoning, is assumed. 7 SCS Engineers, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1 -13 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards • The MTBE concentrations in groundwater were conservatively assumed to occur uniformly across the proposed hospital site. • A residential adult exposure scenario was used in which the adult worker weighs 70 kilograms, and works at the proposed hospital site for 350 days a year per year for 30 years. Please note, the DTSC model incorporates a 24 -hour exposure period and thus the realistic exposure period is overestimated by at least a factor of two. • The calculations used in the health risk analysis use standard (DTSC defaults for soil type) physical parameters to describe soil conditions (37 percent total porosity and a dry bulk density of 1.66 grams per cubic centimeters). • The DTSC default soil gas advection rate (flow rate) of 5 liters per minute for every 100 square meters of floor area was used. The soil advection rate was estimated for the tower building (approximately 16,555 square meters) and the proposed cancer center building (approximately 743 square meters) to be approximately 827 liters per minute (L /m) for the tower building and 37 L/m for the cancer center building. The flow of soil gas (advection) in the subsurface may be caused by gas - pressure gradients or, in certain cases, gas density gradients. Pressure - driven advection is produced when differences in soil -gas pressure form, causing soil gas to flow and carrying any vapors present with it. Air pressure gradients in the subsurface of natural systems may result from several phenomena. As diurnal or weather- related atmospheric pressure cycles occur at land surface, pressure waves are transmitted into the unsaturated zone and air may flow in response; a process known as barometric pumping. • Both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks were estimated. Of the VOCs reported in the groundwater, only MTBE is considered a potential carcinogen.'° • The calculations used depth to groundwater of 26 feet bgs across the proposed hospital site, which SCE believes is reasonable based on a review of groundwater data in the proposed hospital site's vicinity. Scenario 1 MTBE - bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the southeast. There are four monitoring wells along the southern edge of the proposed hospital property that screen the shallow groundwater (MW -24A, MW26A, MW -27A, and MW -28A). Monitoring well MW -28A is located along the southern border of the proposed hospital site, at the approximate mid -point of the southern proposed hospital site boundary, and has had the highest reported concentration of MTBE out of the four wells. The highest reported concentration of MTBE in this well has been 97 tg/L in July 2006, which subsequently decreased to 55 µg/L in April 2007. 8 The DTSC document references the "residential exposure duration" on page 56 of the attached document, when they reference: EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA1540 /R- 96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540 /R- 95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 9 A discussion of each parameter and some of the likely inputs is provided in DTSC's "HERD REP JE Users Guide.pdf' 10 EPA — — 11 Groundwater depth chosen based on historical data that was representative and conservative for the property. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1 -14 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA! D207434 January 2008 Scenario 2 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -15 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Using the maximum concentration reported in this well (97 µg/L) and assuming a conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30 -year exposure scenario), the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.1E -07. These cancer risks are almost one order of magnitude below the typical risk threshold of 1E -06 (one in a million). The risk of non - cancer health effects is also less then significant based on a Hazard Index of 3.2E -04, well below the typical risk threshold of one. MTBE - bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the east. Monitoring well MW -14 is upgradient from the hospital property, located approximately 470 feet east of the proposed cancer center in the eastern portion of the property along Dartolo Road. This is the closest well to the proposed hospital site associated with the Arco Service Station monitoring well network. In April 2007, the concentration of MTBE in MW -14 was reported to be 1.3 ig /L, which is the highest reported concentration since the installation of this well. Assuming the same conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30 -year exposure scenario) as Scenario 1, the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.4E -09. These cancer risks are almost two orders of magnitude below the less than significant risk threshold of 1E -06 (one in a million). The risk of non - cancer health effects is also less than significant based on a Hazard Index of 4.2E -06, well below the typical risk threshold of one. The Excel spreadsheets for the risk calculations associated with MTBE (obtained from the DTSC website) are presented in Appendix C of this SEIR. Findings and Recommendations No detectable concentrations (collected from SG1 through SG14) of VOCs or MTBE were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed hospital site building footprints (Table 3.1 -5 and Figure 3.1 -2). Because none of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were detected, SCS concluded that there is a less than significant risk of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. Based on the review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the proposed hospital site's vicinity, SCS concluded in their recent analysis that MTBE- bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, there is a less than significant related human health risk at the proposed hospital site because of the possible presence MTBE- bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site. Additionally, MTBE has been phased - out as a fuel additive in the State of California. Since MTBE is no longer used in gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards TABLE 3.1 -5 2007 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS Sample Number Sample Depth Benzene Toluene Ethyl- Benzene Total Xylenes MTBE Other VOCs (feet below grade) (IagIL) (I.cgIL) (EcgIL) (EcgIL) (Fcg/L) 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG1 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG2 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG3 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG4 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG5 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG6 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG7 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG8 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG9 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG10 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG11 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG12 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG13 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG14 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND NOTES: Samples SG1 through SG11 collected by SCS Engineers on July 16 and 18, 2007. Samples SG12, SG13, and collected by SCS Engineers on August 21 and 24, 2007. ,ug /L = micrograms per liter. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit. ND = Not report at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -16 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14). 3.1 Hazards For illustration purposes, according to the EPA on non - occupational exposures, various studies that have collected personal breathing zone samples of MTBE during gasoline refueling suggest that such exposures, which typically amount to two to five minutes in duration, may range as high as 2 to 32 ppm MTBE; however, most of the data for exposure during refueling are below 10 ppm for 1 to 20 minute sampling periods. The MTBE concentrations used in the hypothetical scenarios above included maximum reported concentrations of 97 ug /L or 0.097 ppm. As mentioned above, MTBE- bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, to address the concern that MTBE in groundwater may pose a health risk via vapor intrusion into the hospital in the event that MTBE does migrate on- proposed hospital site from the east (Arco Service Station) or from the southeast (Chevron and Shell Service Stations) under the future hospital buildings several scenarios, based on highest reported actual MTBE concentrations near the proposed hospital site were modeled to better understand the hypothetical risk. Concentrations of MTBE in the monitoring wells MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14 (closest monitoring wells to the proposed hospital site) have been decreasing or are below the MCLs for drinking water, making these scenarios even more conservative than current conditions at the property. Based on the modeling for these scenarios the concentrations of MTBE in groundwater would have to increase by one to two orders of magnitude before the model predicts there is even the potential for a significant health risk. The risk assessment standards for soil vapor and cleanup levels for groundwater, although both based on health risk studies, including potential carcinogenic affects, are different. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are a standard for drinking water set by the EPA in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and enforced in California by the Department of Health Services. The proposed project site's primary contaminant of concern is MTBE, which has a primary MCL of 13 ug/L and a secondary MCL of 5 ug/L, meaning that a water purveyor can provide water to a customer with MTBE up to 13 ug /L without advisory for health concerns and 5 ug /L for taste and odor. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although no detectable concentrations of MTBE or VOCs were found, Mitigation Measures 3.3 -1 and 3.3 -2 below shall be implemented if these constituents were detected in groundwater and vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings during construction. Again, the above - mentioned hypothetical scenarios showed that the necessary levels of MTBE to hypothetically percolate up into the buildings to cause a significant risk would need to be of orders of magnitude higher than has ever been seen in the adjacent site vicinity. Since MTBE is no longer used in 12 Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http:// www. epa .gov /otaq /regs/fuels /ostp - 4.pdf 13 Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons. If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1 -17 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW -24A, MW -25A, MW26A, MW -27A, MW -28A, and MW -14). Impact 3.1 -1: Potential that existing and /or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. As described above in the environmental setting section, the proposed hospital site is within 1,000 ft of three service stations. However, according to soil vapor samples taken on July 16 and 18, 2007 and again on August 21 and 24, 2007, there were no detectable concentrations of gasoline constituents such as volatile organic compounds VOCs or MTBE at the proposed hospital site. Sampling was done at two depths, 5 and 15 feet bgs in accordance with the DTSC guidance. It is possible but unlikely that, contaminated soil could be at further distances below ground surface. Encountering contaminated soil, surface water, and groundwater without taking proper precautions during project construction could result in the exposure of construction workers and consequently result in associated significant adverse human health and environmental impacts. Petroleum hydrocarbons appear to be present in subsurface soils in the area of the off -site USTs; however, considering lack of any evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on SCS Engineers investigations and, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off -site USTs, and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1 -1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on -site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by 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. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.1 -2: Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -18 ESA! D207434 January 2008 The construction phase of the proposed project will include major excavation and grading. Disturbance of the proposed hospital site's soil could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is considered to be unlikely. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these hazardous substances is considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, implementation of the following procedures requiring compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified 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 during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC- containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. References 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User's Guide. EPA /540 /R- 96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http : / /www.epa.gov /mtbe /water.htm, March 2006. Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http:/ /www.epa.gov /otaq /reps /fuels /ostp -4.pdf SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA /540 /R- 95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1 -19 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Approach to Analysis The purpose of this section is to identify, describe, and evaluate noise sources and potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital and the sirens that will transport emergency patients to the hospital. This study also address traffic noise impacts based on the updated traffic study prepared for this SEIR by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. The project has not changed since the circulation of the original EIR and other noise issues arising from operation of the project, such as the use of helicopters, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, loading dock activities, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping maintenance were adequately covered in the original EIR and therefore are not addressed in this section. Noise Principles and Descriptors The original EIR provided a detailed background that describes how noise is measured, and how different types of noise measurements are used to reflect typical noise fluctuations over time. In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de- emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid - range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A- weighting and is expressed in units of A- weighted decibels. Frequency A- weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de- emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A- weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.2 -1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise As described in the original EIR, ,an individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.2 -1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3.2 -2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise ESA / D207434 January 2008 \ \ ƒ } ƒ 2 } | ( } | | | | | ; | | } El | | | | | i | | | | t 1 2 # .0 G IVA � 2 » 2 R R Z 9 R 2 9 \ \ { • f / f ƒ f 2 cc A \ \ \ \ ƒ 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 | \ ' & ! ! f \ ; )) / : \ / 7 } % ( u , rat \ | ` u \ \ 'F't f k ) \ / j ) _ = ) .8 , \ 0 e) 0 E ` E } . � { 2 Ambulance Siren Noise To better analyze impacts for the proposed project, ambulance siren noise is also addressed. Ambulance siren noise is different than other community noise as it is not experienced over a long amount of time. To measure ambulance siren noise, the single event noise exposure level ( SENEL) needs to be calculated. SENEL quantifies the duration and magnitude of a single event. However, there are two main factors that can affect an ambulance siren's SENEL. The speed of an ambulance can affect the duration as a faster ambulance passes by more quickly, and the angle at which the ambulance passes by can affect the magnitude. An ambulance that is directly behind a person is much louder than if the same ambulance was to the person's side (i.e., a 0 angle versus a 90 angle). Ambulance sirens are a unique source of noise in that they are designed and intended to be "noisy ". Sirens signify a warning that an emergency vehicle is approaching and that human life is at stake. The rules of the road require that drivers respond to such sirens (e.g., by "pulling over "). In order to analyze the noise levels that will be experienced within the study area as a result of ambulance sirens, it was necessary to obtain measurements