Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
072815 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JULY 28, 2015 – 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Conference pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiations for the sale of portions of the following real properties needed for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Murrieta Creek Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project: (1) A portion of the real property owned by the City of Temecula. The subject real property is improved with the South Side Parking Lot, south side and is identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Number 922-073-024. The property has a frontage on Murrieta Creek. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and (2) A portion of the real property owned by the City of Temecula. The subject real property is improved with the South Side Parking Lot, north side and is identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Number 922-046-025. The property has a frontage on Murrieta Creek. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The City negotiators for each of these parcels are Tom Garcia and Amer Attar. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale for each of the parcels. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: The People of the State of California and City of Temecula v. Cooperative Patient Services, et. al., Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC 1103777 Next in Order: Ordinance: 15-09 Resolution: 15-42 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: Temecula Valley Conservatory of Music Trio: Samuel Bondoc, Joshua Bondoc and Meijke Balay-Mickelson Invocation: Pastor Zachary Elliott of Fusion Christian Church Flag Salute: Council Member Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of July 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of July 16, 2015. 2 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. 5 Adopt Ordinance No. 15-06 Amending the Temecula Municipal Code to Allow Government Crime Insurance Policies in Place of Corporate Surety Bonds for City Officials (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING FOUR PROVISIONS OF TITLE 2 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE OBTAINING GOVERNMENT CRIME INSURANCE IN PLACE OF SURETY BONDS FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, FINANCE DIRECTOR AND CITY TREASURER 6 Adopt Ordinance 15-07 Repealing Chapter 5.06, Lawful Hiring Compliance (E -Verify), of the Temecula Municipal Code (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE 15-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING CHAPTER 5.06, LAWFUL HIRING COMPLIANCE (E -VERIFY), OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.04.280 AND 5.04.300 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 5.06 3 7 Adopt Ordinance 15-08 to Add Section 15.04.100 to the Temecula Municipal Code to Provide an Expedited, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems (Second Reading) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE 15-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 15.04.100 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS 8 Approve an Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve a five-year Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services. This agreement provides required services to both the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The City's portion over the five-year period is $204,461.32 and TCSD's portion is $211,382.70, for a total agreement amount of $415,844.02, in accordance with Exhibit B. 9 Approve the Purchase of Two BMW Police Motorcycles RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council approve the purchase of two BMW Police Motorcycles, for a total amount of $56,257.56, from BMW Motorcycles of Escondido. 10 Approve a Three -Year Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the City Council approve the Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, in the amount of $135,000 annually for three years for a total amount of $405,000, beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18. 11 Approve a Three -Year Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 4 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve the Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, in the amount of $50,000 annually for three years, for a total amount of $150,000, beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18, for publication and distribution of the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map and for film commission services. 12 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the amount of $25,000, for a total agreement amount of $149,000, for the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update. 13 Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm Drain Rehabilitation Proiect, PW12-14 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project, PW12-14; 13.2 Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. 14 Approve Parcel Map 36336 (Located West of Ynez Road, East of Interstate -15, North and South of Date Street) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve Parcel Map 36336 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 14.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monumentation Bond as security for the agreement. 15 Receive Temporary Street Closure for Saturday Night Movie Classics Special Event During the Month of August 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the Saturday Night Movie Classics Special Event. 5 16 Approve the Application for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 Funding through the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance for Signalization Improvements Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) CYCLE 7 FUNDS THROUGH THE CALTRANS DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 6 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 15-01 Resolution: CSD 15-06 CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 17 Approve the Action Minutes of July 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 16, 2015. 18 Approve an Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 That the Board of Directors approve a five-year Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services. This agreement provides required services to both the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The City's portion over the five-year period is $204,461.32 and TCSD's portion is $211,382.70 for a total agreement amount of $415,844.02, in accordance with Exhibit B. 7 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: TPFA 15-01 Resolution: TPFA 15-06 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerhcero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 19 Approve the Action Minutes of July 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 16, 2015. TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 9 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 20 Approve Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NON -HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) 20.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 10 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) 21 Adopt Weed Abatement Lien Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014-15 RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Receive Report and Provide Direction Regarding Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Workshop Community Outreach Project RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Receive presentation and provide additional direction as needed; 22.2 Authorize City Manager to engage consultant and/or experts in subject area to design and conduct community outreach efforts; 22.3 Designate subcommittee of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to provide general project guidance to staff. 11 23 Introduce an Ordinance Extending the Term of Active Development Plans Approved Prior to July 1, 2015 (At the Request of Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Adopt by a 4/5 vote the Interim Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER CERTAIN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO DECEMBER 1, 2015 TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF A PERMANENT EXTENSION ORDINANCE; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3) 23.2 Direct Staff to continue developing an ordinance extending the term of active development plans and present the ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in public hearings. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 24 City Council Travel/Conference Report - June 2015 25 Community Development Department Monthly Report 26 Police Department Monthly Report 27 Public Works Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 12 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 13 COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JULY 16, 2015-7:00 PM 6:30 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: Labor Negotiations. The City Council will meet in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are: City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Greg Butler, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, and Sr. Human Resources Analyst Isaac Garibay. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911. At 6:30 P.M. Mayor Comerchero called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:02 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Jeff Comerchero Prelude Music: John Shaw Invocation: Sylvester Scott of The Baha'is Community of Temecula Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Naggar ROLL CALL: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificates of Achievement to Abby Reinke Elementary School 2015 Odyssey of the Mind California State Champions PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individual addressed the City Council: • Jennifer Smith CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Action Minutes 071615 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of June 23, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of June 23, 2015. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2015. Action Minutes 071615 2 5 Approve the Establishment of the "Temecula Major Crimes Reward Fund" (At the Request of Mayor Jeff Comerchero) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. 6 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the creation of the Temecula Major Crimes Reward Fund; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE TEMECULA MAJOR CRIME REWARD FUND AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 15-37 AND 13-25 Approve Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Between the City and TecGolf Partners, LLP, for the Potential Disposition of City -Owned Property Located at the Northwest Corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway (APN: 909-370-049 & 909-370-050) - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2, Council Members Comerchero and Naggar abstained) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken and Rahn with Council Members Comerchero and Naggar abstaining. Negotiator for Tec©Golf Partners, LLP is Wil Cucuta of Rancon Real Estate, Inc. as agent for Tec©Golf Partners, LLP. Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tem Naggar have no ownership interests in Rancon Real Estate, Inc., nor is it a source of income to them, they did not participate in this matter and abstained because as it may be an otherwise related entity to limited liability companies in which each does have an economic interest. The matter was on the Consent Calendar and was not pulled for discussion. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City and TecGolf Partners, LLP (TecGolf) for the potential purchase and sale or ground lease of the City -owned Diaz Road property (APN: 909-370- 049 & 909-370-050) (Subject Property). 7 Accept the Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the French Valley Parkway Interchange — Phase I, PW07-04 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. Action Minutes 071615 3 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Accept the construction of the French Valley Parkway / Interstate 15 Over - crossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I, PW07-04, as complete; 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, and release the Performance Bond; 7.3 Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 8 Approve a Resolution to Adopt the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPPER SANTA MARGARITA WATERSHED 2014 INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 9 Approve Professional Services Agreements for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services Required by the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Division, for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve an Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services with Dokken Engineering, in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16; 9.2 Approve an Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services with RBF Consulting, a Michael Baker International Company, in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16; 9.3 Approve an Agreement for Engineering, Survey, and Environmental Services with David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA), in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16. Action Minutes 071615 4 10 Approve Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services Required by the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Division, for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve an Agreement for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services with Leighton Consulting, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16; 10.2 Approve an Agreement for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services with Geocon West, Inc., in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16; 10.3 Approve an Agreement for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services with Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE), in the amount of $100,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 11 Approve Professional Services Agreements for Property Acquisition Services Required by the Department of Public Works, Capital Improvement Division, for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve an Agreement for Property Acquisition Services with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., in the amount of $60,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16; 11.2 Approve an Agreement for Property Acquisition Services with Paragon Partners Ltd., in the amount of $60,000, for various Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-16. 12 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with KRW & Associates for Engineering Plan Check, Map and Legal Description Review for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with KRW & Associates, in the amount of $20,000, for engineering plan check, map and legal description review for Fiscal Year 2015-16. Action Minutes 071615 5 13 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title, for Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2015-16 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Chicago Title, in the amount of $30,000, to provide annual Title and Escrow Services for Fiscal Year 2015-16. RECESS At 7:43 P.M., the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting, Temecula Housing Authority Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:52 P.M., the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 19 Appoint Member to the Planning Commission and Authorize Recruitment for Public/Traffic Safety Commission As Necessary - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 That the City Council appoint Gary Youmans to the Planning Commission and authorize the recruitment for the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, as necessary. 20 Introduce an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 5.06, Lawful Hiring Compliance (E -Verify), of the Temecula Municipal Code - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member McCracken; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING CHAPTER 5.06, LAWFUL HIRING COMPLIANCE (E -VERIFY), OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE Assistant City Attorney Lee read by title only Ordinance No. 15-07. Action Minutes 071615 6 21 Introduce an Ordinance to Add Section 15.04.100 to the Temecula Municipal Code to Provide an Expedited, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Council Members Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Comerchero. RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 15.04.100 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS Assistant City Attorney Lee read by title only Ordinance No. 15-08. Wayne Hall addressed the City Council on this item. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Assistant City Attorney Lee advised there were no reportable actions under the Brown Act and direction was given to staff. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 071615 7 Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $ 6,461,454.52. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 07/01/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 2,092,907.69 07/09/2015 TOTAL CHECK RUN 3,880,323.38 07/02/2015 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 488,223.45 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 07/28/2015 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 6,461,454.52 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 5,261,432.94 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 859.96 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 1,341.49 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1,822.19 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 301,902.75 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 121.78 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,050.43 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 33,423.81 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 11,917.64 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 44,247.31 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 5,616.00 300 INSURANCE FUND 19,219.53 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 46,853.33 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 20,947.64 340 FACILITIES 50,794.87 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 261.76 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 4,186.45 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 4,236.68 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 14,807.87 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 4,618.40 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 630.38 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 2,679.92 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 3,617.75 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 1,783.26 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 11,410.25 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 129.53 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 573.42 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 104.17 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 6,706.48 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 2,329.79 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 1,017.78 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 1,008.96 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 1,705.47 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 173.85 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 8,607.62 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 8,354.84 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 23,559.16 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 22,345.47 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 357.15 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 532.59 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 12,964.10 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 3,493.47 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 132.76 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 634.08 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 22,418.41 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 197.58 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 6,100.00 $ 5,973,231.07 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 265,040.26 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 2,203.47 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2,556.85 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 134,547.64 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 245.97 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,390.38 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 445.13 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 866.59 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,355.52 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 24,013.45 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 6,249.42 340 FACILITIES 10,470.96 375 INTERN FELLOWSHIP FUND 1,775.79 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 87.53 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 58.65 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 69.53 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 12.72 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 141.09 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 25.49 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 36.19 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 239.51 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.44 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 10.85 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 7.41 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 159.89 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 34.08 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 19.74 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 17.29 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 39.82 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 3.42 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 148.17 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 79.17 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 214.86 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 363.49 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 8.71 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 9.49 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 204.40 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 65.85 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 3.00 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 9.49 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 301.36 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 3.99 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 32,684.39 488,223.45 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 6,461,454.52 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 2730 06/30/2015 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY 2732 07/02/2015 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT 2733 07/02/2015 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN 303355 2734 07/02/2015 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) Description Amount Paid Check Total Escrow:31991 roripaugh valley rd 5,616.00 5,616.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 965.99 965.99 I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 6,389.95 6,389.95 PAYMENT STATE DISABILITY INS PAYMENT 24,060.29 24,060.29 2735 07/02/2015 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 86,513.76 86,513.76 2736 07/02/2015 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 5,029.58 5,029.58 SOLUTION PAYMENT 2737 07/02/2015 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 13,829.67 13,829.67 SOLUTION 2739 07/02/2015 017429 COBRA ADVANTAGE INC. REIMBURSEMENT FSA PAYMENT 6,355.98 6,355.98 171741 07/01/2015 007186 AB MAILING SOLUTIONS Postage & Handling: Theater brochure 1,440.00 1,440.00 171742 07/01/2015 000733 ABBEY PARTY RENTS Tables & chairs rental:HR 629.14 629.14 171743 07/01/2015 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Jul 15 Employee assistance prgm 668.80 668.80 LLC 171744 07/01/2015 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW backflow testing:civic center & jrc 175.00 175.00 171745 07/01/2015 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO Jun 15 water system svcs:jrc Jun water system svcs: police dept Jun 15 water system svcs:senior center Jun 15 water system svcs:civic center 171746 07/01/2015 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 5/17-6/16 drinking water: tes pool 171747 07/01/2015 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 171748 07/01/2015 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 27.00 27.00 33.48 176.04 263.52 40.43 40.43 1,785.00 1,190.00 2,975.00 Temecula Library: Misc. collections. 10.20 Temecula Library: Misc. collections. 103.32 113.52 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171749 07/01/2015 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC Description Amount Paid Check Total SOFTBALL AWARDS:SPORTS PGRM 742.89 Shirts:USTA Tennis Tournament/awards 1,572.48 HR Bags for New Hires and Wellness Fair 171750 07/01/2015 010903 BARNETT, BEA reimbursement for travel expenses 171751 07/01/2015 013482 BAS SECURITY Jun Security srvcs:Harveston Lake Park 171752 07/01/2015 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES Drug & alcohol analysis:temecula police Drug & alcohol analysis:temecula police Drug & alcohol analysis:temecula police 537.36 2,852.73 165.10 165.10 1,432.00 1,432.00 864.54 680.00 1,348.94 2,893.48 171753 07/01/2015 017973 BUSINESS CENTER CENTRAL, patches for safe driver program 86.38 86.38 LLC 171754 07/01/2015 003138 CAL MAT asphalt supplies:pw maint. div 338.50 338.50 171755 07/01/2015 004073 CALIF DEPT OF HIGHWAY 7/8-11/4/13 add'I traffic cntrl svcs: fv 4,050.90 4,050.90 PATROL 171756 07/01/2015 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY Feb '15 Claim adjuster services 498.68 INC Jan 15 Claim adjuster services 1,333.36 1,832.04 171757 07/01/2015 004462 CDW, LLC MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:INFO 940.00 TECHNOLOGY MISC SUPPLIES:INFO TECH 418.39 1,358.39 171758 07/01/2015 014726 CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE PAYROLL DEDUCTION 205.85 205.85 TRUSTEE PAYMENT 171759 07/01/2015 018060 CISNEROS, TONY refund:bal adj for viol. dismissal 10.00 10.00 171760 07/01/2015 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES PAYMENT 171761 07/01/2015 002756 COMPLETE EMBROIDERY Police bike shirts -embroidered 2 97.20 97.20 DESIGNS 171762 07/01/2015 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. 171763 07/01/2015 013379 COSSOU, CELINE misc electrical supplies: var park sites 239.76 MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:VAR FACIL misc electrical supplies: theater MISC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:OLD TOM 142.56 91.80 748.44 1,222.56 TCSD Instructor Earnings 756.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 756.00 1,512.00 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171764 07/01/2015 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 171765 07/01/2015 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 171766 07/01/2015 017862 CRESTLINE SPECIALITIES, Description Amount Paid Check Total PROGRAM SUPPLIES:CULTURALARTS 458.98 PROGRAM SUPPLIES:CULTURALARTS 356.40 815.38 emerg plumbing repair: rrsp snackbar 185.00 185.00 Promotional items:Human Services 3,957.34 3,957.34 INC. events 171767 07/01/2015 016783 DAUBLE, MICHELLE 171768 07/01/2015 012614 DBX, INC. 171769 07/01/2015 018073 DELA CRUZ, ANGELA 171770 07/01/2015 010461 DEMCO INC 171771 07/01/2015 018071 DIANGELO, WILLIAM 171772 07/01/2015 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS refund:balance on acct:tcsd 20.00 20.00 p/e 6/17 Portable flashing 3,812.00 3,812.00 refund:sec dep:rm rental:MPSC 200.00 200.00 Supplies & Equipment:TPL 4,719.20 4,719.20 refund:returned lost materials:library 19.95 19.95 Fuel for City vehicles:pw traffic 278.92 Fuel for City vehicles: pw traffic Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles:pw Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles:tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles: pw Fuel for City vehicles: bldg inspectors Fuel for City vehicles: code enforcement Fuel for City vehicles:bldg inspectors 245.95 629.65 928.63 934.79 1,148.87 452.05 443.04 276.53 115.18 112.86 379.20 247.98 347.50 6,541.15 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171773 07/01/2015 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, TCSD Instructor Earnings 245.00 AILEEN 171774 07/01/2015 011202 EMH SPORTS USA, INC 171776 07/01/2015 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings May Idscp maint:varparks:trails:medians: MAY LDSCP MAINT:VARPARKS:TRAILS:M install irrig controlers:vailranch slope upgrade irrig sys:rancho highland slope May Idscp maint srvcs: var north slopes MAY 15 LDSCP:VAR PARKS:TRAILS:MEDI overseeding turf:redhawk comm. dog park landscape rehabilitation:wolf crk slope Idscp improvements: sam hicks park replace controller : valentino May Idscp maint srvcs: var facilities May 15 Idscp maint srvcs: var south irrigation repair:villages slope 171777 07/01/2015 017432 EYEMED VISION CARE VISION PLAN PAYMENT 175.00 192.50 192.50 210.00 227.50 157.50 367.50 192.50 157.50 367.50 227.50 385.00 1,064.00 358.75 1,411.20 51,365.88 18,094.70 1,183.97 1,580.00 21,610.97 48, 525.10 517.50 6,324.00 1,080.00 863.74 9,993.13 34,844.87 362.16 2,712.50 3,218.95 196,346.02 850.62 850.62 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171778 07/01/2015 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 018075 DRI*EMCO SOFTWARE MH software for council chambers 99.00 018074 CARSTICKERS.COM IG custom vinyl lettering 45.50 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER IG '15 state of the city address 5/28 40.00 OF 015421 SURVEYMONKEY.COM IG subscription renewal charge 204.00 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC RO refreshments for city council: 5/12 193.61 000733 ABBEY PARTY RENTS RO council budget workshop: tablecloths 58.19 006692 SAM'S CLUB RO council budget workshop: refreshmnts 45.70 006692 SAM'S CLUB RO council budget workshop: refreshmnts 65.20 006952 PAY PAL KH Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 314.80 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 53.35 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 15.79 013338 APPLE STORE MH phone replacement: Hall, J. 79.00 016800 PEACHJAR INC KH flyer for Shrek the Musical 630.00 004438 DICK BLICK COMPANY INC KH program supplies 262.71 000488 KNOTTS BERRY FARM KH tickets for YAC year end excursion 730.00 004438 DICK BLICK COMPANY INC KH program supplies 75.01 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER KH '15 state of city address on 5/28 80.00 OF 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 33.63 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER KH '15 state of city address on 5/28 40.00 OF 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 7.51 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 19.99 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 29.44 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC KH misc collections: library 32.09 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER AA state of the city reservation 500.00 OF 008956 PANERA BREAD AA refreshments: city attorney mtg 5/26 87.33 015354 FACEBOOK.COM AA facebook promoting city government 5.98 017932 MENIFEE VALLEY CHAMBER AA registration state of the City: ME & 70.00 OF 006937 SOUTHWEST Al RLI NES ME Airfare:League of CA Cities conf 9/29 152.50 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 016886 MANDALAY BAY AA ICSC 2015 5/17/15-5/20/15:Kitzerow 332.64 018067 USEDCARDBOARDBOXES.COM KH supplies for movie in the park event 178.35 018068 LEVENGER KH items for children's museum 1,151.20 018076 PIZZERIA DE MILANO MH refreshments: it staff meeting 6/3 66.70 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES ME registration: annual conf 9/29-10/2 500.00 006692 SAM'S CLUB MH popcorn kit for team pace 56.24 001048 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURANT RO refreshments for city council: 5/26 129.45 004440 UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS INC RO acid free boxes for permanent 135.60 018077 THIRD STREET SMOKEHOUSE AA refreshments for mtg: TVUSD 5/11 29.54 018078 ALI EXPRESS.COM AA supplies for State of the City 138.76 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING IG recruitment advertising: Comm 250.00 ASSOCIATION 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES AA regist: League of CA Cities 9/30 500.00 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES AA regist: League of CA Cities 9/30 Rahn 500.00 006937 SOUTHWEST AI RLI NES AA airfare:League of CA Cities 9/30 152.50 006937 SOUTHWEST AI RLI NES AA airfare:league of ca cities conf 9/29 152.50 015212 1 PARTY SUPPLIES AA supplies: 4th of July float 262.97 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES AA supplies: 4th of July float 184.94 INC 006094 MORENO VALLEY, CITY OF 005334 RIVERSIDE CO FACILITIES MGMT MM regis: Round the Flag Event 6/12 35.00 TG attendance of water board mtg 5/18 8.00 014163 JUAN POLLO TG refreshments: '15 pw week luncheon 192.77 014163 JUAN POLLO TG refreshments: '15 pw week luncheon 39.95 015268 DISPLAYS2GO TG items returned -75.23 013338 APPLE STORE MH ipad replacement: Adams, A. 49.00 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC MH 6' kyocera duraXT battery 32.64 008956 PANERA BREAD MH credit for billing error -32.36 000609 DOUBLETREE HOTEL MH to reverse charges for: Ross, T. -19.43 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 MH popcorn machine for team pace 237.59 000609 DOUBLETREE HOTEL MH to reverse a charge in error -692.52 016995 MC-GRAW HILL JH engineering news record 9.95 CONSTRUCTION Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES INC Description Amount Paid Check Total JH supplies needed for fire dept 138.18 012818 PLANETBIDS INC JH planetBids training:vollmuth/robinson 596.00 006952 PAY PAL JH Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction 52.00 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC MH appointment plus:IT 40.00 013338 APPLE STORE MH apple care: info systems 99.00 013338 APPLE STORE MH replacement phone: Munoz, Mario 79.00 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER AV '15 state of city address on 5/28 160.00 OF 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING AV REGISTRATION: IES APA EVENT: 15.00 ASSOCIATION FISK, S. 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING AV REGISTRATION: IES APA EVENT: 15.00 ASSOCIATION PETERS, 015639 REZA CAFE AA city atty meeting: refreshments 5/12 84.78 017905 FIRST SOURCE LLC AA state of the city chocolates 252.26 016886 MANDALAY BAY AA ICSC 2015 5/17/15-5/20/15:Butler, G 332.64 015670 METALOGRAPHY, INC. AA SOTC prize for art competition 297.00 10,637.94 171779 07/01/2015 016327 FITZPATRICK, ROBERT refund:returned lost materials:library 15.00 15.00 171780 07/01/2015 011145 FOSTER, JILL CHRISTINE 171781 07/01/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 171782 07/01/2015 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 171783 07/01/2015 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT PAYMENT svcs fill maylar 1,862.00 102.90 1,964.90 350.00 350.00 150.00 150.00 450.00 450.00 171784 07/01/2015 014234 GEARS 2 ROBOTS, LLC TCSD instructor earnings 693.00 TCSD instructor earnings 539.00 1,232.00 171785 07/01/2015 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC Settlement:Classics...Merc Jun 2015 744.30 744.30 SOCIETY 171786 07/01/2015 011898 GONZALEZ, GUSTAVO ee computer purchasing program 1,932.21 1,932.21 171787 07/01/2015 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL copier lease: central svcs XXX5744 520.09 SVCS copier lease: central svcs XXX7596 copier lease: library XXX4679 289.44 788.41 1,597.94 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171788 07/01/2015 018070 HAWKINS, KEVIN ee computer purchasing program 171789 07/01/2015 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 171790 07/01/2015 013695 INLAND EMPIRE SHRED IT SHRED SRVCS:LIBRARY SHRED SRVCS:CRC 171791 07/01/2015 011228 INLAND PLANNING AND May 15 Design guidelines:Uptwn DESIGN INC Jefferson 171792 07/01/2015 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 171793 07/01/2015 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 171794 07/01/2015 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC 171795 07/01/2015 014692 JOHNSON, BARBARA KATHLEEN 171796 07/01/2015 004115 K T U &ASSOCIATES 171797 07/01/2015 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 171798 07/01/2015 009923 L SAASSOCIATES INC 171799 07/01/2015 003975 LAWRENCE, JEFF 171800 07/01/2015 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. Amount Paid Check Total 1,835.06 1,835.06 20.00 2,929.50 2,835.00 15.75 5,784.50 16.77 32.52 700.00 700.00 May Copier maint/repair & usage:citywide 10,324.02 plotter ink cartr & copier 1,438.50 May Copier maint/repair & usage:citywide 595.34 12, 357.86 swimming pool chemicals:var pool sites 597.29 597.29 JACOB'S HOUSE CHARITY PAYMENT 40.00 40.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 147.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 117.60 264.60 4/1-4/30 BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN 7,854.50 7,854.50 UPDATE Apr 15 Altair SP Fiscal Impact Analysis 8,052.50 8,052.50 p/e 5/31/15 Cnsltng srvcs:roripaugh El R 1,991.24 1,991.24 supplies for teen room in CRC 258.98 258.98 TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 171801 07/01/2015 018069 LEWIS, ROBERT summer day camp event: refreshments 171802 07/01/2015 013982 MCI COMM SERVICE 126.00 1,463.00 245.00 966.00 1,071.00 378.00 1,218.00 5,467.00 80.73 80.73 Jun xxx-0714 gen usage:PD mall alarm 34.06 Jun xxx-0346 general usage 31.11 65.17 Page8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171803 07/01/2015 016106 MANZO, CHRISTOBAL refreshments: 4th of July event 171804 07/01/2015 017427 MATCHETT, VIVIAN TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 171805 07/01/2015 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. Consulting srvcs:CSD special events 171806 07/01/2015 012213 METROPOLITAN WATER admin fees:easementacgAPNPW12-19 DISTRICT 171807 07/01/2015 012962 MILLER, MISTY 171808 07/01/2015 018012 MISS CATHY'S TINY TOTS TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings Amount Paid Check Total 300.00 300.00 400.40 291.20 691.60 256.31 256.31 6,000.00 6,000.00 420.00 252.00 115.50 220.50 294.00 294.00 294.00 787.50 1,102.50 171809 07/01/2015 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSD Instructor Earnings 173.60 173.60 ANN 171810 07/01/2015 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. 171811 07/01/2015 004522 MULLIGANS FAMILY FUN CENTER 171812 07/01/2015 009443 MUNYON, DENNIS G. 171813 07/01/2015 006087 NATURE WATCH 171814 07/01/2015 010167 ODYSSEY POWER CORPORATION 171815 07/01/2015 017230 OHANA BBQ RESTAURANT 171816 07/01/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE TCSD instructor earnings 773.50 TCSD instructor earnings 952.00 TCSD instructor earnings 91.00 TCSD instructor earnings 105.00 1,921.50 Teen Excursion:Summer Day Camp 299.80 299.80 Jul -Sept '15 lease pmt:O.T. Prkg Lot 2,875.00 2,875.00 Supplies/Crafts:Summer Explorer 249.03 249.03 UPS REPAIR & MAINTENANCE: 1,178.75 LIBRARY UPS REPAIR & MAINTENANCE: CIVIC CE 2,530.00 3,708.75 refreshments:SKIP event 253.74 253.74 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW LAND DEV City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Street Maint City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Street Maint CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW LAND DE 47.50 715.51 200.75 75.00 1,038.76 171817 07/01/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:Code Enf 394.07 394.07 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171818 07/01/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:TCSD 90.35 90.35 171819 07/01/2015 002185 POSTMASTER Postage - Theater Brochure 3,405.00 3,405.00 171820 07/01/2015 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES PAYMENT 349.80 349.80 INC 171821 07/01/2015 003155 PRICE CHOPPER INC Wrist bands:Skate Park programs 273.80 273.80 171822 07/01/2015 017431 PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COBRA- DENTAL PAYMENT 8,207.44 8,207.44 CO 171823 07/01/2015 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS Comedy @ The Merc 6/27/15 617.60 617.60 171824 07/01/2015 013725 PROCRAFT INC Door maintenance/repair: Sta 92 175.00 175.00 171825 07/01/2015 017886 PYRITZ PYROTECHNICS Balance due: Fireworks Show 17,500.00 17,500.00 GROUP, LLC 171826 07/01/2015 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC May dsgn srvcs:teen/young adult village 2,136.76 2,136.76 171827 07/01/2015 002176 RANCHO CALIF BUS PK ASSOC Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:diaz rd 1,694.28 Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:foc 1,536.03 Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:tve2 1,861.85 171828 07/01/2015 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER Jun var water meters:PW-Maint 226.06 DISTRICT 171829 07/01/2015 002654 RANCHO FORD LINCOLN MERCURY 171830 07/01/2015 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 171831 07/01/2015 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH 5,092.16 Jun comm meter:30875 Rancho vista 155.48 Jun var water meters:TCSD svc lev C 289.72 671.26 Fire vehicle maintenance: D10 1,853.29 1,853.29 Reprographic services: ymca prjt 21.01 21.01 City vehicles detailing srvcs:var. depts 21.00 City vehicles detailing srvcs:var. depts 52.50 City vehicles detailing srvcs:var. depts 73.50 City vehicles detailing srvcs:var. depts 31.50 171832 07/01/2015 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:ovrind prjt 249.03 PH2,3&4 Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:ovrind prjt Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:ovrind prjt Jul -Sept bus.park assn. dues:stn 73 198.38 177.27 510.71 178.50 1,135.39 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171833 07/01/2015 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR May '15 prkg citation assessments 1,589.00 1,589.00 171834 07/01/2015 010777 RIVERSIDE CO EXECUTIVE FY 14/15 SCFA misc reimb expenses 1,956.00 1,956.00 OFFICE 171835 07/01/2015 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE FPARC-TM, 232059, 14-15, Q3 1,365,579.86 1,365,579.86 DEPARTMENT 171836 07/01/2015 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS Explorer Academy July 26-31 9 explorers 1,875.00 1,875.00 DEPT 171837 07/01/2015 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF Jan -Mar '15 vector control srvcs 6,159.62 6,159.62 171838 07/01/2015 013827 RYAN MONTELEONE remove sand & silt: via lobo channel 20,000.00 20,000.00 EXCAVATION INC 171839 07/01/2015 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Misc craft supplies:Smr Day Camp 152.04 152.04 171840 07/01/2015 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE 7/6/15-7/5/16 subscr:PW 4754556 180.92 180.92 171841 07/01/2015 018072 SANCHEZ, LARRY refund:sec dep:rm rental:harveston 200.00 171842 07/01/2015 007930 SHAFTON INC 171843 07/01/2015 012129 SHAKESPEARE IN THE VINES 171844 07/01/2015 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - CENTRAL 171845 07/01/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 171846 07/01/2015 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 171847 07/01/2015 000645 SMART & FINAL INC refund:balance on account:tcsd 6.00 206.00 Sparky repair: Fire 45.90 45.90 Shakespeare...Vines:J.Ceasar 6/11-28 4,419.09 4,419.09 SUPPORT PAYMENT 254.69 254.69 Jazz @ the Merc 6/25/15 689.00 689.00 Banner Patches:Recycling Prgm 87.20 87.20 Rec supplies:CRC 291.21 291.21 Page:11 apChkLst 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 171848 07/01/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 171849 07/01/2015 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 171850 07/01/2015 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 171854 07/01/2015 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 171855 07/01/2015 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 171856 07/01/2015 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 171857 07/01/2015 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF INSTRUCTION 171858 07/01/2015 010924 T & D COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 171859 07/01/2015 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 171860 07/01/2015 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE C/O 171861 07/01/2015 008518 TEMECULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION 171862 07/01/2015 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LLC 171863 07/01/2015 017295 TEMECULA PIZZA FACTORY (Continued) Description Jun 2-34-624-4452:32131 S Loop rd lot Jun 2-35-164-3770:43487 Butterfield stg Jun 2-35-164-3663:42335 Meadows pkwy Jun 2-35-164-3515:32932 Leena way Jun 2-35-164-3242:44270 Meadows pkwy Jun 2-33-357-5785:44747 Redhawk pkwy Jun 2-28-331-4847:32805 Pauba Rd LS3 Jun 2-30-099-3847:29721 Ryecrest Jun 095-167-7907-2:30650 Pauba Rd pest control srvcs: var parks BASIC LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVIC TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings General cabling services:Library UNION DUES PAYMENT HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA92 TVUSD online registration fees MOTORCYCLE REPAI R/MAI NT:TEM. P. D. Refreshments:4th of July parade Amount Paid Check Total 915.70 29.99 27.91 27.91 29.04 31.21 90.25 27.52 176.28 70.00 8,142.44 920.14 341.42 9.74 385.00 280.00 315.00 350.00 308.00 560.00 560.00 596.80 5,172.00 243.35 75, 570.00 184.64 1,179.53 176.28 70.00 8,142.44 920.14 351.16 2,758.00 596.80 5,172.00 243.35 75, 570.00 184.64 247.25 247.25 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171864 07/01/2015 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY Jan -Mar bus benches placement & maint FOUND. 171865 07/01/2015 010493 TEMECULATOWNE CENTER Jul lease pmt: PD mall storefront ASSOC LP 171866 07/01/2015 009194 TEMECULA VALLEY NEWS MAY ADVERTISING: TEMECULA PRESENTS Amount Paid Check Total 2,512.50 2,512.50 1,458.33 1,458.33 257.76 257.76 171867 07/01/2015 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith srvcs:T.E.S. Pool 95.00 CENTR Locksmith srvcs: PW Parks Maint 38.88 133.88 171868 07/01/2015 000319 TOMARK SPORTS INC porter floor cover plates:crc gym 550.78 550.78 171869 07/01/2015 013474 TOWN & COUNTRY TOWING Towing srvcs-TE151470005:Police 120.00 120.00 171871 07/01/2015 017430 TRANSAMERICA LIFE TRANSAMERICAACCIDENTADVANTAG 2,553.40 2,553.40 INSURANCE CO PAYMENT 171872 07/01/2015 000325 UNITED WAY UNITED WAY CHARITIES PAYMENT 5.00 5.00 171873 07/01/2015 012549 UPODIUM Vehicle maintenance supplies: Sta 12 82.62 82.62 171874 07/01/2015 017579 US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG AND DOT 50.00 50.00 GROUP SCREENINGS 171875 07/01/2015 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. MISC RENTAL EQUIP:4TH OF JULY 894.50 894.50 PARADE 171876 07/01/2015 004261 VERIZON 171877 07/01/2015 004789 VERIZON Jun xxx-5072 general usage Jun xxx-2886 gen usage:harveston Jun xxx-0074 general usage 2,098.75 127.41 3,349.84 Jun Internet svcs:Library 184.99 Jun Internet svcs:senior center 171878 07/01/2015 018001 VETERANS OF FOREIGN refund:sec dep:rm rental:CRC WARS 5,576.00 144.99 329.98 200.00 200.00 171879 07/01/2015 001881 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS Pool supplies:Aquatics Prgm 503.20 503.20 INC 171880 07/01/2015 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC MISC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: CITY FACS & PAR Credit:janitorial supplies/Parks Maint 9,119.42 -328.55 8,790.87 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 14 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171881 07/01/2015 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC emerg tree trim & removal srvcs:var 832.50 tree maint srvcs:var parks & medians 5,257.00 tree maint srvcs:villages slope 236.25 tree maint srvcs:var parks & medians 3,598.00 tree maint srvcs:winchester crk slope 5,313.00 tree maint srvcs:harveston slope 1,062.00 tree maint srvcs:wolf creek slope 202.50 tree maint srvcs:winchester crk slope 6,265.00 tree maint srvcs:crowne hill slope 11,835.50 Tree trimming services:Sta 84 1,325.00 tree maint srvcs:harveston slope 138.00 emerg tree trim & removal srvcs:var 5,259.00 tree maint srvcs:villages slope 101.25 tree maint srvc:woodcrest country slope 1,113.75 tree maint srvcs:vail ranch slope 2,902.50 45,441.25 171882 07/01/2015 000348 ZIG LER, GAI L Reimb.supplies for Arts/Events Prgms 291.28 291.28 1000537 06/25/2015 018058 BAILY, JENELLE refund:Level 4 swim lessons 5104.206 108.00 108.00 1000538 06/25/2015 005110 SOWADSKI, LINDA refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 200.00 200.00 1000539 06/25/2015 018061 ATKINS, ANDREA refund:summer day camp 0404.205 96.00 96.00 1000540 06/25/2015 018061 ATKINS, ANDREA refund:summer day camp 0404.204 192.00 192.00 1000541 06/25/2015 018061 ATKINS, ANDREA refund:summer day camp 0404.203 192.00 192.00 1000542 06/25/2015 018062 HEMENWAY, PATRICIA refund:picnic rental:meadows park 43.00 43.00 1000543 06/25/2015 018063 KAMINSKI, LAURA refund:belly dancing - beg 3000.201 33.60 33.60 1000544 06/25/2015 018064 LARSEN, PAM refund:parent 'n me swim lessons 45.00 45.00 1000545 06/25/2015 018065 LOW, KHONG refund:Level 2 swim lessons 5102.210 36.00 36.00 1000546 06/25/2015 018065 LOW, KHONG refund:Level 1 swim lessons 5101.210 45.00 45.00 1000547 06/25/2015 018065 LOW, KHONG refund:Level 1 swim lessons 5101.104 27.00 27.00 Page:14 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 15 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 1000548 06/25/2015 018015 REYES, ALCELO 1000549 06/25/2015 018015 REYES, ALCELO 1000550 06/25/2015 016207 RIVERA-RAMIREZ,AIDA 1000551 06/25/2015 018066 ROMERO, KRISTA Description Amount Paid Check Total refund:fines & fees:Library 15.25 15.25 refund:lost materials:Library 14.74 14.74 refund:sec dep:kitchen rental:CRC 200.00 200.00 refund:complete tennis camp 1410.202 50.00 50.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 2,092,907.69 Page:15 apChkLst Final Check List 07/01/2015 5:12:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 16 160 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 2,092,907.69 Page:16 apChkLst Final Check List 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 2731 07/02/2015 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM 2738 07/13/2015 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 2740 07/08/2015 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 171883 07/09/2015 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI 171884 07/09/2015 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC 171885 07/09/2015 015272 ACRONIS SERVICES 171886 07/09/2015 013367 ACTIVE MICRO INC 171887 07/09/2015 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 171888 07/09/2015 011769 ALL FROM THE HEART INC 171889 07/09/2015 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES 171890 07/09/2015 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY CORPORATION 171891 07/09/2015 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES (AFN) 171892 07/09/2015 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 171893 07/09/2015 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 171894 07/09/2015 004307 ARCH CHEMICALS, INC. Description PERS HEALTH ADMIN COST PAYMENT PERS HEALTH INSURANCE PAYMENT PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT FY 15/16 Employees Pers Retirement TCSD instructor earnings emerg hvac repairs: civic ctr inspection of a/c: harveston inspection of a/c: tvm 8/29/14-8/19/15 maint agreement ext Misc. tools & equip.: pw traffic asphalt products:street maint citywide FY 14/15 Community Service Funding PIANO TUNING & MAINT:THEATER & LIBRARY SIGNAL BATTERIES: PW TRAFFIC Phlebotomy srvcs:temecula police Phlebotomy srvcs:temecula police Lifeguard certifications:aquatics pgrm May 15 animal control svcs: temecula Jun 15 animal control svcs: temecula Jun water quality maint.:hrvstn/duck Amount Paid Check Total 100,525.65 0.00 41,071.32 3,139,761.00 560.00 556.59 234.41 249.29 91.84 349.19 1,276.26 200.00 185.00 1,067.38 314.28 491.66 1,087.45 10,000.00 10,000.00 3,900.00 100,525.65 41,071.32 3,139,761.00 560.00 1,040.29 91.84 349.19 1,276.26 200.00 185.00 1,067.38 805.94 1,087.45 20,000.00 3,900.00 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171895 07/09/2015 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 171896 07/09/2015 017149 B G P RECREATION, INC. 171897 07/09/2015 006254 BALLET FOLKLORICO 171898 07/09/2015 014718 BURT, KRISTAA. 