of typical operations. However, authorities would not permit the operating of ambulances with sirens on the local streets unless under emergency conditions, and it was not practical to wait for ambulances to pass by on the street segments considered in this study. Therefore, controlled tests were conducted with the assistance of the City and American Medical Response (AMR), an operator of ambulance services in Temecula. These tests were conducted at a sports park within the City on July 17, 2007, by Wieland Associates. During the tests, the ambulance remained stationary and the siren was operated continuously while noise measurements were obtained at various distances and at various orientations relative to the location of the sirens behind the front grille of the ambulance. At each distance and orientation, the maximum, minimum and average noise levels were noted. Two siren settings were measured during the testing: "wail" and "yelp." The "wail" setting is the most typically used setting, and is used when maneuvering through traffic. The "yelp" setting is only used in extremely heavy traffic or at intersections when it is necessary to encourage drivers to make room for the ambulance to pass by. The results of the July 17th ambulance test are presented in the Table 3.2 -1 below.' ORIENTATION 0° (front) 117.6 109.2 113.4 117.5 112.9 113.6 45° 110.2 99.8 104.7 106.7 102.1 103.5 90° (side) 93.9 85.8 91.9 93.7 91.3 92.2 135° 95.9 88.8 90.9 88.9 83.9 85.5 180° (rear) 95.4 89.4 92.3 94.2 90.9 92.5 NOTES: TABLE 3.2 -1 SUMMARY OF SIREN NOISE MEASUREMENTS Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. Tests were performed by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17, 2007. A sound level meter (Model 824) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL250) were used to obtain noise measurements. All instruments meet the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 1 Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Environmental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 19, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2 -3 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures MEASURED NOISE LEVEL AT 50' FROM SIRENS, dBA "Wail" Setting "Yelp" Setting 3.2 Noise ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no complete satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called "ambient noise" level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A- weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 -dBA change is considered a just - perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10 -dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non - linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop -off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -4 ESA! D207434 January 2008 rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. 3.2.2 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting The original EIR provides a description of federal, state, and local regulations that apply to the Temecula Regional Hospital project and also apply to this SEIR. Federal Regulations As stated in the original EIR, under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest one -hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the interior of a hospital or medical building. State Regulations A summary of the California Code of Regulations is described in the original EIR. The state has established noise insulation standards for new multi - family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation - related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dB in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Local Regulations 2 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2 -5 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula General Plan —Noise Element The primary purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and assess noise sources and then minimize their effect on the surrounding area. Noise has a direct impact on the quality of life and the well -being of residents of Temecula. Hospitals fall under the Public /Institutional designation. Table 3.2 -2 below summarizes City of Temecula noise standards for various uses. The following are goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan —Noise Element. Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. 3.2 Noise ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, 1993. Implementation and Procedures Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.2 -2 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Residential Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70 High 45 70' Neighborhood Community Commercial and Office Highway Tourist 70 Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public /Institutional Schools 50 65 Al Others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards /Agricultural 70 Open Space 70/65 NOTES: 1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for multiple-family housing. 2. Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. Policy 4 1• Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. N -2. Minimize noise in Temecula through the following measures: • Require all non - emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). • Amend the City Noise Control Ordinance to establish criteria for acceptable placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. • Require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet with City noise reduction requirements. • Review the City Noise Control Ordinance for adequacy and amend as needed to address community needs and development patterns. 3.2 -6 ESA /D207434 January 2008 City of Temecula Municipal Code 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • To the south beyond Highway 79 the land uses are commercial properties and single - family homes. • To the west the land is currently vacant but is under development for professional medical office use. uses. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -7 3.2 Noise Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted: Notwithstanding any provision of the City Ordinance No. 90 -04, and specifically subsection G(1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one - quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 94 -25 § 2) Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences at approximately 305 feet away from the proposed hospital site and a church that is over 1,000 feet away. The project site is otherwise surrounded by non - sensitive receptors such as commercial and office uses (see Figure 3.2 -3). Specifically, these land uses are as follows: • To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. • To the east the land uses include a flood control channel, and commercial and medical There are also seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road. These parcels include three structures located on Margarita Road and two structures located on De Portola Road. One of the structures is currently used as a medical clinic, one is a vacant single- family residence, and three are occupied single - family residences. All seven parcels are designated for Professional Office (P0) use within the General Plan. ESA! D207434 January 2008 PHASING DESCRIPTION PHASE IA PHASE ID • IILISKIAli• &TIMM] TIMM PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV • cam. cueret ./nota PH/LSE V •=71711. Residence SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc. • 3•I _____________ __ tt r 2 3 I 1:Mira=1 a* PI E PHASE I N ------- tartar. 0 0-1-144+40 • PHA N7J 35 Residences 1 --- Residences t__ 011 PORTOCA ROW JN ---- --- - ---- eP • 1 • MIBENIIIIIIITIN 1 rifffniffivorif Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.2-3 Site Plan This zoning district is intended primarily for single- tenant and multi- tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on -site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business. As such, residential use of these parcels is an existing, non - conforming condition. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. To document the existing noise levels, Wieland Associates measured noise levels at five locations in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 3.2 -4). The five locations were as follows: • 30390 De Portola Road • 30955 De Portola Road • 31775 De Portola Road • On the project site, at the location of the proposed five -story bed tower. • 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) The summary of their findings is in the following Table 3.2 - 3. TABLE 3.2 -3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Measurement Measured Average Number Location Description Period Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2 -59.3 59.8 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 48.8 -62.3 62.8 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2 -59.2 57.8 On project site, at offset of 4 proposed five -story bed 20 minutes 50.3 N/A tower 31602 Calle Los Padres 5 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007. A 24 -hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment. Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712, 820, and 870) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200). All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4 -1971. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -9 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise ESA /D207434 January 2008 4 i t 1007 E.nciy n�� 41100.7JNade. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.2 -4 Noise Measurement Locations Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise. Other noise producers include stationary noise like the noise produced by the HVAC systems from the nearby commercial uses. Table 3.2 -4 summarizes the existing level of traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. NOTES: Arterial / Reach SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Centerline, ft. 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 68.5 dB 235 100 South of Highway 79 67.5 dB 200 83 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 64.5 dB 120 Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 68.5 dB 235 100 De Portola to Highway 79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 South of Highway 79 71.0 dB 340 155 62 Highway 79 West of 1 -15 Freeway 74.0 dB 520 255 110 West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 79.5 dB 1,000 560 278 120 West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 West of Butterfield Stage Road 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 Noise levels calculated using the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHWA -RD -77 -108). Traffic volume data was provided by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers, 2007. Speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits. The truck mix on Highway 79 was based on data published by Caltrans. The truck mix on the remaining streets was based on data provided by the County of Riverside. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans were used in the prediction model. 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Previous Project Site Evaluation In September 2005, Wieland Associates, Inc. prepared a noise study for the project site to estimate the combined construction noise levels that would be generated during each phase of construction. This study was included as part of the noise analysis in the original EIR. The analysis in that study used equipment estimates based on the Palm Desert Hospital that is similar Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -11 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise enough in size and design to provide an adequate model for the project. In 2007, Wieland re- evaluated the site using new software now available (Urbemis 2007, 9.2) for use in analyzing noise impacts. Use of this new software generated substantially lower construction noise impacts. Therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of construction noise impacts of the project, this analysis uses the higher impact levels reported in the noise analysis for the original EIR, as reproduced in Table 3.2 -5 in the Impact Assessment and Methodology section . Noise- Estimated Attenuation Estimated CNEL Estimated Estimated Sensitive Construction CNEL at due to at Sensitive Construction Noise Increase due to Location Phase 50 ft, dB Distance, d B a Location, dB" + Ambient, dB` Construction dB` Demolition 86 Nearest Grading 91 residences to the northwest Construction 87 Paving 90 Demolition 86 Nearest Grading 91 residences to the south Construction 87 Paving 90 Demolition 86 Nearest offices Grading 91 to the east Construction 87 Paving 90 Demolition 86 Nearest offices Grading 91 to the west Construction 87 Paving 90 NOTES: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to Highway 79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 3.2 -2. c. The estimated "construction + ambient" noise levels and estimated increases due to construction are based on the ambient noise levels measured for this supplemental study. Refer to Table 3.2 -2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Significance Criteria According to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, a project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: 4 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.2 -5 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS -16 (305') -24 (760') -25 (880') -23 (745') 3.2 -12 70 71 75 75 71 72 74 74 57 62 62 64 58 63 61 64 61 71 66 71 62 71 65 71 63 71 68 72 64 71 67 72 8 12 9 12 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels. 3.2 Noise • Create a substantially permanent increase (greater than 3 dBA) in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Be located within an airport land use plan or be located where such a plan has not been adopted and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impact Assessment and Methodology Construction As stated above, the 2007 study done by Wieland, using the Urbemis 2007 9.2 software yielded construction noise estimates that were lower than those yielded by the 2005 study. Therefore, in the interest of being as conservative as possible for this SEIR, Wieland decided to continue with their analysis using the 2005 estimates that are based on the Palm Desert Hospital. Traffic Using project site data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Wieland estimated the amount of traffic the proposed project would generate under four different scenarios. These scenarios are "Opening Year (Phase I)," "Opening Year + Entire Project (Phase I and II)," "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects," and "Buildout." The goal was to estimate traffic at all stages of development. The results for each case are presented in Tables 3.2 -6 through 3.2 -9 below. The tables give the estimated CNEL at the project site that would be attributed to traffic. Ambulance Siren Noise Based on stationary ambulance siren tests done in the City of Temecula, Wieland were able to estimate the noise impact from ambulances traveling to the proposed project (see Table 3.2 -1 for stationary ambulance test results). Since Highway 79 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph), and thus ambulances would pass by faster than on roads with lower limits, the estimated SENEL on Highway 79 is 112.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. De Portola Road has a speed limit of 35 mph, so its SENEL is higher at 114.5 dB(A). Margarita Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and an estimated SENEL of 113.