171899 07/09/2015 003138 CAL MAT 171900 07/09/2015 004241 CALIF DEPT OF STATE ARCHITECT 171901 07/09/2015 004241 CALIF DEPT OF STATE ARCHITECT 171902 07/09/2015 004241 CALIF DEPT OF STATE ARCHITECT 171903 07/09/2015 000398 CALIF MUNI TREASURERS ASSN 171904 07/09/2015 005311 CERTIFIED POOL WATER SPCL. 171905 07/09/2015 012627 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC Description 5/23-6/22 drinking water: tcc 5/23-6/22 drinking water: pbsp 5/23-6/22 drinking water: skate park 5/23-6/22 BOTTLED WATER SRVCS: TVE: 5/23-6/22 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: CITY 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER: CRC 5/23-6/22 drinking water: tesc pool 5/23-6/22 drinking water: library 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER: HARVESTOI 5/23-6/22 drinking water pools:aquatics 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER: FOC 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER: TVM 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER: CHILDREN': Amount Paid Check Total 26.09 33.42 6.47 59.82 32.71 82.59 64.04 39.75 22.63 6.47 99.01 29.06 22.63 524.69 TCSD instructor earnings 1,890.00 1,890.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 294.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 147.00 441.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 382.20 382.20 asphalt supplies:pw maint. div 193.94 asphalt supplies:pw maint. div 453.27 asphalt supplies:pw maint. div 99.22 746.43 Remittance of SB1186 - QE March 2015 1,856.40 1,856.40 Remittance of SB1186 - QE Sept 2014 142.50 142.50 Remittance of SB1186 - QE Dec 2014 128.10 128.10 15-16 CMTA MBRSHP DUES:JH, RG 155.00 155.00 Jun maint svcs for pools:var facilities 1,925.00 1,925.00 CLEAN EXTERIOR & INTERIOR: HISTORY MUSEU CLEAN EXTERIOR & INTERIOR: CRC CLEAN EXTERIOR & INTERIOR: MPSC clean exterior and interior: library clean exterior & interior: civic center 250.00 740.00 215.00 2,688.00 3,850.00 7,743.00 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171906 07/09/2015 004017 COMERCHERO, JEFF reimb: US Conf. of Mayors 6/18-6/22 171907 07/09/2015 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL misc electrical supplies: library DIST. 171908 07/09/2015 013379 COSSOU, CELINE 171909 07/09/2015 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 171910 07/09/2015 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 171911 07/09/2015 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 171912 07/09/2015 001393 DATA TICKET, INC. 171913 07/09/2015 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP:TVE2 water summit supplies: June 29, 2015 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP: Misc supplies:CRC events emerg pool heater install: crc pool MAY 15 PARKING CITATION PROCESSING:POLIC 6/15-7/12 PRTBLE RESTROOM RENTALS:GREAT Portable toilet svc: Fire:30650 Pauba Portable restrooms:Street Painting 171914 07/09/2015 017044 DODD, JOYCE Parrot presentation:SKIP pgrm 171915 07/09/2015 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 171916 07/09/2015 002981 DYNA MED Amount Paid Check Total 405.54 405.54 160.38 160.38 378.00 378.00 378.00 378.00 252.68 388.72 1,512.00 107.88 749.28 405.31 405.31 18,668.00 18,668.00 900.66 900.66 52.80 97.20 409.20 559.20 200.00 200.00 Fuel for City vehicles: tcsd & code enf 218.87 Fuel for City vehicles: eco dev 100.86 Fuel for City vehicles: police dept 119.15 438.88 Aquatics- waterproof emergency radios 114.51 114.51 171917 07/09/2015 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS BUSINESS RECOGNITION INC PLAQUES:ECO DEV 171918 07/09/2015 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 131.76 131.76 Jun water meter:32131 S Loop rd dcda 42.05 Jun water meter:32131 S Loop rd Idsc 227.94 Jun water meter:32131 S Loop rd bldg 171919 07/09/2015 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION MAY 15 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SRVCS:B&S DEPT 90.06 360.05 25,193.86 25,193.86 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171921 07/09/2015 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. Description Jun Idscp maint srvcs:var locations irrigation sys repair:hary comm park Jun Idscp maint srvcs: var facilities Jun Idscp maint srvcs: var north slopes replace damaged Idscp:sam hickspark irrigation repair:harveston install tree bubblers:various slope sod installation:margarita comm. irrigation repairs:winchester creek irrigation repairs:winchester creek irrigation repair:field operations ctr install treebubblers:campos verdes slope prep turf & hydroseed:hary lake park Jun Idscp maint:varparks:trails:medians Jun Idscp maint:varparks:trails:medians JUN LDSCP MAINT:VARPARKS:TRAILS:M irrigation repairs calle aragon park install tree bubblers:woodcrest country irrigation repair:harveston irrigation repair:serena hills slope 171922 07/09/2015 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 6/3-6/4 Express mail services 171923 07/09/2015 014865 FEIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY Promo items:economic dev 171924 07/09/2015 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 018090 MB CITIZENS 018091 RI RA 018090 MB CITIZENS 018092 SONIC DRIVE-IN 016886 MANDALAY BAY 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC 009720 STARBUCKS CORPORATION 006952 PAY PAL 171925 07/09/2015 000380 FIRST STUDENT CHARTER 171926 07/09/2015 003633 FOOTHILL EASTERN TRANSPORTN. Amount Paid Check Total 34,844.87 1,780.00 9,993.13 21,610.97 355.00 171.68 1,845.00 350.00 236.89 121.46 221.72 2,655.00 20,608.50 48, 525.10 51,365.88 18,094.70 169.20 990.00 166.46 100.88 214,206.44 42.59 42.59 306.18 306.18 GB refreshments: entrepreneurs 143.80 exchange GB refreshments: ICSC 5/17 - 5/20/15 GB refreshments: ICSC 5/17 - 5/20/15 GB refreshments: ICSC 5/17 - 5/20/15 GB refreshments: ICSC 5/17 - 5/20/15 GB lodging: ICSC 5/17 - 5/20/15 GB membership fee GB refreshments: temecula trekkers mtg GB registration: startupweekend: CK & CW Transportation:Summer Day Camps Transportation:Summer Day Camps 26.00 19.00 69.00 7.87 332.64 106.92 89.70 103.00 536.34 536.34 897.93 1,072.68 Toll road usage:var. depts 145.95 145.95 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171927 07/09/2015 011145 FOSTER, JILL CHRISTINE TCSD instructor earnings 171928 07/09/2015 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC 171929 07/09/2015 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC 171930 07/09/2015 001937 GALLS INC 171931 07/09/2015 005405 GILLILAND, ROBIN 171932 07/09/2015 014405 GORM INCORPORATED 171933 07/09/2015 003792 GRAINGER 171934 07/09/2015 015451 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL SVCS 171935 07/09/2015 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS Misc supplies:CRC programs 2015 Easter Egg Hunt- misc. supplies. MISC PGRM SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICE Amount Paid Check Total 52.50 52.50 130.13 96.31 323.32 549.76 WATER FILTRATION SUPPLIES: STA 73 127.44 127.44 Misc supplies:Police volunteers 2.16 2.16 items needed for harveston 7.97 items needed for harveston 79.80 87.77 miscellaneous cleaning supplies: var fac 3,133.81 3,133.81 misc. equip & supplies:pw streets 171.50 misc. equip & supplies:pw streets 582.82 misc. equip & supplies:pw streets 692.46 misc. equip & supplies:pw streets 69.59 misc. equip & supplies:pw streets 854.90 2,371.27 Copier lease: central svcs/TVE2 xxx3564 1,341.70 1,341.70 Video srvcs:State of the City 2015 15,000.00 15,000.00 171936 07/09/2015 012204 HERITAGE FAMILY MINISTRIES TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 171937 07/09/2015 018093 HOLMQUIST, MELISSA refund:summer 15 adult softball 171938 07/09/2015 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE 171939 07/09/2015 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE 171940 07/09/2015 018094 JUDY, KRISTIN 2,079.00 1,559.25 2,079.00 1,559.25 7,276.50 530.00 530.00 misc maint supplies:pw street maint 1,675.73 misc maint supplies: pw street maint 2,638.18 4,313.91 Misc maint supplies:civic center 566.62 Misc maint supplies:civic center 581.31 1,147.93 refund:sec dep:rm rental:conf ctr A/B 150.00 150.00 171941 07/09/2015 001091 KEYSER MARSTON May 15 Altair SP Fiscal Impact Analysis 6,346.25 ASSOCIATES INC May consult Svcs: Land Use Econ Study 2,385.61 8,731.86 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171942 07/09/2015 009336 KOPIE SHOP LLC Promotional Items: Theater 171943 07/09/2015 003975 LAWRENCE, JEFF Amount Paid Check Total 744.51 744.51 microphone & cable: CRC 80.98 supplies needed for summer day camp 64.69 145.67 171944 07/09/2015 012370 LEADER PROMOTIONS INC FIT Program- logo water bottles. 987.22 987.22 171945 07/09/2015 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & May 15 HR legal svcs for TE060-00001 1,062.50 1,062.50 WHITMORE 171946 07/09/2015 004230 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC Aquatics - Miscellaneous supplies. 1,311.41 1,311.41 171947 07/09/2015 018095 MADE2BFIT refund:sec dep:picnic rental:harveston 200.00 200.00 171948 07/09/2015 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN Jun 15 Officiating svcs:Sports Pgrm 1,998.00 1,998.00 171949 07/09/2015 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE Jun 15 interior plantscape svc:library 200.00 Jun 15 interior plantscape svc:civic ctr 525.00 725.00 171950 07/09/2015 000944 MCCAIN TRAFFIC SUPPLY INC Traffic Sftwr Maint Renewal:4/1-3/31/16 8,500.00 Traffic signal equipment: pw traffic 171951 07/09/2015 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING baseball base pegs:var sports parks INC. 171952 07/09/2015 004586 MOORE FENCE COMPANY INC baseball field windscreen install: pbsp 171953 07/09/2015 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. 171954 07/09/2015 001986 MUZAK LLC 171955 07/09/2015 014391 NICHOLS, KELLIE D. TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 74.52 8,574.52 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,756.92 4,756.92 500.50 500.50 1,001.00 Jul 15 dish network prgm:41952 6th St 57.62 Jul 15 dish network programing:foc 140.85 198.47 TCSD Instructor Earnings 567.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 567.00 1,134.00 171956 07/09/2015 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:PW Street Maint 171957 07/09/2015 018088 O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE INC REFUND:BALANCE ON TRUST ACCOUNT 171958 07/09/2015 008871 ORIGINAL WATERMEN, INC. Lifeguard uniforms: Aquatics Prgm 171959 07/09/2015 012100 OUR NICHOLAS FOUNDATION FY 14/15 CSF grant:Aftr Sch/Sprts Prgms 90.35 90.35 262.25 262.25 2,667.97 2,667.97 5,000.00 5,000.00 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171960 07/09/2015 015033 PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 171961 07/09/2015 005152 PACIFIC PRODUCTS &SERVICES INC 171962 07/09/2015 006552 PAINTED EARTH 171963 07/09/2015 014273 PARAGON PARTNERS LTD 171964 07/09/2015 017720 PERPETUAL PARKS & PLAYGROUNDS Description Amount Paid Check Total 4/25-5/29 EIR:temecula gateway prjt 12,177.96 12,177.96 sign anchors & hardware:pw st maint 3,588.30 3,588.30 Craft prjt-Summer Day Camp 907.20 907.20 RELOCATION SRVCS:MURR 95.00 95.00 CRK/OVRLND DR install ada ramp: hary lake park 1,100.00 1,100.00 171965 07/09/2015 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 742.37 Petty Cash Reimbursement 179.76 922.13 171966 07/09/2015 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN May plancheck consultant: Prevention 5,948.40 Jun plancheck consultant: Prevention 8,168.60 14,117.00 171967 07/09/2015 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE Banner Program: Econ Dev 59.62 59.62 ADVERTISI NG 171968 07/09/2015 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER Jun Recl. Indscp meter:JeffersonAve 30.30 30.30 DISTRICT 171969 07/09/2015 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR City vehicles detailing srvcs:var. depts 63.00 63.00 WASH 171970 07/09/2015 000271 RBF CONSULTING Feb consultant srvcs:Gateway...Tem. 11,890.00 May consult srvcs:Art Gaitan's Mexico 2,807.43 14,697.43 171971 07/09/2015 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 171972 07/09/2015 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 171973 07/09/2015 000220 ROBINSON PRINTING & CREATIVE May 2015 legal services Apr '15 ExDty Youth Court Printing srvcs:theater 2015 brochure 72,777.23 72,777.23 194.38 194.38 15,827.11 15,827.11 171974 07/09/2015 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC Misc supplies: Skate Park 177.72 Misc supplies: Skate Park 119.94 297.66 171975 07/09/2015 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES GEN CAMERA REPAIR/MAINT:LIBRARY 347.50 INC GEN CAMERA REPAIR/MAINT:LIBRARY 417.00 764.50 171976 07/09/2015 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz @ The Merc 7/2/15 420.00 420.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 171977 07/09/2015 004498 SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC. MAY TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT SRVCS: PW TRAFF 171978 07/09/2015 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW "TEMECULA HAS HEART" BANNER 171979 07/09/2015 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Misc supplies: Aquatics prgm MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC Misc supplies: FIT Program Misc supplies: Day Camp Pgrm Amount Paid Check Total 2,598.40 2,598.40 572.94 572.94 259.59 33.91 110.32 196.95 200.67 801.44 Page8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 171981 07/09/2015 000537 SO CALIF EDISON (Continued) Description Jun 2-00-397-5042:43200 Jun 2-31-536-3226:28690 Jun 2-00-397-5067:TCSD Jun 2-18-937-3152:28314 Jun 2-31-912-7494:28690 Jun 2-31-536-3655:41904 Jun 2-31-536-3481:41902 Jun 2-31-419-2873:43000 Jun 2-31-031-2616:27991 Jun 2-31-282-0665:27407 Jun 2-35-664-9053:29119 Jun 2-35-403-6337:41375 Jun 2-25-393-4681:41951 Jun 2-32-903-8293:41000 Jun 2-30-220-8749:45850 Jun 2-29-953-8447:31738 Jun 2-35-707-0010:33451 Jun 2-29-953-8249:46497 Jun 2-29-953-8082:31523 Jun 2-36-641-3839:27498 Jun 2-36-641-3912:27498 Jun 2-30-520-4414:32781 Jun 2-29-657-2332:45538 Jun 2-29-295-3510:32211 JUN 2-29-224-0173:VARI Jun 2-35-074-2847:26902 Jun 2-21-981-4720:30153 Jun 2-28-904-7706:32329 Jun 2-34-333-3589:41702 Jun 2-29-223-8607:42035 Jun 2-29-657-2787:41638 Jun 2-29-807-1093:28079 Jun 2-29-807-1226:28077 Jun 2-29-933-3831:43230 Jun 2-02-351-4946:41845 Jun 2-14-204-1615:30027 Jun 2-19-171-8568:28300 Bus park dr #1 Mercedes St svc lev C Mercedes St Mercedes St Main St Main St Hwy -395 Diaz Rd Diaz Rd Margarita Rd McCabe Ct Moraga Rd Main St N Wolf creek dr Wolf vly rd S Hwy -79 PED Wolf creek dr Wolf vly rd Enterprise cir Enterprise cir Tem pkwy LS3 Redwood Rd Wolf vly rd OUS FIRE STATI( Jefferson Ave Tem pkwy tpp Overland Trl Main St 2nd St PED Winchester Diaz Rd Diaz Rd Bus park dr 6th St Front st rdio Mercedes St Amount Paid Check Total 4,821.19 1,813.82 2,494.66 882.07 1,163.42 336.24 162.07 24.72 25.89 26.03 144.12 1,167.11 823.90 19,794.67 204.06 27.08 55.84 28.25 29.28 29.43 37.86 1,003.12 27.27 1,810.14 1,718.99 37.66 22.71 154.99 25.98 724.49 24.96 25.59 25.54 2,350.68 1,972.20 48.26 553.11 44,617.40 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 171982 07/09/2015 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Description Jun 021-725-0775-4:41845 6th St Jun 055-461-2483-4:40135 Village Rd Jun 028-025-1468-3:41375 McCabe Ct Jun 125-244-2108-3:30600 Pauba Rd Jun 026-671-2909-8:42051 Main St Jun 181-383-8881-6:28314 Mercedes Jun 129-582-9784-3:43230 Bus park dr Jun 117-188-6393-6:32131 S Loop Rd Jun 101-525-1560-6:27415 Enterprise cir Jun 129-535-4236-7:41000 Main St Jun 101-525-0950-0:28816 Pujol St Jun 091-024-9300-5:30875 Rancho vista Jun 133-040-7373-0:43210 Bus park dr Jun 091-085-1632-0:41951 Moraga Rd Amount Paid Check Total 70.36 21.44 20.48 26.06 25.19 28.01 39.79 25.67 15.78 846.02 113.67 863.84 124.97 580.82 2,802.10 171983 07/09/2015 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST pest control svcs:various parks 493.00 493.00 CONTROL INC 171984 07/09/2015 018097 SOUTHWEST GRANITE Mayor's recognition plaques 200.00 200.00 171985 07/09/2015 015648 STEIN, ANDREW Merchandise:4th of July 1,510.97 1,510.97 171986 07/09/2015 018096 TEMECULA TIME MACHINE refund:sec dep:picnic rental:RRSP 200.00 200.00 171987 07/09/2015 008317 TRUEVINE PENTECOSTAL refund:sec dep:picnic rental:Pala park 200.00 200.00 CHURCH 171988 07/09/2015 009709 U H S OF RANCHO SPRINGS, MAY SEXUALASSAULT EXAMS:POLICE 2,300.00 2,300.00 INC 171989 07/09/2015 015006 UNION BANK, N.A. FV Pkwy environ. mitigation escrow fee 1,590.00 1,590.00 171990 07/09/2015 018089 UPON THE ROOF refund:bldg fees:permit B15-1304 1.51 refund:bldg fees:permit B15-1304 171991 07/09/2015 017579 US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL JUN EMPLOYMENT & DOT GROUP SCREENINGS:HR 171992 07/09/2015 014850 VALLEY PRINTING SERVICES, INC. 171993 07/09/2015 004789 VERIZON 171994 07/09/2015 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 146.40 147.91 161.00 161.00 City of Temecula newsletter 4,838.00 4,838.00 Jun Internet svcs:Theater 104.99 104.99 5/16-6/15 broadband svcs:citywide 3,342.95 3,342.95 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 171995 07/09/2015 013556 WESTERN AUDIO VISUAL CHAMBERS AV SUPPORT:CITY 2,964.30 2,964.30 COUNCIL 171996 07/09/2015 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL Reimb: Art Off The Walls supplies 70.93 70.93 1000552 06/30/2015 018079 MASON, RACHEL 1000553 06/30/2015 018079 MASON, RACHEL 1000554 06/30/2015 018080 O'NEILL, MICHELLE 1000555 06/30/2015 018081 RUFF, MICHAEL 1000556 07/01/2015 018082 JONES, TERRI 1000557 07/01/2015 018083 MITCHELL, ELZBIETA 1000558 07/01/2015 018083 MITCHELL, ELZBIETA 1000559 07/01/2015 018084 SOLITRO, FRANCO 1000560 07/01/2015 018085 WILLIAMS, JEFF 1000561 07/01/2015 018086 WONG, DELANO refund: Beginning toddler swim lessons 36.00 36.00 refund:Level 3 swim lessons 36.00 36.00 refund:Beginning toddler swim lessons 22.50 22.50 refund:Kids can cook camp 80.00 80.00 refund:Teen radio temecula camp 110.00 110.00 refund:Bear cub univ - kiddie 180.00 180.00 refund:Bear cub univ - kiddie 180.00 180.00 refund:Advanced toddler swim lessons 22.50 22.50 refund:Jr golf camp 1520.203 80.00 80.00 refund:returned lost materials:library 17.99 17.99 Grand total for UNION BANK: 3,880,323.38 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 07/09/2015 9:08:42AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 125 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3,880,323.38 Page:12 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager Ilk CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND: In an effort to ensure early notification of upcoming vacancies on the City's various Boards and Commissions, staff has implemented a process to notify the City Council and the public of upcoming vacancies in advance of publication. On October 10, 2015, there will be one vacancy on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and two vacancies on the Community Services Commission. The vacancies will be advertised through established procedures including the newspaper, website and social media outlets. The application for these vacancies will be available on August 1, 2015 and the application period will be open from August 1, 2015 — August 30, 2015. It is anticipated that the City Council will make appointments to fill the vacancies at the September 22, 2015 regularly scheduled meeting, ensuring continuity of service prior to the expiration of existing terms. Additional information is available through the City Clerk's office. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance No. 15-06 Amending the Temecula Municipal Code to Allow Government Crime Insurance Policies in Place of Corporate Surety Bonds for City Officials (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING FOUR PROVISIONS OF TITLE 2 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE OBTAINING GOVERNMENT CRIME INSURANCE IN PLACE OF SURETY BONDS FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, FINANCE DIRECTOR AND CITY TREASURER BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 15-06 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 23, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 15-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING FOUR PROVISIONS OF TITLE 2 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE OBTAINING GOVERNMENT CRIME INSURANCE IN PLACE OF SURETY BONDS FOR CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, FINANCE DIRECTOR AND CITY TREASURER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.12.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.12.130 Bond. The city manager shall furnish a corporate surety bond in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, or such higher amount as may be approved by resolution of the city council, from a surety approved by the city attorney, for the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the city manager. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 1463, the City may procure and maintain a government crime insurance policy or employee dishonesty insurance policy, including faithful performance, in an amount set by resolution of the city council, as an alternate to the surety bond. The premium for such bond or insurance policy shall be a proper charge against the city. Section 2. Section 2.16.040 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.16.040 Bond. The city clerk shall furnish a corporate surety bond in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, or such higher amount as may be approved by resolution of the city council, from a surety approved by the city attorney, for the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the city clerk. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 1463, the City may procure and maintain a government crime insurance policy or employee dishonesty insurance policy, including faithful performance, in an amount set by resolution of the city council, as an alternate to the surety bond. The premium for such bond or insurance policy shall be a proper charge against the city. Section 3. Section 2.20.040 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.20.040 Bond. The city treasurer shall furnish a corporate surety bond in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, or such higher amount as may be approved by resolution of the city council, from a surety approved by the city attorney, for the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the city treasurer. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 1463, the City may procure and maintain a government crime insurance policy or employee dishonesty insurance policy, including faithful performance, in an amount set by resolution of the city council, as an alternate to the surety bond. The premium for such bond or insurance policy shall be a proper charge against the city. Section 4. Section 2.28.040 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.28.040 Bond requirement. The finance director shall furnish a corporate surety bond in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, or such higher amount as may be approved by resolution of the city council, from a surety approved by the city attorney, for the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the finance director. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 1463, the City may procure and maintain a government crime insurance policy or employee dishonesty insurance policy, including faithful performance, in an amount set by resolution of the city council, as an alternate to the surety bond. Any premium for such bond or insurance policy shall be a proper charge against the city. Section 5. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Ordinance and publish it in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-06 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 23rd day of June, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 15-07 Repealing Chapter 5.06, Lawful Hiring Compliance (E -Verify), of the Temecula Municipal Code (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING CHAPTER 5.06, LAWFUL HIRING COMPLIANCE (E -VERIFY), OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.04.280 AND 5.04.300 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 5.06 BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 15-07 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 16, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 15-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING CHAPTER 5.06, LAWFUL HIRING COMPLIANCE (E -VERIFY), OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.04.280 AND 5.04.300 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE REFERENCES TO CHAPTER 5.06 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 691 of the Statutes of 2011 enacted Labor Code Sections 2811 through 2813, effective on January 1, 2012, that prohibit the state, cities, counties, city and county, and special districts from requiring employers to use an electronic employment verification system (including e -verify) for its employees. Therefore, the City's e -verify ordinance, Chapter 5.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, needs to be repealed to comply with this state statute. By January 1, 2102, the City had notified all holders of business license certificates that such employers were not required to comply with Chapter 5.06 due to the State legislation. Section 2. Chapter 5.06, Lawful Hiring Compliance, of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 3. Section 5.04.280 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.280 Grounds for denial or revocation. A certificate required by this Chapter may be denied or revoked pursuant to this Chapter only upon one or more of the following grounds: A. Proper application as prescribed in this Chapter has not been made or information submitted is false; or B. The prescribed fee for such certificate has not been paid; or C. Delinquent certificate fees have not been paid; or D. The conduct of the business has been or is contrary to local, state or federal law. Section 4. Section 5.04.300 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.300 Violation—Penalties. A. Any person who fails to apply for and receive a certificate prior to the start of business, or has not applied for the renewal of an existing certificate prior to expiration of the certificate shall pay the applicable fee, plus a penalty fee not to exceed twice the normal registration fee. B. Any person who fails to file for a certificate as provided in this Chapter within thirty calendar days after being informed to do so, or fails to pay the applicable fee, or violates any of the other provisions of this Chapter, or knowingly or intentionally misrepresents any material fact to any officer or employee of the City in procuring the certificate provided in this Chapter, or continues to operate a business after the business registration certificate has been revoked, is guilty of a violation of this code that may be enforced pursuant to the enforcement provisions set forth in Title 1 of this code. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-07 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 16th day of July, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance 15-08 to Add Section 15.04.100 to the Temecula Municipal Code to Provide an Expedited, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Residential Rooftop Solar Systems (Second Reading) PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 15.04.100 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. With the exception of urgency ordinances, Government Code Section 36934 requires two readings of standard ordinances more than five days apart. Ordinances must be read in full at the time of introduction or passage unless a motion waiving the reading is adopted by a majority of the City Council present. Ordinance No. 15-07 was first introduced at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 16, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING SECTION 15.04.100 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Intent. A. The City Council of the City of Temecula seeks to implement Assembly Bill 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes 2014) through the creation of an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. B. The City Council seeks to further the conservation goals of the City and support the climate action policies set by the State. C. It is in the interest of the health, welfare and safety of the people of Temecula to provide an expedited permitting process for the deployment of solar technology. Section 2. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.35 because it provides for the installation of solar energy systems on the roofs of existing buildings. Additionally, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance involves updates and revisions to existing administrative building permit regulations consistent with California law, specifically Government Code section 65850.5 and Civil Code section 714. It can be seen with certainty that the proposed Municipal Code text amendments will have no significant negative effect on the environment. Section 3. A new Section 15.04.100 is hereby added to Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "15.04.100 Expedited Review of Small Residential Rooftop Solar Energy System Permits. A. DEFINITIONS. 1. "Small residential rooftop solar energy system" shall have the same meaning as provided in the Solar Rights Act, Government Code § 65850.5(j)(3), as the same may be amended from time to time. B. SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM STANDARD PLAN AND PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST. 1. The Building Official is authorized to develop and update the standard plan(s) and checklist(s) of all requirements with which small residential rooftop solar energy systems shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. The small residential rooftop solar system standard plan(s) and checklist(s) shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the checklists and standard plans contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and must be consistent with State law. 2. All documents required for the submission of a small residential rooftop solar energy system permit application, the standard plan(s), and checklist(s) shall be made available on the publicly accessible City Website. 3. Electronic submittal of the required permit application and documents by the Internet shall be available to all small residential rooftop solar energy system permit applicants. [An applicant's electronic signature shall be accepted on all forms, applications, and other documents in lieu of a wet signature.] C. PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW. 1. An application that satisfies the information requirements in the checklist(s) and standard plan(s) shall be deemed complete. 2. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for resubmission. 3. The Building Official shall issue a building permit for any complete application that meets the requirements of the approved checklist(s) and standard plan(s) as follows: within 1-3 business days for over the counter and electronic applications, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable. Review of the application shall be limited to the Building Official's review of whether the application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements. 4. Any condition imposed on an application shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost. D. INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. 1. Inspection requests may be submitted by email or phone. 2. Only one inspection shall be required and performed by the Building Official for small residential rooftop solar energy systems eligible for expedited review. 3. The inspection shall be done in a timely manner. The Building Official shall use its best efforts to schedule an inspection within two [2] business days of a request and provide a four hour inspection window. 4. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, a subsequent inspection is authorized but need not conform to the requirements of this Section. E. FEES. Fees for permits and inspections associated with this Chapter may be established by resolution of the City Council." Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. Section 5. Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause same to be published pursuant to state law within fifteen (15) days after its passage, and this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-08 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 16th day of July, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk Item No. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a five-year Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services. This agreement provides required services to both the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The City's portion over the five-year period is $204,461.32 and TCSD's portion is $211,382.70, for a total agreement amount of $415,844.02, in accordance with Exhibit B. BACKGROUND: Albert A. Webb Associates provides comprehensive special tax administration and levy services that includes, but is not limited to: district administration, municipal disclosure, delinquency management and parcel audit services. In 2014, staff completed a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Special Tax Consulting Services to perform the ongoing administration of the Community Facilities Districts, Assessment District, TCSD service levels and TCSD Park Special Tax. Albert A. Webb Associates scored the highest amongst the submitted proposals and was awarded a one year agreement for services. The complexity of special tax administration and related services requires continuity and a strong working relationship with the Consultant. This has become more evident as the support required from the Consultant has increased to include multiple areas within the City and TCSD needing documentation, data analysis, and meeting attendance for presentation purposes. Albert A. Webb has provided excellent administration services over the past year along with being a key resource for information and assistance with special district financing. Therefore, staff is recommending the approval of the attached five-year agreement. The Temecula Public Financing Authority formed five Community Facilities Districts and one Assessment District from 2001 through 2006. These districts provided bond proceeds that financed major infrastructure improvements within the districts including streets, lighting, and parks. City staff administers the districts and is required to perform the tasks necessary to levy property owners within the Districts in accordance with the bond formation documents, as well as provide annual reporting and disclosure to the bond holders. The Temecula Community Services District operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection; and unpaved road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. The four current service levels of the TCSD include: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lighting 2. Service Level C — Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance 3. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Community Services, Parks and Recreation and Arterial Street Lights Rates and Charges previously levied by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) were replaced by the City of Temecula's Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax approved by the voters as Measure C on March 4, 1997. The purpose of the Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax is to provide for the ongoing operations, maintenance and servicing of the City's public parks, recreational facilities; recreational and human service programs; landscaped median maintenance costs; and energy costs for arterial street lighting and traffic signals. The Parks/Street Lighting Services Special Tax is levied in the same manner, at the same time, as the TCSD Rates and Charges on an annual basis. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are included within the Fiscal Year 2015-16 CFD and TCSD Operating budgets. For the subsequent four years, funds will be adequately appropriated within the budget for CFD Administration and Consulting services. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit B — Pricing 2. Agreement EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Consultant shall provide special tax administration consulting services to the City/TCSD as outlined below. Optional consulting services shall be on an "as needed" basis upon request and approval by the City Manager/Executive Director or his authorized representative. The cost for optional services shall be split between the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Services shall be performed annually for the City, TCSD, and any additional optional services required for the City/TCSD. The annual pricing for Special Tax Administration and Optional Consulting Services is outlined below. The outlined five year cost for the City is $204,461.32 and TCSD is $211,382.70 for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $415,844.02. CITY OF TEMECULA RFP - SPECIAL TAX ADMINISTRATION Pricing Form CFD/AD Administration CFD 01-2 CFD 03-1 CFD 03-2 CFD 03-3 AD 03-4 CFD 03-6 FY 2015-16 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 4,085.00 $ 6,080.00 FY 2016-17 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 4,166.70 $ 6,201.60 FY 2017-18 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 4,250.03 $ 6,325.63 FY 2018-19 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 4,335.03 $ 6,452.14 FY 2019-20 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 4,421.74 $ 6,581.19 Total CFD/AD Administration $ 34,485.00 $ 35,174.70 $ 35,878.19 $ 36,595.76 37,327.67 TCSD Administration Service Level B $ 9,500.00 $ 9,690.00 $ 9,883.80 $ 10,081.48 $ 10,283.11 Service Level C $ 7,600.00 $ 7,752.00 $ 7,907.04 $ 8,065.18 $ 8,226.48 Service Level D $ 8,550.00 $ 8,721.00 $ 8,895.42 $ 9,073.33 $ 9,254.79 Service Level R $ 190.00 $ 193.80 $ 197.68 $ 201.63 $ 205.66 City "Park & Lighting" Special Tax $ 9,975.00 $ 10,174.50 $ 10,377.99 $ 10,585.55 $ 10,797.26 Total TCSD Levy Administration $ 35,815.00 $ 36,531.30 $ 37,261.9338,007.16 $ 38,767.31 total Special Tax Administration' Optional - Consulting Services Grand Total $ 70,300.00 $ 71,706.00 $ 73,140.12 $ 74,602.92 $ 76,094.98. $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 80,300.00 $ 81,706.00 $ 83,140.12 $ 84,602.92 $ 86,094.98 Proposed Fee escalate at 2% for each Fiscal Year after FY 2015-16 FIN 16-02 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA, THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES FOR SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of July 28, 2015, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ,The Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City/TCSD"), and Albert A. Webb Associates, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 28, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City/TCSD agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Four Hundred Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty -Four Dollars and Two Cents ($415,844.02) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's/TCSD's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City/TCSD disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City/TCSD may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City/TCSD suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City/TCSD shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City/TCSD. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City/TCSD, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City/TCSD shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City/TCSD that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to 2 the representatives of City/TCSD or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City/TCSD the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City/TCSD to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City/TCSD and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City/TCSD without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City/TCSD, upon reasonable written request by the City/TCSD, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property to the extent arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions to the extent arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while 3 performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no Tess than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City/TCSD with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City/TCSD. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City/TCSD before work commences. As an alternative to the City's/TCSD's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City/TCSD a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City/TCSD nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City/TCSD. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City/TCSD, or bind City/TCSD in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City/TCSD shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City/TCSD. City/TCSD shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City/TCSD, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's/TCSD's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City/TCSD. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City/TCSD notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City/TCSD should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City/TCSD. City/TCSD retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City/TCSD and to provide City/TCSD with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City'sTTCSD's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City/TCSD to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Albert A. Webb Associates Attn: Shane Spicer 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City/TCSD. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 6 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City/TCSD and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City/TCSD that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City/TCSD in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager / Executive Director is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City/TCSD to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Shane Spicer, Director of Special Assessment & Tax Services ATTEST: By: _ By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Albert A. Webb Associates Attn: Shane Spicer 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Phone: 951-248-4281 E -Mail: shane.spicer@webbassociates.com Acting PM Initial Date: e TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT By: Maryann Edwards, TCSD Chair ATTEST: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk/ Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney/ General Counsel 9 Acting PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed Mary Vollmuth From: Heidi Schoeppe <heidi.schoeppe@webbassociates.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:40 PM To: Shane Spicer; Mary Vollmuth Subject: RE: Temecula - Proposed Optional Services & Scope Attachments: Signed Contract effective Jan 2014.pdf; FY 15-16 Admin Fee Schedule - (4 Year).pdf; Special District Support Scope.docx Hello Mary, Please see attached for the originally approved contract agreement as well as the Optional Services scope, approved by Jennifer. This service would be billed on a monthly basis, and on a time and materials basis. Finally, also attached is the revised fee schedule for 4 years with a 5% discount for FY 2015-16, and a 2% escalator each year which also includes the $10,000 flat amount for these special requests pursuant to the Optional Services Scope. Please let us know if there are any questions. Thanks! Heidi Schoeppe Senior Finance Manager Albert A. WEBB Associates T. 951.200.8604 heidi.schoeppe@webbassociates.com From: Shane Spicer Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 3:47 PM To: Mary Vollmuth Cc: Heidi Schoeppe Subject: Re: Temecula - Proposed Optional Services & Scope Hello Mary, Heidi will be sending over the proposal. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Thank you, Shane Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Mary Vollmuth <Mary.Vollmuth@cityoftemecula.org> wrote. Hi Shane, could you please E -Mail me the Proposal for Services you had sent to Jennifer including the additional administration for districts and "other" miscellaneous work based on time & materials? Thanks! Mary Vollmuth Purchasing Administrator City of Temecula 10 Add to the Exhibit A — Scope of Services OPTIONAL CONSULTING SERVICE (TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS) Since joining the finance team for the City's Special District administration we have occasionally been solicited to provide additional support to the City for various matters related to Special District financing. As the City continues to look at ways to manage service costs and identify other means of financing these services WEBB can be used as a key resource. We propose an additional $10,000 for Special District Support Services to be billed on a time and materials basis, billed monthly. There are a number of requests we receive from the various departments including Finance, Community Services, and Public Works for information necessary for them to conduct quantitative analysis related to these special districts as well as other support that aids in providing information to the City Management and City Council for discussions. Meeting Attendance - WEBB will coordinate and attend relevant meetings with Finance and Public Works to discuss the CFDs, ADs, and Service Levels including: annual administration, formation and consulting. Information Gathering - WEBB will coordinate with Finance and Public Works in gathering various information relevant to the Special Districts related to City projects/items WEBB will provide comprehensive updates specific to annual administration, formations and consulting Administration Matrix - WEBB will provide City Staff a matrix of the various activities related to the administration of the LMD, CSAs, and CFDs, such as disclosure, delinquency, and the annual levy. Formation/Annexation/Consulting Queue - WEBB will provide a schedule for all CFDs being proposed for formation/annexation. This list will include any inquiries WEBB is aware of and those for which applications and deposits have been received. GIS Mapping and Presentation Preparation - WEBB will regularly update our GIS database for our regularly scheduled meetings and provide any data/exhibits for the various meetings and presentations. Developer Coordination - WEBB will assist in communicating with the development community regarding formation and bond sale applications, development status updates, and notifying them when their projects are scheduled to be processed as it relates to Special District matters. WEBB has the programmatic support available for the level of service and commitment required to providing these comprehensive services and will be able to efficiently gather all pertinent information related to the City's Special Districts and provide a clear understanding of the on -goings relating to these Special Districts WEBB will also be able to verify the accuracy of all information presented by City Staff to the City Council and the community Utilizing our technology and quality assurance procedures WEBB will be able to save Staff valuable time and effort in trying to organize and coordinate information relating to the many Special Districts. The proposed fee amount tor Support Services is estimated at 160 hours of support with the below associates providing the primary support needs regarding related activities. EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATES Employee Classification Rate Shane Spicer I Principal 1 $190 Heidi Schoeppe Associate 11 S128 Matt Chesney_ Assistant 111 $92 Totals Totals Upon completion of 75% of the amount being billed we will discuss with the City if any additional time is needed until the end of the fiscal year. Attached is an hourly fee schedule for the proposed services 11 I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The City is seeking proposals to provide consulting services for the administration of the City's Community Facilities Districts, Assessment District, and Community Services Districts to include the following: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION: Create the tax roll application of parcels' annual special tax or special assessment in a format acceptable to the Riverside County Auditor/Controller-Recorder. Apportion the special tax or special assessment to each parcel within each particular district consistent with the method of apportionment for each district as follows: § Maintain current Assessor Parcel Maps for all special district parcels including: o Review all districts to ensure all parcels within the districts are being levied in accordance with the appropriate rate and method o Update parcels annually prior to enrollment of levy o Notify City of any assessor parcel changes within each district o Include any database development and land use information for all district parcels where this information is necessary for use In calculation of special tax or special assessment. § Coordinate with the City's Fiscal Agent (US Bank) to review debt service schedules and determine amount needed to pay debt service. 5 Assist City in projecting annual administrative expenses. § Identify reserve requirements and notify City if reserve needs replenishing. § Prepare all necessary documents, including an Annual Levy Report, to submit annual levy for each district to the County of Riverside allowing reasonable time for City staff to review, comment, or make changes. § Perform adjustments and corrections to rejected parcels by resubmitting levies If necessary. Direct bill any parcels as necessary. 5 Facilitate the preparation of assessment apportionment applications Including: o Preparation of amended assessment diagrams. o Apportioning the assessment to divided parcels. 12 o Preparation and timely delivery of required notices. o Recordation of required notices and amended diagrams. o Preparation of required disclosure documents. § Serve as initial and primary contact for the public regarding levy inquiries. § Calculate bond payoff amount or prepayment amounts as requested by landowners and provide additional information related to payoff as required. § Prepare and record Release of Lien if prepayments are received. § Prepare bond call spreads if required due to excess proceeds or prepayments. § Coordinate with Fiscal Agent to establish new debt service requirements resulting from bond calls. § Prepare summary of information used to calculate annual levy for each parcel § Attend and present at up to three City Council/TCSD board meetings. MUNICIPAL DISCLOSURE: § Assist City in preparation of enhanced disclosure requirements required by the State of California or its agencies including reporting to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC). § Prepare annual reports to meet the requirements of continuing disclosure. § File continuing disclosure reports with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. § Provide Notice of Special Assessment/Tax document to seller of taxable property. DELINQUENCY MANAGEMENT: § Advise City that any policies established related to collection of delinquent special assessments/taxes are consistent with foreclosure covenant and/or requirements of the bond issue. Maintain databases that include regularly updated delinquency history for each parcel located in each district. § Track and report district delinquencies after each tax installment due dates, after the City's fiscal year end and prlor to initiation of foreclosure proceedings. § Prepare and mail letters (registered return receipt If requested) to property owners at the request of the City. § Prepare correspondence to the County for removal of delinquent taxes/assessments from the tax rolls in the event these amounts are paid directly to the district. § Assist with foreclosure coordination o Prepare City Council documents initiating foreclosure o Provide delinquent amounts for foreclosure counsel o Act as an expert witness on behalf of the City if necessary § Coordinate direct collections of individual delinquencies and deposits with the Fiscal Agent. § Monitor payment plans established under direction of the City or foreclosure counsel. 