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -13 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Arterial / Reach Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1 -15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road Arterial / Reach Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1 -15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road TABLE 3.2 -6 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, PROJECT PHASE I Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' Without Project With Phase! Without Project With Phase I 13,950 14,500 46,760 19,290 28,560 27,470 21,470 84,580 42,510 37,280 NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 8,720 9,350 64.5 dB 65 dB 0.5 dB TABLE 3.2 -7 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, ENTIRE PROJECT PHASES I AND II Ava. Daily Traffic Unmitiaated CNEL 50' Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II 13,950 14,500 8,720 46,760 19,290 28,560 27,470 21,470 84,580 42,510 37,280 14,450 68.5 dB 15,130 68.0 dB 47,070 72.0 dB 20,230 29,500 28,100 21,660 86,470 45,780 38,480 14,920 15,710 9,930 21,100 30,070 28,680 21,830 88,220 48,810 39,590 NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3.2 -14 69.0 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 79.0 dB 76.5 dB 76.0 dB 68.5 dB 68.0 dB 64.5 dB 47,360 72.0 dB 69.0 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 79.5 dB 76.5 dB 76.0 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 69.5 dB 71.0 dB 71.5 dB 74.5 dB 80.0 dB 77.0 dB 76.0 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB 65.0 dB 0.5 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 69.5 dB 71.0 dB 72.0 dB 74.5 dB 80.0 dB 77.0 dB 76.0 dB Change Due to Project 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.0 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB Change Due to Project 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB 0.5 dB 0.5 dB 0.0 dB ESA / D207434 January 2008 Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South of Highway 79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Road Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 Margarita Road. / Redhawk Pkwy, Jedidiah Smith to De Portola De Portola to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Highway 79 West of 1 -15 Freeway West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) West of Margarita Road West of Butterfield Stage Road NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Arterial /Reach TABLE 3.2 -8 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Arterial / Reach NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50' Change Due to Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Project Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2 -15 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise 22,130 23,100 70.5 dB 71.0 dB 0.5 dB 24,750 25,960 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB 10,450 11,660 65.5 dB 66.0 dB 0.5 dB 69,410 70,010 74.0 dB 74.0 dB 0.0 dB 24,250 26,060 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB 35,880 37,690 72.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB 37,330 38,540 73.0 dB 73.0 dB 0.0 dB 32,130 32,490 76.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB 119,700 123,490 81.5 dB 81.5 dB 0.0 dB 76,180 82,480 79.0 dB 79.5 dB 0.5 dB 57,570 59,880 78.0 dB 78.0 dB 0.0 dB TABLE 3.2 -9 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, BUILDOUT Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL at 50' Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 19,000 70.0 dB South of Highway 79 20,000 69.0 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 11,000 64.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 29,000 70.0 dB Highway 79 West of 1 -15 Freeway 9,000 70.5 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 59,000 78.0 dB West of Margarita Road 51,000 77.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 50,000 77.5 dB ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise To arrive at a CNEL that accounts for ambulance sirens, it must first be estimated how many trips per day an ambulance with its sirens on would use a particular road. To do this, Wieland Associates, Inc. used data from the period of January 1, 2007 to July 18, 2007 (see Table 3.2 -10). It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate, because it assumes that all regional ambulance trips will be going to or from the project site, even though there are other existing medical facilities currently serving the region. Of the total number of ambulance trips, only 10 -12 percent are considered Code 3 (sirens on). The others would not require ambulance sirens. Using the SENEL estimates from Table 3.2 - 11 and 12 percent of the ambulance trip estimates from Table 3.2 -10, Wieland was able to estimate a CNEL for the project site that incorporates ambulance sirens. These estimates are summarized in the following table. It should be noted that sirens are never used on hospital property. Street Segment Highway 79, Margarita to Pala Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita De Portola, Pio Pica to Jedidiah Smith SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Street Segment Highway 79, Margarita to Pala Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita De Portola, Pio Pico to Jedidiah Smith SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 5 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.2 -10 ESTIMATED AMBULANCE OPERATIONS PER DAY 7am -7pmc 7pm -10pmc l Opm -lam° 7am -7pmc 7pm -l0am° 10pm -7amc 0.21 0.07 0.01 14.65 5.00 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 EXIS11NGa With Proposed Hospital' 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 NOTES: a Based on operations from 1/1/2007 through 7/18/2007. b Based on estimated annual emergency room transports of 8,609 provided by AMR. The distribution of ambulance runs on the four street segments and over the three times periods was assumed using the distribution for the existing runs. c Number indicates average number of ambulance operations during the 12 hour period from 7am to 7pm, or the three -hour period from 7pm to 1 Opm, or the nine -hour period from lOpm to 7am. TABLE 3.2 -11 ESTIMATED CNEL DUE TO AMBULANCE OPERATIONS Existing Future Estimated Estimated Increase in Ambulance Ambulance Ambulance Sirens Ambient CNEL due to Sirens Sirens +Ambient CNEL" Ambulance Sirens 60.0 dB 49.5 dB 54.0 dB 55.5 dB NOTES: a Estimated CNEL assumes 5 dB of reduction for the existing residential walls along Highway 79. b Ambient CNEL at 50' taken from measurement results of Table 3.2 -2. 3.2 -16 64.0 dB 59.0 dB 63.5 dB 65.0 dB 0.00 0.36 0.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.71 0.36 Estimated CNEL at 50 ft. 66.0 dB 61.5 dB 64.5 dB 67.0 dB 5.0 dB 3.5 dB 6.5 dB 4.0 dB ESA / D207434 January 2008 Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. TABLE 3.2 -12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 NOTES: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -17 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Summary of Impacts For the purposes of this SEIR, only the significance criteria regarding construction noise and traffic noise need be discussed, as the temporary noise from construction and the permanent noise from emergency sirens have the potential to disturb nearby residences (sensitive receptors). As discussed below, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures prescribed for this significant impact. However, even with mitigation incorporated, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from noise. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.2 -1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction- related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Table 3.2 -12 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.2 -13 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City's ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2 -5). This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Construction Phase Noise Level (Leq) a a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Horne Appliances, 1971. ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise TABLE 3.2 -13 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (Leg at 50 feet) Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 88 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Pile Driver 101 Backhoe 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1: The following measures should be considered in the project's design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: • Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. • Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. • All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above - mentioned mitigation measures. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. To minimize construction noise levels at the nearby properties, the contractor shall comply with the above - mentioned recommendations provided in Mitigation Measure 3.2 -1. In addition, to the extent practical, the contractor shall consider the following noise abatement measures: • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • In order to minimize the time during which any single noise - sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise, construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible. • The quietest construction equipment owned by the contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help abate noise levels. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -18 ESA /D207434 January 2008 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -19 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive noise levels. • Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary, and shall be switched off when not in use. Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest sensitive receivers. • Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying the location and dates of construction, the name and phone number of the contractor's contact person in case of complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The public notice shall encourage the residents to call the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The contractor's designated contact person shall be on site throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contractor's contact person and/or the City's contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. If possible, a member of the contractor's team shall also travel to the complainant's location to understand the nature of the disturbance. Impact 3.2 -2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The project will increase the traffic- generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance; therefore the impact is not significant. Project traffic will not cause the 65 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded at existing residential or school land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Project traffic will cause the 70 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded by 0.5 dB at existing public /institutional (except school), open space, commercial, and office land uses adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road south of Highway 79 and Margarita Road between Jedidiah Smith Road and De Portola Road. This will be the case only for the "Opening Year + Cumulative Projects" traffic volume. The threshold will not be exceeded under any other traffic scenario addressed in this study. As a result, it may be concluded that there is no direct project impact, but there is a cumulative impact. However, as indicated in Figure 3.2 -1 an increase of 0.5 dB is imperceptible; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Without accounting for ambulance siren noise, traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2 -11). Also, residents along emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation: None required, because noise standards do not apply to emergency situations. No mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. References City of Temecula, City of Temecula General Plan —Noise Element, April 2005. County of Riverside, County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. P.F. Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Horne Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, August 2, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2 -20 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3.3 Traffic 3.3.1 Approach to Analysis Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed in October, 2007. The complete traffic study is included in Appendix D in the Draft EIR. This section also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project - related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. This section uses the terms SR -79 and Highway 79 interchangeably. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The following describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 3.3 -1). It includes an analysis of the traffic circulation characteristics of the 10 study intersections. The 10 study intersections are as follows: • SR 79/1 -15 SB Ramps; • SR 79/1 -15 NB Ramps; • SR 79/La Paz Street; • SR 79/ Pechanga Parkway; • SR 79 /7edediah Smith Road; • SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones; • SR 79/ Country Glen Way; • SR 79/ Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road; • SR 79/Butterfield Stage Road; and • De Portola Road/Margarita Road. Existing Street Network Highway 79 is classified as a Six -Lane Prime Arterial in the project area and is built as a six -lane roadway in the project vicinity. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79, and the posted speed limit is 55 mph. La Paz Street is a two -lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -1 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic ESA / D207434 January 2008 Z 0 •oo •oo 0 NP LPN Jso 13 OAS .S r s L. r r 11\L\' (q0 eGO .p '`N\ Vic, vi A °-,. MP H 0 . - V 35 g \A \ \`- A j n o s ' _ c q \Y co boo tr- d Go • O k' D../ � NP .... `� \\. y � i •oo 35 Or �� 2V GO Y co A /1 •oo r 0 v r E r� ^ N " cc M O) (15 - z — a5 CO c o c LL 0 0_ 0 U T cn 0 0) = X c w 0 U N E 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Pechanga Parkway is currently a four -lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79. Avenida de Missiones is a four -lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is classified as a four -lane Major roadway in the project area. Margarita Road is currently a four -lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a four -lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is currently signalized at its intersection with Highway 79. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a four -lane Major roadway in the project area. Butterfield Stage Road is currently a four -lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79. De Portola Road is a four -lane road east of Margarita Road and a two -lane undivided roadway west of Margarita Road. Eastern By -Pass is a planned future facility between I -15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road in the northeastern section of the City. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I -15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I -15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a cost of $47,840,000. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -3 3.3 Traffic The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern By -Pass is planned to be a six -lane divided Principal Arterial from I -15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four -lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern By -Pass is planned to be a Four -Lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a Two -Lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. With the completion of the Eastern By -Pass, the current traffic volumes on Highway 79 and at the I -15 / Highway 79 South interchange are expected to reduce substantially. Currently, the implementation schedule for this improvement is not known and therefore, these improvements are not assumed in the near -term. However, the City of Temecula General Plan includes the Eastern Bypass in the Year 2025. Therefore, the Year 2025 analysis included in this report assumes the same. ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes Peak Hour Intersection Volume Counts Available AM and PM peak hour volumes were obtained from the City and new manual counts were conducted by LLG at the four locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 / I -15 SB Ramps • Highway 79 / I -15 NB Ramps • Highway 79 / La Paz St • Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Figure 3.3 -2 depicts the existing peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the manual count sheets. Segment Counts Available daily segment volumes were obtained from the City and new counts were conducted by LLG at the three locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 West of I-15 • Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 • Butterfield Stage Road South of SR -79 Table 3.3 -1 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways. Figure 3.3 -2 depicts the existing 24 -hour segment volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the segment count sheets. Street Segment Source Highway 79 West of 1 -15 1 -15 to Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd Pechanga Parkway South of SR -79 Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 South of SR -79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road De Portola Road to Highway 79 South of Highway 79 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -1 EXISTING SEGMENT VOLUMES 3.3 -4 LLG Engineers City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula LLG Engineers LLG Engineers City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Temecula ADT a Date 19,700 77,600 39,000 34,200 07/11/07 2006 2006 2006 42,900 Feb -06 12,800 13,300 City of Temecula 8,000 2006 17,700 26,200 25,200 07/11/07 07/11/07 2006 2006 2006 Footnotes: a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study contains the segment count sheets) SOURCE: City of Temecula ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic 3.3.3 Approach and Methodology This section of the SEIR analyzes the key intersections and street segments in the project area. All of these facilities are analyzed under existing and several future analysis timeframes to determine the project impacts on the prevailing street network during each timeframe. Peak hour intersection and daily segments have been analyzed under the following scenarios. Segment analysis is only conducted for the Build -out (Year 2025) Scenario: • Existing • Opening Year Without Project (Existing + 3 percent growth in existing traffic for three years) • Opening Year With Project Phase I • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) and Cumulative Projects • Build -out (Year 2025) Traffic Operations There are different methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, street segments, freeways, and Congestion Management Program (CMP) arterials. The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is Level of Service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, levels of service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15- minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 3.3 -2 below summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -6 ESA! D207434 January 2008 LOS Interpretation TABLE 3.3 -2 LOS DEFINITIONS A Excellent operation — free flow B Very good operation — stable flow, little or no delays C Good operation — slight delays D Fair operation — noticeable delays, queuing observed E Poor operation — long delays, near or at capacity F Forced flow — congestion SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (SecondsNehicle) 0.0 <10.0 10.1 to 20.0 21.