14 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Consultant shall provide special tax administration consulting services to the City/TCSD as outlined below. Optional consulting services shall be on an "as needed" basis upon request and approval by the City Manager/Executive Director or his authorized representative. The cost for optional services shall be split between the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Services shall be performed annually for the City, TCSD, and any additional optional services required for the City/TCSD. The annual pricing for Special Tax Administration and Optional Consulting Services is outlined below. The outlined five year cost for the City is $204,461.32 and TCSD is $211,382.70 for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $415,844.02. CITY OF TEMECULA RFP - SPECIAL TAX ADMINISTRATION Pricing Form CFD/AD Administration CFD 01-2 CFD 03-1 CFD 03-2 CFD 03-3 AD 03-4 CFD 03-6 Total CFD/AD Administration TCSD Administration Service Level B Service Level C Service Level 0 Service Level R City "Park & Lighting" Special Tax Total TCSD Levy Administration Total Special Tax Administration' Optional - Consulting Services Grand Total $ 80.300.00 S 81,706.00 $ 83,140.12 $ 84,60292 $ 86,094.98 ' Proposed Fee escalate at 2% for each Fiscal Year after FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2016.17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201 60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,45214 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 4,085.00 $ 4,166.70 $ 4,250.03 $ 4,335.03 $ 4,421.74 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 34,485.00 35,174.70 $ 35,878.19 $ 36,595.76 $ 37,327.67 $ 9,500.00 $ 9.690.00 $ 9,883.80 $ 10,081.48 $ 10,283.11 $ 7,600.00 $ 7,752.00 $ 7,907.04 $ 8,065.18 $ 8,226.48 $ 8,550.00 $ 8,721.00 $ 8,895.42 $ 9,073.33 $ 9,254.79 $ 190.00 $ 193.80 $ 197.68 $ 201.63 $ 205.66 $ 9,975.00 $ 10,174.50 $ 10,377.99 $ 10,585.55 $ 10,797.26 $ 35,815.00 $ 36,531.30 $ 37, .281 $ 38,767.31 $ 70.300.00 $ 71,708.00 $ 73,140.12 $ 74,602.92 $ 76,094.98 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.U01J 40 $ 10,000 00 15 Client#: 238031 ALBEWEBB1 ACORD,. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MP DDIYYYY) 1/2812015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(fes) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Hub International License # 0757776 4371 Latham St, Ste #101 Riverside, CA 92501 City of Temecula [LB -22015 insAin�D Albert A. Webb Associates 3788 McCray St. Riverside, CA 92506 Finance Dept. COVERAGES kap- Kristle Koehrer r 951-788.8600 irta No. 051742.4723 7,ODT(ss kristie.koehrer@hubinternatlonal.corn INSURERIS) AFFORDING COVERAGENAIC t WSURER A. Travelers Property Casualty Co A i*x — 25674 wsuReR 0: Irenshore Specialty Insurance A 7(1 25445 NSURERC: INaURERD: INSURER 5 : INSURER F CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER! THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, LTR A TYPE Of INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY r CLAIMS -MADE I X] OCCUR DENA, AGGREjJ AiEII LIMIT APPLIES PER: LYOLICY J IJ f LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY x Cs - ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS UMBRELLA UAB EXCESS UAB OCCUR CIAIMS#WDE OED [ F RFgTENT105S A wonons EMPLOYERS' OR,p suAei O5 YY�+11t� afxI �P EIASEN l'XCLI�EDIJTNSn IMandalory In NH) �Y J yaee..eiewde under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below B Professional Liability NtA POLICY NUMBER 6305456P929 BA5456P929 PJUB4A46491714 001753601 MINDD 02/01/2015 02101/2016( EACH OCcUR(G+GE LIMITS 21,000,000 • 02101/2015 02/01/2010 ntaiS (Ea ceJ s 100A00 MED EXP (Any one Dement s5.000 PERSONAL IL ADV INJURY S.1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE 12.000.000 PRODUCTS • COMPOP AGG 1100_11a0 51.000,000 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Es_aSmanl) BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per acdtlenl) S PROPERTY DAMAGE /Perawdam. EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE s 09/01/2014 09/01/2010 X c'csrli neH• s1.000,000 EL DLCEASE - TA EMPLOYE/ 51.000,000 E DE:..•{ . MIL CY L(wt st000M00 8/08/2014 00/08/201 $1,000,000 Each Claim 51,000,000 Aggregate 25,000 Deductible EL EACH ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Ramarke Schadel , 11 more apace le required) The City of Temecula, the Temcula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are Additional Insureds in regards to the General)iability policy per the attached endorsement form CGD414 04/08; Prlmary/Non Contributory wording included. Additional Insured in tegarge to the Auto LiabIllty policy per the attached endorsement form CAT353 06/09. (See Attached Descriptions) finA CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Temecula Attn: David Bilby 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 CANCELLATI'N SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ©1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) 1 of 2 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD #S3328694/M3327717 16 MB44 DESCRIPTIONS (Continued from Page 1) "Should the policies be cancelled before the expiration date, Hub International Insurance Services Inc. (Hub), Independent of any rights which may be afforded within the policies to the certificate holder named below, will provide to such certificate holder notice of such cancellation within thirty (30) days of the cancellation date, except In the event the cancellation is due to non-payment of premium, in which case Hub will provide to such certificate holder notice of such cancellation within ten (10) days of the cancellation date." SAGITTA 25.3 (2010105) 2 of 2 #S3328694/M3327717 Albert A. Webb Associates Policy # 6305456P929 Policy Term: 02/01/2015 to 02/01/2016 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - WRITTEN CONTRACTS (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. The following is added to SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED: Any person or organization that you agree in a "written contract requiring insurance' to Include as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but: a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage or "personal injury'; and b. If, and only to the extent that, the injury or damage Is caused by acts or omissions of you or your subcontractor In the performance of "your work" to which the 'written contract requiring Insurance" applies. The person or organization does not qualify as an additional Insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization. The Insurance provided to such additional insured Is limited as follows: c. In the event that the Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part shown in the Declarations exceed the limits of liability required by the "written contract requiring insurance", the in- surance provided to the additional insured shall be limited to the limits of liability required by that "written contract requiring insurance". This endorsement shall not increase the limits of insurance described In Section III — Limits Of Insurance. d. This Insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services" or construction management errors or omissions. e. This Insurance does not apply to 'bodily In- jury" or "property damage" caused by "your work" and Included In the "products - completed operations hazard" unless the "written contract requiring insurance" specifi- cally requires you to provide such coverage for that additional Insured, and then the insur- ance provided to the additional Insured ap- plies only to such "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs before the end of the pe- riod of time for which the "written contract re- quiring insurance" requires you to provide such coverage or the end of the policy period. whichever is earlier. 2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of SEC- TION IV — COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: The insurance provided to the additional insured is excess over any valid and collectible "other In- surance', whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the addi- tional insured for a loss we cover. However, if you specifically agree in the "written contract rewiring Insurance" that this Insurance provided to the ad- ditional insured under this Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis or a primary and non- contributory basis, this insurance is primary to "other insurance" available to the additional in- sured which covers that person or organization as a named insured for such loss, and we will not share with that "other insurance". But this insur- ance provided to the additional Insured still is ex- cess over any valid and collectible "other Insur- ance', whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional Insured when that person or organization is an additional insured under any "other Insurance". 3. The following is added to SECTION IV — COM- MERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: Duties Of An Additional Insured As a condition of coverage provided to the addi- tional insured: a. The additional Insured must give us written notice as soon as practicable of an 'occur- rence" or an offense which may result in a claim. To the extent possible, such notice should include: CG D4 14 04 08 el 2000 The Travelers Companies, Inc 18 Page 1 of 2 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I. How, when and where the "occurrence" or offense took place; II. The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses; and III. The nature and location of any injury or damage arising out of the "occurrence" or offense. b. If a claim is made or 'suit" is brought against the additional insured, the additional insured must: I. Immediately record the specifics of the claim or "suit" and the date received; and II. Notify us as soon as practicable. The additional Insured must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or "suit" as soon as practicable. c. The additional insured must immediately send us copies of all legal papers received In con- nection with the claim or "suit", cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the "suit", and oth- erwise comply with all policy conditions. d. The additional Insured must tender the de- fense and indemnity of any claim or "suit' to any provider of other Insurance which would cover the additional insured for a loss we cover. However, thls condition does not affect whether this Insurance provided to the addi- tional insured Is primary to that other Insur- ance available to the additional Insured which covers that person or organization as a named Insured. 4. The following is added to the DEFINITIONS Sec- tion: Written contract requiring insurance means that part of any written contract or agreement under which you are required to include a person or or- ganization as an additional Insured on this Cover- age Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs and the "personal in- jury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After the signing and execution of the contract or agreement by you; b. While that part of the contract or agreement Is in effect and c. Before the end of the policy period. Page 2 of 2 © 2008 The Travelers Companies, Inc. 19 CG D414 04 08 Albert A. Webb Associates Policy Number: BA5456P929 Policy Term: 02/01/2015 to 02/01/2016 COMMERCIAL AUTO THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BUSINESS AUTO EXTENSION ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by the endorsement. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE - This endorsement broadens coverage. However, coverage for any injury, damage or medical expenses descr bed in any of the provisions of this endorsernent may be excluded or limited by another endorsement to the Coverage Part: and these coverage broadening provisions do not apply to the extent that coverage is excluded or limited by such an endorsement, The following lisling is a general cover- age description only Limitations and exclusions may apply to these coverages. Read all the provisions of this en- dorsement and the rest of your policy carefully to determine rights, duties, and what is and is not covered. A. BROAD FORM NAMED INSURED B. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED C. EMPLOYEE HIRED AUTO D. EMPLOYEES AS INSURED E. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - INCREASED LIMITS F. HIRED AUTO - LIMITED WORLDWIDE COVERAGE - INDEMNITY BASIS G. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE - GLASS PROVISIONS A. BROAD FORM NAMED INSURED The following is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LIABILITY COV- ERAGE: Any organization you newly acquire or form dur- ing the policy period over which you maintain 50% or more ownership Interest and that Is not separately insured for Business Auto Coverage. Coverage under this provision is afforded only un- til the 160th day after you acquire or form the or- ganization or the end of the policy period, which- ever is earlier. B. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED The following is added to Paragraph c. in A,1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE: Any person or organization who is required under a written contract or agreement between you and that person or organization, that is signed and CA T3 53 06 09 H_ HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE - LOSS OF USE - INCREASED LIMIT 1. PHYSICAL DAMAGE - TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES - INCREASED UMIT J. PERSONAL EFFECTS K. AIRBAGS L. NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENT OR LOSS M. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION N. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS executed by you before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs and that is in effect during the policy period, to be named as an addi- tional insured is an "insured' for Liability Cover- age, but only for damages to which this insurance applies and only to the extent that person or or- ganization qualifies as an "Insured" under the Who Is An Insured provision contained in Section II. C. EMPLOYEE HIRED AUTO 1. The following is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LI- ABILITY COVERAGE: An "employee" of yours is an "insured" while operating an 'auto" hired or rented under e contract or agreement in that "employee's" name, with your permission, while perlonning duties related to the conduct of your busi- ness. 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of 4 I^eludes the copyrighted material of Insurarce Services Office, Inc. with its permission. 20 COMMERCIAL AUTO 2. The following replaces Paragraph b. in B.5., Other Insurance, of SECTION IV — BUSI- NESS AUTO CONDITIONS: b. I -or Hired Auto Physical Damage Cover- age. the following are deemed to be cov- ered "autos" you own: (1) Any covered "auto" you lease, hire, rent or borrow; and (2) Any covered "auto" hired or rented by your "employee" under a contract in that individual "employee's' name, with your permission, while perform- ing duties related to the conduct of your business. However, any "auto" that is leased, hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is not a covered "auto" D. EMPLOYEES AS INSURED The following Is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COV- ERAGE Any "employee" of yours is an "insured" while us- ing a covered "auto" you don't own, hire or borrow in your business or your personal affairs. E. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS — INCREASED LIMITS 1. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(2), of SECTION I1— LIABILITY COVERAGE: (2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (in- cluding bonds for related traffic law viola- tions) required because of an 'accident" we cover. We do not have to furnish these bonds. 2. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(4). of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE: (4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the "insured" at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day be- cause of time off from work. F. HIRED AUTO — LIMITED WORLDWIDE COV- ERAGE — INDEMNITY BASIS The following replaces Subparagraph e. In Para- graph B.7., Polley Term, Coverage Territory, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: o. Anywhere in the world, except any country or jurisdiction while any trade sanction, em- bargo, or simlar regulation Imposed by the United States of America applies to and pro- hibits the transaction of business with or within such country or jurisdiction, for Liability Coverage for any covered "auto" that you lease, hire, rent or borrow without a driver For a period of 30 days or Tess and that is not an 'auto" you lease, hire, rent or borrow from any of your "employees", partners (if you are a partnership), members (if you are a limited liability company) or members of their house- holds. (1) With respect to any claim made or 'suit" brought outside the United States of America, the territories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada: (a) You musl arrange to defend the "insured' against, and investigate or settle any such claim or 'suit' and keep us advised of all pro- ceedings and actions. (b) Neither you nor any other in- volved "insured" will make any settlement without our consent. (c) We may, at our discretion, par- ticipate in defending the "insured' against, or in the settlement of, any claim or 'suit'. (d) We will reimburse the 'insured": (1) For sums that the "insured" legally must pay as damages because of "bodily Injury" or 'property damage" to which this insurance applies, that the "insured" pays with our consent, but only up to the limit described In Paragraph C., Limit Of Insurance, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE; (ii) For the reasonable expenses Incurred with our consent for your investigation of such claims and your defense of the "insured" against any such "suit", but only up to and Included within the limit de- scribed In Paragraph C., Limit Of Insurance, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE. Page 2 of 4 © 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc CA T3 53 05 09 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc with its permission. 21 and not in addition to such limit. Our duty to make such payments ends when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in payments for damages, settlements or defense expenses. (2) This insurance is excess over any valid and collectible other insurance available to the "Insured" whether primary, excess contingent or on any other basis. (3) This insurance is not a substitute for re- quired or compulsory insurance in any country outside the United Slates, its ter- ritories and possessions, Puerto Rico and Canada. You agree to maintain all required or compulsory insurance in any such coun- try up to the minimum limits required by local law. Your failure to comply with compulsory insurance requirements will not invalidate the coverage afforded by this policy, but we will only be liable to the same extent we would have been liable had you complied with the compulsory In- surance requirements. (4) It is understood that we are not an admit- ted or authorized insurer outside the United States of America, its territories and possessions. Puerto Rico and Can- ada, We assume no responsibility for the furnishing of certificates of insurance, or for compliance in any way with the laws of other countries relating to insurance. G. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE — GLASS The following is added to Paragraph D., Deducti- ble, of SECTION 11I — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: No deductible for a covered "auto" will apply to glass damage if the glass is repaired rather than replaced. H. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE — LOSS OF USE — INCREASED LIMIT The following replaces the last sentence of Para- graph A.4.b., Loss Of Use Expenses, of SEC- TION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: However, the most we will pay for any expenses for loss of use is $65 per day, to a maximum of $750 for any one "accident". CAT3530609 COMMERCIAL AUTO I. PHYSICAL DAMAGE — TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES — INCREASED LIMIT The following replaces the first sentence in Para- graph A.4.a., Transportation Expenses, of SEC- TION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: We will pay up to $50 per day to a maximum of $1,500 for temporary transportation expense in- curred by you because of the total theft of a cov- ered "auto" of the private passenger type J. PERSONAL EFFECTS The following is added to Paragraph A.4., Cover- age Extensions, of SECTION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: Personal Effects We will pay up to $400 for 'loss' to wearing ap- parel and other personal effects which are: (1) Owned by an 'insured"; and (2) In or on your covered 'auto'. This coverage applies only in the event of a total theft of your covered "auto' No deductibles apply to this Personal Effects coverage. K. AIRBAGS The following is added to Paragraph B.3., Exclu- sions, of SECTION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: Exclusion 3.a. does not apply to "loss' to one or more airbags in a covered "auto" you own that in- flate due to a cause other than a cause of loss' set forth in Paragraphs A.1.6. and A.1.c., but only: a. If that "auto' is a covered "auto" for Compre- hensive Coverage under this policy; b. The airbags are not covered under any war- ranty; end c. The airbags were not intentonally Inflated. We will pay up to a maximum of $1,000 for any one 'loss". L. NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENT OR LOSS The following is added to Paragraph A.2.a., of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: Your duty to give us or our authorized representa- tive prompt notice of the "accident" or "loss" ap- plies only when the "accident" or "loss" is known lo. (a) You (if you are an individual); © 2009 The Travelers Ccmpenies, Inc Page 3 of 4 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Cffice., Inc with its permission 22 COMMERCIAL AUTO (b) A partner (if you are a partnership); (c) A member (if you are a limited liability com- pany); (d) An executive officer, director or insurance manager (if you are a corporation or other or- ganization); or (e) Any "employee" authorized by you to give no- tice of the "accident" or "loss". M. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION The following replaces Paragraph A.S., Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDI- TIONS: 5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us We waive any righl of recovery we may have against any person or organization to the ex- tent required of you by a written contract signed and executed prior to any accident or 'loss", provided that the "accident' or "loss" arises out of operations contemplated by such contract. The waiver applies only to the person or organizalion designated in such contract. N. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS The following is added to Paragraph 8.2., Con- cealment, Misrepresentation, Or Fraud, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: The unintentional omission of, or unintentional error in, any information given by you shall not prejudice your rights under this insurance. How- ever this provision does not affect our right to col- lect additional premium or exercise our right of cancellation or non -renewal. Page 4 of 4 ® 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc. CA T3 53 06 09 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with Its permission. 23 Item No. 9 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeff Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the Purchase of Two BMW Police Motorcycles PREPARED BY: Lt. Greg Negron, Temecula Police Department Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the purchase of two BMW Police Motorcycles, for a total amount of $56,257.56, from BMW Motorcycles of Escondido. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Police Department is committed to obtaining the best technology to ensure officer safety and enhance enforcement for public safety. Since 2009, the Temecula Police Department has been evaluating the performance and emergency features of the Honda and BMW Police motorcycles within its fleet. The BMW Police motorcycle rates high in performance and comes fully built by the factory with all the required emergency lighting, radio communication, and safety accessory items installed by the dealership. While the Honda Police motorcycle also rates high in performance, all of the necessary emergency and safety components and accessories of the motorcycle are provided "after -market", and installation is outsourced to a sub -contractor after the motorcycle is built. This method has resulted in regular malfunctions requiring maintenance and repairs to be performed by different sub -contractors. After six years of evaluation, the BMW Police motorcycle meets all criteria for performance, safety, cost, functionality, and ease for repair and maintenance. Two Police motorcycles were lost to the Traffic Division as a result of accidents and need to be replaced. On July 1, 2015 a Request for Proposal to Provide and Service BMW Police Motorcycles was posted on the City's vendor and bid management system PlanetBids©. The City received two qualified responses. Both bids include a 36 month warranty. Based on the final bid price, construction of the product, qualifications, and proximity of the dealership it is recommended the motorcycles be purchased from BMW Motorcycles of Escondido: Dealership Location Total Cost BMW of Escondido Escondido $56,257.56 BMW of Riverside Riverside $56,859.86 FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds from the Police Department FY14-15 budget were encumbered and are available to make this purchase in the amount of $56,257.56. ATTACHMENTS: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido Proposal to Provide Two (2) BMW Police Motorcycles and Service BMW Police motorcycles in the Temecula Police Department fleet. CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE & SERVICE BMW MOTORCYCLES EXHIBIT A Pricing Form (3 Pages) — Two Separate Quotes Requested who 1'mo 2-9, vI I( ({; All proposed motorcycles must meet the following detailed specifications at a minimum but not all specifications/options may be selected. Important: Item #'s 2-9 may not be required at this time. Please submit one quote with costs for items 2-9 and one quote without items 2-9. Indicate which options are standard and which are included in the pricing. The City is looking for a fully turnkey motorcycle with all items and accessories loaded prior to delivery. SHOULD THE MOTORCYCLE YOU ARE BIDDING DEVIATE IN ANY WAY FROM ANY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, PLEASE NOTE THIS IN YOUR PROPOSAL. There is a section at the end to provide services and elective options with the associated cost. The attached format of the pricing form must be submitted but Proponent may utilize and submit its own computerized pricing form as long as the format is maintained as outlined. Any supporting documentation may also be attached. Item # Options and Item Description. Indicate if more than 1 item will be required for a single unit. All Freight, Assembly, Installation, and Labor Costs should be outlined separately including applicable Sales Tax. Any Additional Options and Accessories Not Listed May Be Provided On a Separate Pricing Form & Should be Itemized and Attached To This Pricing Form. Qty Per Unit Bid Price Per Unit Vendor Providing Installation BMW Motorcycles of Escondido Unless otherwise listed Indicate "Included" If included in Price _ 1 BMW R 1200 RT -P Police Motorcycle — Night Black & Alpine White 1 19489.69 2 Dynamic ESA 0 Not Included 3 Gear Shift Assist Pro 0 Not Included 4 GPS Preparation 0 Not Included 5 Dynamic Package 204,219,224 0 Not Included 6 Chrome Exhaust 0 Not Included 7 Additional Fog Lights 0 Not Included 8 Public Address Microphone 0 Not Included 9 Fire Extinguisher 0 Not Included 10 High Seat Back 0 Included Specify on P.O. 11 Low Seat Back 0 Included Specify on P.O. 12 Heated Seat 1 144.33 13 Tire Pressure Monitoring 1 226.80 14 Cruise Control 1 317.53 15 Weather Protection / Shield 1 224.74 16 Emergency Warning Lights: Indicate Quantity Needed and Price Per Unit (1) Red LED -X Light Blue LED -X Light Amber LED -X Light White LED -X Light 5 5 0 0 511.72 511.72 17 Rear Duplex Emergency Warning Light Duplex LED -X Red / Blue 1 341.94 18 White Torus LED TDL/Alley 6 435.80 19 Auxiliary LED Turn Signals 2 137.53 20 Auxiliary LED Brake/Tail Light 2 106.98 21 Saddlebag LED Lights w/Sensor Switch 1 135.63 CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE & SERVICE BMW MOTORCYCLES Additional Items Attach Pricing Form For All Additional Options & Accessories Not Outlined In Pricing Form (Exhibit A) N/A Warranty Information Warranty Statement Attached Standard Repair & Maintenance Service Program & Standard Costs Service Pricing Attached 8 Item # Options and Item Description. Indicate if more than 1 item will be required for a single unit. All Freight, Assembly, Installation, and Labor Costs should be outlined separately including applicable Sales Tax. Any Additional Options and Accessories Not Listed May Be Provided On a Separate Pricing Form & Should be Itemized and Attached To This Pricing Form. Qty Per Unit Bid Price Per Unit Vendor Providing Installation Indicate "Included" If Included in Price 22 Extra Ignition Key 1 Included 23 Stock Side Stand "Kicker" Peg 1 Included 24 Map Light 1 98.33 25 Note Pad Holder 1 40.00 26 Rear Flashlight Holder — Right or Left 1 145.83 27 M4 Combat Assault Rifle Mount 1 522.00 28 Shotgun / Assault Rifle Mounting Bracket 1 49.17 29 BMW Motorrad Battery Charger (2.5 Ah) 1 127.08 30 Radio Power Plug Connector 1 5.50 31 Radio Speaker Plug 1 5.59 32 Helmet Headset Interface Plug 1 6.00 33 _ Accessory Connection Plugs (3) 1 6.19 34 Tyco DUAC Release Tool w/sockets (25) 1 33.17 35 PVP Wireless Kit For Motorolla APX7500 — Indicate All Components Within Kit 1 883.00 36 Specialty Made Lidar Holder 1 525.00 MDR 37 Specialty Made Ticket Printer Holder 1 Incl. in above MDR 38 Specialty Made PDA Holder 1 Incl. in above MDR 39 DMV Registration — Exempt Plates — Should Be No Cost To City For DMV Registration. 1 Included Labor Cost For Installation of Agency Supplied Radio $300.00 $300.00 $495.00 $25,031.28 $2,002.50 $28,128.78 Labor Cost For All Other Installations & Assembly Assembly & Preparation Cost Motorcycle Freight Cost Total Retail Price Per Unit With Options Any Discounts or Government Pricing? California Sales Tax (8%) Total Out The Door Purchase Cost Per Unit w/ Options Additional Items Attach Pricing Form For All Additional Options & Accessories Not Outlined In Pricing Form (Exhibit A) N/A Warranty Information Warranty Statement Attached Standard Repair & Maintenance Service Program & Standard Costs Service Pricing Attached 8 CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE & SERVICE BMW MOTORCYCLES (OPTIONAL) Extended Service Plan (please describe any you provide as well as the cost) N/A Does BMW or Your Firm/Dealership Offer A Motorcycle Buy Back Program? If so, provide Conditions Required for Buyback and Standard Buyback Amount: N/A Earliest date you can provide Two (2) Motorcycles with Police Equipment: As equipped above approx 60 after receipt of purchase order This quote represents the delivery price for two (2) BMW R 1200 RT -P Police Motorcycles. This proposal is signed by an authorized representative of our firm/dealership and is valid for 60 days from 7/01/2015. Any deviations from specified options, equipment or installation that is not listed in this proposal will not be accepted. SIGNED DATE 646/3 - TITLE COMPANY NAME Fo]c:dcydes 9 Limited Warranty - BMW R 1200 RT -P 2015 Police Motorcycles (Valid only in the U.S.A.) BMW of North America, LLC ("BMW NA") warrants to the first retail Public Authority (Purchaser) and each subsequent Purchaser of 2015 U.S. specification R 1200 RT -P BMW Police motorcycles, imported by BMW NA, to be free of defects in materials or workmanship for a period of 36 months or 60,000 miles, whichever occurs first, commencing with the date the motorcycle is delivered to its first retail Purchaser, or, if the motorcycle is first placed in service as a BMW Press motorcycle, BMW Employee Lease motorcycle, BMW Motorcycle demonstrator, BMW Display motorcycle, BMW Fleet Motorcycle or BMW Motorcycle retailer demonstrator prior to sale at retail, on the date the motorcycle is first placed in such service. To obtain service under this warranty, the motorcycle must be brought, upon discovery of the defect, to the workshop of any BMW Motorrad USA authorized motorcycle retailer. This motorcycle dealer will, without charge for parts or labor, either repair or replace the defective part(s) using new or authorized remanufactured parts. The decision whether to repair or replace said part(s) is solely the prerogative of BMW NA. Parts for which replacements are made become the property of BMW NA. BMW NA makes no other express warranty on this product except the warranty as to the emission control system. The duration of any implied warranty of merchantability, is limited to the duration of the express warranty herein. BMW NA hereby excludes incidental and consequential damages, including Toss of time, inconvenience, or loss of use of the vehicle, for any breach of any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability that may be applicable to this product. Some states do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty lasts, or the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitations and exclusions may not apply to you. This warranty is not applicable to Certified Pre -Owned (CPO) Motorcycles offered for sale under the BMW Certified Pre -Owned Motorcycle Program. A separate Certified Pre -Owned protection Plan, described in applicable CPO literature, outlines the coverage provided to BMW CPO Motorcycles under the CPO Protection Plan. This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state. Any legal claim or action arising from any express or implied warranty contained herein must be brought within 12 months of the date it arises. Notwithstanding the above, the following items are warranted against defects in material and workmanship for the first 12 months: • Halogen headlight bulbs • LED bulbs as original equipment supplied by BMW (not Code 3, see below for Code 3 LED warning light warranty) • Paint, powder coat and chrome finishes Notwithstanding the above, the following items are warranted against defects in material and workmanship for the first 24 months: • Batteries This warranty does not apply to the following, except as noted above: a. Maintenance Services - This includes, but is not limited to, scheduled maintenance, such as oil changes, wheel balancing; mechanical adjustments or repairs which become necessary through normal wear and tear such as throttle body synchronization, steering bearing adjustments; or periodic maintenance such as input and Paralever drive shaft spline lubrications. b. Service & Wear Items - This includes, but is not limited to, the replacement of brake pads, linings and rotor assemblies, clutch plates, rear drive chain / belt and sprockets, spring strut dampers, steering head dampers, steering head, wheel and swing arm bearings and ball joints, incandescent bulbs, fuses, control cables, exhaust pipes and mufflers for discoloration of finish and rubber items such as hand grips, heated hand grips, foot rests, foot shift and control cable shields. c. Batteries - Batteries that exhibit signs of neglect or overcharging. d. Tires - Tires and tubes are warranted by their respective manufacturer for defects in materials and workmanship. e. Code 3 Emergency Products - BMW NA has arranged with Code 3 Public Safety Equipment, Inc. ("Code 3") to allow authorized BMW motorcycle retailers to process valid Code 3 claims for warranty repair / replacement of Code 3 products; but only for Code 3 products supplied by BMW NA on new BMW police motors or originally distributed by BMW NA through the BMW parts system. Code 3 warranty duration is 3 -years for LED's light heads and LED flasher modules. Please refer to the warranty information provided with these products for further details. f. Other Emergency Lighting and Siren Systems - These components manufactured by Whelen, Federal Signal and Unitrol are warranted by their respective manufacturer for defects in material and workmanship. Please refer to the warranty information provided with these products for further details or consult the BMW police motors website for the respective manufacturer's warranty 1 repair information at www.bmwmc.net . g. Improper Fuel Usage - Only use fuels advertised to have adequate detergency and low alcohol (maximum 10% ethanol) content. Please refer to your owner's manual for important information on the fuel recommended for use in your vehicle. Use of fuels with insufficient detergent and/or excess alcohol can cause drivability problems that necessitate cleaning intake valves and fuel injection valves, and, when applicable, adjusting the engine idle. We suggest having this work performed by your authorized BMW dealer, perhaps while regular maintenance is performed. Your BMW dealer can also recommend a gasoline additive that will provide sufficient detergency. While this recommended unscheduled maintenance is not required in order to maintain the emissions warranty, cleaning of the intake valves or, when applicable, fuel injection valves, or adjustment of engine idle, necessitated by use of inappropriate fuel, it is not covered by warranty because no defect in material or workmanship or component failure is involved. h. Failure to Service - This includes, but is not limited to, damage attributable to failure to perform maintenance services at the specified intervals or in accordance with the instructions in the Rider's Manual and/or Service & Technical booklet. Proof must be provided either by a paid invoice copy or filling in the appropriate boxes in the Service & Technical booklet. i. Damage - This includes, but is not limited to, damage resulting from negligence, improper treatment, the installation and use of side cars, three wheel conversions, trailer hitches, the towing of trailers of any description, accidents or improper accident damage repairs, corrosion from road salts, battery acid, cleaning agents, environmental influences, or treatment contrary to the Rider's Manual and/or Service and Technical booklet. j. Non -BMW Parts .Damage to a component or assembly due to the installation of replacement parts with specifications that differ in any material respect from Original BMW Parts. k. Towing. Limited towing assistance is available through the BMW Motorcycle Roadside Assistance Plan. The warranty shall be null and void if: 1. The motorcycle is used in any competitive events. 2. The motorcycle has been declared a total loss or sold for salvage purposes. 3. If the Vehicle Identification Number has been altered or cannot be read. 4. Any performance accessories or components attached to the vehicle which alters the original engineering and/or operating specifications which results or may result in damage to other original components. BMW Motorcycles of Escondido Experience and references • Powersports Unlimited Inc., DBA BMW Motorcycles of Escondido, has been operating under dealer principal Michael Findlay since 2009. • Dealership General Manager Rick Johns has been working for the dealership under prior and current ownership since 2001. Rick has personally handled every authority agency contract since 2005. • BMW Master certified technician Arden Friesen has been servicing BMW authority motorcycles since their U.S. debut in 1997. Arden has built authority motorcycles since 2003. He is fully trained in every aspect of the BMW police bike assembly. • BMW Motorcycles of Escondido has built and serviced motorcycles over the past 15 years for agencies including but not limited to: o City of Escondido Joseph Goulart — Fleet Mgr. (760) 839-4364 o City of Murrieta Sgt. Jay Froboese (951) 461-6302 o City of Carlsbad Amy Hazen — Purchasing (760) 602-2460 o City of El Cajon Sgt. Matt Conlon (619) 593-5710 o San Diego County Sheriff Kevin Dalton — Fleet Manager (858) 204-2678 Technical Approach & Timeline • As soon as purchase order is received the motorcycle and all of the build components specified by the agency are ordered. • Assuming items 2 thru 9 on Exhibit A of RFP are not included in P.O., 2-3 weeks from date of order motorcycles and build components arrive in crates If items 2 thru 9 are requested in P.O. specialty built motorcycles will arrive in November 2015. • Upon motorcycle arrival agency will be contacted to provide dealership with radio unit. Radio unit will be required to be delivered prior to start of build. • Motorcycle will be disassembled to install agency supplied radio harness. Radio harness will be wired into motorcycle's special switched ignition power control unit which retains power to radio for 30 minutes after key is switched off. • Build components requested as part of purchase order will be installed and thoroughly tested. • Delivery of completed motorcycles to agency within 30 days of receipt of motorcycles in crates. Delivery contingent upon agency delivery of required items listed in Exhibit A. • DMV registration and plates should arrive to agency within 90 days after motorcycle's delivery to agency, barring any delays in Sacramento. • Service required on motorcycles should be scheduled no less than 48 hours in advance so as to provide ample notice to acquire necessary parts and to arrange for pickup of the motorcycle from the agency if so desired. • Delivery of finished motorcycle back to agency will be within 24 hours of service appointment for scheduled maintenance. Repairs outside the scope of scheduled maintenance will be handled on a case by case basis. BMW Service Pricing Estimate Model Year 2015+ • First 600 mile service: $286.00 o Engine oil and filter change o Final drive oil change o Inspection and adjustment of crucial vehicle components o Reset of "Service Due" reminder • Every 6,000 miles: $286.00 o Engine oil and filter change o Inspection and adjustment of crucial vehicle components o Reset of "Service Due" reminder • Every 12,000 miles: $790.00 o Engine oil and filter change o Final drive oil change o Checking and adjusting engine valve clearance o Replace spark plugs o Replace air filter o Inspection and adjustment of crucial vehicle components o Reset of "Service Due" reminder • Once every 12 months: $115 When done with regular service work. o Brake fluid flush in entire system • Tire replacement: $49 per wheel + cost of tire desired • All other labor: $98 per hour + cost of parts BMW Service Pricing Estimate Model Year 2008 • Every 6,000 miles: $435.00 o Engine oil and filter change o Checking and adjusting engine valve clearance o Throttle body sync o Inspection and adjustment of crucial vehicle components o Reset of "Service Due" reminder • Every 12,000 miles: $625.00 o Engine oil and filter change o Final drive oil change o Gearbox oil change o Checking and adjusting engine valve clearance o Replace spark plugs o Replace air filter o Throttle body sync o Inspection and adjustment of crucial vehicle components o Reset of "Service Due" reminder • Once every 12 months: $115 When done with regular service work. o Brake fluid flush in entire system • Tire replacement: $49 per wheel + cost of tire desired • All other labor: $98 per hour + cost of parts Item No. 10 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve a Three -Year Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Christine Damko, Economic Development Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Operating Agreement with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce in the amount of $135,000 annually for three years for a total amount of $405,000, beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula partners with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce (TVCC) in order to enhance the City's economic development efforts. The Economic Development Committee consisting of Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Edwards met with staff to discuss the Economic Development funding requests on April 7, 2015. The Committee recommended approval of $135,000 annually for three years beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 for a total amount of $405,000. The City Council subsequently approved this funding level in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Budget. Exhibit "A" to the attached agreement outlines services to be provided during the 2015-16 Fiscal Year, to carry on promotional activities on behalf of the City of Temecula. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce The mission of the TVCC is to promote positive economic growth for the business community, by doing so, support the programs which preserve and improve the quality of life for the entire community. The TVCC provides access to a complete list of members who have the expertise needed to assist member businesses and the community to manage their financial, organizational and marketing issues. The TVCC's efficient, friendly and energetic staff responds to a vast range of requests for information. In 2015, the TVCC responded to over 27,800 requests for relocation, tourism, and business information via phone, walk-in, email, and mail. The TVCC continues to assist legitimate firms seeking to relocate to Temecula and provide them with exceptional customer service. In addition, the TVCC's CEO works in conjunction with City staff and Southwest Economic Development Corporation (SWEDC), participating in site visits to large businesses throughout the year. The Chamber's CEO periodically acts as the liaison between the business community and City/Utility companies related to specific issues facing the business. This service provides a positive benefit for the economic development of the business community. The TVCC currently coordinates over 200 events, programs and opportunities each year for members to network and connect with other local businesses. The TVCC partners with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) to offer business counseling services and on a monthly basis provides Small Business Training Workshops, offering information on key business issues such as employer taxes, opportunities for doing business with the Government and SBA loans. The TVCC is also a strong partner in the Temecula Valley Entrepreneur's Exchange, and as part of this agreement the TVCC is providing one year trial memberships to a maximum of sixteen start-up companies who will locate within the City's incubator. The Chamber also provides meeting space to many local non-profit organizations (at no charge ex: SAFE, The Arts Council, Dorland Mountain Arts Colony, Race For Humanity, Temecula Noon Rotary, and SCORE representatives) who offer counseling services to individuals starting businesses and businesses wishing to expand. With 48 years of experience, the TVCC offers its members and the community at large unprecedented benefits, events, programs, discounts and opportunities, coordinated to help them succeed. The TVCC serves as an advocate for business, dedicated to regional prosperity. Through these cooperative efforts the TVCC can accomplish collectively what no one business could do individually. The TVCC represents the voice of business, taking positions on local issues based upon our mission statement, access to sources of information and input from stakeholders. By taking a leadership role on key issues, the TVCC becomes the focal point and can direct its resources as well as alliance partners to address the issues. The TVCC board of directors is comprised of 23 respected business owners and members, each representing a key business segment of this area. The TVCC's request in the amount of $135,000 was budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Budget. FISCAL IMPACT: Appropriate funding for the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce is available in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Economic Development Department Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Agreement OPERATING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 28th day of July 2015, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, (CHAMBER), a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The City is desirous of promoting its advantages as a business, industrial, tourist and resident center; disseminating information relative thereto, and of properly following up and giving consideration to inquiries made relative to the various activities of City of Temecula ("City") and its possibilities as such to residential, industrial, tourist and business interests. b. The CHAMBER has special knowledge, experience and facilities for disseminating information; and is organized for and equipped to carry on promotional activities on behalf of City; and to publicize and exploit its advantages. c. Such activities re recognized by law as being in the public interest and serving public purpose. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2018, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. SERVICES Chamber shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Chamber shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 4. PERFORMANCE Chamber shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Chamber shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Chamber hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Chamber quarterly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($135,000.00) annually for three years for a total Agreement of Four Hundred Five Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($405,000.00) unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Chamber shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Chamber shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Chamber at the time City's written authorization is given to Chamber for the performance of said services. c. Chamber will submit invoices quarterly for actual services performed. Payment shall be made thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Chamber at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Chamber shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Chamber the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Chamber will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 7. DEFAULT OF CHAMBER a. The Chamber's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Chamber is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Chamber for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Chamber . If such failure by the Chamber to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Chamber 's control, and without fault or negligence of the Chamber , it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Chamber is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Chamber with written notice of the default. The Chamber shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Chamber fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Chamber shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Chamber shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Chamber shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Chamber. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Chamber shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 9. INDEMNIFICATION The Chamber agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Chamber 's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Chamber shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Chamber, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. ii. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Chamber owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Chamber has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Chamber shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Chamber shall maintain limits no less than: General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. ii. Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Chamber ; products and completed operations of the Chamber ; premises owned, occupied or used by the Chamber ; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Chamber . The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Chamber 's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Chamber's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Chamber's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Chamber shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the Cityvia certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Chamber shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Chamber's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Chamber is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Chamber shall at all times be under Chamber 's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Chamber or any of Chamber 's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Chamber shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Chamber shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Chamber in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Chamber as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Chamber for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Chamber for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Chamber shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Chamber shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Chamber to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Chamber in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Chamber without City's prior written authorization. Chamber , its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Chamber gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Chamber shall promptly notify City should Chamber, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Chamber and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Chamber agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Chamber . However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: To Chamber : City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A Temecula, CA 92591 Attn: Alice Sullivan, President/CEO 15. ASSIGNMENT The Chamber shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Chamber 's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Chamber. 16. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Chamber shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW The City and Chamber understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 18. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Chamber , or Chamber 's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Chamber hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Chamber or Chamber 's sub -contractors on this project. Chamber further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Chamber warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Chamber and has the authority to bind Chamber to the performance of its obligations hereunder.The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Jeff Kurtz, Chairman of the Board ATTEST: By: By: Alice Sullivan, IOM President/CEO Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney NONPROFIT Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce 26790 Ynez Court, Suite A Temecula, CA 92591 (951) 676-5090 asullivan(a�temecula.org PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT "A" SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce shall undertake, during the 2015-16 Fiscal Year, to carry on promotional activities on behalf of the City of Temecula and to particularly render the following services: 1. Business Retention site visits- (2 per month: schedule and attend) 2. Business Relocation assistance (average 30 businesses/year) 3. Business Assistance as requested 4. Tourism inquiry fulfillment (10,500 inquiries) 5. Residential and business relocation inquiry fulfillment (4,600 inquiries) 6. Demographic information inquiry fulfillment (4,200 inquiries) 7. SCORE -Weekly meeting space for counseling services 8. SBDC- Bi -weekly meeting space for counseling services 9. SBDC-Nine Workshops (QuickBooks, Marketing, Business start-up, HR) 10. Promotion of Shop Local program 11. Maintain website promoting local commerce, tourism and events 12. Street Map (Distribution) 13. Business Resource/Relocation Guide (Production and distribution, Print) 14. Business Workshops on behalf of City of Temecula Topics to include: Signage, Business License, TUP As needed 15. Promotion of City events (College & Career Fair and Intern Program) 16. Legislative Advocacy (Consultant fee, maintain website, staff participation) 17. Manufacturing Counil — Coordination and attendance at 6 events) 18. Candidate forums (City, County and State offices) 19. Temecula Today — full Page Article (6 per year, distribution of 1,400 copies) 20. Restaurant Month promotions 21. Student of the Month/Year 22. Ribbon Cuttings/Grand Opening Events (48 per year) 23. Valley Young Professionals. 24. Chamber Networking Events — See Exhibit B, Schedule of events 25. Introductory one year memberships for incubator businesses (16 @ $325/each — Limited to new incubator businesses) 26. RTA Bus pass sales outlet 27. Provide conference room space to local non-profit organizations 28. Community -wide E -Waste events (2 per year) 29. Community Travel programs 30. City participation at Chamber special events: Awards Gala (Event partner — 10 seats) State of the City (Event partner — 30 seats) Economic Forecast (Event partner — 10 seats) Wine Country Classic (Event partner — 5 Reservations) Legislative Summit (Event partner — 10 seats) Women in Business (Event Partner — 2 seats and Expo Table) EXHIBIT B PAYMENT RATE AND SCHEDULE That in consideration of the promotional activities and services performed by the CHAMBER for the City of Temecula, as set forth in Exhibit "A" hereof, City hereby agrees to pay CHAMBER, during the term of this Agreement, the sum of One Hundred Thirty -Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($135,000) annually for three years beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 . The sum of $135,000 for the fiscal year 2015-16 is payable upon receipt of invoice quarterly beginning on execution of the Agreement. Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve a Three -Year Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 PREPARED BY: Christine Damko, Economic Development Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau in the amount of $50,000 annually for three years for a total amount of $150,000, beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017- 18 for publication and distribution of the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map and for film commission services. BACKGROUND: Temecula is an attractive tourism destination offering a host of appealing events, activities and attractions. In order to entice visitors from Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange Counties to include Temecula in their day trip or vacation plans, the tourism rack brochure/map was created. The publication and distribution of the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map is currently designed for a very specific drive market; primarily for the leisure traveler who already has their vacation plans scheduled, but might be looking for day trip activities to add to their itinerary. This brochure/map is not designed to generate overnight stays for this immediate traveler, but may plant the seed for future overnight stays. The day-tripper (known as the leisure traveler, who dines, shops, plays golf, etc.) still plays a vital and important role for Temecula's economy. An additional service is to incorporate a Temecula Film Commission to serve as a one-stop office for film and television permit support and facilitation, location assistance and filming resources throughout Temecula. The Bureau will accomplish this through a targeted marketing strategy, promotion of a film commission website, familiarization (FAM) tours, and partnering with local tourism businesses. The Bureau will partner directly with state and regional film commissions. The Economic Development Committee consisting of Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Edwards met to discuss the Economic Development Sponsorship Funding requests on April 7, 2015. The Committee recommended approval of $50,000 annually for three years beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 for a total amount of $150,000 for the Temecula Valley Tourism Rack Brochure/Map and its distribution and for Film Commission services. The City Council approved this funding in the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Operating Budget. The beautifully designed rack brochure provides information on Old Town, Wine Country, Pechanga, local hotels and accommodations, recreation, shopping, City facilities, activities and events. In addition, these publications help drive business to the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitor's Bureau, Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association and City of Temecula websites. The tourism rack brochure/map is distributed by the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Temecula and is distributed at trade shows. It is also included in the City's business kit. The TVCVB plans to produce 200,000 rack brochures/maps. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds for the Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau Tourism Rack Brochure/Map and film commission services have been included in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Budget for the recommended amount of $50,000. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 28th day of July, 2015, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "TVCVB"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The City is desirous of promoting its advantages as a business, industrial, tourist and resident center; disseminating information relative thereto, and of properly following up and giving consideration to inquiries made relative to the various activities of City of Temecula ("City") and its possibilities as such to residential, industrial, tourist and business interests. b. The TVCVB has special knowledge, experience and facilities for disseminating tourist information; and is organized for and equipped to carry on promotional activities on behalf of City; and to publicize and exploit its tourism advantages. c. Such activities are recognized by law as being in the public interest and serving public purpose. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2018, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreeement. 3. SERVICES TVCVB shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. TVCVB shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 4. PERFORMANCE TVCVB shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. TVCVB shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of TVCVB hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 5. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay TVCVB in accordance with the services to be provided, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($50,000.00) annually for three years beginning Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year 2017-18 for a total amount of $150,000 for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. The City will provide in-kind city -support services for use of the Conference Center one time per quarter valued at an amount not to exceed One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Dollars and 00/100 ($1,120.00). b. TVCVB shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . TVCVB shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and TVCVB at the time City's written authorization is given to TVCVB for the performance of said services. c. TVCVB will submit an invoice for actual services performed. Payment shall be made thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. 6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the TVCVB at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the TVCVB shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to TVCVB the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the TVCVB will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 7. DEFAULT OF TVCVB a. The TVCVB's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that TVCVB is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating TVCVB for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the TVCVB . If such failure by the TVCVB to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the TVCVB 's control, and without fault or negligence of the TVCVB, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the TVCVB is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the TVCVB with written notice of the default. The TVCVB shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the TVCVB fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. TVCVB shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. TVCVB shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. TVCVB shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the TVCVB. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, TVCVB shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 9. INDEMNIFICATION The TVCVB agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of TVCVB 's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 10. INSURANCE TVCVB shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the TVCVB , its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the TVCVB owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the TVCVB has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but TVCVB shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. TVCVB shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the TVCVB; products and completed operations of the TVCVB; premises owned, occupied or used by the TVCVB; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the TVCVB. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the TVCVB's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the TVCVB 's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The TVCVB 's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the TVCVB shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. TVCVB shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the TVCVB's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. TVCVB is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of TVCVB shall at all times be under TVCVB's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of TVCVB or any of TVCVB's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. TVCVB shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. TVCVB shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to TVCVB in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to TVCVB as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to TVCVB for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to TVCVB for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The TVCVB shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The TVCVB shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the TVCVB to comply with this section. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by TVCVB in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by TVCVB without City's prior written authorization. TVCVB , its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided TVCVB gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. TVCVB shall promptly notify City should TVCVB, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent TVCVB and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. TVCVB agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by TVCVB. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 14. ASSIGNMENT The TVCVB shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, TVCVB's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the TVCVB. 15. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Recipient: Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau Attn: Kimberly Adams, President/CEO 28690 Mercedes Street #A Temecula, CA 92590 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 17. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the TVCVB and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: By: By: Tom DeMott, Chairman of the Board Kimberly Adams, President/CEO Melody Brunsting, Secretary Bill Wilson, Treasurer NONPROFIT Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau 28690 Mercedes St., Suite A Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 491-6085 PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT "A" SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED The Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau (TVCVB) shall undertake carrying on marketing/advertising promotional activities for the Leisure Travel Market on behalf of City and to particularly render the following services: 1. Produce 200,000 tourism rack brochures/maps. The TVCVB shall supply City with rack brochures to include in City's business attraction efforts at no cost to City. 2. Distribute the tourism rack brochure/map through certified rack service in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County and Palm Springs and include corporate markets for Phoenix, AZ, San Diego and Orange County. 3. Promote Temecula Valley as a site for on -location filming to producers and location managers. Conduct site tours and familiarization tours to prospective producers, location managers/scouts and site selectors. Increase permit processing and support tourism jobs within the film industry. 4. For the 2015-2016 fiscal year, contract an independent design group to create a branded Gateway Thematic Master Plan for the I-15 freeway to increase brand awareness and attract the pass-through motorist by utilizing branded elements and to create a sense of arrival. 5. The President and CEO of the TVCVB shall provide to the City Manager a copy of activities monthly report submitted to the TVCVB Board of Directors. Said report is requested by the second Wednesday of each month. 6. This agreement for the $50,000 of economic development funding does not require the TVCVB to provide a financial audit, as this requirement is satisfied through their annual financial audit they provide to the City per the current Management Agreement (relating to the TVTBID). Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Interim Community Development Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. in the amount of $25,000, for a total agreement amount of $149,000, for the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update. BACKGROUND: Now in its 25th year of incorporation, the City of Temecula is transitioning from a growth city to a maintenance city. While there are several opportunities for large developments remaining throughout the community, the majority of the developable vacant properties are considered to be smaller, infill projects. With the rising costs of the provision of municipal services, the City wishes to remain fiscally prudent and maintain a healthy fiscal and economic balance and evaluate land development potential and economic opportunity on a City-wide basis. On May 21, 2014, the Infill Land Use Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Comerchero and Mayor Pro Tem Naggar, recommended entering into an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for economic consulting services to conduct a land use economic opportunity study throughout the City. On June 24, 2014, the City Council approved an agreement with KMA to determine whether the existing General Plan land use designations for the remaining vacant land will enable the City to maximize economic opportunity for the community. The study has assessed the comparative fiscal impacts on the City's General Fund for a General Plan build out scenario versus an alternative land use scenario. The study also assesses current market conditions for various land use types and developed a fiscal impact model to measure the recurring annual impacts on the City's General Fund resulting from incremental development on the remaining vacant land in the City. As a part of this study, KMA has updated a previous market assessment for Old Town, originally prepared by KMA in 1998, by providing an update of current market conditions in Old Town and identifying development opportunities and implementation approaches to improve the area. On June 17, 2015, the Infill Subcommittee recommended that KMA conduct several additional analyses as part of the Citywide Fiscal Land Use Study. While the draft analysis is nearly complete, this amendment to the agreement includes the following additional analyses: • Multi -family apartment demand • Retail demand supported by new households • Potential sources for revenue generation • Analysis of potential hotel development FISCAL IMPACT: The additional scope of work will cost $25,000. Sufficient funds are available in line item 001.161.999.5248 (Planning — Consulting Services) for FY2015-16. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. ECONOMIC CONSULTING SERVICES — LAND USE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY STUDY AND OLD TOWN MARKET OPPORTUNITIES UPDATE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 28, 2015 by and between the City of Temecula, a CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., a Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2014, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Economic Consulting Services — Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update," in the amount of $124,000. b. The parties now desire to add to the scope of work, increase the payment amount by $25,000, and extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2016 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. follows: 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as "This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2016 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The FIRST Amendment amount shall not exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($ 25,000), for additional consulting and fiscal analyses for a total Agreement amount of one hundred forty nine thousand dollars ($149,000). 4. Exhibits A and B to the Agreement are hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 5. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Paul C Marra, Managing Principal ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Attn: Paul C Marra 555 West Beech Street Suite 460 San Diego, CA 92101 pmarra@keysermarston.com 2 Acting PM Initials:(. Date: ATTACHMENT A EXHIBITS A AND B Consultant shall provide additional services for the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and the Old Town Market Opportunities Update in the amount of $25,000 per the Consultants proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. In no event shall the total agreement exceed $149,000 for the total term of the Agreement. 3 ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAN FRANCISCO A. JERRY KEYSER TIMOTHY C. KELLY KATE EARLE FUNK DEBBIE M. KERN REED T. KAWAHARA DAVID DOEZEMA LOS ANGELES KATHLEEN H. HEAD JAMES A. RABE GREGORY D. Soo -Hoo KEVIN E. ENGSTROM JULIE L. ROMEY SAN DIEGO PAUL C. MARRA To: From: Date: Subject: BACKGROUND KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES,. ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Senior Management Analyst Development Services City of Temecula KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. July 6, 2015 Proposal for Additional Services Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update Pursuant to our recent discussions, this memorandum presents the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) proposal to provide additional services related to the Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update. As background, KMA recently submitted drafts of both reports in accordance with our contract dated July 1, 2014. In the course of completing these studies, KMA responded to a variety of inquiries from City staff; conducted independent assessments of specific properties proposing zone changes; and prepared handouts for, and participated in, presentations with City staff, Councilmembers, and stakeholders. As a result, the total budgets allocated to these two studies have been exhausted. You have requested that KMA provide additional services, including specific technical analyses, participation in Council Subcommittee meetings, and presentations to public/community meetings. This memorandum represents the KMA scope and budget for these requested services. 555 WEST BEECH ST., SUITE 460 ➢ SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 ➢ PHONE: 619 718 9500 ➢ FAX: 619 718 9508 WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 15118ndh 19545.036.006 To: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Sr. Management Analyst, Development Services July 6, 2015 Subject: Proposal for Additional Services Page 2 Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on discussion with City staff, KMA proposes to undertake the following additional services. Task 1 — Multi -Family Apartment Demand KMA will formulate a market demand projection for rental/multi-family housing in the City. This projection will take into account: • The existing mix of single- vs. multi -family and ownership vs. rental housing in the City • Recent and projected demographic and economic trends • Review of current multi -family and rental housing proposals • The KMA Citywide total housing unit demand forecast (draft Land Use Economic Opportunity Study) Based on these factors, KMA will formulate an estimate of the magnitude of potential new renter households at rent levels that can support high-quality apartment developments. Task 2 — Retail Demand Supported by New Households KMA will prepare an analysis of the amount of new retail space supported by new households at various price/rent levels. This analysis will draw from the off-site retail spending assumptions in the KMA Citywide fiscal impact model (draft Land Use Economic Opportunity Study). We will model the amount of new retail space, and level of retail sales, supported by the typical new single-family home, attached townhome, and rental apartment, assuming minimum household incomes required to afford the median prices/rents. We will also illustrate the minimum housing value/household income required to generate a fiscally neutral impact to the City's General Fund, i.e., at what home price/rent does sales tax from off-site retail spending offset the General Fund expenditure impacts. 15118ndh 19545.036.006 To: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Sr. Management Analyst, Development Services July 6, 2015 Subject: Proposal for Additional Services Page 3 Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update Task 3 — Potential Revenue Generation As a follow-up to KMA Recommendation #7 in the draft Land Use Economic Opportunity Study, KMA will prepare financial illustrations of the potential revenue generated to the City as a result of increases in tax revenues and/or Community Facilities District (CFD) assessments. For each funding source identified — transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax, Measure C, and a public safety CFD — KMA will prepare estimates of annual revenue generation from up to two (2) scenarios (e.g., low/high). Our findings will be presented in a summary comparison matrix. Task 4 — Hotel Development Potential As a follow-up to KMA Recommendation #5 in the draft Land Use Economic Opportunity Study, KMA will review the City's existing land use/zoning designations to identify additional areas to allow or encourage hotel development. Working with City staff, we will tabulate the potential increase in land area available for hotel development, and the associated yield in terms of hotel rooms. We will also prepare estimates of TOT for typical Limited Service and Full Service hotels, on a per -hotel, per -room, and per -acre basis. Task 5 — Council Subcommittee Meetings KMA will prepare for, and participate in, two (2) Council Subcommittee meetings. Task 6 — Public/Community Meetings KMA will prepare for, and attend, up to five (5) community workshops and/or public meetings. BUDGET In order to provide these additional services, KMA requests that the City establish a budget amendment in the amount of $25,000. We propose to time -bill against this budget limit in accordance with the hourly billing rates in our contract with the City. This budget can be allocated by task as shown below. 15118ndh 19545.036.006 To: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Sr. Management Analyst, Development Services July 6, 2015 Subject: Proposal for Additional Services Page 4 Land Use Economic Opportunity Study and Old Town Market Opportunities Update Task Budget 1— Multi -Family Apartment Demand $5,000 2 — Retail Demand Supported by New Households $3,500 3 — Potential Revenue Generation $3,500 4 — Hotel Development Potential $3,000 5 — Council Subcommittee Meetings $2,500 6 — Public/Community Meetings $7,500 Total Budget $25,000 Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our approach to providing these additional services to the City. 15118ndh 19545.036.006 Item No. 13 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project, PW12-14 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Old Town Front Street Pavement and Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project, PW12-14; 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND: As part of the Capital Improvement Program and budget for Fiscal Year 2014-15, the City Council approved appropriations to support a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program that would implement the recommended maintenance activities identified in the previously completed Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS prioritized the areas in need of repairs and identified the recommended method for these repairs. Using the PMS, staff selected several locations throughout the City based on its ranking on the PMS report, economy of scale and the available budget. The Old Town Front Street project was selected for rehabilitation at this time. Additionally, several locations were identified where localized flooding issues were experienced, with the Old Town Front Street 'dip' crossing being one of these locations. Due to the proximity of these projects, the two projects were combined. The project plans and specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works. The Engineer's estimate for the project is $585,000. Of this total amount, $470,000 will go toward the pavement rehab work, and will be drawn from the Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program. The remainder, $115,000, will go toward the storm drain work, and will be drawn from the Citywide Storm Drain Improvement Program. This project is exempt from the CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states that the repair and maintenance of existing highways, streets, and gutters are Class 1 activities, which are exempt from CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program and Citywide Storm Drain Improvement Programs are identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program Budget. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program is funded with Measure A and General Fund contributions; the Storm Drain Improvement Program is funded with General Fund contributions. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Descriptions 2. Location Map Heart o! Southern CaMorn.a Wine Country Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-20 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit / Core Value: This project improves pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: A priority list of rehabilitation projects has been developed. Installations are completed on an ongoing basis. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.655 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 2015-16 Carryover Adopted Budget Appropriation 2016-17 Projected 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 Projected 2019-20 Projected Total Project Cost Administration $ 1,473,958 $ 200,000 $ 270,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 2,583,958 Construction $ 10,947,919 $ 5,822,639 $ 507,639 $ 652,257 $ 989,600 $ 1,103,525 $ 1,224,384 $ 21,247,963 Construction $ 10,507,727 $ 2,030,213 $ 977,639 $ 942,257 $ 1,049,600 $ 1,163,525 $ 1,284,384 $ 17,955,345 Engineering $ 125,632 $ 229,127 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,004,759 Design $ 624,563 $ 97,625 $ 150,000 $ 230,000 $ 1,102,188 Totals $ 13,172,072 $ 6,349,391 $ 977,639 $ 1,192,257 $ 1,299,600 $ 1,413,525 $ 1,534,384 $ 25,938,868 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 2015-16 Carryover Adopted Budget Appropriation 2016-17 Projected 2017-18 Projected 2018-19 Projected 2019-20 Projected Total Project Cost General Fund Contributions $ 2,664,345 $ 4,319,178 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 7,983,523 Measure A $ 10,507,727 $ 2,030,213 $ 977,639 $ 942,257 $ 1,049,600 $ 1,163,525 $ 1,284,384 $ 17,955,345 Total Funding: $ 13,172,072 $ 6,349,391 $ 977,639 $ 1,192,257 $ 1,299,600 $ 1,413,525 $ 1,534,384 $ 25,938,868 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 General Fund Contributions include 1.5 million tor Pavement Management Program Approved at Midyear on 2/24/2015. 59 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2016-20 CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project includes the design and construction of storm drain improvements on several streets that flood during storm events, as well as replacing the existing cross gutter at Old Town Front Street, north of Temecula Parkway. The storm drain improvements on Old Town Front Street will be constructed in conjunction with the Pavement Rehabilitation project. Benefit / Core Value: This project improves safety and circulation while maintaining the integrity of the streets during inclement weather. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Values of A Safe and Prepared Community and Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: The storm drain improvements on Old Town Front Street will be constructed during FY 2015-16. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.715 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 Carryover Budget 2015-16 Adopted Appropriation 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration $ 168,622 $ 26,238 $ 25,000 $ 219,860 Acquisition $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 60,000 Construction $ 456,269 $ 156,927 $ 613,196 Construction Engineering $ 9,030 $ 21,704 $ 30,734 Design $ 42,261 $ 581 $ 42,842 MSHCP $ 4,368 $ 19,132 $ 23,500 Totals $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 990,132 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2015 Carryover Budget 2015-16 Adopted Appropriation 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Total Project Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost G eneral Fund Contributions Total Funding: $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ 680,550 $ 254,582 $ 55,000 $ 990,132 $ 990,132 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 85 THF CITY OF 4ii;o''TEMECULA PW12-14 - Old Town Front St Pvmt & Storm Drain Rehab s •G ® ON 411V: V44# LII bag Szp. r 6 4q� A.1LL� 641 41*sq� 461". ' �iyconib NI cR imet-01 Legend � City 4'0 as �� * Streets s I iggebVla Parcels OIllikilla PavementPorti71111 I 0 jigO ,0011 111 t� li. • 1 . "lila11 0 �� Sto m Drain Po11 2, Alliill rtion allH WI I I ilit Eo�$to _____% li, • 1 Ni... 40 e' vi • • 9�F le Iii 4ii !iv �v ,,A. 64,,c 'v- \A 1000 2000 3000 ft. Scale: 1:10,386 1, 1, Map center: 6288915, 2121692 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Parcel Map 36336 (Located West of Ynez Road, East of Interstate -15, North and South of Date Street) PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve Parcel Map 36336 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; 2. Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monumentation Bond as security for the agreement. BACKGROUND: Record Title Interest: Harveston — SAB LLC; Stephen A. Bieri Parcel Map 36336 proposes to subdivide 97.48 gross acres, 96.04 net acres, into seventeen parcels (average parcel size ±6.65 acres, minimum parcel size ±3.67 acres) for service commercial development. The property covered by this parcel map is located west of Ynez Road, east of Interstate -15, north and south of Date Street. Tentative Parcel Map No. 36336 (PA 10-0298) was approved by the Planning Director on January 6, 2010. All public improvements are in place, however, the survey monuments are to be set. The property owner/developer is thus obligated to execute the Subdivision Monument Agreement and post the required security. The property owner/developer has met the terms of the Conditions of Approval for map recordation, and this map is in conformance with the approved tentative tract map. The approval of a subdivision map, which substantially complies with the approved tentative map, is a mandatory ministerial act under State law. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fees and Securities Report 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Copy of the Map CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO.36336 DATE: July 28, 2015 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY LABOR AND MATERIAL SECURITY Street and Drainage $0.00 $0.00 Water $0.00 $0.00 Sewer $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 Monumentation $7,500.00 - DEVELOPMENT FEES: RCFC&WCD (ADP) Fee Development Impact Fee $ Paid $ Paid SERVICE FEES: Planning Fee $369.00 Fire Fee $262.00 TCSD Fee $178.00 Map Check Fee $9,053.00 Fees paid to date $9,862.00 Balance of fees due $0 PM 36336 PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE NUMBER OF NUMBERED PARCELS = 17 NUMBER OF LETTERED LOTS = 1 NUMBERED PARCEL ACREAGE = 96 04 LETTERED LOT ACREAGE - 1 44 TOTAL GROSS ACREAGE = 97 48 OWNER'S STATEMENT WE HEREBY STATE THAT RE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LANG; THAT WE CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE HORDER LINE WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND P UBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES OVER LOT "A" AS SHOWN HEREON WE HEREBY RETAIN UNTO OURSELVES, OUR SUCCESSORS. OUR ASSIGNEES AND PARCEL OWNERS WITHIN THIS PARCEL MAP THE PRIVATE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS PURPOSES AS DESIGNATED BY A, AND AS SHOWN HEREON WE (HEREBY DEDICATE ABUTTERS' RIGHTS OF ACCESS ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 15 AND ALONG LOT 51 OF TRACT NO 29639-2 (FUTURE INTERCHANGE), MAP BOOK 345, PAGES 1 THROUGH 19. INCLUSIVE OF MAPS. RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. 10 THE PUBLIC THE OWNERS OF PARCELS 7. B. 9, 14. 16 AND 17 ABUTTING THIS HIGHWAY AND LOT AND DURING SUCH TIME WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS OF ACCESS. EXCEPT THE GENERAL EASEMENT OF TRAVEL ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT OR WIDTH THAT RESULTS IN THE VACATION THEREOF SHALL TERMINATE THIS DEDICATION AS TO THE PART VACATED OWNER HARVESTON-SAB LLC. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: NAME: STEPHEN A BIERI TITLE: PRESIDENT BENEFICIARY PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE. LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BENEFICIARY UNDER A DEED OF TRUST RECORDED MARCH 5, 2012 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2012-0098554 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND A5 MODIFIED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 11. 2013 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2013-0575285 AND DOCUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 21. 2014 A5 INSTRUMENT NO 2014-0447601, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS BY PRINCIPAL REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, LLC. A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY BY: NAME: NAME TITLE: TITLE^ NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ▪ AQTWWT 80.10 of 69DN OTIC CIMPUTI94 MIs-Qir0NJ¢ 1WP0* IAT INC 96X1114 001001919190900,90090080,86 MO(LGT IC 9MOL Ta19 comma (UTE I9 111WHY. 941 IRI 1N IA IHWWLIG. 1Oa9X4l. Y8 YAIl1G11T 11' IRA1 OnallEIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA )SS COUNTY OF ON THIS DAY OF 20 BEFORE ME A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED AND WHO PROVED TO NE ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(5) WHOSE NAAE(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO NE THAT FE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES) AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT TFE PERSON(S). OR TFE ENTITY(IES) UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED. EXECUTED TME INSTRUMENT I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER TFC LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE ANO CORRECT. WIONESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MY COMMISSION NUMBER NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A NOTARY RELIC OR OTHER OFFICER COPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES [NY TFE REMIT, OF TFE INIIVIDJAL MHO SITED THE DOCUWNT TO 'MCA THIS CERTIFICATE 15 AEIWGS, MND NOT RE TRUTIFUJESS, ACCURACY, OR VAILIDITY OF THAT 0004,ENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA (SS 000NTY OF • Hllf _OM OF 20 BEFORE ME, • WOTNIT F%*1G, ISRi1Nu.R.. IPWEAIW3I AG AR rstAip 99 W5 OM 1FE MAKS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES) AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY(IES) UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED TFE INSTRUMENT 1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF P082060 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN COUNTY. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SA10 STATE MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MY COMMISSION NUMBER IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 7 SHEETS PARCEL MAP NO. 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO PA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Michael Brl INTERNATIONAL JUNE 2015 SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED 8Y ME 0R UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AT 01-E REQUEST OF WINCHESTER HILLS I, LLC, IN MARCH. 2010 1 HEREBY STATE THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, AND THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED 1 HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP THE SURVEY 15 TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN. DATED: 2015 JOHN R 200000TE, L 5 7556 CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP CONSISTING BY ME OR UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND FOUND APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP OF PARCEL THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON JANUARY 6, 2011 2016 THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND THAT I AM SATIS DATED: 2015 KRIS R WINCHAK L S 6240 (AS DELEGATED) CITY OF TEMECULA OF SEVEN (7) SHEETS HAS BEEN EXAMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT MAP NO 36336 AS FILED AND APPROVED BY TFE EXPIRATION OATS BEING JANUARY 6, STATE LAW AND CITY REGULATIONS HAVE IFIEO THI5 MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT FOR THOMAS W GARCIA. CITY ENGINEER ADT3O EF b MIP98 F KESS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THIS PROPERTY I5 LOCATED IN TIE MJRRIETA CREEK/ WARM SPRINGS VALLEY AREA DRAINAGE PLAN WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY TFE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10 25 OF ORDINANCE 460 AND SECTION 66483, et sec', OF THE GOVERNJENT CODE AND THAT SAID PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO FEES FOR SAID DRAINAGE AREA. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT. PURSUANT TO SECTION 10 25 OF ORDINANCE 460, PAYMENT OF THE DRAINAGE FEES SHALL BE PAID, WITH CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER ONLY, TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT FOR SAID PARCELS, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST, AND THAT THE OWNER OF EACH PARCEL, AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF EITHER THE GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT, SHALL PAY THE FEE REQUIRED AT THE RATE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE ACTUAL PERMIT RECORDER'S STATEMENT FILED THIS DAY OF 2015 AT M IN BOOK OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY OF TEMECULA NO FEE PETER ALDANA, COUNTY ASSESSOR - CLERK -RECORDER BY: DEPUTY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE BY: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE. AS OF THIS DATE, THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID STATE. COUNTY. MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES. EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES. NOW A LIEN BUT NOT YET PAYABLE, WHICH ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $ DATED: 2015 DON KENT, COUNTY TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR BY: DEPUTY TAX BOND CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A BOND IN THE SUM OF $ HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, 0R LOCAL, ANC ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED A5 TAXES. WHICH AT TIE TIME OF THE FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE ALIEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN DULY APPROVED BY SAID BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OAIEYW CASH TAX BOND DON KENT COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 8T DEPUTY CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT TFE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY ITS CITY CLERK, RANDI JOHL-OLSON, J0, MMC, HEREBY APPROVES TFE PARCEL MAP AND ACCEPTS THE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF AN EASEMENT OVER LOT "A" MADE HEREON FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES AS DEDICATED, SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS WE HEREBY ACCEPT THE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF ABUTTERS RIGHTS OF ACCESS ALONG INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 15 AND LOT 51 OF TRACT NO 29639-2 (FUTURE INTERCHANGE), MAP BOOK 345, PAGES I THROUGH 19, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS DEDICATED DATED: 2015 BY' RAND( JOHL-OLSON, JD, MMC CITY CLERK, CITY OF TEMECULA SIGNATURE OMISSIONS NOTE PURSUANT TO SECTION 66436 OF 01-E SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR INTERESTS HAVE BEEN OMITTED: RIGHTS, IF ANY, OF A CITY, PUBLIC UTILITY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT TO PRESERVE A PUBLIC EASEMENT IN DATE STREET AND MONROE AVENUE AS THE SAME WAS VACATED BY THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1975 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 418 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. RANCHO CALIFORNIA CORPORATE PARK, HOLDER OF A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND A DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECORDED MAY 30, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO 124862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT HOLDER OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS RECORDED JANUARY 3, 2005 A5 INSTRUMENT NO 2005-0001958 AND INSTRUMENT NO 2005-0001959, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY HOLDER OF ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS RECORDED JUNE 30, 2004, A5 INSTRUMENT N0 2004-0506064, AND RECORDED JUNE 14, 2005, AS INSTRUMENT NO 2005-0470024, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT. HOLDER OF PIPELINE EASEMENTS RECORDED JULY 9. 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO 264140, RECORDED JUNE 14, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO 207612, AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 AS INSTRUMENT NO 13-461570, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS GARTH L. BLUMENTHAL TRUST, A CALIFORNIA TRUST, AND JONES TEMECULA REAL PROPERTY. LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. HOLDERS OF AN EASEMENT FOR TEMPORARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECORDED APRIL 10, 2014 A5 INSTRUMENT N0 2014-031462 PROJECTED; SECTION 26, T7S. R3W PROJECT SITE BASIS OF BEARINGS NOTE THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH 15'40'17" EAST FOR A PORTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF DATE STREEET AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 '{Ql VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET AFFECTING THIS MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF TEMECULA IN ECS BOOK T PAGE 373 AND AFFECTS ALL PARCELS IN THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL N AP NO. 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO PA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA IVilf:F119e) ELIker INTERNATIONAL JUNE 2015 SURVEYOR'S NOTES PARCEL N0. 36336 CONTAINS 17 NUMBERED PARCELS AND LETTERED LOT "A" PARCEL MAP NO 36336 CONTAINS 97 48 ACRES, GROSS, MORE OR LESS 1. 2 ,A INDICATES SET 1" IP W/TAG "L5 7566", FLUSH O INDICATES SET 1" IP k TAG "LS 7566". FLUSH, IN TFE GROUND 0R IN ASPHALT OR A NAIL AND TAG "LS 7566" IN CONCRETE. 3 SET 1' IP k TAG "LS 7566", FLUSH. IN THE GROUND OR IN ASPHALT OR A NAIL AND TAG "L5 7566" 1N CONCRETE AT ALL LOT CORNERS, EC'S. BC'5 AND CORNER CUT BACKS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 4 ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS SET SHALL BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE 461 9 AND THE MONUMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THIS MAP 5 INDICATES RESTRICTED ACCESS DEDICATED HEREON 8 ( ) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 AND MEASLRED 7 (( )) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO PA07-0249, RECORDED 11/15/2007 AS INST NO 2007-0695987 0 R MONUMENT NOTES • INDICATES 1" IP k TAG "LS 4547", FLUSH, IN GROUND 0R IN ASPHALT OR A NAIL AND TAG "L5 4547" IN CONCRETE. PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 • INDICATES FOUND 1" IP k TAG "LS 4547", FLUSH, IN LIEU OF 1-1/2" COPPERWELD MONUMENT STAMPED "LS 4547", PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 O INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED AND REFERENCED HEREON ❑ 1 1" IP TAGGED "CALIF DOT", FLUSH, PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19, ANO 00T FIELD BOOK 26184T-40 ❑2 1" IP TAGGED "CALIF DOT", FLUSH, PER TRACT NO 29639-2, NB 345/1-19 ANO OOT FIELD BOOK 26164T-39 ❑ 3 1" IP TAGGED "CALIF OOT', DOWN 0 2', TRACT NO, 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 AND OOT FIELD BOOK 26164T-39 4❑ 1" IP TAGGED "CALIF 00T', DOWN 0 4', PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 ANO PM 19677, PMB 135/85-86 ❑5 1" IP TAGGED "CALIF DOT". FLUSH, PER TRACT NO 29639-2, MB 345/1-19 AND PM 19677, PMB 135/85-86. © 3/4' IP TAGGED "RCE 21914", DOWN 0 5', PER PM 19677, FMB 135/85-86 SHEET 2 OF 7 SHEETS EASEMENT NOTES O INDICATES A LANDSCAPE EA566ENT IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA CORPORATE PARK RECORDED MAY 30, 1985 A5 INSTRUMENT N0. 124862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS O INOICATES A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FL000 CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED JANUARY 3, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 2005-0001958 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS © INDICATES A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECORDED JANUARY 3, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT N0 2005-0001959 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS QD INDICATES AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 30, 2004, A5 INSTRUMENT N0. 2004-0506064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS INDICATES AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI50N COMPANY RECORDED JUNE 14. 