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 55.0 55.1 to 80.0 80.0 3.3 Traffic LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over - saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Street Segments The street segments were analyzed on a daily basis without and with project conditions by comparing the ADT volume to the Riverside County Capacity Standards. This table is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study) and provides LOS estimates based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. Table 3.3 -3 below provides a summary of the volume capacity / level of service for Riverside County roadways. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -7 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic TABLE 3.3 -3 VOLUME CAPACITY! LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROADWAYS (1) Roadway Number of Classification Lanes Service Service Service Service Service Level A Level B Level C Level D Level E Collector 2 7,800 9,100 10,400 11,700 13,000 Major 4 20,460 23,870 27,300 30,700 34,100 Urban 4 21,540 25,130 28,700 32,300 35,900 Urban 6 32,340 37,730 43,100 48,500 53,900 Footnotes: 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Maximum two -way ADT values are based on the 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables as defined in the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.4 Significance Criteria Based on City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element policy, a significant impact is determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the addition of project traffic if: • The increase in the v/c ratio on roadway segments is greater than 2 percent; or • The increase in the delay at intersections is greater than 2 seconds The impact is direct if the project causes a reduction in the LOS to below "D" and the impact is cumulative if the level of service is below LOS "D" prior to the addition of project. 3.3.5 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 3.3 -4 summarizes the existing intersection conditions. As shown, all intersections are currently calculated to operate at an LOS D or better except the SR 79/Pechanga Parkway intersection (LOS F during PM peak hour). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix C of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the existing peak hour intersections analysis worksheets. 3.3.6 Daily Street Segment Level of Service Table 3.3 -5 shows the existing street segment operations. As shown, all street segments are currently calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I -15 to Pechanga Parkway (LOS F) • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 (LOS F) Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -8 Maximum Two -Way Traffic Volume (ADT) ESA /D207434 January 2008 TABLE 3.3-4 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS Control Peak Existing Intersection Type Hour Delay LOS 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps Signal AM 32.2 C PM 37.5 D 2. Highway 79 / 1 -15 NB Ramps Signal AM 12.0 B 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM 13.3 B PM 27.4 C 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 23.3 C 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 10.5 B PM 15.6 B 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal AM 6.4 A PM 7.6 A 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 5.0 A PM 10.1 B 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal AM 28.4 C PM 32.1 C 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM 18.8 B PM 20.2 C 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal AM 13.9 B PM 18.4 B Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic PM 34.0 C PM 73.9 E SIGNALIZED DELAY /LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 8 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F 3.3.7 Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation rates are generally used to determine trip generation for projects in the City of Temecula. Hospital trip generation rates published in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region are higher than ITE rates and hence were used to calculate worst -case total trip generation for the hospital portion of the project. The trip generation rates in (ITE) Trip Generation were used for the Medical Office building. There are no standard trip generation rates available for the Cancer Rehabilitation Center and the Physical Rehabilitation Center. Hence, the rates for the Medical Office in ITE were used to estimate the trip generation for all non - hospital land uses. Project Phase 1 Trip Generation The Project Phase I development (170 bed hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office) is calculated to generate 6,290 ADT with 474 trips during the AM peak hour (350 inbound / 124 outbound) and 629 trips during the PM peak hour (214 inbound / 415 outbound trips). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -9 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Street Segment Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -5 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing Roadway Class a (LOS E) b Hiahwav 79 West of 1 -15 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 19,700 0.578 A 1 -15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Urban Rd 53,900 77,600 1.440 F Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Urban Rd 53,900 39,000 0.724 C Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Urban Rd 53,900 34,200 0.635 B Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 42,900 1.258 F Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 12,800 0.375 A South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 13,300 0.390 A De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2 -Ln Collector 13,000 8,000 0.615 B Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 17,700 0.493 A De Portola Road to Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 26,200 0.730 C South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 25,200 0.702 C Footnotes: a. Roadway classification determined based on existing cross - sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Therefore, the project traffic generation was defined in two phases. Table 3.3 -6 tabulates the Phase I and total project traffic generation. Project Phase 11 Trip Generation The Project Phase II development (Ultimate build -out — 320 -bed hospital, 140,000 square -foot of medical office, a 10,000 square -foot cancer rehabilitation center and an 8,000 square -foot rehabilitation and physical therapy center) and is calculated to generate 5,820 ADT with 437 trips during the AM peak hour (324 inbound / 113 outbound) and 582 trips during the PM peak hour (197 inbound / 385 outbound trips). 3.3 -10 ADT ° V /C LOS ESA / D207434 January 2008 Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) a AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of ADT In : Out S Volume "/o of ADT In : Out Split Volume Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total Phase Hospital 170 Beds 20 /Bed b 3,400 8% 70 30 190 82 272 10% 40 60 136 204 340 Medical Office 80,000 SF 36.13 /KSF ` 2,890 7% 79 : 21 160 42 202 10% 27 : 73 78 211 289 Subtotal Phase I 6,290 350 124 474 214 415 629 Phase II Hospital 150 Beds 20 /Bed 3,000 8% 70 30 168 72 240 10% 40 60 120 180 300 Medical Office 60,000 SF 36.13 /KSF 2,170 7% 79 21 120 32 152 10% 27 73 59 158 217 Cancer Rehab Center d 10,000 SF 36.13 /KSF 360 7% 79 : 21 20 5 25 10% 27 : 73 10 26 36 Rehab and Phys Therapy d 8.000 SF 36.13 /KSF 290 7% 79 : 21 16 4 20 10% 27 : 73 8 21 29 Subtotal Phase II 5.820 324 113 437 197 385 582 Total Project 12,110 674 237 911 411 800 1,211 SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL TRIPS 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Footnotes: Trip Ends are one -way traffic movement, either entering or leaving. Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, SANDAG ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition. The rates for Medical Office in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition were used since no separate rates are available for this land use. This rate is very conservative since these uses are expected to generate much lower traffic volumes. 3.3 -11 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Total Trip Generation The entire project at build -out (Phase I and Phase II) is calculated to generate 12,110 ADT with 911 trips during the AM peak hour (674 inbound / 237 outbound) and 1,211 trips during the PM peak hour (411 inbound / 800 outbound trips). The project proposes a total of three access driveways two onto Highway 79 and one onto De Portola Road, as shown in Figure 2 -3. In addition, an onsite circulation system consisting of private drive lanes and parking areas are proposed. Trip Distribution /Assignment The project trip distribution was estimated based on the location of residential neighborhoods, the location of other area hospitals, the site access and the roadway network. A growth rate of 3 percent per year for three years was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate Opening Year traffic conditions. This constitutes the baseline background traffic. The growth rate was utilized to account for area wide traffic growth. This growth rate of 3 percent per year is estimated, based on the average historical annual growth of traffic along Highway 79 (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study). Figure 3.3 -3 depicts the Opening Year without project traffic volumes. Figure 3.3 -4 depicts the project trip distribution. Figure 3.3 -5 depicts the Project Phase I traffic volumes, while Figure 3.3 -6 depicts the Opening Year with Project Phase I traffic volumes. Figure 3.3 -7 depicts the Project Phase II traffic volumes and Figure 3.3 -8 depicts the Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. Figure 3.3 -9 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. 3.3.8 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Based on discussions with City of Temecula and Riverside County staff, it was determined that 30 area projects have the potential to add cumulative traffic to the study area. Table 3.3 -7 provides a brief description of each project that has cumulative considerations. Appendix D of this SEIR and Appendix D of the October 2007 LLG study contains Cumulative Projects Data. Summary of Cumulative Projects Trips Table 3.3 -8 summarizes the individual cumulative project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.3 -8, the cumulative projects are calculated to generate a total of 117,834 daily trips, with 7,576 trips in the AM peak hour (3,463 inbound and 4,113 outbound) and 11,452 trips in the PM peak hour (6,012 inbound and 5,441 outbound). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -12 ESA! D207434 January 2008 co cn v o CO w7 > � To 0.2 u_ o a) H I a 0 U N a) N - m (gy CZ 0_ 0_ 2 o_ U a) 2 O < 0 73 a) ow 0 Q 2 i 0 � C — H o " c0 CC c W 7 U a) 4) a) LL _ O IQ I 9) I— (1) a N CO 7 w > � To _.2 - E LL M a) IL a • 0 N a) N U Y N (i 2 o_ 2 N El- W < i w cm c c c Q 0 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Name /Location Type of Development 1. Summerhouse —SW comer of Mixed -use Maragrita Rd. and De Portola Rd. TABLE 3.3 -7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Description The Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement community, congregate care and a medical office. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (90 inbound and 38 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 126 outbound.) 2. Temecula Creek Inn —W of 1 -15 Residential Temecula Creek Inn is a 500 single - family home Subdivision adjacent to the Temecula Creek golf course. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,785 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (94 inbound and 281 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (318 inbound and 187 outbound). 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 30180— Mixed -use Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commercial /retail uses located within the Creekside SE corner of SR 79 and Pechanga Plaza development. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,894 daily trips, with Parkway 114 trips in the AM peak hour (70 inbound and 44 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak hour (216 inbound and 234 outbound). 4. Temecula Creek —W of 1 -15 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 10. Margarita Canyon 11. Rancho Community Church — W of project site 12. Wolf Creek 13. Morgan Hill 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 15. Apis Plaza Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Commercial Temecula Creek includes a hotel and convention center. The proposed project is estimated to generate 515 daily trips, with 29 trips in the AM peak hour (17 inbound and 44 outbound) and 46 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 21 outbound). 5. Vail Ranch Town Center —SE corner Commercial The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail uses. The proposed project is of SR 78 and Redhawk Pkwy estimated to generate 6,036 daily trips, with 426 trips in the AM peak hour (266 inbound and 166 outbound) and 488 trips in the PM peak hour (193 inbound and 295 outbound). Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,326 daily trips, with 182 trips in the AM peak hour (46 inbound and 136 outbound) and 245 tirps in the PM peak hour (158 inbound and 87 outbound). Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,225 daily trips, with 96 trips in the AM peak hour (24 inbound and 72 outbound) and 129 trips in the PM peak hour (83 inbound and 46 outbound). 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 – includes single- family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,168 daily trips, with 91 trips in the AM peak hour (23 inbound and 69 outbound) and 123 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 44 outbound). 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion —SW of Commercial Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an expansion of the existing casino. The proposed SR 791 Pechanga Pkwy intersection project is estimated to generate 18,000 daily trips. Mixed -use Margarita Canyon includes commercial /retail land uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 7,909 daily trips, with 184 trips in the AM peak hour (112 inbound and 72 outbound) and 733 trips in the PM peak hour (352 inbound and 381 outbound). Institutional Rancho Community Church includes a variety of land uses other than the church including a private kindergarten– 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of general retail /office (retail) uses. The total project is estimated to generate 5,136 daily trips, with 706 trips in the AM peak hour (462 inbound and 244 outbound) and 410 trips in the PM peak hour (161 inbound and 249 outbound). Residential Wolf Creek proposes single - family detached residential units. The proposed project (assumed to be 1,000 dwelling units) is estimated to generate 9,570 daily trips, with 675 trips in the AM peak hour (169 inbound and 506 outbound) and 909 trips in the PM peak hour (572 inbound and 337 outbound). Mixed -use Morgan Hill includes single - family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,430 daily trips, with 621 trips in the AM peak hour (253 inbound and 368 outbound) and 564 trips in the PM peak hour (338 inbound and 226 outbound). Residential Tentative Tract Map 24188- includes 291 apartments. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,507 daily trips, with 2,507 trips in the 196 AM peak hour (49 inbound and 147 outbound) and 265 trips in the PM peak hour (170 inbound and 95 outbound). Commercial Apis Plaza includes commercial /retail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit -down restaurant. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,345 daily trips, with 230 trips in the AM peak hour (127 inbound and 103 outbound) and 462 trips in the PM peak hour (230 inbound and 232 outbound). 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Building Professional Paloma Del Sol Office Building - includes 75,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project is estimated to generate 958 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 147 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 122 outbound). 17. Park and Ride —SR and La Paz Rd. Public A 209 space Park & Ride facility is planned at the northeast corner of the SR 79/ La Paz intersection. This facility is estimated to generate approximately 543 daily trips, with 272 trips 3.3 -20 ESA /D207434 January 2008 Name /Location 18. Temecula Lane I —SW of project site 19. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA) 20. De Portola Meadows — E of Redhawk Pkwy 21. St. Thomas of Canterbury —SE of SR 79 and Avenida de Missione 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk —SE of project site on Redhawk Pkwy 23. Temecula Professional Building II (PA06- 0329) —NE corner of Margarita Pkwy and De Portola Rd. 24. Gateway Plaza —SE corner of SR 79 and Avenida De Missione 25. Redhawk Condos —SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy 26. Strafford at Redhawk —SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy 27. Butterfield Station —SW corner of SR 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd. 29. Heritage Hotel —NW comer of SR 79 and La Paz St. 30. Halcon de Rojo—NE comer of SR 79 and Jedediah Smith Rd. SOURCE: City of Temecula Type of Development 28. De Portola Professional Offices— Professional SW corner of Maragrita Rd and De Portola Rd. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Description 3.3 Traffic in the AM peak hour (190 inbound and 82 outbound) and 272 trips in the PM peak hour (82 inbound and 190 outbound). Residential Temecula Lane I is a residential development with 96 single - family dwelling units and 332 multi - family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,780 daily trips, with 212 trips in the AM peak hour (42 inbound and 170 outbound) and 263 trips in the PM peak hour (172 inbound and 91 outbound). Mixed -use The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly constructed. 1,800 single - family dwelling units remain to be constructed in this project. These remaining units are estimated to generate approximately 14,850 daily trips, with 1,269 trips in the AM peak hour (317 inbound and 952 outbound) and 1,445 trips in the PM peak hour (910 inbound and 535 outbound). Residential De Portola Meadows is a residential development with 147 single - family dwelling units and 156 multi - family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,420 daily trips, with 186 trips in the AM peak hour (41 inbound and 145 outbound) and 236 trips in the PM peak hour (153 inbound and 83 outbound). Institutional St Thomas of Canterbury is a church / preschool. This project includes a 30,473 square -foot building. This project is estimated to generate approximately 682 daily trips, with 111 trips in the AM peak hour (59 inbound and 52 outbound) and 116 trips in the PM peak hour (55 inbound and 61 outbound). Residential Hemmingway at Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single - family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 64 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound) Professional Temecula Professional Building II (PA06 -0329) is an 11,595 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 254 daily trips, with 33 trips in the AM peak hour (29 inbound and 4 outbound) and 92 trips in the PM peak hour (16 inbound and 76 outbound). Commercial Gateway Plaza is a two- storied, 30,573 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 536 daily trips, with 24 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 3 outbound) and 113 trips in the PM peak hour (19 inbound and 94 outbound). Residential Redhawk Condos is a residential development with 97 multi - family dwelling units located at the Peach Tree Street / Deer Hollow Way intersection. This project is estimated to generate approximately 625 daily trips, with 50 trips in the AM peak hour (9 inbound and 41 outbound) and 59 trips in the PM peak hour (40 inbound and 19 outbound). Residential Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with 106 single family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,120 daily trips, with 84 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 63 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). Retail Butterfield Station is a 7,300 square -foot retail development located off of SR 79 between Mahlon Vail and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is estimated to generate approximately 5,535 daily trips, with 130 trips in the AM peak hour (79 inbound and 51 outbound) and 510 trips in the PM peak hour (291 inbound and 219 outbound). De Portola Professional Offices is a 38,501 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 640 daily trips, with 87 trips in the AM peak hour (77 inbound and 10 outbound) and 120 trips in the PM peak hour (20 inbound and 100 outbound). Commercial Heritage Hotel is a 142 -room hotel development with a 5,500 square -foot restaurant. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,760 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (51 inbound and 34 outbound) and 122 trips in the PM peak hour (68 inbound and 54 outbound). Professional Halcon de Rojo is a 65,880 square -foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 967 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 153 trips in the PM peak hour (26 inbound and 127 outbound). 3.3 -21 ESA / D207434 January 2008 Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour % of ADT Volume % o f ADT Volume Rate Volume In Out Total In Out Total 1. Summerhouse 2,214 90 38 128 79 126 205 2. Temecula Creek Inn 4,785 94 281 375 318 187 505 3. Tentative Map 30180 (Not Built) EZ Lube 4 Positions 40 /Position 160 5.19 12 9 21 4.60 10 8 18 Bank 4,000 SF T= 182.34X +256.87 986 12.34 27 22 49 45.74 92 91 183 4. Temecula Creek 515 17 12 29 25 21 46 5. Vail Ranch Towne Center 6,036 266 166 432 193 295 488 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 2,326 46 136 182 158 87 245 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 1,225 24 72 96 83 46 129 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 1,168 23 69 92 79 44 123 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion 10,234 288 164 452 252 225 477 10. Margarita Canyon 7,909 112 72 184 352 381 733 11. Rancho Community Church (Not Built) Middle School 408 Students 1.62 /Student 660 52 42 94 0.15 32 29 61 High School 456 Students Ln (T)=0.81LN(X)+1.86 915 153 69 222 0.14 30 34 64 12. Wolf Creek Single Family Residential 520 Units Ln (T)= 0.92LN(X) +2.71 4,739 93 280 373 298 175 473 Community Commercial 12 Acres 700 /Acre 8,400 4% 202 134 336 10% 420 420 840 Neighborhood Commercial 8 Acres 1200 /Acre 9,600 4% 230 154 384 10% 480 480 960 13. Morgan Hill 5,430 253 368 621 338 226 564 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 2,507 49 147 196 170 95 265 15. Apis Plaza 5,345 127 103 230 230 232 462 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Building 958 118 16 134 25 122 147 17. Park & Ride at Highway 79 / La Paz 209 Spaces 2.6 /Space 543 190 82 272 82 190 272 18. Temecula Lane I 7,909 112 72 184 352 381 733 Single Family Residential 96 Units Ln (T)= 0.92Ln(X) +2.71 1,000 19 58 77 65 38 103 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -8 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION 3.3 -22 ESA/D207434 January 2008 Land Use Quantity Daily Trip Ends (ADT) AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Volume Volume Rate Volume ADT In Out Total 4 In Out Total Multi - Family Residential 332 Units Ln (T)= 0.85Ln(X) +2.55 1,780 23 112 135 107 53 160 19. Roripaugh Ranch SPA 1,800 Units Ln (T)= 0.92LN(X) +2.71 14,850 317 952 1269 910 535 1,445 20. De Portola Meadows Single Family Residential 147 Units Ln (T)= 0.92LN(X) +2.71 1,480 28 84 112 95 55 150 Multi - Family Residential 156 Units Ln (T)= 0.85Ln(X) +2.55 940 13 61 74 58 28 86 21. St Thomas of Canterbury 682 59 52 111 55 61 116 22. Hemmingwayat Redhawk 108 Units Ln (T)= 0.92LN(X) +2.71 1,100 21 64 85 72 43 115 23. Temecula Professional Building II 11,595 SF Ln (T)= 0.77Ln(X) +3.65 254 29 4 33 16 76 92 (PA06 -0329) 24. Gateway Plaza 30,573 SF Ln (T)= 0.77Ln(X) +3.65 536 21 3 24 19 94 113 25. Redhawk Condos 97 Units Ln (T)= 0.85Ln(X) +2.55 625 9 41 50 40 19 59 26. Stratford at Redhawk 106 Units Ln (T)= 0.92LN(X) +2.71 1,120 21 63 84 72 43 115 27. Butterfield Station (Retail) 73,000 SF Ln (T)= 0.65Ln(X) +5.83 5,535 79 51 130 291 219 510 28. De Portola Professional Offices 38,501 SF Ln (T)= 0.77Ln(X) +3.65 640 77 10 87 20 100 120 29. Heritage Hotel Hotel 142 Rooms 8.92 /Room 1,270 47 34 81 7.49 40 41 81 Restaurant 5,500 SF 89.95/KSF ` 490 0.81 4 0 4 7.49 28 13 41 30. Halcon de Rojo 65,880 SF Ln (T)= 0.77Ln(X) +3.65 967 118 16 134 26 127 153 Total Project 117,834 3,463 4,113 7,576 6,012 5,441 11,452 TABLE 3.3 -8 (CONT.) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Footnote: Only the portions of projects that are yet to be built that were under construction at the time the traffic counts were conducted are included in the above list. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -23 ESA /D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Figure 3.3 -10 depicts the cumulative projects locations, while Figure 3.3 -11 depicts total Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. Figure 3.3 -12 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. 3.3.9 Analysis of Near -Term Scenarios Project Opening Day without Project Project Opening day traffic conditions, without project, represents existing traffic volumes with a growth of 3 percent per year for three years added. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3 -9 summarizes the Opening Day intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 at I -15 SB Ramps • SR 79 at I -15 NB Ramps • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix E of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year without Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3 -10 summarizes the Opening Year traffic conditions for the street segment operations, without project. As seen in Table 3.3 -10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 between I -15 and Pechanga • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Parkway Project Opening Day with Project Phase 1 Project opening day with Project Phase I represents Project Opening Day traffic volumes with the addition of Project Phase I traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3 -9 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project Phase I traffic except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 at I -15 SB Ramps • SR 79 at I -15 NB Ramps Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street 3.3 -24 ESA! D207434 January 2008 v 0 0) m r C O CO 0 ct.i ( zs CC N O W 1 a) LL U E N • 0 a 0_ — N Ts . RS — o M = E m � a) • U E 0) A N H ▪ 7 o0 o CO < N M E) -0 W i 7 � N ▪ LL (T O E � (iS U °- c2 c5 0- ci 0 0_ a) a) E c o w> L 0 ;i E i 0) c c N Q 0 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Intersection Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. c1 denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -9 PROJECT OPENING DAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Control Peak Type Hour Existing Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Without Project With Project Phase I Delay LOS' Delay LOS" Delay LOS" 3.3 -28 A Delay Impact Type 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps Signal AM 32.2 C 40.6 D 46.1 D 5.5 None PM 37.5 D 56.9 E 58.2 E 1.3 Cumulative 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps Signal AM 12.0 B 13.3 B 14.4 B 1.1 None PM 34.0 C 56.7 E 59.1 E 2.4 Cumulative 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM 13.3 B 16.3 B 16.6 B 0.3 None PM 27.4 C 58.5 E 61.2 D 2.7 Cumulative 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 23.3 C 26.6 C 27.8 C 1.2 None PM 73.9 E 109.7 F 114.3 F 4.6 Cumulative 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 10.5 B 11.0 B 11.2 B 0.2 None PM 15.6 B 17.2 B 17.3 B 0.1 None 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal AM 6.4 A 6.7 A 8.2 A 1.5 None PM 7.6 A 8.7 A 9.9 A 1.2 None 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 5.0 A 5.2 A 26.6 C 21.4 None PM 10.1 B 11.1 B 24.0 C 12.9 None 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal AM 28.4 C 30.8 C 33.8 C 3.0 None PM 32.1 C 34.9 C 37.1 D 2.2 None 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM 18.8 B 20.0 B 20.4 C None PM 20.2 C 22.8 C 24.1 C None 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal AM 13.9 B 14.0 B 14.3 B None PM 18.4 B 21.4 C 22.1 C None SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E ESA / D207434 January 2008 Street Segment Existing Roadway Capacity Class (LOS E) TABLE 3.3 -10 PROJECT OPENING DAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Without Project With Project Phase I ADT ` V/C d LOS e ADT ` V/C d LOS e ADT ` V/C d LOS e 3.3 Traffic A Impact V/C f Type Highway 79 West of 1 -15 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 19,700 0.578 A 21,470 0.630 B 21,660 0.635 B 0.006 None I -15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 77,600 1.440 F 84,580 1.569 F 86,470 1.604 F 0.035 Cumulative Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 39,000 0.724 C 42,510 0.789 C 45,780 0.849 D 0.061 None Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 34,200 0.635 B 37,280 0.692 B 38,480 0.714 C 0.022 None Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 42,900 1.258 F 46,760 1.371 F 47,070 1.380 F 0.009 Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 12,800 0.375 A 13,950 0.409 A 14,450 0.424 A 0.015 None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 13,300 0.390 A 14,500 0.425 A 15,130 0.444 A 0.018 None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2 -Ln Col 13,000 8,000 0.615 B 8,720 0.671 B 9,350 0.719 C 0.048 None Margarita Road 1Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 17,700 0.493 A 19,290 0.537 A 20,230 0.564 A 0.026 None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 26,200 0.730 C 28,560 0.796 C 29,500 0.822 D 0.026 None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 25,200 0.702 C 27,470 0.765 C 28,100 0.783 C 0.018 None Footnotes: a. Roadway classification determined based on existing cross - sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. f. Increase in V/C ratio. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -29 ESA / D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Intersection TABLE 3.3 -11 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Control Peak Project Opening Dav Project Opening Dav With Project Phase I With Entire Project A Project Opening Day With Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Type Hour Delay c Impact Type Delay LOS" Delay LOS' Delay LOS' 1. Highway 79 / 1 -15 SB Ramps Signal AM 46.1 D 49.1 D 3.0 None 121.9 F PM 58.2 E 62.7 E 4.5 Cumulative 224.3 F 2. Highway 79 /1-15 NB Ramps Signal AM 14.4 B 14.6 B 0.2 None 80.9 F PM 59.1 E 63.1 E 4.0 Cumulative 298.2 F 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal AM 16.6 B 16.9 B 0.3 None 163.6 F PM 61.2 D 65.0 E 3.8 Cumulative 318.5 F 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal AM 27.8 C 29.3 C 1.5 None 125.0 F PM 114.3 F 115.2 F 0.9 Cumulative 517.2 F 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal AM 11.2 B 12.3 B 1.1 None 30.7 C PM 17.3 B 17.7 B 0.4 None 123.5 F 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal AM 8.2 A 8.3 A 0.1 None 12.9 B PM 9.9 A 11.5 B 1.6 None 95.3 F 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal AM 21.5 C 22.9 C 1.4 None 77.3 E PM 24.0 C 34.1 C 10.1 None 244.6 F 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal AM 33.8 C 36.6 D 2.8 None 178.7 F PM 37.1 D 39.6 D 2.5 None 264.0 F 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal AM 20.4 C 20.9 C 0.5 None 32.7 C PM 24.1 C 24.3 C 0.2 None 37.9 D 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal AM 14.3 B 14.9 B 0.6 None 23.6 C PM 22.1 C 23.3 C 1.2 None 49.3 D Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. A denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -30 SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F ESA / D207434 January 2008 Street Segment Existing Roadway Class a SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -12 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS Project Opening Day Project Opening Day Capacity With Project Phase I With Entire Project A Impact (LOS E) ° V/C f Type Footnotes: a. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross - sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. ct Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. f. Increase in V/C ratio ADT ` V/C d LOS e ADT ` V/C d LOS e ADT ` V/C d LOS e 3.3 -31 Preliminary — Subject to Revision 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Project Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects 3.3 Traffic Highway 79 West of 1 -15 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 21,660 0.635 B 21,830 0.640 B 0.005 None 32,490 0.953 E Cumulative 1 -15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 86,470 1.604 F 88,220 1.637 F 0.032 Cumulative 123,340 2.288 F Cumulative Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 45,780 0.849 D 48,810 0.906 E 0.056 Direct 82,480 1.530 F Cumulative Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 38,480 0.714 C 39,590 0.735 C 0.021 None 59,880 1.111 F Cumulative Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 47,070 1.380 F 47,360 1.389 F 0.009 None 70,010 2.053 F Cumulative Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 14,450 0.424 A 14,920 0.438 A 0.014 None 23,100 0.677 B None South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 15,130 0.444 A 15,710 0.461 A 0.017 None 25,960 0.761 C None De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2 -Ln Col 13,000 9,350 0.719 C 9,930 0.764 C 0.045 None 11,660 0.897 D None Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 20,230 0.564 A 21,100 0.588 A 0.024 None 26,060 0.726 C None De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 29,500 0.822 D 30,370 0.846 D 0.024 None 37,690 1.050 F Cumulative South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 28,100 0.783 C 28,680 0.799 C 0.016 None 38,540 1.074 F Cumulative ESA / D207434 October 2007 Impact Type 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix F of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with Project Phase I peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3 -10 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 between I -15 and Pechanga Parkway • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Entire Project (Phases 1 & 11) Project opening day traffic condition, with the entire project, represents opening day with the addition of traffic volumes generated by the entire project. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3 -11 summarizes the Opening Day with the Entire Project intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -11, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR79 /I- 15SBRamps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR79 /I -15 NB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR 791 La Paz Street (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR 79 / Pechanga Parkway (LOS F during the PM peak hour) Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix G of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with the Entire Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3 -12 summarizes the street segment operations for the Opening Day with the Entire Project. As seen in Table 3.3 -12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I -15 to Pechanga Parkway • SR 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -32 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Project Opening Day with Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Project Opening day traffic conditions, with the entire project and cumulative projects, represents opening day with entire project traffic volumes as well as cumulative project traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3 -11 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -11, all study area intersections continue to operate at poor LOS conditions except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd • De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix H of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year With the Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3 -12 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at a poor LOS except the following: Cumulative Impact • Butterfield Stage north of SR 79 • Butterfield Stage south of SR 79 • De Portola Road west of Margarita Road • Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 • Redhawk Parkway from south of Highway 79 3.3.10 Analysis of Long -Term Scenarios 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Build -out (Year 2025) Traffic Volumes The City of Temecula build -out volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. It may be noted that the Build - out (Year 2025) network assumes a new traffic interchange at I -15, south of Highway 79 and a new road termed the Eastern Bypass, which will extend from I -15 to Borel Road. This new circulation option will significantly reduce traffic volumes on the parallel portion of Highway 79. This facility was not included in the cumulative impact analysis because it would not be constructed for many years, and thus is not reasonably foreseeable within the horizon studied for cumulative impacts. A copy of the Build -out (Year 2025) volumes is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study). Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -33 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic The following methodology was utilized to estimate peak hour intersection volumes. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were estimated using a template in EXCEL developed by LLG. Future peak hour traffic volumes at an intersection are determined based on the relationship between existing peak hour turn movement and ADT volumes and the future ADT volumes. This same relationship can be assumed to generally continue in the future without the Eastern Bypass. This relationship will likely change once the Eastern Bypass is built. The traffic study included analysis of build -out peak hour intersection volumes both with and without the Eastern Bypass. Figure 3.3 -13 depicts the forecasted Build -out peak hour segment ADT volumes. Build -out (Year 2025) Intersection Geometry All funded CIP improvements are assumed as the base geometry for the Year 2025 analysis as follows. The full list of funded CIP projects are included in Table 3.3 -15. • I -15 / Highway 79 (South) interchange - Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements • Route 79 South Re- striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway • Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway — Intersection Improvements — Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south • Route 79 South /Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road Build -out (Year 2025) Analysis The intersection and segment operations at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass) are compared to the existing + entire project + cumulative projects (with the existing network, and Eastern Bypass), in order to determine the improvement in intersection and segment operations with the Eastern Bypass. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3 -13 summarizes the build -out (Year 2025) peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3 -13, at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass), all study area intersections are calculated to operate at better levels of service and much lower delays than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass) (Figure 3.3 -13). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Build -out (Year 2025 with Eastern By -Pass) peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3 -14 summarizes the build -out street segment operations. It may be noted that the build - out segment analysis assumes the City of Temecula Circulation Element network. As seen in Table 3.3 -14, all study area street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better conditions except the following: Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -34 ESA! D207434 January 2008 • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) It may be noted that at build -out (with the Eastern Bypass), all Study Area segments are calculated to operate at better levels of service than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass scenario). It may be noted that the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element assumes a two -lane facility (one lane in each direction) for the Eastern Bypass. The volumes used in this analysis assume this two -lane cross - section. However, the Riverside County TUMF Program is planning to build the Eastern Bypass as a four -lane facility (two lanes in each direction). Therefore, if the Eastern Bypass were to be built as a four -lane facility, it would attract more traffic and the segment volumes and consequently, the intersection volumes along Highway 79 are expected to be lower than that used in this analysis. Thus, with a four -lane Eastern Bypass facility, the intersections and segments are expected to operate better than with a two -lane Eastern Bypass facility. 3.3.11 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts were calculated. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Direct Impact (Phase 11 only) Impact 3.3 -1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road — This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3 -2: Highway 79 / Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) — This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -35 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Intersection Control Type Peak Hour 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps 2. Highway 79 / 1 -15 NB Ramps 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd 6. Highway 79 /Avenida De Missiones 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd TABLE 3.3 -13 BUILD -OUT (YEAR 2025) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. c. A denotes an increase in delay due to project. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. AM 121.9 F 19.7 B ( -) 102.2 PM 224.3 F 21.3 C ( -) 203.0 AM 80.9 F 4.5 A ( -) 76.4 PM 298.2 F 33.3 C ( -) 264.9 AM 163.6 F 8.7 A ( -) 154.9 PM 318.5 F 22.7 C ( -) 295.8 AM 125.0 F 20.0 B ( -) 105.0 PM 517.2 F 39.3 D ( -) 477.9 AM 30.7 C 6.5 A ( -) 24.2 PM 123.5 F 15.4 B ( -) 108.1 AM 12.9 B 3.6 A ( -) 9.3 PM 95.3 F 6.4 A ( -) 88.9 AM 77.3 E 35.4 D ( -) 41.9 PM 244.6 F 31.4 C ( -) 213.2 AM 178.7 F 22.4 C ( -) 156.3 PM 264.0 F 79.5 E ( -) 184.5 AM 32.7 C 25.4 C ( -) 7.3 PM 37.9 D 44.2 D ( -) 6.3 AM 23.6 C 14.4 B ( -) 9.2 PM 49.3 D 21.5 C ( -) 27.8 3.3 - 36 Existing + Entire Project + Cumulative Projects (No Eastern By -Pass) Year 2025 (With Eastern By -Pass) Delay LOS Delay LOS A Delay In Seconds Signalized Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E ESA / D207434 January 2008 Segment SR -79 West of 1 -15 1 -15 to Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd Pechanga Parkway South of SR -79 Butterfield Stage Road North of SR -79 South of SR -79 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd Footnotes: a. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. Riverside County Roadway Capacity c. Volume City of Temecula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study. d. Volume 1 Capacity ratio SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -14 BUILD -OUT (YEAR 2025) SEGMENT OPERATIONS VIC d LOS e Roadway Class a Existing + Entire Project + Cumulative Projects Year 2025 (No Eastern By -Pass) (With Eastern By -Pass) Roadway LOS E Class a Capacity - Volume 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures LOS E Capacity 3.3 Traffic Volume c V/C d LOS e 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 9,000 0.264 A 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 108,520 2.013 F 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 59,000 0.822 D 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 82,260 1.526 F 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 51,000 0.946 E 6 -Ln Prin Art 53,900 50,070 0.929 E 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 50,000 0.928 E 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 68,700 2.015 F 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 29,000 0.538 A 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 23,100 0.677 B 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 19,000 0.557 A 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 25,960 0.761 C 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 20,000 0.587 A 2 -Ln Col 13,000 10,890 0.838 D 4 -Ln Col 25,900 11,000 0.425 A Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Rd to De Portola Rd 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 26,060 0.726 C 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 11,000 0.306 A De Portola Rd to Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 36,160 1.007 F 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 23,000 0.641 B South of Highway 79 4 -Ln Maj Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4 -Ln Maj Art 34,100 27,000 0.752 C 3.3 -37 ESA / D207434 January 2008 NOTES: — ADT (Average Daily Traffic) shown midblock — AM /PM peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections F 9 0 740/15,0— S10 /850 • • a PROJECT SITE 0 0 a R B • vM BAS NOT TO SCALE. SOURCE: Linscott, Law and Greenspan Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 3.3 -13 Build -out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM /PM Peak Hours and ADT Cumulative Impacts Intersections Impact 3.3 -3: SR 791 I -15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3 -4: SR 791 I -15 NB Ramps Impact 3.3 -5: SR 791 La Paz St Impact 3.3 -6: SR 791 Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3 -7: SR 791 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road Impact 3.3 -8: SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones Impact 3.3 -9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way Impact 3.3 -10: Segments Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Impact 3.3- Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -39 SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 11: SR 79 West of I -15 12: SR 79 between I -15 and Pechanga Parkway 13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road 14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road 15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 3.3 Traffic City of Temecula - Regional Transportation Facility Mitigation Program The City of Temecula requires that identified direct project - related traffic impacts are mitigated and funded directly by the project applicant. Direct project - related mitigation measures required to mitigate project impacts will be implemented with construction of the Phase 1 improvements. In addition, the City of Temecula implements a comprehensive transportation system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) designed to address cumulative regional traffic impacts. The CIP has been designed to ensure that the regional circulation system as depicted in the Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is constructed to provide an acceptable level of service as development occurs. Funding for the regional circulation improvements identified in the CIP is derived from a variety of sources including City of Temecula Development Impact Fees (DIF), Assessment Districts (AD), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Community Facilities Districts (CFD), federal and state matching funds (SAFETEA -LU) and special legislative improvement districts (SB 621). The CIP prioritizes the funding, design and construction of individual transportation improvement projects to coincide with the commensurate level of service of roadway segments and intersections to adequately serve existing and future development. All of the CIP projects that provide for mitigation of regional cumulative traffic impacts have identified 100 percent of the funding required to construct the ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic proposed improvement. Many of the CIP projects are currently 100 percent funded and the transportation portion of the DIF fee for this project have the effect of reimbursing the improvement fund for funds advanced for the impacted facilities, and thus will be applied to other regional CIP projects. All of the above referenced documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The following sections describe the transportation facility improvement funding programs. The CIP sheets are documented in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix J of the October 2007 LLG study). City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF) Development Impact Fees (DIF) are collected to fund a portion of the new infrastructure that is needed to provide services to new development. Transportation improvements are the largest portion of the DIF fees. DIF fees are charged when: • Construction permits are issued in a fee area or, in the case of water and wastewater, when the development ties into City services; • A new use, such as a new structure or expanded structure, is requested; • A change to a more intense use is requested; • A property adds new water or sewer service; • Additional Drainage Fixture Units are added to an existing structure; • Impact fees are based on the type of land use being developed, the building area, gross site area, water meter sizes and the drainage fixture characteristics of the proposed development. • The amount charged for impact fees is based on the estimated demand the development will place on City services and the estimated taxes the new development will generate pay for new infrastructure. The current DIF for the proposed project is $4.75/square-foot for office land uses and $5.66/square-foot for service commercial land uses. The proposed project will pay $3,077,065 in current DIF fees. DIF fees are adjusted on a regular basis to keep pace with construction costs and inflation and are payable at building permit, so the amount actually paid could be more than under the current rates. Documentation regarding the adoption and implementation of the DIF program are included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix K of the October 2007 LLG study). Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program The County of Riverside and the Cities of Western Riverside County enacted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The purpose of the TUMF program is to provide a supplemental revenue stream to support the shortfall from traditional funding sources for regional transportation facilities (Figure 3.3 -14). The TUMF program funds the mitigation of traffic impacts from new development on the regional system of Highways and arterials. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -40 ESA! D207434 January 2008 v r N o CO = N M .5 S as LII i N M aa) E N Q Q N c0 N a) N 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic The TUMF program also ensures that new developments pay their fair share towards providing the needed regional infrastructure improvements. TUMF fees can only be used to mitigate the impacts of new development on the network of roads, bridges, interchanges and intersection that are identified under the TUMF program. The TUMF program involves development of policies, identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates and fee scenarios. However, it should be noted that the mitigation fees collected through the TUMF program can be utilized only towards the capital costs of facilities and not for operation or maintenance costs. The fee calculations are based on the proportional allocation of the costs of proposed transportation improvements based on the cumulative transportation system impacts of different types of new developments. Fees are directly related to the forecast rate of growth and trip generation characteristics of different categories of new development. The TUMF program collects fees by the following land use categories: • Single family residential • Multi - family residential • Industrial • Retail • Service commercial The current TUMF Fee for the proposed project is $5.71 /square -foot for office land uses and $5.71 /square -foot for service commercial land uses. Under the current TUMF fee structure, the proposed project would have to contribute $3,232,774 in current TUMF fees. TUMF fees are adjusted on a semi - annual basis, and are payable at building permit, thus the amount actually paid could be more than the current fees. Figure 3.3 -14 depicts the TUMF facilities in the County. Documentation regarding the TUMF program is attached as Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix L of the October 2007 LLG study). Assessment Districts / Community Facilities Districts Assessment Districts (AD) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD) are special districts formed by a local government agency (County, City, Water District, etc.) that include property that would receive direct benefit from the construction of new public improvements or from the maintenance of existing public improvements. The proposed project is located with Assessment District 159 (AD 159), which encumbers a large area east of I -15 and north and south of Route 79 south (Figure 3.3 -15). The applicant has been paying assessment district fees for many years and will continue to do so until the assessment district is retired. The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from two lanes to six lanes, between I -15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -42 ESA! D207434 January 2008 C� n r 0 o CO N M u) CC a1 i W Ea c CO a) E N ii E E a) a) 0) i--' C 0 U a) 0) a) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, regional transportation improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project are included in Crown Hill CFD and the Morgan Hill CFD. The local agency that forms the assessment district sells bonds to raise the money to build or acquire the public improvement. The agency then levies a special assessment against each parcel of land within the district, in proportion to its share of benefit from the improvement. Factors that determine the amount of benefit received may include the size of the lot or the proximity to the improvement being financed. The special assessment is payable through annual installments over the life of the bond issue, which is typically 15 to 20 years, but may be as many as 40 years depending on the terms of the bond issue. The owners of the assessed land repay the bonds through annual assessments, which are included on the County's general property tax bill. Documentation regarding the AD is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix M of the LLG study). Federal, State and Special Legislative Funding Mechanisms In addition to DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs and ADs, Federal and State matching funds (SAFETEA -LU and SB 621 — Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund) are available for use in funding regional circulation system improvements. Planned Regional Circulation System Improvements In addition to the regional circulation facilities currently programmed into the City of Temecula CIP, TUMF, assessment districts and/or community facilities districts, there are several regional transportation facilities that are in the planning stages that have not yet been incorporated into any of the transportation planning /funding documents to date. The Eastern Bypass is a planned future regional transportation facility connecting I -15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road/Washington Street in the northeastern section of the City. This regional transportation facility will provide for significant traffic relief along Route 79, southern Pechanga Parkway and the entire circulation system within the vicinity of the project. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I -15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I -15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a preliminary cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a six -lane divided principal arterial from I -15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four -lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a four -lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a two -lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. Since the Eastern Bypass (a regional transportation facility) has not been funded or programmed into the City of Temecula CIP or the TUMF program, it has not been Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -44 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures incorporated into the ultimate circulation system expected to be in place at build -out of the proposed project. Analysis of the year 2025 traffic conditions, including the Eastern Bypass, and discussed in Section 3.3.10, and show that all area intersections and segments will operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025, with the exception of the following: • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) Based upon this analysis, cumulative traffic impacts can be considered temporary until such time as the Eastern Bypass is built and operational. Once the Eastern Bypass project is constructed, levels of service along all project impacted roadway segments and intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the above outlined segments, which are slightly over the significance threshold. The projects I improvements listed in Table 3.3 -15 are already planned separate from the proposed project. If these projects / improvements listed in Table 3.3 -15 are completed by others, the project's fee payments will addresses its own impacts. If however, the improvements are not completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, and could get reimbursed for a portion of the costs, thus ensuring that the improvements will be in place prior to the hospital opening up. It may be noted that: • As compared to the existing transportation system, the proposed project will have the impacts identified above. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -45 3.3 Traffic • There are a series of planned improvements that will be completed by others in the next few years (Table 3.3 -15). • With completion of all of these improvements (and the project specific improvements as discussed for access points to the hospital site — i.e. the project specific impact mitigations), the project's impacts will be less than significant, the project is still obligated to pay its DIF and TUMF fees in order to pay its fair share of the improvement costs (which are in effect being fronted by DIF and TUMF). In the event these improvements are not completed before the hospital opens (except for the interchange, which must be substantially underway), there is a potentially significant impact. That residual impact is mitigated by requiring the hospital to complete the improvements before receiving a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City. Direct Impacts The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be substantially under construction prior to issuance of any encroachment permit for project access to Highway 79 South or De Portola Road. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Traffic Improvement 1. Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road 2. Route 79 South Re- striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway 3. Route 79 South Median Construction — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road 4. Route 79 South at Butterfield Stage Road — Intersection Modification a 5. Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements 6. Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway — Intersection Improvements — Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south 7. Route 79 South /Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road 8. Route 79 South /Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road — Fiber optics 9. Route 79 South CCTV Traffic Monitoring System 10. Pechanga Parkway Improvements Between Pechanga Parkway Bridge and Via Eduardo 11. Eastern By -Pass (Future) Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 3.3 -15 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT MITIGATION MEASURE SUMMARY Completed Design Approved Construct 2007 - 2008 In Design Construct 2007 - 2008 Completed by Private Development In Design Construct in 2011 In Design Construct in 2007 - 2008 In Design Construct 2007 -2008 In Design Construct 2007 -2008 In Design, Construct in 2010 - 2011 In Design — Construct 2007 - 2001 In Planning Current Status Funding Source / Status CIP Reference Assessment District 159 DIF DIF- $161,250 DIF - $190,000 Private Developer CDF (Crown Hill) - $502,210 CFD (Morgan Hill) - $1,190,582 SB 621 Funding - $$14,960.925 SAFTEA -LU - $1,600,000 TU M F — 6,000,000 Total Cost - $22,560,925 SB 612 Funding - $425,000 DIF — Traffic Signals 210 -165 -712 Portion of $2,575,000 DIF — Traffic Signals - $345,000 210- 165 -712 SB 621 - $395,000 210 - 165 -635 DIF Fees, CFD — Wolf Creek 210 - 1650668 Public Lands and Highways Program Pechanga Tribe Contribution Rancho California Water District $47,500,000 — Preliminary Estimate N/A Footnotes: a. These improvements have been completed and are assumed as the existing conditions and are not part of the recommended mitigation measures. SOURCE: City of Temecula 3.3 -46 Not a Part of CIP 210- 165 -676 210- 165 -622 Not a Part of CIP 210- 165 -662 210 - 165 -637 Completed CIP -1 CIP - Completed CIP - 1 CIP -1 CIP — I CIP- I CIP- I CIP -1 Priority Will reduce cumulative traffic impacts when constructed ESA/D207434 January 2008 Mitigation Measures 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road ". The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Site Access and On - Site Circulation In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1, the project proposes three access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2: • Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 791 Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T- intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right -turn lane on SR 79, o Dual eastbound left -turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left -turn lanes and a shared through/ right -turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. • Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right -out only access. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right -in / right -out and left -in only access. Left -turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40 -foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -47 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3 -15). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3 -15 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired.. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed above, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • State Route 79 South Widening — Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from 2 lanes to 6 lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one -story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six -story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3, and 3.3 -4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -48 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic mechanisms to the hospital if in fact the improvements are not completed by before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3: SR 79 / I -15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -4: SR 79 / I -15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled "Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange" (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City's issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4, require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled "Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway ", which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled "State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway — Dual Right - Turn Lanes ", which will add a second eastbound right -turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -49 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -7: SR 791 Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 791 Avenida De Missiones; SR 791 Country Glen Way; SR 791 Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled "SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination — Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road" shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Segments SR 79 West of I -15 The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3 -3 and 3.3 -4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. SR 79 between I -15 and Pechanga Parkway The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3 -5 and 3.3 -6 will also mitigate this impact. Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3 -7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007 -2011 entitled "Pechanga Parkway Improvements — Phase II" — Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -50 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Mitigation Measure 3.3 -9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less- than - significant level, essentially "eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening" the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less- than- significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3 -16 and 3.3 -17 respectively. As seen in Tables 3.3 -16 and 3.3 -17, all of the identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Route 79 South /I -15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Route 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3 -51 ESA! D207434 January 2008 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix N of the LLG study) contains the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects analysis with the implementation of all mitigation measures. Intersection 1. Highway 79 /1-15 SB Ramps 2. Highway 79 / 1 -15 NB Ramps 3. Highway79 /La Paz St 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy TABLE 3.3 -16 EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Control Peak Type Hour Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Footnotes: a. Mitigation does not include the planned Eastern By -Pass. b. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle c. Level of service SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3 -52 Without Mitigation With Mitigation a Delay' LOS` Delay LOS` AM 121.9 F 84.5 F PM 224.3 F 160.9 F AM 80.9 F 19.0 B PM 298.2 F 70.4 E AM 163.6 F 40.7 D PM 318.5 F 86.9 F AM 125.0 F 112.5 F PM 517.2 F 365.6 F PM 123.5 F 75.3 E PM 95.0 F 60.6 E AM 77.3 E 15.7 B PM 244.6 F 131.5 F AM 178.0 F 142.5 F PM 264.0 F 212.5 F ESA / D207434 January 2008 Segment TABLE 3.3 -17 ENTIRE PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS - WITH MITIGATION Existing LOS E Roadway Class a Capacity b SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. Without Mitigation VoI ° V/C d LOS e Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3 -53 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Mitigated LOS E Roadway Class a Capacity b 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 3.3 Traffic VoI V /C LOS Highway 79 f West of 1 -15 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 32,490 0.953 E I -15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 123,340 2.288 F 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 123,340 1.718 F Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 82,480 1.530 F Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 59,880 1.111 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 59,880 1.111 F Pechanga Parkway South of Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 34,100 70,010 2.053 F 6 -Ln Urban Art 53,900 70,010 1.299 F Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway De Portola Rd to Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 37,690 1.050 F 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 37,690 1.050 F South of Hwy 79 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F 4 -Ln Major Art 35,900 38,540 1.074 F Footnotes: a. Roadway classification assumed based on existing cross - sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level; of Service. f. One CIP project plans to re- stripe the segment from 1 -15 to Pechanga Parkway from the current Six -Lane Principal Arterial to an Eight -Lane Urban Arterial. However, a second CIP project includes the installation of equipment to provide signal coordination from West of 1 -15 to Margarita Road. While it is not possible to quantify the benefit to the segment operations, all intersections in this corridor are calculated to operate a lower delays than prior to coordination. The roadway capacity is a City standard. ESA/D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR and evaluates a newly identified alternative site. 4.1 Approach to Analysis Additional alternatives or alternative site analysis was not mandated by the Superior Court judgment or Writ of Mandate, however, between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Denoy Parkway could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City ofMurrieta to the northwest. 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following discussion summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[f]). The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following: • Short-term, long -term and cumulative air quality impacts; • Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights; sirens and construction; and • Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -1 ESA / D207434 January 2008 The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR: Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on the following project objectives: City Objectives: The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state -of -the -art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high - quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -2 4. Project Alternatives ESA! D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives • 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. 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section 15126.6 (2)). Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City as an education complex, including an education center, a research and development /conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4 -1. The Temecula Education center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. This alternative site, similar to the proposed project site, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -3 ESA! D207434 January 2008 SOURCE: RBF Consulting Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 4.1 Alternative Site 4. Project Alternatives Aesthetics This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban /rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park development, surface mining and the Santa Rosa estate residential and agricultural area to the west. There is commercial development to the east along Jefferson Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City and wastewater effluent ponds to the north within the City of Murrieta. As with the proposed project, Alternative 7 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of five and six stories. Given the low- intensity development on surrounding properties in the City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments. The development could be considered intrusive at this location. Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655). There are no scenic highways in the project vicinity and there are none designated as a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. Views of the Santa Rosa Plateau, a prominent regional visual feature throughout the region could be obstructed by the proposed project from proximal vantage points. Given the visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could have the potential to result in significant aesthetic impacts. Agricultural Resources The project site is not located within any identified agricultural general plan designation or zoning and the site is not identified in the City's General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, Alternative 7 would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality The proposed project will result in emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO„ ), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 7 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would remain at 224 lbs /day, and NO„ emissions would remain at 216 lbs /day (due largely to the application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 7 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 lbs /day and a total of 1,144 lbs /day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -5 ESA! D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Biological Resources The project site has been previously graded as part of the surrounding business park and the site is devoid of any vegetation and/or habitat value. As required by the Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), a burrowing owl survey would be necessary to verify the presence /absence of burrowing owls and to determine if mitigation is required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. The Riverside County MSHCP des not identify the project site as being included within any criteria cells. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar insignificant impacts to biological resources as the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 7 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. The sites location adjacent to Murrieta Creek could subject the area to flooding during 100 -year storm events. Under Alternative 7, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Hazards This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban /rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Unlike the proposed site, there are no existing gasoline service stations located in the immediate vicinity. As such, the potential impacts to soil or groundwater from USTs is not likely to occur at this alternative location. Therefore, the opportunity for VOCs or MTBE to leak into the environment at this alternative site from gasoline service stations or USTs would likely not exist. Impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project Land Use and Planning The existing General Plan Land Use designation for Alternative 7 is Public Institutional Facility and surrounding areas within the City of Temecula are designated Industrial Park. Existing site zoning is Planned Development Overlay —PDO -10. Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, a CUP would be required for the 320 -bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the site for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change. As previously mentioned, this alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park and open space land uses. As described above in Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -6 ESA! D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given the urban /rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low -scale nature of surrounding residential development. Therefore, Alternative 7 has the potential to result in increased adverse land use compatibility impacts. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 7 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, and could result in a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods than the flight paths associated with the project. Estate residential land uses to the west in the Santa Rosa Plateau area would be impacted by flight operations. Therefore, this alternative could have a reduced noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the location of single - family homes in the surrounding area to the west. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially less than those associated with the project. Transportation Under Alternative 7, project trip generation would be greater as that associated with the proposed project. LLG Engineers conducted a Build -out (Year 2025) segment analysis of roadways potentially impacted by Alternative 7 (refer to Appendix D). The build -out segment volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. All planned network (CIP) improvements are assumed to be implemented and the City street network is assumed to be built to the planned Circulation Element Classification. The proposed Alternative 7 was added to these segments and the build -out plus project traffic volumes were determined. Table 4 -1 summarizes the without and with project Build -out segment volumes. As seen in Table 4 -1, the segment of Winchester Road from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue is calculated to operate at LOS F with Alternative 7. The segment of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Avenue and Overland Drive is calculated to operate at LOS F, both without and with Alternative 7 traffic. These would represent significant impacts requiring mitigation. Conclusion Alternative 7 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -7 ESA! D207434 January 2008 NOTES: SOURCE: LLG, 2007. Segment a. City of Temecula Roadway Classification b. Riverside County Roadway Capacity c. City of Temecula General Plan Update, Circulation Element Traffic Study d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TABLE 4 -1 ALTERNATIVE 7 BUILD -OUT SEGMENT OPERATIONS Existing Roadway Class a LOS E Capacity b 4 -8 Build -out Without Project Build -out With Project Volume ° V/C d LOS e Volume ° V/C ° LOS e 4. Project Alternatives V/C Winchester Road Diaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 29,000 0.850 D 40,140 1.177 F 0.327 Jefferson Ave to 1 -15 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 45,000 0.627 B 55,540 0.774 C 0.147 Rancho California Road Diaz Rd to Jefferson Ave 6 -Ln Urban Rd 53,900 18,000 0.334 A 18,360 0.341 A 0.007 Jefferson Ave to 1 -15 8 -Ln Urban Art 71,800 39,000 0.543 A 39,970 0.557 A 0.014 Jefferson Ave North of Winchester Rd 6 -Ln Principal Art 53,900 26,000 0.482 A 26,610 0.494 A 0.011 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 38,000 1.114 F 38,610 1.132 F 0.018 Overland Dr to Rancho California Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 28,000 0.821 D 28,610 0.839 D 0.018 Diaz Road North of Winchester Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 15,000 0.440 A 26,500 0.777 C 0.337 Winchester Rd to Overland Dr 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 23,000 0.674 B 23,360 0.685 B 0.011 Overland Dr to Rancho California Rd 4 -Ln Major Rd 34,100 11,000 0.323 A 11,360 0.333 A 0.011 ESA/D207434 January 2008 4. Project Alternatives Table 4 -2 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4 -9 ESA! D207434 January 2008 Impact Category Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities and Service Systems Meets all objectives of the project? Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided No SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2007. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2: No Project — Development Under Current General Plan Redu ced Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar No TABLE 4 -2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Alternative 3: Alternate Site Corona Family Properties Greater Greater Similar Undetermined Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Yes 4 -10 Alternative 4: Alternative 5: Alternative 6: Access from Dartolo Road Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Construction of the Hospital Only Similar Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Greater Greater Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Yes Yes No 4. Project Alternatives Alternative 7: Alternative Site Temecula Education Center Greater Reduced Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Reduced Similar Similar Similar Greater Similar Yes ESA /D207434 January 2008 CHAPTER 5 Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5.1 Acronyms µ.g/L micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above - ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -1 ESA! D207434 January 2008 dBA A- weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day /Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers L energy- equivalent noise level L day -night average noise level LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA's National Priorities List RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -2 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers ESA! D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank v/c volume -to- capacity VOC volatile organic compounds 5.2 References California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http: / /www. dot. ca. gov /hq /LandArch/scenic_highways /, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data /Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -3 ESA! D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. — Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http : / /www.epa.gov /mtbe /water.htm, March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. 5.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency - City of Temecula Shawn Nelson, City Manager Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Bill Hughes, Public Works Director Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner Steve Brown, Principal Planner Emery Papp, Senior Planner Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradl Sc ott Crane Tim Rielly Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -4 ESA! D207434 January 2008 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers ( Subsurface /Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional /Geologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Rebecca Skaggs, Associate Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Lisa Bautista, Document Manager Melissa Gross, Document Manager Eugene Williams, Word Processor Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5 -5 ESA! D207434 January 2008 r ESA Appendix A \otice of Preparation of Supplemental Environments mpact Report Appendix B Responses to \otice of Preparation Appendix C Soil Vapor Survey Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis Update Appendix E \oise Impact Analysis Update Appendix F Scoping Session Speaker Slips Appendix G Response to Comments Appendix H Vitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: PA10 -0194 Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07 -0200) for the Temecula Regional Hospital to change the phasing of the project, 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 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), and addendum to the previously adopted Supplemental EIR for the project was prepared for this modification application. Stuart Fisk, (951) 506 -5159 City of Temecula, Council Chambers (At the new Civic Center in Old Town, located at 41000 Main Street) December 15, 2010 6:00 p.m. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the hearing. Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission, 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 City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at (951) 506 -5159.