2005, A5 INSTRUMENT N0. 2005-0470024 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS O INDICATES AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR ROAD PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECORDED OCTOBER 20. 2000, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2008-0573552 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 0 INDICATES A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA CORPORATE PARK RECORDED MAY 30, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 124862 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS O INDICATES A PIPELINE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT RECORDED JULY 9. 1993 A5 INSTRUMENT N0 264140 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O INDICATES A PIPELINE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT RECORDED JUNE 13, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 207612 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O INDICATES A PIPELINE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 A5 INSTRUMENT N0. 2013-0461570 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS O INDICATES A TEMPORARY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY 6ASEMENT IN FAVOR OF GARTH L. BLUMENTHAL TRUST, A CALIFORNIA TRUST, AND JONES TEMECULA REAL PROPERTY, LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY PER EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED APRIL 10, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 2014-0131482 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS INDICATES PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR ACCESS POF805E5 RETAINED HEREON 200 100 0 200 400 600 SCALE 1"=200' IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL VAP \0, 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO PA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA DATA TABLE I�0 ] BEARING/DELTA I RADIUS 1 LENGTH (573'59'49' t \ \ , 4 _ \ 5 6 7 _ y 1 ( 10 9 111 1 12 113 \ / 14 A. I // 15 16 \ 17 \ / / 18 \ DETAIL 19 °• N T SJ - \ 21 21 22 11 TRACT 32435 1 M 8 393/47-51 1 . ,1 I I ____r^'--- 1 u, 1r, 1 - 1450 6.156'00'11'E X75"59'49'8 067'49'42"E (07'15'07" (02'32'11" (N66'09'40"W (025'14'41"E (15'10'42" (15'10'42" (N15'40'17"E (N74"19'43"W (N15'40'17"E (13'37'26" (N44'15'22'1 (92'06'26" (046'26'16"W (532'41'48"E (N57°18'12'E (534"07'44"E (018'40'57"E (528'39'30"E 525 00' 1660 00' 148 00' 196 00' 1533 00' 230 24_ 15 00') 12 00') 39 00' 33 21' 66 45°) 73 49') 29 89') 30 13') 39 21') 51 92') 312 93') 12 00'j 54 60') 364 52') 252 15') 370 13') 0 21 70')\ 294 :0:) 1'•y\ 28 60') \ '%" 189 80') 138 9o') 'y>, 199 91') t0.p03 3tiayy>� 4 ' r 1 Me 9 L •% Michael Bakal INTERNATIONAL JUNE 2015 BOUNDARY CONTROL & SHEET INDEX MAP ® INDICATES SHEET NUMBER 11 88161 98.116-T 11 N.5- 383149 Ai 1 1 11 11 1 9]m q}moi 04 ' tr36 }' S7' KJ ' J" TR.L9 31033-I 4_ 9 d 'Li/es-L9' "f' t' 1 .' '1" , .77-7 _ J4N49 33 35 7.1214 5) ..415J,7 r DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) JO ]BEARING/DELTA RADIUS 1 LENGTH 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 557'45' IrE ((521'49'02"E ((Nd6"00'11'E (666`06'40'w (pB"59'31" (00°49'26" (09`00'23" (N45°17'32"E (003'23'59"W (N86'36'01"W (NO3'23'59"E (N38'30'11"W (04'04'09' (05'11'57' (083'48'44"E (06'44'54" (10°32'38" (006'21'54'W (505'04'14"W (46'09'27" 238 00' 717 00' 940 00' 945 00' 1730 00' (R) 717 66' 596 68' 400 00' 953 17') 235 69')) 127 02' 102.93')) 37 35' 47.85' 147 76' 47.85'1 34 36') 39 00') 5 01') 39 00') 3436') 67 11') 156,98') 87 82') B4 53') 109 80') 115 42') 190 66') 322 24') SHEET 3 OF 7 SHEETS DATA TABLE (CONTINUED) ) BEARING/DELTA 1 RADIUS I LENGTH a3 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 (541'05'. 1S. (52'11'17" (609'22'19"W (00'52'08" (13'55'23" (13'55'23" (N15'40'17"E (664'45'19"E (03'15'43" 666'09'40"W (566'09'40"E (566'09'40"E (07'59'14" (N63'31'52"E (N23'59'49"W (16.44'24" (1174°19'43"W (523'59'49"E (523.59'49"E (566.00'11"W (00'19'09" (00'18'21" (00'17'37" (00'06 '19" 17 00' 1667 00' 192 40' 182 00' 863 00' 1000 00' 2600 00' 1533 00' 1600 00' 1667 00' 1600 00' 151 61' ) 24 39') 100 87') 25 28') 46 75') 44.23') 200 00') 34 76') 49 13') 349 66' 108,90') 240.25') 139 40') 112,81') 125 67') 467 47') 134 00') 65 75') 59 92') 78 00') 8 54') 8 54') 8.54') 2 94') / .0 / �1 1`I J DETAIL N.T.S. ? N 6 1,_o&g5ea7 , "• !191: 134 rd. 4 7 443 ((16 20') LOT 51 TRACT NO 29639-2 M.B. 345/1-19 L1 4 L7 INTERSTATE 15 {T (N28' -712"W 755 76') (630'35'46"4 i}7 40' El 47a?3 (377.00') a3% 773 02 E°1117'1 1150 `) 4 50 104 550 SCALE 1' - TRACT 32436 M.B. 393/47-511 7) —44 ((Ns6'aD'lly;)) ((102 931) A si41.oTi.5 8451 81 "- 44 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCH vAP NO. 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT 0 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, PA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 A5 INSTRUMENT NO 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OATH TABLE 10 I BEARING/DELTA I RADIUS 1 LENGTH 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i (N93 59 4flyT (!46.00 ° 11 E 0/23.59'40.3 (N67'49'42"9 03.57'11" 880'40'59"E 880'40'59"E N80'40'59"E (N23.59'49"W (N23'59'49'9 (N23'59'49"9 (00'06'19" 09'19'56" 63'20'00" 50'49'58" 889.58'36"14 1400'01'24"E 822'09'17'W -- 3900 ) 62 00') — 39 00') - 33 21 ' ) 1655.00' 114 18' (R) 78 00' 39 00' --- 39 00' — 125 67') -- 59 92') - 65 75') 1600.00' 2 94') 490.00' 79,81' 31 00' 34 27' 61 00' 54 12• 6j75' — 76 00' -. 85 23' Michael Baker I NTERN8T10NAL JUNE 2015 SEE SHEET 2 716 SURVEYOR'S NOTES, MONUMENT NOTE, EASEMENT NOTE, BASIS OF BEARINGS NOTE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE AND VICINITY MAP. 1 I, I H `' 1 -1 1 i TRACT 32436-;1 5 °t 111.11. 393/42-46 1 . `y1....^+20•.- _ ...---- .06 10 16 4685 7 48 L'a21 PARCEL 1 4,00 ACRES I$ t r- 1 1 T414'30'43-4 PARCEL 4 .r np 4 29 ACRES OT 9 ((/6 26'n n� 4 0 'i •g�_•s Ml Z37� �i$S. Aces" S4 R.529aW LH7L49 1094 55' 7 SHEET 4 OF 7 SHEETS • J I I +3 1 L'` }.51 3 `J AS. 95 'mss �`a3C't9'05'E (6) PARCEL 2 3 67 ACRES 244 p4 wl PARCEL 7 6 24 ACRES 21 Ww 142 A:51' PcNO 421'49•-042 02„11 835 0 Wavy 53 95 399 53' PARCEL 5 4,81 ACRES N4u 8'53W 73?� F° 53 44' 56'20-0 444 INTERSTATE 15 1'. 3 — In ]7 433 49 8 — 151 yap 5o s zun SCALE 1"=100' DATA TABLE fJO� 1 BEARING/DELTA 1 RADIUS i LENGTH 1 (03"1543 093,00 49 13 ) 2 (07'15'07" 525 00' 66 45') 3 (02'32711' 1660 00' 73 49') 4 (N66'09'40'9 -- 29 89'3 5 (N25'14'41'111 -- 30 13') 6 (15.10.42" 148 00' 39 21') 7 (15'10.42- 196 00' 51 92') B (N74'19'43"W — 12.00') 9 (N15.40'17"E -- 54 60') 10 (N46'26'16"E -- 21.70') 11 (N57.18'12"E -- 28.60') 12 03'57'11" 1655,00' 114 18' 13 10'41'53" 850 00' 158 71' 14 N74'19'43"W -- 107 41' 15 N74'19'43'8 - 95 41' 16 00'19'09" 1533.00' 8 54' 17 00'18'21" 1600,00' 8,54' 18 41'16'03" 108 00' 77 79' 19 16'10'47" 182 00' 51.39' 20 57'05'59" 72.00' 71.75' 21 N78'38'39"W .- 88,04' 22 811'21'21"0 — 1,00' 23 N78'38'39"W - 107 07' 24 36'47'24" 109 00' 69 99' 25 N32'41'48"6 - 38 48' 26 32'51'42" 71 00' 40,72' 27 N78'38'39"8 — 107 07' 28 N11'21'21"E "- 1,00' 29 N78'38'39"W - 88,04' 30 57'05'59" 108 00' 107 63' 31 16'10'47" 218 00' 61 56' 32 16'27'58" 72 00' 20.69' 33 02'46'11" 1533 00' 74 11' 34 N71'33'32°W (9) 5,00' 35 N19"35'16"W - 83 28' 36 178'06'11" 45,00' 139 88' 37 11'04'20" 109 00' 21 06' IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF R[VERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PARCEL VAP \O, 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO PA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 A5 INSTRUMENT NO 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 5 N Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL 2 JUNE 2015 \I,' ----•-:.'--,r (^y: •y�-,!!i „I '513/18! --____J•SV177 — — 4' SHEET 5 OF 7 SHEETS .99%,"•R 349 I• ' `z'° o. Ta PARCEL 6 5.96 ACRES .S/ PARCEL 9 10 38 ACRES PCL. 6 72. ,0 9 : 1CL. a: O rl'I- I `mow DETAIL "A" 5.lcxe H.,i ±4515•. Irc ( .1 ,.:• ,,,' ) ' <5 'i9 7 6`97 Z6 R4"6 5'.1.!.4 l0 L iR SEE SHEET 2 FOR SURVEYOR'S NOTES, MONUMENT NOTE, EASEMENT NOTE. BASIS 3, BEARINGS NOTE. ENVIRCIIENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE ANO VICINITY MAP L-1]bA1' x: a9' 340 91 15'40'WE 352, 67' 78 DATE STREET 10 12 "0 -M• 16 (311 317 4 flp- 2Ce x SEE SHEET 5 SCALE 1"=100' • 1 3 6 9 N66.09 40"W ( [74O 1 = 7S. I 67- 76' 67 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY CF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEETS PARCEL VAP \O. 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C AND LOT 0 OF LOT LINE AO,USTMENT NO RA07-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 A5 INSTRUMENT N0 2007-0695987 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COCNTY, CALIFORNIA Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL JUNE 2015 DATA TABLE { / I BEARING/DELTA f RADIUS ! LENGTH SEE SFEET 2 FOR SURVEYOR'S NOTES, MONUMENT NOTE, [N6A'.0.1V'E •- - 34 76') EASEMENT NOTE, BASIS OF BEARINGS NOTE, , 2 (N66"09'40"W -- 127 02') ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE AND VICINITY MAP. ;• 3 (08'59'31" 2.315O0` 37 35') 7 •p-�5'! ,tit 4 (03°49'26" 717 00' 47 85') 1 V88 5 (09°00'23" 940 CO' 147 76' 1 9i 1 6 (N45°17'32"E -- 34 36' PCL, 13 1 7 (NO3°23'59"E -- 39 00' f I B (NBC/36'01"W -- 5 011 1 $ t 9 (NO/3°23'59'E-= 39 00, 1 • 10 (N38°30'11"W -- 34 36 " 1 1 11 (04'04'09" 945 00' 67 11 4 Y.Y; , 73I 1--' 11 .� 12 (N09°22'19"E =- 100 87' LEI' ML "9" 13 00'52'08" 1667 00' 25 28' '; N T.5 ' 14 13°55'23" 192 40' 46 75' 15 13°55'23" 182 00' 44 23' 16 1486°36'01"8 -- 92 49' ----'--, 1,./���.,.L, 17 00°44.20" 2000 00' 25 79' n\ Z 18 07'59'14" 1000 CO' 139 40' L.? %E}` }- 4 20 N86°36'01"W 97 50' `6' �`•4 20 Nab°36'01"W -- 80 15' i \ ' I 21 N86'36'01"W -- 65 17' °a37 �,w , 'y h 22 (00°18'2 1" 1600 00' 0 S41_ AS 23 (00'17'37" 1667 CO' 8 54 ,j 24 0.6.4C IO" 1888-00' 88,96' \\ 4 ra`%j, �(p i'0 25 NS®'T652®sv 1000 06) 06.08' ti s a PARCEL 10 , 4 50 ACRES I1 mer 70' 67 N60°24.221 / / N74'19'43'W 423-00" '74 60' PARCEL 12 111 4.05 ACRES _t N74' 19'A3 -R '107.30" !p6-84' L_--- / /0, / / Lts / YYl ti PARCEL 11 4.86 ACRES 3 �} o �(N •(14119t�1 s. wl 070 40' 18'! - PARCEL 14 5,27 ACRES I^ I 1 1 I 1 C I`� Ii 1 4 1 _ 47y mE -T11-1— N14'59.43 -N 1052 52' N'kTs, 1' 1 14x T;9ry I k n' 1. d 1S 1 16 1 1» SEE SHEET 7 .A' Z AN - d EQUITY DRIVE 0 PARCEL 13 6.92 ACRES 571.61' 15 444 E 118TAlL "E' 55 100 50 0 100 200 300 SCALE I"=100' i IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAPCEL N AP \O. 36336 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT C ANO LOT 0 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 0007-0249 RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2007 AS INSTRUMENT NO 2007-0695987 OF CFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. DATA TABLE ) !BEARING/DELTA I RADIUS I LENGTH 1 [SZ•il"ir $7 OO 14.391 2 (1606'21'54"E-- 115 42') 3 (10'32'38" 596 66' 109 801) 4 (06'44'54" 717 66' 84 53'} 5 (N83'48'44"W -- 87 821 6 (05'11'57" 1730.00' 156 98') 7 00'29'44" 1730 00' 14 96' 8 04'42'13" 1730.00' 142 02' 9 15'06'48" 400 00' 105 51' 10 14'29'27" 1753 00' 443,.36' 11 03'30'31" 1730 00' 105 94' SEE SHEET 6 Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL 14 407 68' M4'19.4i-R 1 ± PARCEL 16 5.36 ACRES JUNE 2015 1052.32' SHEET 7 OF 7 SHEETS SEE SFEET 2 FOR SURVEYOR'S NOTES, MONUMENT NOTE, EASEMENT NOTE, BASIS OF BEARINGS NOTE, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT NOTE AND VICINITY MAP 13 577 84' PARCEL 15 5.75 ACRES N69'19'1J"A 0m. N74.19 43 344.67 4. 3 m f g ' v i '1' 1' / }10 * 44, 7 / D1 DETAIL "C" v - N T 5 Item No. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Receive Temporary Street Closure for Saturday Night Movie Classics Special Event During the Month of August 2015 PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the Saturday Night Movie Classics Special Event. BACKGROUND: The Saturday Night Movie Classics event will be held three Saturday nights at the Town Square Park during the month of August 2015. The movie showings will be part of the Hot Summer Nights program in Old Town taking place from July 10, 2015 to August 29, 2015. Movies will start at dusk and will be shown on the big screen within the Park. The Saturday Night Movie Classics activities necessitate the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town area. The closures are necessary to facilitate the event and to protect participants and viewers. The street closures are scheduled as follows: Main Street Saturday, August 1, 15, and 29, 2015 from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street at Rosa's Cantina to Mercedes Street Mercedes Street Saturday, August 1, 15, and 29, 2015 from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. between Third Street and Fourth Street The street closure location for the Saturday Night Movie Classics event is shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Mercedes Street traffic for these events will be detoured via Third and Fourth Streets. The Old Town Parking Garage will be open with ample free parking available to the public during the event. Street closures are allowed by the California Vehicle Code upon approval by the local governing body for certain conditions. Under Vehicle Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways", local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing." Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these special events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of services provided by the City Public Works Maintenance Division (for providing, placing and retrieving of necessary warning and advisory devices), are appropriately budgeted within the City's operating budget. ATTACHMENT: Exhibit "A" — Saturday Night Movie Classics Site Plan SATURDAY NIGHT MOVIE CLASSICS (MAIN STREET AND MERCEDES STREET) SA TURDA Y, AUGUST 1, 15, & 29TH, 2015 LEGEND STREET CLOSURE BARRICADE EXHI B/ T 'A' Item No. 16 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve the Application for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 Funding through the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance for Signalization Improvements Project PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) CYCLE 7 FUNDS THROUGH THE CALTRANS DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law establishing the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) as a core Federal Aid program. The overall purpose of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads through the implementation of infrastructure related highway improvements. SAFETEA-LU established extensive new resources and opportunities to advance highway safety throughout the country in a comprehensive and strategic manner. Currently, the HSIP, administered by Caltrans, provides funds to local agencies in California. Projects are selected by Caltrans through a statewide competitive process annually similar to other state administered grant programs. Projects will be rated and ranked on the basis of a Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio, which is based on collision history and potential reduction to collisions by the proposed project. In April 2015, the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance announced the Cycle 7 Call for Projects for the 2015 HSIP. Caltrans indicates that approximately $150 million has been targeted for Cycle 7, which includes the use of signalization improvements to reduce accident frequency. The grant provides for a 90% reimbursement and requires a 10% match from the local agency. Staff has prepared a grant application to upgrade the traffic signal infrastructure along three arterial corridors. The proposed project consists of replacing existing traffic signal controllers and communication hardware to improve traffic operations and enhance safety along Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and Temecula Parkway. If selected by Caltrans, the proposed project will also enhance communication between the Interstate 15 ramp signals and adjacent City -owned traffic signals along the three arterials. The grant application is due to Caltrans Division of Local Assistance by July 31, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact related to this action. Potential fiscal impact could occur if the grant is awarded for the proposed project. The proposed project cost is estimated at $1,150,000 with a 10% City match of $115,000. The City's match will be funded by using Traffic Signal Development Impact Fees. ATTACHMENT: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) CYCLE 7 FUNDS THROUGH THE CALTRANS DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE FOR SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Caltrans Division of Local Assistance has announced the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 Call for Projects for funding of infrastructure improvements to achieve a reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. A. There is $150 million of HSIP program funding available for Cycle 7 transportation safety improvements to local agencies in the State of California. B. The City of Temecula wishes to receive HSIP Grant funds to upgrade traffic signal infrastructure along three corridors to achieve a reduction in traffic collisions. C. The City of Temecula agrees to a commitment of local agency match funds and the timely implementation of the project in compliance with HSIP guidelines. D. The City of Temecula, if awarded program funds, will adhere to federal requirements including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the filing of the project application for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 7 Funds through the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance. Section 3. The City Council hereby appoints the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned process. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 17 ACTION MINUTES July 16, 2015 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District Meeting convened at 7:43 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: President Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 14 Approve the Action Minutes of June 23, 2015 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Director Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of June 23, 2015. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:47 P.M., the Community Services District was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, TCSD Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk/Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 071615 1 Item No. 18 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve an Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Finance Director Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Administrator RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve a five-year Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates for Special Tax Consulting Services. This agreement provides required services to both the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The City's portion over the five-year period is $204,461.32 and TCSD's portion is $211,382.70 for a total agreement amount of $415,844.02, in accordance with Exhibit B. BACKGROUND: Albert A. Webb Associates provides comprehensive special tax administration and levy services that includes, but is not limited to: district administration, municipal disclosure, delinquency management and parcel audit services. In 2014, staff completed a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Special Tax Consulting Services to perform the ongoing administration of the Community Facilities Districts, Assessment District, TCSD service levels and TCSD Park Special Tax. Albert A. Webb Associates scored the highest amongst the submitted proposals and was awarded a one year agreement for services. The complexity of special tax administration and related services requires continuity and a strong working relationship with the Consultant. This has become more evident as the support required from the Consultant has increased to include multiple areas within the City and TCSD needing documentation, data analysis, and meeting attendance for presentation purposes. Albert A. Webb has provided excellent administration services over the past year along with being a key resource for information and assistance with special district financing. Therefore, staff is recommending the approval of the attached five-year agreement. The Temecula Public Financing Authority formed five Community Facilities Districts and one Assessment District from 2001 through 2006. These districts provided bond proceeds that financed major infrastructure improvements within the districts including streets, lighting, and parks. City staff administers the districts and is required to perform the tasks necessary to levy property owners within the Districts in accordance with the bond formation documents, as well as provide annual reporting and disclosure to the bond holders. The Temecula Community Services District operates under the authority of Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection; and unpaved road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are coterminous with the City and the City Council also serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD. The four current service levels of the TCSD include: 1. Service Level B — Residential Street Lighting 2. Service Level C — Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance 3. Service Level D — Recycling and Refuse Collection 4. Service Level R — Unpaved Road Maintenance Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Community Services, Parks and Recreation and Arterial Street Lights Rates and Charges previously levied by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) were replaced by the City of Temecula's Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax approved by the voters as Measure C on March 4, 1997. The purpose of the Parks/Lighting Services Special Tax is to provide for the ongoing operations, maintenance and servicing of the City's public parks, recreational facilities; recreational and human service programs; landscaped median maintenance costs; and energy costs for arterial street lighting and traffic signals. The Parks/Street Lighting Services Special Tax is levied in the same manner, at the same time, as the TCSD Rates and Charges on an annual basis. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are included within the Fiscal Year 2015-16 CFD and TCSD Operating budgets. For the subsequent four years, funds will be adequately appropriated within the budget for CFD Administration and Consulting services. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit B — Pricing 2. Agreement EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Consultant shall provide special tax administration consulting services to the City/TCSD as outlined below. Optional consulting services shall be on an "as needed" basis upon request and approval by the City Manager/Executive Director or his authorized representative. The cost for optional services shall be split between the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Services shall be performed annually for the City, TCSD, and any additional optional services required for the City/TCSD. The annual pricing for Special Tax Administration and Optional Consulting Services is outlined below. The outlined five year cost for the City is $204,461.32 and TCSD is $211,382.70 for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $415,844.02. CITY OF TEMECULA RFP - SPECIAL TAX ADMINISTRATION Pricing Form CFD/AD Administration CFD 01-2 CFD 03-1 CFD 03-2 CFD 03-3 AD 03-4 CFD 03-6 FY 2015-16 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,080.00 $ 4,085.00 $ 6,080.00 FY 2016-17 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,201.60 $ 4,166.70 $ 6,201.60 FY 2017-18 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,325.63 $ 4,250.03 $ 6,325.63 FY 2018-19 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,452.14 $ 4,335.03 $ 6,452.14 FY 2019-20 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,581.19 $ 4,421.74 $ 6,581.19 Total CFD/AD Administration $ 34,485.00 $ 35,174.70 $ 35,878.19 $ 36,595.76 37,327.67 TCSD Administration Service Level B $ 9,500.00 $ 9,690.00 $ 9,883.80 $ 10,081.48 $ 10,283.11 Service Level C $ 7,600.00 $ 7,752.00 $ 7,907.04 $ 8,065.18 $ 8,226.48 Service Level D $ 8,550.00 $ 8,721.00 $ 8,895.42 $ 9,073.33 $ 9,254.79 Service Level R $ 190.00 $ 193.80 $ 197.68 $ 201.63 $ 205.66 City "Park & Lighting" Special Tax $ 9,975.00 $ 10,174.50 $ 10,377.99 $ 10,585.55 $ 10,797.26 Total TCSD Levy Administration $ 35,815.00 $ 36,531.30 $ 37,261.9338,007.16 $ 38,767.31 total Special Tax Administration' Optional - Consulting Services Grand Total $ 70,300.00 $ 71,706.00 $ 73,140.12 $ 74,602.92 $ 76,094.98. $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 80,300.00 $ 81,706.00 $ 83,140.12 $ 84,602.92 $ 86,094.98 Proposed Fee escalate at 2% for each Fiscal Year after FY 2015-16 FIN 16-02 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA, THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES FOR SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of July 28, 2015, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ,The Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City/TCSD"), and Albert A. Webb Associates, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on July 28, 2015, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2020, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT a. The City/TCSD agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Four Hundred Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty -Four Dollars and Two Cents ($415,844.02) for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time City's/TCSD's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services. c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City/TCSD disputes any of Consultant's fees, it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Consultant shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City/TCSD may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City/TCSD suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City/TCSD shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City/TCSD. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City/TCSD, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City/TCSD shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City/TCSD that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to 2 the representatives of City/TCSD or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City/TCSD the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City/TCSD to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City/TCSD and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City/TCSD without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City/TCSD, upon reasonable written request by the City/TCSD, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property to the extent arising out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions to the extent arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while 3 performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. 4) Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no Tess than: 1) General Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. 4) Professional Liability Coverage: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 4 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Consultant shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City/TCSD with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City/TCSD. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City/TCSD before work commences. As an alternative to the City's/TCSD's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City/TCSD a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City/TCSD nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City/TCSD. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City/TCSD, or bind City/TCSD in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City/TCSD shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City/TCSD. City/TCSD shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City/TCSD, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section. 5 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City's/TCSD's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City/TCSD. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City/TCSD notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Consultant shall promptly notify City/TCSD should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City/TCSD. City/TCSD retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City/TCSD and to provide City/TCSD with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City'sTTCSD's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City/TCSD to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Consultant: Albert A. Webb Associates Attn: Shane Spicer 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 14. ASSIGNMENT The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City/TCSD. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Consultant. 6 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City/TCSD and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant's sub -contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City/TCSD that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant's sub -contractors on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City/TCSD in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager / Executive Director is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City/TCSD to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor Shane Spicer, Director of Special Assessment & Tax Services ATTEST: By: _ By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Albert A. Webb Associates Attn: Shane Spicer 3788 McCray Street Riverside, CA 92506 Phone: 951-248-4281 E -Mail: shane.spicer@webbassociates.com Acting PM Initial Date: e TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT By: Maryann Edwards, TCSD Chair ATTEST: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk/ Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney/ General Counsel 9 Acting PM Initials: Date: EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed Mary Vollmuth From: Heidi Schoeppe <heidi.schoeppe@webbassociates.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:40 PM To: Shane Spicer; Mary Vollmuth Subject: RE: Temecula - Proposed Optional Services & Scope Attachments: Signed Contract effective Jan 2014.pdf; FY 15-16 Admin Fee Schedule - (4 Year).pdf; Special District Support Scope.docx Hello Mary, Please see attached for the originally approved contract agreement as well as the Optional Services scope, approved by Jennifer. This service would be billed on a monthly basis, and on a time and materials basis. Finally, also attached is the revised fee schedule for 4 years with a 5% discount for FY 2015-16, and a 2% escalator each year which also includes the $10,000 flat amount for these special requests pursuant to the Optional Services Scope. Please let us know if there are any questions. Thanks! Heidi Schoeppe Senior Finance Manager Albert A. WEBB Associates T. 951.200.8604 heidi.schoeppe@webbassociates.com From: Shane Spicer Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 3:47 PM To: Mary Vollmuth Cc: Heidi Schoeppe Subject: Re: Temecula - Proposed Optional Services & Scope Hello Mary, Heidi will be sending over the proposal. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Thank you, Shane Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Mary Vollmuth <Mary.Vollmuth@cityoftemecula.org> wrote. Hi Shane, could you please E -Mail me the Proposal for Services you had sent to Jennifer including the additional administration for districts and "other" miscellaneous work based on time & materials? Thanks! Mary Vollmuth Purchasing Administrator City of Temecula 10 Add to the Exhibit A — Scope of Services OPTIONAL CONSULTING SERVICE (TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS) Since joining the finance team for the City's Special District administration we have occasionally been solicited to provide additional support to the City for various matters related to Special District financing. As the City continues to look at ways to manage service costs and identify other means of financing these services WEBB can be used as a key resource. We propose an additional $10,000 for Special District Support Services to be billed on a time and materials basis, billed monthly. There are a number of requests we receive from the various departments including Finance, Community Services, and Public Works for information necessary for them to conduct quantitative analysis related to these special districts as well as other support that aids in providing information to the City Management and City Council for discussions. Meeting Attendance - WEBB will coordinate and attend relevant meetings with Finance and Public Works to discuss the CFDs, ADs, and Service Levels including: annual administration, formation and consulting. Information Gathering - WEBB will coordinate with Finance and Public Works in gathering various information relevant to the Special Districts related to City projects/items WEBB will provide comprehensive updates specific to annual administration, formations and consulting Administration Matrix - WEBB will provide City Staff a matrix of the various activities related to the administration of the LMD, CSAs, and CFDs, such as disclosure, delinquency, and the annual levy. Formation/Annexation/Consulting Queue - WEBB will provide a schedule for all CFDs being proposed for formation/annexation. This list will include any inquiries WEBB is aware of and those for which applications and deposits have been received. GIS Mapping and Presentation Preparation - WEBB will regularly update our GIS database for our regularly scheduled meetings and provide any data/exhibits for the various meetings and presentations. Developer Coordination - WEBB will assist in communicating with the development community regarding formation and bond sale applications, development status updates, and notifying them when their projects are scheduled to be processed as it relates to Special District matters. WEBB has the programmatic support available for the level of service and commitment required to providing these comprehensive services and will be able to efficiently gather all pertinent information related to the City's Special Districts and provide a clear understanding of the on -goings relating to these Special Districts WEBB will also be able to verify the accuracy of all information presented by City Staff to the City Council and the community Utilizing our technology and quality assurance procedures WEBB will be able to save Staff valuable time and effort in trying to organize and coordinate information relating to the many Special Districts. The proposed fee amount tor Support Services is estimated at 160 hours of support with the below associates providing the primary support needs regarding related activities. EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATES Employee Classification Rate Shane Spicer I Principal 1 $190 Heidi Schoeppe Associate 11 S128 Matt Chesney_ Assistant 111 $92 Totals Totals Upon completion of 75% of the amount being billed we will discuss with the City if any additional time is needed until the end of the fiscal year. Attached is an hourly fee schedule for the proposed services 11 I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The City is seeking proposals to provide consulting services for the administration of the City's Community Facilities Districts, Assessment District, and Community Services Districts to include the following: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION: Create the tax roll application of parcels' annual special tax or special assessment in a format acceptable to the Riverside County Auditor/Controller-Recorder. Apportion the special tax or special assessment to each parcel within each particular district consistent with the method of apportionment for each district as follows: § Maintain current Assessor Parcel Maps for all special district parcels including: o Review all districts to ensure all parcels within the districts are being levied in accordance with the appropriate rate and method o Update parcels annually prior to enrollment of levy o Notify City of any assessor parcel changes within each district o Include any database development and land use information for all district parcels where this information is necessary for use In calculation of special tax or special assessment. § Coordinate with the City's Fiscal Agent (US Bank) to review debt service schedules and determine amount needed to pay debt service. 5 Assist City in projecting annual administrative expenses. § Identify reserve requirements and notify City if reserve needs replenishing. § Prepare all necessary documents, including an Annual Levy Report, to submit annual levy for each district to the County of Riverside allowing reasonable time for City staff to review, comment, or make changes. § Perform adjustments and corrections to rejected parcels by resubmitting levies If necessary. Direct bill any parcels as necessary. 5 Facilitate the preparation of assessment apportionment applications Including: o Preparation of amended assessment diagrams. o Apportioning the assessment to divided parcels. 12 o Preparation and timely delivery of required notices. o Recordation of required notices and amended diagrams. o Preparation of required disclosure documents. § Serve as initial and primary contact for the public regarding levy inquiries. § Calculate bond payoff amount or prepayment amounts as requested by landowners and provide additional information related to payoff as required. § Prepare and record Release of Lien if prepayments are received. § Prepare bond call spreads if required due to excess proceeds or prepayments. § Coordinate with Fiscal Agent to establish new debt service requirements resulting from bond calls. § Prepare summary of information used to calculate annual levy for each parcel § Attend and present at up to three City Council/TCSD board meetings. MUNICIPAL DISCLOSURE: § Assist City in preparation of enhanced disclosure requirements required by the State of California or its agencies including reporting to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC). § Prepare annual reports to meet the requirements of continuing disclosure. § File continuing disclosure reports with the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. § Provide Notice of Special Assessment/Tax document to seller of taxable property. DELINQUENCY MANAGEMENT: § Advise City that any policies established related to collection of delinquent special assessments/taxes are consistent with foreclosure covenant and/or requirements of the bond issue. Maintain databases that include regularly updated delinquency history for each parcel located in each district. § Track and report district delinquencies after each tax installment due dates, after the City's fiscal year end and prlor to initiation of foreclosure proceedings. § Prepare and mail letters (registered return receipt If requested) to property owners at the request of the City. § Prepare correspondence to the County for removal of delinquent taxes/assessments from the tax rolls in the event these amounts are paid directly to the district. § Assist with foreclosure coordination o Prepare City Council documents initiating foreclosure o Provide delinquent amounts for foreclosure counsel o Act as an expert witness on behalf of the City if necessary § Coordinate direct collections of individual delinquencies and deposits with the Fiscal Agent. § Monitor payment plans established under direction of the City or foreclosure counsel. 14 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Consultant shall provide special tax administration consulting services to the City/TCSD as outlined below. Optional consulting services shall be on an "as needed" basis upon request and approval by the City Manager/Executive Director or his authorized representative. The cost for optional services shall be split between the City and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Services shall be performed annually for the City, TCSD, and any additional optional services required for the City/TCSD. The annual pricing for Special Tax Administration and Optional Consulting Services is outlined below. The outlined five year cost for the City is $204,461.32 and TCSD is $211,382.70 for a total not to exceed agreement amount of $415,844.02. CITY OF TEMECULA RFP - SPECIAL TAX ADMINISTRATION Pricing Form CFD/AD Administration CFD 01-2 CFD 03-1 CFD 03-2 CFD 03-3 AD 03-4 CFD 03-6 Total CFD/AD Administration TCSD Administration Service Level B Service Level C Service Level 0 Service Level R City "Park & Lighting" Special Tax Total TCSD Levy Administration Total Special Tax Administration' Optional - Consulting Services Grand Total $ 80.300.00 S 81,706.00 $ 83,140.12 $ 84,60292 $ 86,094.98 ' Proposed Fee escalate at 2% for each Fiscal Year after FY 2015-16 FY 2015-16 FY 2016.17 FY 2017.18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201 60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,45214 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 4,085.00 $ 4,166.70 $ 4,250.03 $ 4,335.03 $ 4,421.74 $ 6,080.00 $ 6,201.60 $ 6,325.63 $ 6,452.14 $ 6,581.19 $ 34,485.00 35,174.70 $ 35,878.19 $ 36,595.76 $ 37,327.67 $ 9,500.00 $ 9.690.00 $ 9,883.80 $ 10,081.48 $ 10,283.11 $ 7,600.00 $ 7,752.00 $ 7,907.04 $ 8,065.18 $ 8,226.48 $ 8,550.00 $ 8,721.00 $ 8,895.42 $ 9,073.33 $ 9,254.79 $ 190.00 $ 193.80 $ 197.68 $ 201.63 $ 205.66 $ 9,975.00 $ 10,174.50 $ 10,377.99 $ 10,585.55 $ 10,797.26 $ 35,815.00 $ 36,531.30 $ 37, .281 $ 38,767.31 $ 70.300.00 $ 71,708.00 $ 73,140.12 $ 74,602.92 $ 76,094.98 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.U01J 40 $ 10,000 00 15 Client#: 238031 ALBEWEBB1 ACORD,. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MP DDIYYYY) 1/2812015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(fes) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Hub International License # 0757776 4371 Latham St, Ste #101 Riverside, CA 92501 City of Temecula [LB -22015 insAin�D Albert A. Webb Associates 3788 McCray St. Riverside, CA 92506 Finance Dept. COVERAGES kap- Kristle Koehrer r 951-788.8600 irta No. 051742.4723 7,ODT(ss kristie.koehrer@hubinternatlonal.corn INSURERIS) AFFORDING COVERAGENAIC t WSURER A. Travelers Property Casualty Co A i*x — 25674 wsuReR 0: Irenshore Specialty Insurance A 7(1 25445 NSURERC: INaURERD: INSURER 5 : INSURER F CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER! THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, LTR A TYPE Of INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY r CLAIMS -MADE I X] OCCUR DENA, AGGREjJ AiEII LIMIT APPLIES PER: LYOLICY J IJ f LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY x Cs - ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS UMBRELLA UAB EXCESS UAB OCCUR CIAIMS#WDE OED [ F RFgTENT105S A wonons EMPLOYERS' OR,p suAei O5 YY�+11t� afxI �P EIASEN l'XCLI�EDIJTNSn IMandalory In NH) �Y J yaee..eiewde under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below B Professional Liability NtA POLICY NUMBER 6305456P929 BA5456P929 PJUB4A46491714 001753601 MINDD 02/01/2015 02101/2016( EACH OCcUR(G+GE LIMITS 21,000,000 • 02101/2015 02/01/2010 ntaiS (Ea ceJ s 100A00 MED EXP (Any one Dement s5.000 PERSONAL IL ADV INJURY S.1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE 12.000.000 PRODUCTS • COMPOP AGG 1100_11a0 51.000,000 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Es_aSmanl) BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per acdtlenl) S PROPERTY DAMAGE /Perawdam. EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE s 09/01/2014 09/01/2010 X c'csrli neH• s1.000,000 EL DLCEASE - TA EMPLOYE/ 51.000,000 E DE:..•{ . MIL CY L(wt st000M00 8/08/2014 00/08/201 $1,000,000 Each Claim 51,000,000 Aggregate 25,000 Deductible EL EACH ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Ramarke Schadel , 11 more apace le required) The City of Temecula, the Temcula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are Additional Insureds in regards to the General)iability policy per the attached endorsement form CGD414 04/08; Prlmary/Non Contributory wording included. Additional Insured in tegarge to the Auto LiabIllty policy per the attached endorsement form CAT353 06/09. (See Attached Descriptions) finA CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Temecula Attn: David Bilby 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 CANCELLATI'N SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ©1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) 1 of 2 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD #S3328694/M3327717 16 MB44 DESCRIPTIONS (Continued from Page 1) "Should the policies be cancelled before the expiration date, Hub International Insurance Services Inc. (Hub), Independent of any rights which may be afforded within the policies to the certificate holder named below, will provide to such certificate holder notice of such cancellation within thirty (30) days of the cancellation date, except In the event the cancellation is due to non-payment of premium, in which case Hub will provide to such certificate holder notice of such cancellation within ten (10) days of the cancellation date." SAGITTA 25.3 (2010105) 2 of 2 #S3328694/M3327717 Albert A. Webb Associates Policy # 6305456P929 Policy Term: 02/01/2015 to 02/01/2016 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - WRITTEN CONTRACTS (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. The following is added to SECTION II — WHO IS AN INSURED: Any person or organization that you agree in a "written contract requiring insurance' to Include as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but: a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage or "personal injury'; and b. If, and only to the extent that, the injury or damage Is caused by acts or omissions of you or your subcontractor In the performance of "your work" to which the 'written contract requiring Insurance" applies. The person or organization does not qualify as an additional Insured with respect to the independent acts or omissions of such person or organization. The Insurance provided to such additional insured Is limited as follows: c. In the event that the Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part shown in the Declarations exceed the limits of liability required by the "written contract requiring insurance", the in- surance provided to the additional insured shall be limited to the limits of liability required by that "written contract requiring insurance". This endorsement shall not increase the limits of insurance described In Section III — Limits Of Insurance. d. This Insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services" or construction management errors or omissions. e. This Insurance does not apply to 'bodily In- jury" or "property damage" caused by "your work" and Included In the "products - completed operations hazard" unless the "written contract requiring insurance" specifi- cally requires you to provide such coverage for that additional Insured, and then the insur- ance provided to the additional Insured ap- plies only to such "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurs before the end of the pe- riod of time for which the "written contract re- quiring insurance" requires you to provide such coverage or the end of the policy period. whichever is earlier. 2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of SEC- TION IV — COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: The insurance provided to the additional insured is excess over any valid and collectible "other In- surance', whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the addi- tional insured for a loss we cover. However, if you specifically agree in the "written contract rewiring Insurance" that this Insurance provided to the ad- ditional insured under this Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis or a primary and non- contributory basis, this insurance is primary to "other insurance" available to the additional in- sured which covers that person or organization as a named insured for such loss, and we will not share with that "other insurance". But this insur- ance provided to the additional Insured still is ex- cess over any valid and collectible "other Insur- ance', whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional Insured when that person or organization is an additional insured under any "other Insurance". 3. The following is added to SECTION IV — COM- MERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS: Duties Of An Additional Insured As a condition of coverage provided to the addi- tional insured: a. The additional Insured must give us written notice as soon as practicable of an 'occur- rence" or an offense which may result in a claim. To the extent possible, such notice should include: CG D4 14 04 08 el 2000 The Travelers Companies, Inc 18 Page 1 of 2 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I. How, when and where the "occurrence" or offense took place; II. The names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses; and III. The nature and location of any injury or damage arising out of the "occurrence" or offense. b. If a claim is made or 'suit" is brought against the additional insured, the additional insured must: I. Immediately record the specifics of the claim or "suit" and the date received; and II. Notify us as soon as practicable. The additional Insured must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or "suit" as soon as practicable. c. The additional insured must immediately send us copies of all legal papers received In con- nection with the claim or "suit", cooperate with us in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the "suit", and oth- erwise comply with all policy conditions. d. The additional Insured must tender the de- fense and indemnity of any claim or "suit' to any provider of other Insurance which would cover the additional insured for a loss we cover. However, thls condition does not affect whether this Insurance provided to the addi- tional insured Is primary to that other Insur- ance available to the additional Insured which covers that person or organization as a named Insured. 4. The following is added to the DEFINITIONS Sec- tion: Written contract requiring insurance means that part of any written contract or agreement under which you are required to include a person or or- ganization as an additional Insured on this Cover- age Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs and the "personal in- jury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After the signing and execution of the contract or agreement by you; b. While that part of the contract or agreement Is in effect and c. Before the end of the policy period. Page 2 of 2 © 2008 The Travelers Companies, Inc. 19 CG D414 04 08 Albert A. Webb Associates Policy Number: BA5456P929 Policy Term: 02/01/2015 to 02/01/2016 COMMERCIAL AUTO THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BUSINESS AUTO EXTENSION ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by the endorsement. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE - This endorsement broadens coverage. However, coverage for any injury, damage or medical expenses descr bed in any of the provisions of this endorsernent may be excluded or limited by another endorsement to the Coverage Part: and these coverage broadening provisions do not apply to the extent that coverage is excluded or limited by such an endorsement, The following lisling is a general cover- age description only Limitations and exclusions may apply to these coverages. Read all the provisions of this en- dorsement and the rest of your policy carefully to determine rights, duties, and what is and is not covered. A. BROAD FORM NAMED INSURED B. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED C. EMPLOYEE HIRED AUTO D. EMPLOYEES AS INSURED E. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS - INCREASED LIMITS F. HIRED AUTO - LIMITED WORLDWIDE COVERAGE - INDEMNITY BASIS G. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE - GLASS PROVISIONS A. BROAD FORM NAMED INSURED The following is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LIABILITY COV- ERAGE: Any organization you newly acquire or form dur- ing the policy period over which you maintain 50% or more ownership Interest and that Is not separately insured for Business Auto Coverage. Coverage under this provision is afforded only un- til the 160th day after you acquire or form the or- ganization or the end of the policy period, which- ever is earlier. B. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED The following is added to Paragraph c. in A,1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE: Any person or organization who is required under a written contract or agreement between you and that person or organization, that is signed and CA T3 53 06 09 H_ HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE - LOSS OF USE - INCREASED LIMIT 1. PHYSICAL DAMAGE - TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES - INCREASED UMIT J. PERSONAL EFFECTS K. AIRBAGS L. NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENT OR LOSS M. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION N. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS executed by you before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs and that is in effect during the policy period, to be named as an addi- tional insured is an "insured' for Liability Cover- age, but only for damages to which this insurance applies and only to the extent that person or or- ganization qualifies as an "Insured" under the Who Is An Insured provision contained in Section II. C. EMPLOYEE HIRED AUTO 1. The following is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II - LI- ABILITY COVERAGE: An "employee" of yours is an "insured" while operating an 'auto" hired or rented under e contract or agreement in that "employee's" name, with your permission, while perlonning duties related to the conduct of your busi- ness. 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of 4 I^eludes the copyrighted material of Insurarce Services Office, Inc. with its permission. 20 COMMERCIAL AUTO 2. The following replaces Paragraph b. in B.5., Other Insurance, of SECTION IV — BUSI- NESS AUTO CONDITIONS: b. I -or Hired Auto Physical Damage Cover- age. the following are deemed to be cov- ered "autos" you own: (1) Any covered "auto" you lease, hire, rent or borrow; and (2) Any covered "auto" hired or rented by your "employee" under a contract in that individual "employee's' name, with your permission, while perform- ing duties related to the conduct of your business. However, any "auto" that is leased, hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is not a covered "auto" D. EMPLOYEES AS INSURED The following Is added to Paragraph A.1., Who Is An Insured, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COV- ERAGE Any "employee" of yours is an "insured" while us- ing a covered "auto" you don't own, hire or borrow in your business or your personal affairs. E. SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS — INCREASED LIMITS 1. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(2), of SECTION I1— LIABILITY COVERAGE: (2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (in- cluding bonds for related traffic law viola- tions) required because of an 'accident" we cover. We do not have to furnish these bonds. 2. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(4). of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE: (4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the "insured" at our request, including actual loss of earnings up to $500 a day be- cause of time off from work. F. HIRED AUTO — LIMITED WORLDWIDE COV- ERAGE — INDEMNITY BASIS The following replaces Subparagraph e. In Para- graph B.7., Polley Term, Coverage Territory, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: o. Anywhere in the world, except any country or jurisdiction while any trade sanction, em- bargo, or simlar regulation Imposed by the United States of America applies to and pro- hibits the transaction of business with or within such country or jurisdiction, for Liability Coverage for any covered "auto" that you lease, hire, rent or borrow without a driver For a period of 30 days or Tess and that is not an 'auto" you lease, hire, rent or borrow from any of your "employees", partners (if you are a partnership), members (if you are a limited liability company) or members of their house- holds. (1) With respect to any claim made or 'suit" brought outside the United States of America, the territories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada: (a) You musl arrange to defend the "insured' against, and investigate or settle any such claim or 'suit' and keep us advised of all pro- ceedings and actions. (b) Neither you nor any other in- volved "insured" will make any settlement without our consent. (c) We may, at our discretion, par- ticipate in defending the "insured' against, or in the settlement of, any claim or 'suit'. (d) We will reimburse the 'insured": (1) For sums that the "insured" legally must pay as damages because of "bodily Injury" or 'property damage" to which this insurance applies, that the "insured" pays with our consent, but only up to the limit described In Paragraph C., Limit Of Insurance, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE; (ii) For the reasonable expenses Incurred with our consent for your investigation of such claims and your defense of the "insured" against any such "suit", but only up to and Included within the limit de- scribed In Paragraph C., Limit Of Insurance, of SECTION II — LIABILITY COVERAGE. Page 2 of 4 © 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc CA T3 53 05 09 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc with its permission. 21 and not in addition to such limit. Our duty to make such payments ends when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in payments for damages, settlements or defense expenses. (2) This insurance is excess over any valid and collectible other insurance available to the "Insured" whether primary, excess contingent or on any other basis. (3) This insurance is not a substitute for re- quired or compulsory insurance in any country outside the United Slates, its ter- ritories and possessions, Puerto Rico and Canada. You agree to maintain all required or compulsory insurance in any such coun- try up to the minimum limits required by local law. Your failure to comply with compulsory insurance requirements will not invalidate the coverage afforded by this policy, but we will only be liable to the same extent we would have been liable had you complied with the compulsory In- surance requirements. (4) It is understood that we are not an admit- ted or authorized insurer outside the United States of America, its territories and possessions. Puerto Rico and Can- ada, We assume no responsibility for the furnishing of certificates of insurance, or for compliance in any way with the laws of other countries relating to insurance. G. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE — GLASS The following is added to Paragraph D., Deducti- ble, of SECTION 11I — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: No deductible for a covered "auto" will apply to glass damage if the glass is repaired rather than replaced. H. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE — LOSS OF USE — INCREASED LIMIT The following replaces the last sentence of Para- graph A.4.b., Loss Of Use Expenses, of SEC- TION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: However, the most we will pay for any expenses for loss of use is $65 per day, to a maximum of $750 for any one "accident". CAT3530609 COMMERCIAL AUTO I. PHYSICAL DAMAGE — TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES — INCREASED LIMIT The following replaces the first sentence in Para- graph A.4.a., Transportation Expenses, of SEC- TION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: We will pay up to $50 per day to a maximum of $1,500 for temporary transportation expense in- curred by you because of the total theft of a cov- ered "auto" of the private passenger type J. PERSONAL EFFECTS The following is added to Paragraph A.4., Cover- age Extensions, of SECTION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: Personal Effects We will pay up to $400 for 'loss' to wearing ap- parel and other personal effects which are: (1) Owned by an 'insured"; and (2) In or on your covered 'auto'. This coverage applies only in the event of a total theft of your covered "auto' No deductibles apply to this Personal Effects coverage. K. AIRBAGS The following is added to Paragraph B.3., Exclu- sions, of SECTION III — PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE: Exclusion 3.a. does not apply to "loss' to one or more airbags in a covered "auto" you own that in- flate due to a cause other than a cause of loss' set forth in Paragraphs A.1.6. and A.1.c., but only: a. If that "auto' is a covered "auto" for Compre- hensive Coverage under this policy; b. The airbags are not covered under any war- ranty; end c. The airbags were not intentonally Inflated. We will pay up to a maximum of $1,000 for any one 'loss". L. NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ACCIDENT OR LOSS The following is added to Paragraph A.2.a., of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: Your duty to give us or our authorized representa- tive prompt notice of the "accident" or "loss" ap- plies only when the "accident" or "loss" is known lo. (a) You (if you are an individual); © 2009 The Travelers Ccmpenies, Inc Page 3 of 4 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Cffice., Inc with its permission 22 COMMERCIAL AUTO (b) A partner (if you are a partnership); (c) A member (if you are a limited liability com- pany); (d) An executive officer, director or insurance manager (if you are a corporation or other or- ganization); or (e) Any "employee" authorized by you to give no- tice of the "accident" or "loss". M. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION The following replaces Paragraph A.S., Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDI- TIONS: 5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us We waive any righl of recovery we may have against any person or organization to the ex- tent required of you by a written contract signed and executed prior to any accident or 'loss", provided that the "accident' or "loss" arises out of operations contemplated by such contract. The waiver applies only to the person or organizalion designated in such contract. N. UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS The following is added to Paragraph 8.2., Con- cealment, Misrepresentation, Or Fraud, of SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS: The unintentional omission of, or unintentional error in, any information given by you shall not prejudice your rights under this insurance. How- ever this provision does not affect our right to col- lect additional premium or exercise our right of cancellation or non -renewal. Page 4 of 4 ® 2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc. CA T3 53 06 09 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with Its permission. 23 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 19 ACTION MINUTES July 16, 2015 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING The Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting convened at 7:50 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerhcero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn, Comerchero TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR 17 Approve the Action Minutes of July 22, 2014 - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0- 2, Directors McCracken and Rahn abstained) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Comerchero, Naggar and Edwards with Directors McCracken and Rahn abstaining as they did not attend the July 22, 2014 Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 22, 2014. 18 Authorize Fiscal Year 2015-16 Special Tax Levies for the Community Facility Districts - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0) Director Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Director Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Directors Comerchero, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-01 (CROWNE HILL) TPFA Action Minutes 071615 1 18.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-02 (HARVESTON) 18.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-06 (HARVESTON II) 18.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) 18.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 15-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) TPFA Action Minutes 071615 2 TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT At 7:52 P.M., the Temecula Public Financing Authority meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, TPFA Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk/Secretary [SEAL] TPFA Action Minutes 071615 3 COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 20 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Interim Director of Community Development DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Approve Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, AICP, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NON -HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) BACKGROUND: On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. The Major Modification would also allow for construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage building for non- hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The illustration below indicates the previously approved flight path and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested modification/addition to the approved flight path, along with the proposed interim helistop location and flight path and permanent helistop location and flight path: T —Caltrans Requires Obsirucfion Lights on Summerhouse Aparlmenl Buildings • for !his flight Path. - into! rl_ign po'-----_ Apo - roved /JJ E!R oWoopap FAA Required Tree Removal and/or Topping Requires Fish A Came Cccrdination Permanent Hsllstop Location Map Second Tower Addition The purpose of the proposed revisions to the previously approved helistop location is to address comments from the FAA's review of the previously approved helistop as described in the FAA's "Conditional No Objection" determination letter (attached). The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issuing helistop permits and considers FAA determination letters, and resolution of their own concerns, when considering helistop permit approvals. Therefore, for the hospital to obtain a Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit for the helistop, both FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics conditions and concerns regarding the originally approved site must be addressed or a revised helistop site must be considered. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the previously adopted Final EIR, Supplemental EIR, and EIR Addendum for the Project was prepared for the project. The public review period for the Supplemental EIR was from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. The hospital operator predicts an average of eight flights per month, though frequency may vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care patients. Temecula Valley Hospital has provided flight data indicating that from the hospital operations beginning in October 2013 through June 2015, a total of 61 flights related to the hospital occurred. The maximum number of flights in any month during this period occurred in May 2014, with seven (7) flights during that month. The average number of flights during this period was 3 per month. The data also indicates that 97% of these flights were for outbound patients (2 flights, or 3% of the total, were for training purposes), and that the majority of these flights (32 flights, or 53%) have been for critically ill children needing transport out of Temecula Valley Hospital to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego. In addition, 20 flights (33%) have been to UCSD Medical Center for various patient needs including intracranial bleeding, stroke, and neurosurgery. Other flights have included two flights (3%) to Loma Linda University Medical Center including a flight for a rattlesnake bite and a flight for cardiothoracic surgery, a single flight (2%) to Riverside Community Hospital for major pediatric trauma, a single flight to Ronald Regan UCLA Medical Center for pediatric cardiology care (2%), a single flight to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center for burn care (2%), a single flight where a landing occurred but the transport was cancelled (2%), a two flights (3%) involving Hospital staff for training purposes. Six comment letters were received on the Draft Supplemental EIR and responses to those comments, which are included in the attached Final Supplemental EIR, were mailed to the commenters on March 31, 2015. Concerns raised in the comment letters focus on the following: • Belief that "The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit" and that there is no valid "helistop EIR" to be supplemented. • Belief that the lack of a trauma center or newborn services means that "there is no urgency to use helicopters for transportation of patients" and that the hospital should be able to provide adequate patient care by stabilizing patients and transport patients by ambulance if transport is necessary. • Belief that there is "no evidence that medical helicopter[s] in fact saved more lives than [a] traditional ambulance" and that only extremely rural locations can benefit from medical helicopter services. • Belief that "helicopters are prone to crash." • Concerns with noise pollution, vibration, dust, and landing lights. All comment letters and detailed responses are provided in the attached Final Supplemental EIR. In addition to these comment letters, written correspondence received after the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and responses are attached under "Public Corresondence." The Supplemental EIR prepared for the Modification application concluded that the proposed project is an Environmentally Superior Alternative (p. S-6) to the previously approved helistop site. Furthermore, the Supplemental EIR analyzed an Alternative Interim Helistop Site (located south of the proposed interim site, closer to Temecula Parkway) and determined that the alternative interim helistop site would result in greater aesthetic and hazard impacts than would occur with the proposed interim helistop location. Safety is also improved with the proposed project because the approved helistop location's flight path conflicts with prevailing winds for the area, and the request by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in an e-mail dated December 29, 2011 (attached), to rotate the flight path to the south would make this situation worse, while the proposed project allows for helicopter takeoff and arrival toward the direction of both prevailing winds and typical Santa Ana wind conditions, which is safer than a crosswind condition. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report 2. Resolution - Major Modification Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval 3. Resolution — Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit A — Findings in Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4. Letter to Planning Commisson 5. Public Correspondence (received after Planning Commission hearing) STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: April 15, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Armando G. Villa, AICP, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a SUMMARY: Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07- 0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single - story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula Parkway. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council Approve with Conditions CEQA: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Section 15163 PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (PO) Zoning Designation: Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay -9 (PDO -9) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Hospital North: Very Low Density Residential (VL) South: Temecula Parkway, Low Medium Residential (LM), Community Commercial (CC) East: Professional Office (PO), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), PDO -8 West: PDO -6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay) 1 Lot Area: Total Floor Area/Ratio: Landscape Area/Coverage: BACKGROUND SUMMARY Existing/Proposed 35.3 acres 0.37 proposed 33.3% proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required 5.0 acres 0.30 minimum/1.0 maximum 25.0% minimum 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 Valley Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. 2 On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether; a gasoline additive) plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. On July 3, 2007, Universal Health Services, Inc., submitted Planning Application PA07-0198, a General Plan Amendment, PA07-0199, a Zone Change, PA07-0200, a Development Plan, PA07-0201, a Tentative Parcel Map, and PA07-0202, a Conditional Use Permit, for a 320 -bed hospital, 80,000 square foot medical office building, 60,000 square foot medical office building, 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness center for the 35.3 acre project generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07- 0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, adopted Resolution No. 08-02 recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment (PA07-0198), adopted Resolution No. 08-03 recommending approval of the Zone Change (PA07-0199), adopted Resolution No. 08-04 recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202), adopted Resolution No. 08-05 recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Numbers PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone Change to 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- 3 0202), adopted Resolution 08-13 approving the Development Plan (PA07-0200), and adopted Resolution 08-14 approving the Tentative Parcel Map (PA07-0201). On December 30, 2009, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., applied for a first Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved Resolution No. 10-08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10-08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council will consider the following schedule of actions required to begin substantial construction of the Hospital in 2010: (1) the submission by UHS of all documents required for the City to issue a grading and a building permit for the Hospital on or before April 30, 2010; (2) the award of a construction contract for the Hospital by July 1, 2010; (3) commencement of actual construction of the Hospital foundations by October 1, 2010; and (4) diligent progress on the construction of the Hospital thereafter. The City Council further specified in Resolution 10-08 that in approving the extension of the land use entitlements for the Hospital and Ancillary Facilities, the City Council did not approve the "Temecula Medical Campus Development Timeline" described in the UHS application for the extension and that in order to implement a phasing program UHS would need to file for a Major Modification of the entitlements. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA10- 01 g4 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-28 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification (PA10-0194) and certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. 4 Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases. Phase I of the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned helistop facility in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. As discussed below, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower. The illustration below identifies the approved flight path (black lines) and the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requested modification/addition to the approved flight path (blue lines), along with the proposed interim helistop location and flight path (green lines) and permanent helistop location and flight path (red lines): The FAA reviewed the previously approved helistop and issued a "Conditional No Objection" determination letter (attached). Although the FAA does not specifically approve helistops, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics is responsible for issuing helistop permits and considers FAA determination letters, and resolution of their own concerns, when considering helistop permit approvals. Therefore, for the hospital to obtain a Caltrans Division of Aeronautics permit for the helistop both FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics conditions and concerns regarding the originally approved site must be addressed or a revised helistop site must be considered. 5 The previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital included environmental analysis for the hospital project and presented the helicopter landing site at a location with a shared approach and departure and a single flight path into and out of the hospital site on the northern side of the project. However, the approved design does not meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations for a second flight path, which would reduce flight hazards primarily resulting from wind patterns due to the fact that helicopter flights into headwinds are safer than flights into side or tail winds. The second flight path suggested by the FAA at the previously approved helistop location, however, would result in helicopter flights being routed directly over homes to the north/northwest of the hospital site (see attached plan reductions). Further, the previous analysis did not address the development of the adjacent Madera Vista apartments, which did not exist at the time of the first release of the Notice of Preparation for the original EIR in 2005. The Madera Vista apartments are located at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road, under the currently approved helistop flight path. As such, to operate the previously approved helistop, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics would now require red obstruction lights on the Madera Vista apartment buildings. Due to the approved helicopter flight path's proximity to the Madera Vista apartment buildings and the FAA's suggested second flight path over the homes located to the north/northwest of the hospital site, as mentioned above, the previously approved helistop location is not desirable because a safer design with fewer impacts on the surrounding community is available through the proposed interim helistop location at the west side of the hospital site and the proposed permanent rooftop location on the future hospital bed tower. The Supplemental EIR prepared for the Modification application concluded that the proposed project is an Environmentally Superior Alternative (p. S-6) to the previously approved helistop site since modifying the previously approved helistop site to meet Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and FAA requirements would result in greater impacts than the proposed project with regard to aesthetics (rooftop lighting on the Madera Vista apartments) and noise. Furthermore, the Supplemental EIR analyzed an Alternative Interim Helistop Site (located south of the proposed interim site, closer to Temecula Parkway) and determined that the alternative interim helistop site would result in greater aesthetic and hazard impacts than would occur with the proposed interim helistop location. Safety is also improved with the proposed project because the approved helistop location's flight path conflicts with prevailing winds for the area, and the request by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in an e-mail dated December 29, 2011 (attached), to rotate the flight path to the south would make this situation worse, while the proposed project allows for helicopter takeoff and arrival toward the direction of both prevailing winds and typical Santa Ana wind conditions, which is safer than a crosswind condition. Under the proposed Project, the previously approved helistop would be relocated from an area near the northeast corner of the Phase 1 hospital building to two new locations including an interim location near the northwest corner of future Medical Office Building 2 for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. As conditioned by the City Council in the PA10-0194 Major Modification, the applicant is to commence construction of the future hospital tower (hospital bed tower 2) foundation within 5 years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital building (hospital bed tower 1; Certificate of Occupancy obtained from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development [OSHPD] on July 19, 2013), or no later than February 8, 2019. The Modification application also includes an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) that would be constructed at the site of the previously approved helistop identified in the previously approved 6 project and the environmental analysis performed for the 2008 Final Supplemental EIR. The total square footage of all the buildings at build -out of the project would increase from 566,160 square feet approved in 2011 to 571,160 square feet with the addition of the proposed 5,000 square foot storage. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed project on February 13, 2014, and found the project to be consistent with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: "1. No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-2B, Heliport Design. 3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013. 4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible. 5. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period." It should be noted that medical helicopter flights are currently occurring to and from the Temecula Valley Hospital under approval from the Riverside County Fire Chief. Consistent with the California Public Utilities Code (Section 2662.1), the Riverside County Fire Chief approved Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations as described in the attached letters dated April 23, 2014 and March 16, 2015 from the Riverside County Fire Department. As identified in the Supplemental EIR, the hospital operator predicts, on average, eight flights per month, although actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care patients. Temecula Valley Hospital has provided flight data indicating that since the hospital began operations in October, 2013, a total of 47 flights related to the hospital have occurred. The maximum number of flights in any month occurred in May, 2014, with seven (7) flights during that month. The average number of flights since the opening of the hospital is 3.4 per month. The data also indicates that 96% of these flights have been for outbound patients (2 flights, or 4% of the total, were for training purposes), and that the majority of these flights (53%) have been for critically ill children needing transport out of Temecula Valley Hospital to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego. In addition, 17 flights (36%) have been to UCSD Medical Center for various patient needs including intracranial bleeding, stroke, and neurosurgery. Other flights have included a single flight (2%) to Loma Linda University Medical Center for a rattlesnake bite, a single flight (2%) to Riverside Community Hospital for major pediatric trauma, and a single flight (2%) involving Rady Children's Hospital staff for training purposes. 7 While the Emergency Medical Services landing site meets the short term needs of the hospital and the community, it is important that the hospital include a helistop facility so that aesthetic, hazard, and noise impacts can be minimized and medical helicopter flight safety can be maximized. Further, it is important for the hospital to be able to utilize medical helicopter flights for the following public benefits as provided by Temecula Valley Hospital (as included in attached Temecula Valley Hospital letter): "Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical need for rapid transportation into or out of a hospital are predominantly for the following reasons: • Rapid access to specialty services requiring time-limited treatments such as stroke care. • Access to specialty services only available at a few centers, such as critical pediatric care, trauma and burn services. The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula Valley Hospital have been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San Diego or another Children's Hospital, the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER, speak with the ER physician caring for the patient to appropriately transition care, and then accompanies the critically ill child back to the Children's Hospital. A child's hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get them to the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from TVH [Temecula Valley Hospital] with the best team of providers possible helps ensure the best possible outcome. Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients who require very specialized lifesaving procedures such as certain types of brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When trying to save a brain that is bleeding or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts. These types of patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to be held up in traffic. They do not have time to spare. In addition to transferring out critical patients, as a STEM! [heart attack] Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital, Temecula Valley Hospital also receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance, remote access location, or a traffic situation, it is important to be able to transfer patients to Temecula Valley Hospital via helicopter to maximize the opportunity to provide timely lifesaving care. Without a helistop, hospitals address the need for critical care transports through these options: • The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in ground ambulance staffed with paramedics. o Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared with a critical care team, thus must cease medications and interventions during transport. 8 o Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. o Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911 ambulance out of service in the community for an extended time. • An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize critical care ground transport ambulances. o There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be delays in availability of this specialty ambulance. o Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. • Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a remote off-site location such as an airport, park or field. The critical care response team takes a ground ambulance to the hospital to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter for flight out. o This option provides significant enough time delay that it is typically impractical. o This option ties up the local fire department engines because they have to "secure" the off-site landing area and provide ground to air radio communications for safety. This takes the 911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of time. In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not have a helistop care for patients can suffer. Patients in the community do not have rapid access to the specialty services they need, and upon case review their outcomes are affected in an undesirable way. Having a helistop at a hospital provides the community with all potential options to receive rapid access to any care required at a specialty center with no change in the level of care during transport." Site Plan As discussed above, the Project would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, including an interim location near the west side of the hospital site for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the east end of the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase of the project (Phase IV). The Project would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot, single -story storage building (to be constructed in Phase I.b) for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. Access to the site will not change as a result of the Project. Parking for build -out of the project will increase by three spaces (from 1,278 spaces approved in 2011 to 1,281 spaces as proposed) as a result of three new parking spaces being included adjacent to the proposed storage building. Total parking spaced required by the Temecula Municipal Code for the Project, including the proposed modifications, is 902 spaces, and a total of 1,281 spaces will be provided, thereby exceeding the requirements of the Municipal Code. The approved plans show 512,734 square feet (33.3%) of landscaped area on the hospital site and the proposed 9 plans show 507,734 square feet (33.0%) of landscaped are, which is consistent with the 25% required landscape area per the Municipal Code. Architecture The earth -toned stucco proposed storage building will match the exterior materials and colors of the existing hospital, including a cornice along the roofline on all sides of the building. The proposed building will also include windows (with bronze tinted exterior glazing on the exterior and drywall infill on the interior) on the north, south, and east elevations of the building. The west elevation of the building will face the service yard area of the hospital complex and will include a 10' x 12' roll up service door and a man door. To match the base material on the existing hospital building, the proposed storage building will include an Indian Red stucco wainscot at the base of the building. No changes are proposed to the elevations and architecture for the previously approved buildings on the Project site. Landscaping The landscape plans for the have been updated to remove sod from the previously approved helistop site/proposed storage building site and to include landscaping around the proposed storage building consistent with the onsite landscaping, including ground cover, shrubs and trees. Proposed ground cover around the storage building will consist of Prostrate Rosemary, with Deer Grass and Fountain Grass to complement the landscaping on the surrounding hospital site. Crape Myrtle trees will also be provided at this location. The proposed landscape plan, as conditioned, will comply with the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The Project is consistent with the 25% required landscape area (33.0% proposed). Access/Circulation No changes are proposed to the previously approved access to the site or to the internal drive lanes for build out of the Project site. Minor revisions to internal drive lanes and the parking area associated with the Phase II Medical Office Building will be necessary to accommodate the interim helistop location at the western side of the hospital site. However, adequate parking to meet Municipal Code requirements will be achieved through all phases of development of the hospital site. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the Union Tribune on April 2, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius, thereby addressing legal noticing requirements. In addition, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all residents and property owners of record within the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The helistop was included in the hospital Project that was evaluated in the original EIR in 2006, which was certified by the City Council. The 2008 Supplemental EIR, which was also certified by the City Council, further evaluated issues that the Riverside County Superior Court found to be inadequately address in the original 2006 EIR. Environmental impacts related to the helistop were considered to be adequately analyzed in the 2006 EIR by the court and, therefore, were 10 not revisited in the 2008 Supplemental EIR. The 2006 EIR determined that with operation of the helistop, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying (2006 Draft EIR, page 4-59) and concluded that the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the previously adopted Final EIR, Supplemental EIR, and EIR Addendum for the Project was prepared for this Modification application. The public review period for the Supplemental EIR was from November 12, 2014 thru December 26, 2014. Six comment letters (attached) were received on the Draft Supplemental EIR and responses to those comments, which are included in the attached Final Supplemental EIR, were mailed to the commenters on March 31, 2015. Concerns raised in the comment letters focus on the following concerns: • Belief that "The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit" and that there is no valid "helistop EIR" to be supplemented. • Belief that the lack of a trauma center or newborn services means that "there is no urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients" and that the hospital should be able to provide adequate patient care by stabilizing patients and transport patients by ambulance if transport is necessary. • Belief that there is "no evidence that medical helicopter[s] in fact saved more lives than [a] traditional ambulance" and that only extremely rural locations can benefit from medical helicopter services • Belief that "helicopters are prone to crash" • Concerns with noise pollution, vibration, dust, and landing lights A comment letters and detailed responses to all comments are provided in the attached Final Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed concluded that the No project Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed project, and that the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the Supplemental EIR concluded that the proposed Project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. In the area of noise, the Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed Project concludes that environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation as a result of substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels as a result of helicopter operations. Therefore, as was the case with the certified 2006 EIR, the Supplemental EIR for the proposed Project includes a statement of overriding considerations for noise impacts for the benefits it provides to the public in the way of emergency medical services as discussed above. Noise Exemptions Two important noise exemptions should be noted: 1) Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the 11 course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile"; and 2) Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010,F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula, As designed and conditioned, the Project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare. The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the Project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010.E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07- 0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot, single - story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage 'A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1); "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. 12 The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed Modification to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental E/R identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels'; it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from al! equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental E!R identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed Project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The Project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Modification to the conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the Modification to the Conditional Use Permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 13 That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Project for a Conditional Use Permit will be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Plan Reductions PC Resolution — Major Modification to a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Exhibit A — Draft CC Resolution Exhibit B — Draft Conditions of Approval PC Resolution — Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit A — Draft CC Resolution Exhibit B -- Findings in Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit C — Mitigation Monitoring Program Final Supplemental EIR Adopted 2006 Final EIR (available in the Planning Department of the City of Temecula upon request) Adopted 2008 Final Supplemental EIR (available in the Planning Department of the City of Temecula upon request) Adopted 2011 EIR Addendum (available in the Planning Department of the City of Temecula upon request) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission letter dated March 4, 2014 Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics e-mail dated December 29, 2011 Riverside County Fire Department letter dated April 23, 2014 Riverside County Fire Department letter dated March 16, 2015 Temecula Valley Hospital letter dated March 9, 2015 Public Correspondence Notice of Public Hearing 14 VICINITY MAP 0 O cr -J w 0 w -,� SM T4AGO Ra N Z m ►i �-+ 0IIP gr ff1� y'cvY iti v CiLLE NO,{c Q-- •7 LP 459C� C �'4CCR � TE ALG,0�� Cq : - live0 R ▪ 7:ix.4444 J ✓! \ �` FECOND� \, CALIARI \ 1 rA Rp 40 GO trop 0 Q�\. Lq � Project Site g OC 10 CO Tn to C1 RANGNO PSE 0 G c-,�1 4. G 7 O �C 7 EP ON 0 r:3 2 ti GABRIEL\-"" i:p '- SAANTI fA LN ajR 0���rti \J .�0� \„0 4 P 5 ' 4aP O SNC C'JP 42r (r vIS1--C Vi,A CORDOBA 0,4 ti 4� • `'• ) o� - 00 vim` r�jl C.) e O v NCy9'L � Q -' Cr ) 9-1,,,, -.41- 0 n" 0ti ! fiy z 002 14,4 �0¢r � 1 L T,10,41 1 ON).O Y,Q PLAN REDUCTIONS PROJ[Ct VAI r.r111-f. FWkJ .R434, .4,f. 413 •I4 1141..4 -UM 1.11*. •1.11:1 IILL...34 • 'IV.= .33 .tdo d tal OW DIN ,ACLIY6 OPC.A.O. ,G0-41 ler.a4v4.44 1/30.nnk. MIMI. CM= -urn. 44: 0.1.11.5 vr,luIRVATiOk tr.? wt, ru 431 .t1 dr/ t tas4 ilunac .11.1algat. 03 WNW &MICro ',was 1.3 10.4111 432.CAL 3.-u 'Vamp • .4.1 dud P4115 3,15 ,044. moo. nand,osi ase•DID.0:43T.,4th -rwE tom LIM ND •m4,444 PIK OVer•Per elaatrOftd •14, nii• 4.f...ed. dd.' LJ 1.3441. 44.1 f45-4•1,11-1.1 —0- 11 0/ 1.1R•rdil rar0 7/ROF AMC IS.114.1 I ElA£CDLA PArlICIV/47 ( 84 l20' 2 MMUS 1 ST ewoawr r. xn w.v. mrr aoxs sal se Mr et - .KEN . ,ns:r:,vcnu Wra KE uuInkr=L o,L e�E ® a 117 Iw- I - -t 4.114,0 1 OCORAFICY >, 11 _t ;.. O. [1.740;iL LOI INN 11 I�I�i fi 11! ��• .II I / _ r-ne a PUEBIAI .. .r�..z �..� sem...... ..=' / 14W:1,1D r141, ▪ 1 i%•� a pi 1 I{ m 144-0'i 0 id r„ 1 .i - i 1I iia` Vii-lk iiia. 1 y /. MILD 6 FIRE LACE r. 1,151,1TALu+cv avec VICINITY MAF' 2 TENECUV lcf.NY.4Y ,P5— .17 .. .. 2.-i.1 f ski way4.111.1.2. 4.4•40 Amyl. latimehl MUNI Raw dr, MIA 4...16041 44 00. 11 I \ _.1I MI 'Bo 11 'Win Ill i /I 2 gi 1 I n tn. n ono MI ins n i I n gni 11 11 NS 1 n i n I 11 1 1 1 112 1 WS 1 1111 1 ril i n 1 P11 MM. WEST ELEVATION 1h 1 1111 1 fl 1 11 1 n 1 11 • n 1 n gni n 1 ti 1 n n 1 to 1 WI 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 n 1 I P1 inl n Inv • • EAST EL EVATION 14.4f34 10 L A LA . E rAJM.,--1 ..00 Ina —M1411tri.MT 44140 • :own 544 mr.f. • ISPYY. “1144 r4.01.411 ito hum. rutintava. —A,LWILAIL ••••• scum ELEVATION (MAN( 1) 513,1•11E1Ca ..4.F+44,0. 3 I C acA.NLAL.A. ••••., MI 1.1•01.01 114 't • ca14.41•16..4.447, ,-4.,...11)0•11141. (tad 64111,JIMAL Ir L LI T T n LOW 1 vomit. wril 1 14 ..41,a. -r= k now I I NORTH ELEVATION r-- - II P11 al • n • III ono P11 • n ono n ono WI 1 1111 1 11 1 • n On 1 11 NUM n 1 n 1 n 1111 1 111 1 11 • 1111 Itt. n 1 TIE 4 •••• -14:14 '11.44 (1 .�.- ..o.wwxw..{, aid NOOK,. o"MMO •Er.a TT..cn.00. . .O,OVIM MO. TO u.r w*w.os.n. w P 1J_El j l i I PRAT_ � T- NG T»" . msrm:w.w" KA... {[.CLgE EE OA BOOTH 4 Ont. Mmerf EE A WEST 5 UAW. ..1MOt. OrriN ,.wno..o.,.r... T . Emma M 4 I.n..x.. uTwwairrtu Imam.. OLIOING ..swi wwrT.n iii eo. n.wv.r S rx THUM aa 4 WOW. MM.. TG WTpi W - -- - -- -- - f..4TG{TtWaupryurT.Tr EE0 0 2002001 Interim Hei High Caltrans R on Sumrm for this FI r Pc,fh gpPr EQUESTRie / FRAIL / 1 FAA Requ Topping f Coordinot Permanent Helistop Location Atop o' Second Tower addition SOURCE. M hpianr.s 0 4 /Mr [.° / AL t[ 00.611210 ISR +•111 / •6 6 r / / - / � // / .�. / // / // // \ / / / / \ L.a a',; •1a 1 r. swim r/: /�/ ° -TY* orSPOM \ ! CONCRETE 1.q / HtLIYC1t(I UR IR YRIVCL 3- 34_-__.ar.1 AnsMO i .Ile ..•1r .r ,of 1'— — ..rm. 0._ w .. JIn. *Ma* s••.1.. 11•••••. V gilt — ...... w•1r••,�r,�t is g4 41l. 157 Orr. w.•r War/ .r••l 4— (.u. - r u41 — 00 r.. .•.I. r •••r• r.• .•.. FM rrr ....•1r1. MN — -. -_ w.•• ..r r.• •1• 0.1 000 S7r 0, ..••r — err .. rere.• rF.r r w •\•• ., OA warn ..m Torr r1•••1 ...s.•. r 5x/!•0-75 ly.• . V. els 1\t... i hm V. 0f .:c.. . 1 ,- RI. ...0 MO mil.. r.. •d 3D1000.00, 4 0 l.l.i + RV. -- Irr �.r.1. r 21. ALAI&+_..&.•.!. — IIF . •.++ AAAA •1. - fr4W ram.rr. 1r r&• r r .. 00 ldw_wu Y Arra •.Yr • �. G�+o•\ M If ( 11�wSww.•..t� M��M(\(.or. �... 21.\.• I 0: 1rYMi. Of•. 1p•S Y1a 2&r1 17101 •L•I•..Y\lini •iJ.— [=pi \ �WW we Mw• 4.wr w. 4 - •tW VICINITY MAP LEGEND • 3- 34_-__.ar.1 AnsMO i .Ile ..•1r • 4 1r I•..-•\_ 4._ ~0:...al t» _ ` - 403 rm. • ..a.. cw..rl,M..�..-24. tame • 00.. l_ 0. wW te~ VW .....0.1.1., m= M r—.4— 00.1 !.-R R•► 2.I••• ..r.ra-- 50 Amnion . A!--* ..&O•.rr. O HELIPORT DETAIL INTERIM HELIPORT TO BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF PERMANENT HELIPORT ON FUTURE BED TOWER •- Orr•10 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL. REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVAL Lor`,.1=1311-.•7713,1 2,... 1� 3 0-334:1.1. kr /1.11. ► _11 �=---�-- �- — er 6+.c.Y EEL7." 11 - 1001.016.1.3.la Our. CA 03131 .I. No. 111g13, 1 •. u1,I l44 -,.n •.0. /.w 11e=•4111*..•111 - 3X411 ••• 1 yl 10.15-i. •••• • • 0 • O TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR REVISED HELIPAD LOCATION RANDS] Pik€11G Rn- `iuri -; tue ,.... Ti !I- stt DETAIL AT RN -IT ' -- — —11 114__1,)•;,.L cr ... i_ .!fl'i ca cr. tc m -a TENCOLA PARKYOAYF, L 1 1 1 wc.adidEag. Er, 1,17 KLO,V Oar, 1110LOR OrArCrOr Or P", SS/t? 1S11 CITY FIRE I_ANE 71 )(71' adaa jairt PRELIMINARY IRRIGATION • ,R211:-.04,411. I Agel. FIRE .'ANE 714x71 4.1 NM Mr MO a I NOM. a ii mosio see •imasasespaamie•ME111 .... • PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE I PC RESOLUTION MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07- 0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. 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-Q01 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 adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. II. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. JJ. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.030.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a development plan and by Section 17.04.010.E of the City of Temecula Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1); 'A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels", it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4. (a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The Modification to the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the Modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the Modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed Modification to a Conditional Use Permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the "Project"). A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the "Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-080-026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-0141, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of April, 2015. Pat Kight, Chairman ATTEST: Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Armando G. Villa, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CC RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NON- HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. 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 adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. II. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 and adopt a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. JJ. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 28, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. KK. 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. LL. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements af State law and ather Ordinances af the City; The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, state laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1); "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, Landscaping, Lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantia! temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels", it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental ElR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4.(a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditiona! use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4.(a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The modification to the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the proposed modification application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the ("Project") : A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the "Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SE1R. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and Incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. I. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. J. All legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-080-026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-0141, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of April, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) 1, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk EXHIBIT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA13-0141 A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700 Temecula Parkway. 959-080-026 Commercial Service Commercial/Office Service Commercial/Office NA (Non -Residential Project) April 28, 2015 April 28, 2017 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report required 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 Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within (one, two, or three years - choose one) 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 (one, two, or three year - choose one) period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR, Supplemental EIR, and second Supplemental EIR for the Temecula Valley Hospital. 6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 7. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 8. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 10. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three -foot -by -three-foot section of the building for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 11. Photographic Prints.. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 12. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Material Storage building main body color Storage building base color Storage building aluminum shadow box windows Storage building tinted glass Storage building stucco cornice Color Dryvit #456, "Oyster4 Shell" in Dryvit "Sandblast" texture to match existing hospital building Indian Red to match existing hospital building Medium bronze to match existing hospital Building Bronze tint to match existing hospital building Indian Red to match existing hospital building trim 13. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 14. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 15. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 16. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 17. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 18. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 19. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 20. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 21. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 22. Compliance with Previous Approvals. Except where modified by this approval, all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA10-0194 (Major Modification), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), and PA7-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) remain in effect and shall be complied with. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 23. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 24. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 25. Archaeoloqical/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 26. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), ail 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." 27. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 28. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 29. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 30. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 31. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 32. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. 33. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 34. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 36. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 37. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 38. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 39. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 40. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 41. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property. 42. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping. 43. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 44. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 45. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 46. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. 47. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 48. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 49. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 50. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 51. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 52. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 53. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 54. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 55. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 56. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconstmanual. htm 57. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 58. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following Zink: http:l/www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 59. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a revision to the original WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) that was approved with the original grading permit. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the updated project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, the updated WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be revised accordingly and submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http:llwww. cityoftemecula. orglTemecula/Government/PublicWorkslWQMPand NP DESIWQ M P. htm 60. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 61. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 62. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 63. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 64. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 65. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 66. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 67. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trash enclose tot lots and picnic areas. 68. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 69. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 70. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 71. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 72. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 73. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 74. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 75. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays, At Plan Review Submittal 76. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 77. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 78. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 79. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 80. Pre -Construction Meeting. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 81. Fire Requirement. Guard posts will need to be constructed of steel not less than 4 -inches in diameter and concrete filled. They need to be set not less than 3 -feet deep in a concrete footing of not less than a 15 -inch diameter. Top of posts shall not be Tess than 3 -feet above ground (CFC Chapter 3) Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 82. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). For the new proposed storage building the developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5) 83. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. For the new proposed storage building fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 84. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with a fire alarm system. For the new proposed storage building fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. PC RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-04, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). J. On January 24, 2006, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law on the Final Environmental Impact Report at which time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the Final Environmental Impact Report. K. On January 24, 2006, following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council and due consideration of the Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA04-0462 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) PA05-0302 (ZONE CHANGE), PA04-0463 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN) AND PA04-0571 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP) AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 35.31 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571)." L. On January 24, 2006, the City Council considered the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-07, approving the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04-0463). N. On February 24, 2006, the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic each filed a separate petition challenging the City of Temecula's approval of the Temecula Regional Hospital project proposed by Universal Health Services, Inc. O. On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the Project, including without limitation, its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the Project into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Riverside County Superior Court ruled in favor of the California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic, holding that: (1) the MTBE plume was not properly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was significant and should have been mitigated; and (3) not all feasible traffic mitigation measures were adopted for cumulative traffic impacts. P. The Riverside County Superior Court also held that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly addressed: (1) cumulative noise, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts; (2) landscaping mitigation deferral; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soils mitigation; and (5) land use consistency. Q. On July 12, 2007, another scoping session was held to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the new Environmental Impact Report for the Project. R. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. S. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application Nos. PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permits), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map) in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"), at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. T. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-01 recommending that the City Council certify the new Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. U. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-04, recommending approval of the Development Plan (PA07-0200). V. On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its approvals of Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05- 0302, Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); PA04-0463, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. W. On January 22, 2008, the City Council considered the Development Plan (PA07-0200) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. X. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08-10, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO CERTIFY THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY (HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH) APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-080- 001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA07-0198, PA07-0199, PA07-0200, PA07-0201, PA07-0202). The new Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. Y. On June 18, 2010, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Z. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. AA. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on December 15, 2010, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. The recommendation to the City Council as set forth in this resolution, and findings contained herein, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and are deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and related actions. II. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental finding and determinations in connection with the recommendation for approval of Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification to the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Temecula Valley Hospital (the "Project"). A. On January 24, 2006, the City Council approved and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; on January 22, 2008, the City Council approved and certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("FSEIR") for the Temecula Regional Hospital; and on February 8, 2011 the City Council approved and certified the Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification Application (the "Project"), as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that the City determined that the proposed modifications to the project did trigger conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines which require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and that a SEIR is appropriate for the proposed modifications to the hospital project. C. On November 25, 2013, a Notice of Preparation was released to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the project. D. On December 11, 2013, a scoping session was held at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, City staff prepared a SEIR analyzing the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, and described in the SEIR. Based upon the finding contained in that study, City staff determined that there was substantial evidence that the Project could result in new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified effects. The Supplemental EIR found that new circumstances do exist that introduce new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified significant effects and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. F. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. G. Six written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of proceedings. H. The Planning Commission has reviewed the SEIR and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations and all comments received regarding these documents prior to and at the April 15, 2015 public hearing and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is substantial evidence that the Project wi!l have a significant effect on the environment with regard to helicopter noise; and (3) the SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. I. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the SFEIR, the Addendum for the modification application, and the second SFEIR and all other materials, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based, is the Community Development Department of the City of Temecula. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department located at the Planning Department of the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Section 3. Recommendation to City Council. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by the reference. Section 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of April, 2015. Pat Kight, Chairman ATTEST: Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Armando G. Villa, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Armando G. Villa, AICP Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CC RESOLUTION CC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("URS"), 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 adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and di testify either in support or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. Il. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15- , thereby recommending that the City Council approve a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. JJ. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. KK. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. LL. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. MM. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. NN. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. 00. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section V11 of Exhibit A of this Resolution. PP. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. QQ. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. RR. On April 28, 2015, the City Council considered the Final SEIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. SS. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re -circulation of the SEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Certify that the Final SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. D. Declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the SEIR, the responses to comments on the SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. Section 3. Certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR, adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Development Plan (PA13-0141) each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. Section 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 15th day of April, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randy Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk EXHIBIT B FINDINGS IN FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the "project"), as more fully described in the Final Supplemental E!R (SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As originally established in the 2006 EIR, and set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. 1 • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agricultural and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E) Cultural Resources; (F) Geology and Soils; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (I) Mineral Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; (M) Transportation and Traffic; and (N) Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the SEIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and (C) Noise. A. On December 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the project. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On December 11, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR The Draft SEIR completed on November 12, 2014, found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the SEIR. A. Aesthetics 1. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 2 B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. C. Noise 3. Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level in the SEIR The Draft SEIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of noise. No measures were identified that would mitigate impacts to noise to a less than significant level. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Noise 1. Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels a. Findings Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to reduce the helicopter noise related safety hazards at the equestrian trail. The mitigation measure below is required in order to reduce this impact to the extent practicable. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. 3 Facts in Support of Findings Although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project's helicopter noise related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a). , which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flights due to noise. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, it is anticipated that the nearest offsite sensitive receptors would experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during helicopter operations. Therefore, impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Not Evaluated in the SEIR CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The "range of alternatives" is governed by the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered, Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in this SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: 1. The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project; 2. The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; 3. The feasibility of the alternative; 4 4. The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project" alternative; and to identify an "environmentally superior" alternative in addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)). The SEIR analyzed two project alternatives. These alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the SEIR 1. Alternative One — No Project Alternative (Existing Approved Helistop) a. Summary of Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the existing approved helistop location would be developed. The approved helistop is located at ground level near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include two flight paths — the original flight path that would travel over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction to and from the project site, and a second flight path that would travel above single-family residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project Alternative would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two- story Madera Vista apartment buildings, and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The No Project Alternative would not include development of the proposed one-story 5,000 square foot storage building. b. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative The No Project Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would route the helicopter flight paths over existing the Los Ranchitos single-family residential neighborhood to the north and the Madera Vista apartments to the east, which would increase safety hazards and noise impacts on those neighborhoods as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the No Project Alternative would require obstruction lights atop the Madera Vista apartments, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not align the flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which would eliminate the benefit of 5 maximum control over the aircraft, and again, result in greater safety hazards than would occur under the project as proposed. 2. Alternative Two — Alternative Interim Helistop Site a. Summary of Alternative The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the proposed one-story 5,000 square foot storage building. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. This alternative would also align the flight paths with the prevailing and Santa Ana winds, which would make take -off and landings safer. However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Specifically, this alternative would route the flights paths in the vicinity of nearby power lines, increasing safety hazards related to visibility of these features as well as flight path obstructions, requiring a variance from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for transitional surface penetration. Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater aesthetics impacts due to the requirement that red obstruction lights be placed on or adjacent to the power lines as well as visually prominent security fencing that would be required to surround the at -grade helistop location. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As described in the Draft SEIR, the No Project Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed project; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed project is provided in Table 1. 6 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Category Proposed Project No Project Alternative Site Alternative Aesthetics Less than significant Greater Greater Hazards Less than significant Similar Greater Noise Significant and Greater Greater/Fewer Unavoidable Meets the project Yes Yes, but not to the Yes, but not to the objectives same extent as the same extent as the proposed project proposed project D. The Project as Proposed 1. Summary of Project The project is described in detail in the SEIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final SEIR and have compared them with those of the proposed project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various economic, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals of providing superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, the project as proposed would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and would respond to requirements of the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and addresses various impacts to recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. 7 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the "project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to noise generated by helicopter activities. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed project would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when ambulance transport is inappropriate or not advantageous to patients. C. The proposed project would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development, as compared to the previously approved helistop site by rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. D. As compared to the previously approved helistop site, the proposed project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees 8 within the adjacent riparian area, which FAA would require to be trimmed under the currently approved flight path and helistop location. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by enhancing access to specialized medical procedures in the region, and would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop locations. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. 9 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Responsible Action Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Ongoing Temecula Valley City of Temecula Field verification Hospital Building Official and sign -off by or other City of Temecula Designee Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for March 2015 City of Temecula r ESA A 41` TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPi.,kL TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for March 2015 City of Temecula P ESA 550 West G Street State 750 San Diego, G1 92101 819.719.4200 www.esaseoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Spings Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hila 1 X662 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final SEIR Pace 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process 1-2 1.3 Method of Organization 1-3 1.4 Focus of Comments 1-3 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-4 2. Response to Comments 2-1 Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse 2-3 Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse 2-5 Letter A: Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-6 Response to Letter A: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-11 Letter B: Azim Azhand 2-15 Response to Letter B: Azim Azhand 2-16 Letter C: Steve Chen 2-17 Response to Letter C: Steve Chen 2-19 Letter D: Simona Rosu 2-26 Response to Letter D: Simona Rosu 2-28 Letter E: Simona Rosu 2-29 Response to Letter E: Simona Rosu 2-32 Letter F: Robert Jenkins 2-33 Response to Letter E: Robert Jenkins 2-35 Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measure 1-5 Table 2-1: List of Comments Received 2-1 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA 1 130652 March 2015 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) was prepared pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) (California Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The City of Temecula is the CEQA lead agency for this SEIR. The proposed project addressed in this report is a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities at Temecula Valley Hospital in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a single -story 5,000 - square -foot storage building that would be used to store non -hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160 -square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the helistop sites, the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to those changes to the project description, is reviewed in this SEIR to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Major Modification. 1.1 Background On November 12, 2014, the City of Temecula (the lead agency) released the Draft SEIR for a 45 - day review period and comment period, which closed on December 29, 2014. In response, six comment letters were received. This Final SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, and incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains appropriate responses to those comments. The Final SEIR is an informational document that must be considered by decision makers before approving or denying the proposed Major Modification. The Draft SEIR and Response to Comments constitute the Final SEIR for the proposed project. As specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Final SEIR consists of: a) The Draft SEIR or a revision of the draft. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1 ESA ! 130652 March 2015 1. Introduction b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SE1R. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e) Any other information added by the lead agency. CEQA Guidelines Section 15004 states that before the approval of any project subject to CEQA,t the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this case, prior to approval of the proposed Major Modification the City must consider the Final SE1R. 1.2 Use of the Final EIR and the CEQA Process The Final SEIR allows the public an opportunity to review any revisions to the Draft SEIR, the response to comments, and other components of the SEIR, prior to approval of the Major Modification. After completing the Final SEIR and before approving the project, the lead agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • The Final SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final SEIR prior to approving the project; and • The Final SEIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an E1R (including an SEIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The word "approval" is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person..." In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that "[w]ith private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project." Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-2 ESA/130652 March 2015 1. Introduction (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. 1.3 Method of Organization This Final SEIR for the proposed Major Modification contains information in response to concerns raised by written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Final EIR is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter I , Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed project, information about the certification of the Final SEIR, and a brief discussion of the intended uses of the Final SEIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Chapter 2, Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies and individuals that submitted written comments on the Draft SEIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 2 also includes a copy of each written comment letter, and a written response to each comment. 1.4 Focus of Comments Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft environmental document, which include: (a) Sharing expertise, (b) Disclosing agency analyses, (c) Checking for accuracy, (d) (e) (f) Detecting omissions, Discovering public concerns, and Soliciting counter proposals. Sections 15204(a) and 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further state: (a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an E1R is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA 1130652 March 2015 1. Introduction the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(f) of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference materials. 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft SEIR. Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-1. Temecula Valley Hospital Helstop Pro}ecl Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 ESA 1 130652 March 2015 TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Lev Aesthetics Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. Hazards Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards impacts. Noise --- — - Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Signifia Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5 CHAPTER 2 Response to Comments As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final SE1R must contain information summarizing the comments received on the Draft SE1R, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments received. Seven comment letters were received by the City in response to the Draft SE1R. This chapter provides copies of each letter received and the responses to these comments. A summary of the comments is provided below in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Letter Alpha Agency/Commenter Date of Letter Date Received by City Environmental issues SCH A B C State Clearinghouse California Department of Fish and Wildlife Azim Azhand, City Resident Steve Chen, City Resident D Simona Rosu, City Resident E Simona Rosu, City Resident F Katie and Robert Jenkins, City Residents December 29, 2014 January 02, 2015 December 11, 2014 December 11, 2014 December 8, 2014 December 8, 2014 December 16, 2014 December 17, 2014 No dale December 22, 2014 December 22, 2014 December 22, 2014 December 16, 2014 December 16, 2014 • None • Riparian habitat • Nesting birds • Noise from helicopter operations • Legality of the environmental document • Noise and safety concems • Public interest and alternatives • Legality of the environmental document • Noise and safety concems • Public interest and alternatives • Hospital location • Noise and safety concerns • Legality of the environmental document • Noise and safety concerns • Public interest and alternatives The responses to comments to the letters received are provided below. These responses do not alter the proposed Major Modification, change the Draft SEIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments "merely clarifies or amplifies or Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA / 130652 Marro 2015 2. Response to Comments makes insignificant modifications" in the Draft SEIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). Regarding recirculation of the Draft SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the FIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information added to an FIR is not significant unless the E1R has changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasihle way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponent's have declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new information consists of: (1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information provided in response to the comments received to the SEIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate SEIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-2 ESA /130652 March 2015 Edmund G Brown Jr Governor Comment Letter SCH STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit December 29, 2014 Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 JAN 122614 Subject: Temecula Valley Hospital lieltstop Major Modification (PA13.014I ) SCH#: 2013121007 Dear Stuart Fisk: (111L474 Ken Alex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental E1R to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 26, 2014, and the cotnments from the responding agency (ics) is (are) enclosed. if this comment package is not in n: :tri please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which arc within an area of expertise of the agency or which arc required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed conunents, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (91 6) 445.0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, r Scott &gin Director. State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P 0 BOX 3044 SACRAbt HTO, CALIFORNIA 9512-3644 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (9L6) 323-3018 www.opr.cii.gov Comment Letter SCH Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2013121007 Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Lead Agency Temecula, City of Type SIR Supplemental ER Description The proposed project would relocate the previously approved hospital helistop to two new locations, an interim ground level location that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower, during a later phase of hospital development. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a one-story 5,000 sf storage building that would provide storage space for non -hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, stock for the hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 sf storage building, the total sf of hospital facility would increase to 571,160 sf (from the 566,160 sf facility that was approved in 2010). Lead Agency Contact Name Stuart Fisk Agency City of Temecula Phone 951 506 5159 Fax email Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Lat/Long 33° 28' 57.35" N / 117° 6' 20.76" W Cross Streets Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Base SBB&M Proximity to: Highways Airports No Railways No Waterways Schools Land Use Hospital facility; Zoned: Planned Development Overlay - 9 (PDO -g); GPD: Professional Office (PO) Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Noise; Other Issues Revlow/ng Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region g; Native American Heritage Commission; Statewide Health Planning Date Received 11/12/2014 Start of Review 11/12/2014 End of Review 12/26/2014 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter SCH: State Clearinghouse This is a standard letter that comes from the State Clearinghouse in response to environmental documents that have been submitted to the agency for distribution. SCH-1 This letter lists the state agencies that reviewed the environmental document and acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No further response is necessary. Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Pro}e 1 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5 ESA 1 130652 March 2015 Comment Letter A State of Callfornea - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Dlrfctor Inland Deserts Region 3802 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0459 www.vri ld l ife. ca. dov December 11, 2014 Mr. Stuart Fisk City of Temecula, Senior Planner 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project State Clearinghouse No. 2013121007 Dear Mr. Fisk: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Completion (NOG) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project (Project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2013121007]. The Department is responding to the DSEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act ICEQAI Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CISSA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Project Description The Project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. The City of Temecula is proposing to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The interim helistop location would be at ground level on the west side of the hospital tower, approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower, which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would be removed. Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 A-1 Comment Letter A Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project SCH No. 2013121007 Page 2 of 5 Biological Resources and Impacts The CEQA document should contain sufficient, specific, and current biological information on the existing habitat and species at the Project site; measures to minimize and avoid sensitive biological resources; and mitigation measures to offset the loss of native flora and fauna and State waters. The CEQA document should not defer impact analysis and mitigation measures to future regulatory discretionary actions, such as a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. If state or federal endangered or threatened species have the potential to occur on the Project, site species specific surveys should be conducted using methods approved by the Department or assume the presence of the species throughout the project site. The CEQA document should include recent survey data (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)). The CEQA document should also address species of special concern and federal critical habitat. To assist with review, an accompanying map showing the areas of impact should be included in the subsequent CEQA document. Additional maps detailing the location of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern should also be included in the subsequent CEQA document. Following review of the DSEIR, the Department's primary concerns relate to the proposed impacts to riparian habitat (and associated species), within the drainage located immediately to the east of the project site. The Department requests that the following questions, comments, and concerns be addressed in the DSEIR prior to finalization of the SEIR: Figure 2-4 of the DSEIR depicts the flight path associated with the permanent helistop location atop the second tower addition. The flight path crosses the riparian area to the east of the project site, and Figure 2-4 states that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations will require tree removal and/or topping. In addition, Figure 3.3-8 illustrates that the riparian area will be exposed to cumulative noise exposure levels (CNEL) of between 55 and 60 decibels. The Department also understands that once fully operational, the helistop will receive considerably more helicopter traffic than the site is currently experiencing. Based on this information the Department is concerned with the finding of No Impact specified in 4(a) and (b) of the Initial Study (IS), and with the omission of avoidance, minimization, and potential mitigation measures in the DSEIR to offset impacts to riparian habitat and associated species. To address these deficiencies, the Department requests that the Lead Agency complete and address the following prior to adoption of the Final SEIR: 1 The Department was unable to determine if recent biological surveys, or a habitat assessment, have been completed for the riparian area east of the project site. The Department recommends that a habitat assessment and biological survey be conducted to determine the species that have the potential to occur within this area. Based on these findings specific avoidance and minimization measures may need to Comment Letter A Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project SCH No. 2013121007 Page 3 of 5 be incorporated into the Final SEIR prior to adoption. The Department is particularly concemed with impacts to nesting birds, both as a result of the potential loss of nesting habitat and increased noise (which may lead to nest abandonment, or discourage birds from continuing to nest in this area entirely). Specific avoidance and minimization measures may include, but not be limited to: project phasing and timing, monitoring of project -related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where appropriate. Please note that it is the Lead Agency's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) afford the following protective measures: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconlformes or Strigiformes (birds -of - prey) to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. Environmental documents reviewed by the Department frequently specify a "breeding bird season." Please note that some bird species may not adhere to specified dates, and as such the Department encourages the Lead Agency to require the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. The Department also recommends that pre -construction surveys (if included in the Final SEIR as an avoidance and minimization measure) be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing, as instances of nesting may be missed if surveys are conducted sooner. 2. Based on the information provided in the DSEIR, the Department is unclear how the removal and/or trimming of vegetation within the riparian area will be completed. The Department recommends that the Lead Agency disclose how removal and/or trimming will be conducted in the Final SEIR. The Department assumes that continued vegetation maintenance will be required in this area, and this information should also be disclosed in the Final SEIR. Because of the lack of specific information in the DSEIR regarding vegetation removal and/or trimming, the Department recommends that the City of Temecula contact the Department to determine if the project will require notification through the Department's Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code states that for any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include Comment Letter A Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project SCH No. 2013121007 Page 4 of 5 associated riparian resources) of a river or stream or use material from a streambed, the project applicant (or "entity") must provide written notification to the Department. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary, the environmental document should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration notification package, please go to http://www.dfo.ca.00v/habcon/1600/forms.html. The following information will be required for the processing of a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration, if it is determined that notification is required for this project, and the Department recommends incorporating this information into the CEQA document to avoid subsequent documentation and project delays. Please note that failure to include this analysis in the project's environmental document could preclude the Department from relying on the Lead Agency's analysis to issue a LSA Agreement without the Department first conducting its own, separate Lead Agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the project: 1) Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be temporarily and/or permanently impacted by the proposed project (Include an estimate of impact to each habitat type); 2) Discussion of avoidance and minimization measures to reduce project impacts; and, 3) Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance. Please refer to section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines for the definition of mitigation. 3. The proposed Project occurs within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area and Is subject to the provisions and policies of the MSHCP. In order to be considered a covered activity, Permittees must demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the MSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the MSHCP. Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSHCP, is discussed in CEQA. Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the MSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. To obtain additional information regarding the MSHCP please go to: http://rctlma.orca/epd)WR-MSHCP. Comment Letter ►4 Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project SCH No. 2013121007 Page 5 of 5 MSHCP policies and procedures that will apply to this project include: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2), and Additional Survey Needs and procedures for burrowing owl (MSHCP section 6.3.2). Given that impacts to riparian resources are anticipated, the Department requests that the Final SEIR discuss how the project will be consistent with the MSHCP, in particular with MSHCP section 6.1.2. A copy of any documents discussing the project's consistency with the MSHCP (e.g., Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation) should be included with the CEQA document. The Department requests that the City of Temecula address the Department's comments and concerns prior to finalization of SEIR. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, or require further coordination, please contact Joanna Gibson at (909) 987-7449 or at Joanna.gibson(rwildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, VatT Cra4 e ' . chair • ing R=•ional Manager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento A-5 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter A: California Department of Fish and Wildlife This letter comes from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and expresses concern related to potential impacts to existing riparian and bird nesting. A-1 This portion of the CDFW letter provides an overview of the project description and describes CEQA requirements for biological resources. This overview of the project description is consistent with the information provided in the EIR. No response is necessary. A-2 This comment describes CDFW concerns about the potential impacts to riparian habitat and associated species that could occur in the drainage located to the east of the site. The comment incorrectly indicates that the project would require tree removal and/or topping. The proposed Major Modification would not require or result in the need for any changes to the trees in the riparian area due to the reasons outlined below. The black text on Figure 2-4 shows what would occur, if the proposed Major Modification were not approved. The flight path for the approved helistop would require trees in the riparian area to be limited in height and for obstruction lights to be installed on top of the Summerhouse apartment buildings. The proposed Major Modification would not utilize the flight path shown in black on Figure 2-4. The proposed interim flight path is shown in green on Figure 2-4 and would not cross the riparian area. Because the interim flight path that would be utilized by the proposed project (shown in green on Figure 2-4) would not cross over the riparian area, the interim flight path would not result in the need to physically alter the riparian area, including tree removal and/or trimming. The permanent helistop would be Located on top of the five -story hospital tower building with a building height of 83 feet; its associated flight paths are shown in brown text on Figure 2-4. As described in the Section 3.2, Hazards of the Draft SEIR, each of the proposed flight paths for the Major Modification have been designed to avoid the existing trees, five -story hospital building, light poles, and utility lines. Specifically, the proposed flight paths for the Major Modification are designed to meet Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 obstruction clearance standards, which provide clearance from the edge of the FATO for a distance of 4,000 feet, at a ratio of 1 foot vertical for every 8 feet horizontal distance traveled. The riparian area is located approximately 300 feet away from the permanent helistop location. At the ratio required by FAR Part 77, the clearance required at this distance would be a height of 120.5 feet. Therefore, from an elevation of 83 feet above grade at the top of the five -story hospital building, and at an incline required by the FAR clearance standards, the existing trees located in the riparian area to the east of the project site, which are approximately 50 feet in height would not be effected by operation of either the proposed interim or permanent helistops and would not require trimming or removal. In addition, the comment provides concerns related to the riparian area's exposure to noise levels of between 55 and 60 decibels (dB). As shown in Table 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Ernironmental Impact Report 2-11 ESA 1130652 March 2015 2. Response to Comments Noise, the existing ambient noise in the vicinity of the project site is between 58.9 CNEL, db and 78.7 CNEL, dB. Existing noise sources in the project vicinity include the roadway noise related to Temecula Parkway and the operating hospital that includes ambulance siren noise. The noise measurement site closest to the riparian area (Site 3) has an existing ambient noise volume of 63.5 CNEL, dB. As shown in Figure 3.3-8 of Section 3.3, Noise, the 60 dB CNEL contour resulting from the helicopter flights are completely contained on the hospital campus. In addition, as shown in Tables 3.3-10 and 3.3-11 in Section 3.3, Noise, the ambient noise at Site 3 would increase by 0.1 CNEL, dB with operation of the interim helistop and zero increase with operation of the permanent helistop. Because Site 3 is adjacent to the riparian area, this noise change from the proposed project is representative of what would occur at the riparian area. Thus, CNEL noise levels from operation of the helistop would not result in impacts to the riparian area. A-3 The comment states that CDFW was unable to determine if recent biological surveys have been conducted and states that the Department is particularly concerned about nesting birds and provides information about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and nesting birds. As described in the Executive Summary Section S.2 and Chapter 1, Introduction of the SEIR, the Temecula Valley Hospital is an approved and operating project. The proposed Major Modification to the hospital would relocate the previously approved helistop and add a 5,000 -square -foot single story storage building. The proposed Major Modification would relocated the approved helistop to a new interim location that is farther away from the riparian area than the approved interim helistop location (shown on Figure 2-4). As described in Section 1.4 of the SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that when an EIA has been prepared for a project (such as was completed for the hospital project), a "supplement" to an EIR may be prepared if changes in the approved project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. In addition, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the SEIR only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. In compliance with these CEQA Guidelines sections, the City determined that potential impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise could occur from the proposed Major Modification in such a manner that potentially new or substantially more severe impacts not identified in the previous CEQA documentation for the hospital could occur and would require evaluation in this SEIR. The City also determined that the proposed Major Modification would not result in impacts related to biological resources that would be new or substantially more severe than described in previous CEQA documents for the hospital. As a result, biological resource surveys were not undertaken as part of preparing Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-12 ESA / 130652 March 2015 2. Response to Comments this SE1R. Furthermore, the City understands the regulations related to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as described in this comment. The proposed Major Modification does not include or require any vegetation clearing or tree trimming. A-4 This comment states that CDFW is unclear about the removal or trimming of vegetation within the riparian area, and further describes requirements for a Streambed Alteration Agreement for activities that would divert or obstruct natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank of riparian areas. The proposed Major Modification would not require or result in the need for any activities in the riparian area, or the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement. No changes to the trees or vegetation (including trimming or removal) in the riparian area are proposed or would occur as a result of the proposed Major Modification. As described in response A-2 above, the black text on Figure 2-4 shows what would occur, if the proposed Major Modification were not approved. The proposed Major Modification would utilize the interim flight path shown in green on Figure 2-4 that would not cross the riparian area; and the permanent helistop would be located on top of the five -story hospital tower building at an elevation of 1,135 feet, which would not interfere with trees. Therefore, no activities would occur in the riparian area by the proposed Major Modification and a Streambed Alteration Agreement would not be required. A-5 This comment provides an overview of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and states that an assessment of impacts to the MSHCP as a result of the project is necessary. This comment correctly acknowledges the location of the project within the Southwest Areas Plan of the MSHCP and includes a summary of policies and procedures from the MSHCP related to riparian areas and burrowing owl. As described in response A-3 above, the City determined that the proposed Major Modification would not result in impacts related to biological resources and/or the MSHCP that would be new or substantially more severe than described in previous CEQA documents for the hospital. The project site is not in an MSHCP criteria cell and no native vegetation/habitat occurs onsite. The project area is surrounded by urban land uses and contains maintained non-native grassland and landscaped/hardscape areas. Thus, an evaluation of the proposed Major Modification and the applicable MSHCP policies are not provided in the SEIR_ As described above, the proposed Major Modification would not make any changes to the riparian area (including the trimming of trees and/or removal of vegetation) and (as described in response A-2) CNEL ambient noise in the riparian area would not be impacted. Thus, impacts to riparian resources are not anticipated. In addition, burrowing owl surveys are not required because the proposed activities would not occur within or adjacent to potential burrowing owl habitat. No burrowing owl habitat has been identified on the operating hospital site. The proposed Major Modification is consistent with MSHCP policies because it would not result in impacts to areas identified Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-13 ESA f 130652 March 2015 2. Response to Comments for conservation, or riparian/riverine habitat. As a result, no further information or evaluation is required in this SEIR. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-14 ESA / 130652 March 2015 Comment Letter B From: Azim Azhand[mailto:azimazhandmd(@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1;02 PM To: Stuart Fisk Subject: Against having Helicopter landing pad at Temecula Valley Hospital I am a doctor and living in Santiago Estates, despite the pollution and noise issue with Helicopters disrupting the lives of the community, one have to ask the need and the necessity of having the Helicopter landing pad. TVH is not a trauma center and neither has newborn or OB services, so that there is no urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients, for all other medical cares the hospital should be able to provide initial care, stabilized patients could be transferred in and out of the hospital safely and cost effectively by BLS or ACLS Ambulance services. Azim U. Azhand, MD 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter B: Azim Azhand, City Resident This letter comes from a city resident who expresses concern about the noise and pollution as well as the necessity of the proposed helistop. B-1 This comment addresses concern regarding the potential noise pollution associated with the proposed project as well as the necessity of the proposed helistop at a hospital that provides neither trauma services nor newborn or obstetrician services. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the intent of the proposed helistop is to be able to efficiently transport seriously ill patients to and/or from the hospital in order to take advantage of services at other regional medical facilities in the event that a patient is in urgent need of services that Temecula Valley Hospital (TVH) may not provide, or in the event that a patient needs rapid transport to TVH from elsewhere in the region. A helicopter would be used only in situations of greater urgency, and, as noted in the comment, the hospital would make use of an ambulance to transport patients whenever it is feasible to do so. The helicopter would be, and has been, used for rapid transportation to specialty services for critical care patients, such as stroke, pediatric, trauma, and burn care services. The most common patients that have been transferred by helicopter out of Temecula Hospital have been critically ill children that have been flown to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego or another children's hospital. Other critical patients that have been transferred by helicopter have needed specialized lifesaving procedures, such as brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. In these instances, the helicopter has arrived quickly with specialized staff (such as a pediatric specialty nurse and pediatric physician for children). These critical care patients do not have time to spare. In addition, to transferring out patients, the Temecula Valley Hospital is a STEMI (Heart Attack) Receiving Center and Stroke Ready Hospital that receives critical patients. Due to distance, remote location, traffic conditions, that it may be necessary to transfer patients to the hospital via helicopter to maximize lifesaving care. As discussed in Section 3.3, Noise, of the Draft SEIR, the City is unable to regulate the helicopter noise because limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to California Public Utility Code Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Temecula Valley Hospital HelistoQ Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-16 ESA / 130652 March 2015 t lar To: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 (via USPS certified mail #7003 0500 0003 9665 3622) Comment Letter C From: Steve Chen 44501 Verde Dr Temecula, CA 92592 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SELR 2014 Date: 12/16/2014 Dear Sir, l oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: 1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. • But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. Z, Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to. c-1 I C-2 Comment Letter C 3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces I05dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. • Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. ■ The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. • Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainty is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if' there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Steve Chen 2 C-3 C-5 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter C: Steve Chen, City Resident This letter questions the legality of the Draft SEIR and expresses concern regarding the environmental effects of the helistop. C-1 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR. Specifically, the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did the City conduct, the appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously approved helistop location. Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft SEIR summarizes the history of the planning applications and CEQA documentation for the hospital project, including the legal challenges to the 2006 EIR. The helistop was included in the hospital project that was evaluated in the original EIR in 2006. The 2008 Supplemental EIR further evaluated issues that the Riverside County Superior Court found to be inadequately addressed in the original 2006 EIR, including: • 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. As stated in the project history relayed in Chapter 1 of the SEIR, other environmental impacts addressed in the original 2006 E1R (including effects related to the helistop), which was certified by the City, were considered to be adequate by the court and therefore, were not revisited in the 2008 SEIR, which was also certified by the City. The 2006 EIR determined that with operation of the helistop, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying (2006 Draft EIR page 4-59) and concludes that the impact would be significant and unavoidable. A detailed list of all the Planning Commission and City Council reviews and approvals of the TVH project is provided below, which include reviews and approvals for the helistop facility: • 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project 2-19 ESA / 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015 2. Response to Comments Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010. • On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the hospital project at a noticed public hearing. Based on testimony presented by the general public, the Planning Commission determined that an EIR would be required for the hospital 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 EIR for the hospital project. A Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA 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 hospital 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 E1R and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the hospital 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 EIR and on the Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the Project (PA04- 0463). Following due consideration of the hospital project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-05, certifying the Final EIR 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 (PA04-0463), and adopted Resolution No. 06-08, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 32468 (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 hospital project proposed by UHS. • 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 ElR and all related approvals and permits, until the City of Temecula has taken the actions necessary to bring the project into compliance with 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 EIR; (2) the siren noise at the hospital was Temecula Valley Hospital Helkstop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-20 ESA/130652 March 2015 2. Response to Comments 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 EIR 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, UHS 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 Supplemental EIR for the project. In response to the Riverside County Superior Court's decision, a new Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 through December 5, 2007. This Draft Supplemental EIR focused only on the issues the Riverside County Superior Court found to be inadequately addressed in the 2006 EIR. As noted above, impacts associated with the original helistop location were determined by the court to be adequately analyzed in the FIR that was certified in January 2006, and did not require reanalysis or additional analysis in the 2008 Supplemental EIR. • 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 EIR for the project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program, 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-21 ESA! 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015 2. Response to Comments • 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 SEIR 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, UHS applied for a first Extension of Time for the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved Resolution No. 10-08 for the Extension of Time on January 26, 2010, thereby extending the approval of the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to January 22, 2011. In Resolution 10-08 the City Council specified that in construing the phrase "beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval" as used in Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 08-12 and Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 08-13 the Council to 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 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, UHS filed Planning Application No. PA10-0194, a Major Modification Application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 for Phase I of the project, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yard, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. • On December 15, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-28 recommending that the City Council approve the Major Modification (PA10-0194) and certify the SE1R for the Major Modification. • On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10- 0194 (Major Modification) at a noticed public hearing. Following consideration of the project at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No.11-17 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-22 ESA 1 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015 2. Response to Comments approving Planning Application No. PAI 0-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying a SEIR for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. C-2 This comment asserts that given the comments in C-1, a SEIR is not appropriate. As detailed under response to comment C-1, the City responded to the concerns raised by the Riverside County Superior Court with the preparation of additional documentation, which brought the proposed project into compliance with CEQA. This SEIR provides evaluation of the proposed Major Modification, as described above. C-3 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations and nearby residential uses. Hazards related to helicopter operations are addressed in Section 3.2, Hazards, of the Draft SEIR. As described in that section, the flight paths of the proposed helistop locations are consistent with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics design requirements, and the Riverside County airport land use plan. The helistops would operate under approvals from these agencies, which involve reviewing helistop locations for their compatibility with surrounding land uses and identifying potential aeronautical hazards in advance, to prevent and minimize any adverse impacts and provide safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Permits issued by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics require consistency with California Code of Regulations (CCRs), Title 21 , Sections 3525 through 3560, which provide rules, regulations, and permit requirements related to the proposed helistop that incorporate FAA regulations, including: design standards, lighting standards, visual standards, obstruction standards. All of the standards and regulations contained with CCR, Title 21, Sections 3525 through 3560 related to the adequacy of helistop design, including marking, lighting, and visual aids must be met to receive a helistop operating permit from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Thus, review by each of the three governing agencies that have authority over the proposed helistop have a primary focus of ensuring the safety of the helicopter operators as well as the people and buildings in the vicinity of the helistop. Thus, acquisition of the approvals and permits from these agencies would ensure that safety hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area would not occur. As a result, impacts related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area were found to be less than significant. The comment notes that helicopters produce noise of up to 105 dB. Noise impacts related to the proposed helistop operations were considered in Section 3.3, Noise of the Draft SEIR, and it was determined the noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 79.7 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital); and under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA at the equestrian trails (see page 3.3-24 of the Draft SEIR). While helicopter noise that would occur at the permanent helistop would be lower than those occurring at the interim location, and while the noise generated by helicopter operations would not be as high as 105 dB as stated in the comment, this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable due to impacts related to an increase Temecula Valley Hospital He@stop Project 2-23 ESA / 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015 2. Response to Comments in short-term noise events from helicopter overflight noise. As discussed in Section 3.3, Noise, of the Draft SE1R, the City is unable to regulate the helicopter noise because limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. C-4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result from the project. As described in the Draft SE1R, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when ambulance transport is not advantages to critical patients. The helicopter would be, and has been, used for rapid transportation to specialty services for critical care patients, such as stroke, pediatric, trauma, and burn care services. The most common patients that have been transferred by helicopter out of Temecula Hospital have been critically ill children that have been flown to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego or another children's hospital. Other critical patients that have been transferred by helicopter have needed specialized lifesaving procedures, such as brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. In these instances, the helicopter has arrived quickly with specialized staff (such as a pediatric specialty nurse and pediatric physician for children). These critical care patients do not have time to spare. In addition to transferring out patients, the Temecula Valley Hospital is a STEM1 (Heart Attack) Receiving Center and Stroke Ready Hospital that receives critical patients. Due to patient distance, remote location, or traffic conditions, it may be necessary to transfer patients to the hospital via helicopter to maximize lifesaving care. Transport in ground ambulances that are staffed with 911 paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared to the critical care team that would arrive with the medical helicopter. In addition, specialty ambulances that are available in the region can be delayed in traffic both to pick up the patient and to transport them to a specialized facility, which not only takes longer to transport critical patients, but also takes the specialty ambulance out of service in the community for an extended period of time. A medical helicopter could land at an off-site location; however, ambulance travel to and from an off-site would provide a substantial delay to the provision of care to critical patients. Furthermore, emergency medical landing activities, which are allowed by law in cases of medical necessity, utilize Fire Department staffing and tire engines to secure off- site landing areas and provide ground to air radio communications for safety, which Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-24 ESA f 130652 March 2015 2. Response to Comments would take fire staff and equipment out of availability for other community needs during medical helicopter operations. Compared to the approved interim helistop location, the proposed Major Modification would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development by rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. The proposed project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees within the adjacent riparian area, which FAA would require to be trimmed under the currently approved flight path and helistop location. In addition, the proposed Major Modification would avoid the additional lighting that would be required on the nearby Summerhouse apartment buildings. In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by rapid access to lifesaving specialty services at other facilities within the southern California region. In addition, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop locations. Furthermore, the proposed helistop would not need to utilize Fire Department staffing and equipment; therefore, making it available for other community needs. As noted above, the City's Planning Commission and City Council will take the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project into account when considering whether to approve the project at hearings that will be noticed and available to the public. However, the City is limited in regulating medical helicopter flights. C-5 This comment states that the feasible alternative to the proposed project is ground transport by ambulance. If the proposed helistop locations considered in the current Draft SEIR are not approved, then the previously approved helistop locations, which were analyzed under the No Project Alternative in the Draft SEIR, would be implemented. As described in Section 2, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR, the California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or other persons who provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances adopted by a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-25 ESA / 130652 March 2015 Comment Letter D From: Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTOLA RD TEMECULA,CA 92592 To: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 Date: Dear Sir, We, as residents of Temecula in the best interests of our community, oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: 1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. • But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop issue at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" E1R are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to. D-1 D-2 Comment Letter D 3. Despite the current (2014) SE1R's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. ■ Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. ■ Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already exists, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Simona Rosu 2 D-3 I D-4 D-5 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter D: Simona Rosu, City Resident This letter questions the legality of the Draft SEIR and expresses concern regarding the environmental effects of the proposed helistop. D-1 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR for the helistop. Specifically, the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did the City conduct, the appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously approved helistop location. Please see response to comment C-1, above. D-2 This comment asserts that given the comments in D-1, a SEIR is not appropriate. Please see response to comment C-2, above. D-3 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations for nearby residential uses. Please see response to comment C-3, above. D-4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result. Please see response to comment C-4, above. D-5 This comment states that the feasible alternative to a medical helicopter is ground transport by ambulance. Please see response to comment C-5, above. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-28 ESA 1130652 March 2015 Comment Letter E From: Lee R [mailto:leerosu@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:35 PM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Chuck Washington; Matt Rahn Subject: Helistop SEIR- resident feedback Dear Mr. Fisk, Please find attached our response to the hospital helipad SEIR. This isn't the first message we sent to the City of Temecula officials. In all messages we're bringing up the problems the hospital placement brought to the community. The first issue associated with the hospital ( even without the helipad or emergency generator) is increase in traffic and noise. The helipad and emergency generator ( see letter attached) bring additional health and safety issues to the community. Nobody denies the need for healthcare facilities in this area, but the planning of such facilities is what is creating all these issues. The location of the hospital lacks common sense and therefore we suspect some special interests at work here! A more appropriate site location for a hospital would have been a parcel near the freeway, for instance at the WEST end of Temecula Pkwy. Advantages of such site: easy access to /from freeway, non-residential community, plenty of room for a helipad and ultimately, such placement would have shown that the City actually cares about it's residents! There is still time to do the right thing: the best solution for the helipad issue would be to place the helipad at location mentioned above. I hope the City will make a decision in the best interest of the community! Thank you, Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTOLA AVE t; -c, ;i St) aQMC; South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE "PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE" PURSUANT TO RULE 212 This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has received an application for permit to construct an internal combustion engine driving an emergency generator at a location in your neighborhood. The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to install, operate, or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollutionwithin this region must first obtain a permit from the SCAQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain projects, such as this one, to distribute a public notice prepared by the SCAQMD prior to the issuance of a permit. This notice is being distributed because the project is located within 1000 feet of Rancho Community Christian School located at 31300 Rancho Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592. The SCAQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our Rules and Regulations. COMPANY NAME: TEMECULA CA UNITED SURGERY CENTER, LP APPLICATION NO.: 567707 LOCATION ADDRESS: 31469 RANCHO PUEBLO RD, TEMECULA, CA 92592 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL AND OPERATE AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE DRIVING AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR Temecula CA United Surgery Center, LP, is a new surgical center. The engine will drive an electrical generator that supplies power in case of an electrical emergency. The engine will be tested on a weekly basis for a maximum of one hour. Our calculations show that based upon a 30 -day average a maximum of 0.28 lb/day of nitrogen oxides, 0.07 lbs/day of carbon monoxide, 0.002 lbs/day of fine particulates, 0.01 lbs/day of organic gases, and 0.0006 lb/day sulfur oxides will be emitted from project described above in any one day. Generally, the amount will be Less as most emergency generator engines do not operate at maximum capacity. The engine operation will emit small quantities of some toxic compounds. The SCAQMD has evaluated the long term (chronic) health impacts associated with the maximum potential emissions. Using worst case conditions, our evaluation shows that the chronic health risk is well below our rule's toxic thresholds (below a Hazard Index of 1). According to the state health experts, a hazard index of one or less means that the surrounding community including the most sensitive individuals such as very young children and the elderly will not experience any adverse health impacts due to exposure to these emissions. In addition, the cancer risk from these emissions is below the SCAQMD risk threshold of one in a million. The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the SCAQMD's headquarters in Diamond Bar. A copy of the draft permit to operate can be viewed at http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappllpublicnotices2/Search.aspx. information regarding the facility owner's compliance history submitted to the SCAQMD pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to SCAQMD, based on credible information, is also available from the SCAQMD for public review. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit their comments in writing within 30 dans of the distribution date shown below. If you arc concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning department. Please submit comments related to air finality to Ms. Vicky Lee, Air Qnality Engineer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Qnality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4178. For additional information, please call Ms. Vicky Lee at (909) 396-2284. For your general information, anyone experiencing air quality problems such as dust or odor can telephone in a complaint to the SCAQMD by calling 1 -800 -CUT -SMOG (1-800-288- 7664). Distribution Date: 12 -15 - 2014 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter E: Simona Rosu, City Resident This letter expresses concern about the general location of the hospital as well health and safety concerns surrounding the helipad and an emergency generator. E-1 This comment expresses concern related to the location of the hospital and traffic, noise, and safety impacts related to the location. Vehicular traffic was not an issue area discussed in this Draft SEIR. As discussed in the Initial Study of Appendix A, effects of the proposed helistop operations on air traffic impacts and hazardous design features were determined to have potentially significant impacts and required analysis in the SEIR. As such, these topics are discussed in Section 3.2, Hazards, and were determined to have less than significant impacts due to compliance with FAA, Caltrans, and Riverside County airport land use plan regulations. The City also determined that the proposed Major Modification would not result in impacts related to traffic that would be new or substantially more severe than described in previous CEQA documents for the hospital. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the SEIR only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. Thus, traffic is not further evaluated in the SE1R. As discussed elsewhere in these responses to comments, noise will result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to helicopter operations and the City is unable to regulate medical flights pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Finally, this letter mentions safety concerns related to a proposed emergency generator. Included with the letter is an attachment containing a notice from the South Coast Air Quality Management District about a permit application for an emergency generator at 31300 Rancho Community Way. This permit application is for a property near the hospital, but not within the project site, and is not a component of the proposed Major Modification. Therefore, no response related to the emergency generator is required. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-32 ESA 1 130652 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report March 2015 Katie d Robert Jenkins 43810 Villa Del Sur Dr Temecula CA 92592 Attn Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Comment Letter F Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 December 16, 2014 Dear Sir, We oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: . The hospital is not a trauma center so there is no good reason for a helistop other than to run up larger bills for the patients and insurance companies. 2. Despite the current (2014) SE1R's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. • Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. • Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 1 F-1 F-2 Comment Letter F 3. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEM. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 4. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" E1R are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to. 5. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that in fact outweighs its detriment to the environment. 6. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Katie and Robert Jenkins 2 2. Response to Comments Response to Letter F: Katie and Robert Jenkins, City Residents This letter questions the legality of the Draft SE1R and expresses concern regarding the environmental effects of the helistop. F-1 This comment notes that the hospital is not a trauma center and does not have good reason to include a helistop. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the intent of the helistop is to be able to efficiently transport seriously ill patients to and/or from the hospital in order to take advantage of services at other regional medical facilities in the event that a patient is in urgent need of services that the hospital may not provide, or in the event that a patient needs rapid transport to the hospital from elsewhere in the region. Please see response to comment C-4, above. F-2 This comment expresses noise and safety concerns related to helicopter operations for nearby residential uses. Please see response to comment C-3, above. F-3 This comment states that the City is violating CEQA by conducting a SEIR for the helistop. Specifically, the comment states that residents were not made aware of, nor did the City conduct, the appropriate environmental analyses per CEQA for the previously approved helistop location. This comment also asserts that, given the above, a SEIR is not appropriate. Please see responses to comments C-1 and C-2, above. F-4 This comment states that the City has not proven significant public interest in the helistop project that outweighs the significant and unavoidable impacts that would be result and that the feasible alternative to the helistop is ground transport by ambulance. Please see responses to comments C-4 and C-5, above. Temecu4a Valley Hospital Helistop Project Fina Supplemental Environmenta4 4mpact Report 2-35 ESA 1130652 March 2015 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for November 2014 City of Temecula TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPI /AL TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared for November 2014 City of Temecula 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Dego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130652 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Summary 1-1 1.2 Project Background 1-1 1.3 Environmental Review 1-2 1.4 Purpose of a SEIR 1-5 1.5 Organization of the SEIR 1-7 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1-8 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives 2-2 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2-3 2.4 Proposed Major Modification 2-5 2.5 Discretionary Approvals 2-13 2.6 Cumulative Projects 2-14 3. Environmental impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1 3.2 Hazards 3.2-1 3.3 Noise 3.3-1 4. Project Alternatives 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed 4-2 4.3 Project Objectives 4-2 4.4 No Project Alternative 4-3 4.5 Alternative Helistop Site 4-13 4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-24 5. References, and List of Preparers 5-1 6. List of Preparers 6-1 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study / NOP Comments B. Noise Impact Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project I ESA 1130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report November 2014 Acronyms List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-4 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-6 2-3 Proposed Hospital Storage Building and Interim Helistop Location 2-7 2-4 Existing and Proposed Interim and Permanent Helistop Locations 2-8 2-5 Helistop Design Characteristics 2-11 2-6 Hospital Storage Building Elevations 2-12 2-7 Cumulative Projects 2-17 3.3-1 Effects of Noise on People 3.3-3 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 3.3-6 3.3-3 Interim Helistop North -Flow Flight Corridors 3.3-16 3.3-4 Interim Helistop South -Flow Flight Corridors 3.3-17 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop North -Flow Flight Corridors 3.3-18 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop South -Flow Flight Corridors 3.3-19 3.3-7 CNEL Contours for Interim Helistop Location 3.3-22 3.3-8 CNEL Contours for Permanent Helistop Location 3.3-23 3.3-9 Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations 3.3-25 4-1 Approved Site East -Flow Flight Corridors 4-5 4-2 Approved Site West -Flow Flight Corridors 4-6 4-3 Approved Helistop - CNEL Contours 4-8 4-4 Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations 4-11 4-5 Alternative Site 4-15 4-6 Alternative Helistop Location - North -Flow Flight Corridors 4-17 4-7 Alternative Helistop Location - South -Flow Flight Corridors 4-18 4-8 Alternative Helistop CNEL Contours 4-21 List of Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-7 2-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area 2-15 3.3-1 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements 3.3-5 3.3-2 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) 3.3-8 3.3-3 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix 3.3-9 3.3-4 City of Temecula Land Use Maximum Noise Level Standards 3.3-12 3.3-5 Annual -Average Day Operations 3.3-14 3.3-6 Helicopter Operation Times of Day (CNEL) 3.3-14 3.3-7 EC -135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages - Interim Condition 3.3-15 3.3-8 EC -135 Helicopter Flight Corridor Use Percentages - Future Condition 3.3-15 3.3-g Single -Event Noise Levels for the Interim Helistop 3.3-24 3.3-10 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and INM Location Point Noise for the Interim Condition 3.3-27 3.3-11 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and INM Location Point Noise for the Permanent Condition 3.3-27 4-1 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and Helicopter CNEL Noise from the Approved Site 4-9 4-2 Single -Event Noise for the No Project Alternative and Comparison to the Proposed Interim Site 4-10 4-3 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements and Helicopter CNEL Noise from the Approved Site 4-22 4-4 Single -Event Noises Levels for the Interim Location 4-23 4-5 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives and the Proposed Project 4-24 Temecula Valley Hospital HeVistop Project jl ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2914 Acronyms Acronyms Used in this Report AC Advisory Circular ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan CCRs California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel DHS California Department of Health Services EIR Environmental Impact Report EMS Emergency Medical Service FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FATO final approach and takeoff area FHWA Federal Highway Administration Hz Hertz 1NM Integrated Noise Model Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MSL mean sea level NOP Notice of Preparation OSHPD California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development PDO Planned Development Overlay SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TLOF touchdown and liftoff area UCSD University of California San Diego UHS Universal Health Services Inc. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project III ESA 1 130652 Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The Temecula Valley Hospital is being developed in phases; Phase 1 of' the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. The hospital is proposing a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a new single -story 5,000 -square -foot storage building that would be used to store non -hazardous hospital supplies. With the addition of the proposed storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160 -square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the helistop site, the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to those changes to the project description, is reviewed in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to identify potential environmental impacts that could result from the revised project. This section provides a summary of the SEIR. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed Major Modification and its potential environmental consequences. S.2 Supplemental EIR The City of Temecula approved development and operation of the hospital through certification of an E1R in 2006 and a SEIR in 2008. The City has identified the proposed Major Modification, which would change the helistop locations on the hospital site and construct a 5,000 -square -foot storage building, as new information of substantial importance that requires evaluation. Because the Major Modification is limited to the helistop locations, flight paths, and construction and operation of a small storage facility, and no other components or operations of the hospital project would change, a SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. The SEIR is prepared to provide additional information to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the hospital with the relocated helistop locations and proposed storage building. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the SEIR only needs to contain the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1 ESA / D130652 November 2014 Executive Summary This Draft SE1R is for governmental agencies and interested organizations and individuals to review and comment. Publication of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public review period. Written comments may be directed to: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula, Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk r@i cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) S.3 Project Location and Surroundings The Temecula Valley Hospital site is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The site is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Interstate 15 is approximately two miles to the west. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west; and multi -family residential uses, offices and commercial uses to the east. S.4 Proposed Project The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations— an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower constructed during a later phase. The interim helistop location would be at ground level on the west side of the hospital tower, approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower, which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would be removed. The two helistop locations, both interim and permanent, would have two flight paths and are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. The timing of the construction of the future hospital tower and rooftop helistop is currently undetermined. The previously approved interim helistop location would be developed with a 5,000 -square -foot single story storage building that is 22 feet high, including a cornice that would be provided to create architectural consistency with the main hospital buildings. In addition, the exterior facades of the storage building would have the same stucco siding material and beige color palette of the main hospital building in order to maintain design compatibility throughout the hospital campus. The storage building would store non -hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital, and linens. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-2 ESA / 0130652 November 2014 Executive Summary S.5 Project Objectives City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and project area, as listed in the 2006 E1R, 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. Applicant Objectives The objectives of United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) for the proposed project, as listed in the 2006 EIR, are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-3 ESA / 0130652 November 2014 Executive Summary provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital. It would also be architecturally consistent with the main hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible development between the project site and surrounding uses. S.6 Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR Through preparation of an Initial Study (included as Appendix A), the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and that preparation of a SE1R is necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, and that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas would not be impacted, such that new or substantially more severe impacts could occur beyond what was identified in previous CEQA documents. 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 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." Less than Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, all impacts related to aesthetics and hazards were found to be less than significant. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that "cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented." Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3, the following issue areas would have significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of project mitigation measures (see Section 3.3 for details): • Substantial Periodic Increases in Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-4 ESA ! D130652 November 2014 Executive Summary Flight related mitigation measures cannot be placed on this type of medical helicopter activity to reduce noise impacts because the California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local restrictions related to flight departures and arrivals based upon the aircraft's noise level. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes, and impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights are significant and unavoidable. As this is the case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. It should be noted that the previous CEQA documentation for development and operation of the overall hospital project, also identified significant and unavoidable noise impacts. Therefore, the noise findings of this SEIR are consistent with previous CEQA findings. S.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered an alternative interim site for the hospital helistop. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a 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. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the existing approved helistop location would be developed. The approved helistop is located at ground level near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include two flight paths — the original flight path that would travel over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction to and from the project site, and a second flight path that would travel above single-family residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project Alternative would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The No Project Alternative would not include development of the proposed storage building. Alternative Interim Helistop Site The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would also be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the storage building, as proposed. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Drat Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-5 ESA 1 0130652 November 2014 Executive Summary Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the SEIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the SEIR analysis, the proposed Major Modification is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in greater aesthetics (lighting) and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed interim helistop location; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed interim helistop location project. Therefore, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Enwronmental Impact Report S-6 ESA / D130652 November 2014 TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Ler Aesthetics Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetics impacts. Hazards Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant hazards impacts. Noise Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospilal will develop and install signage at bolh ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include heticopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and inslallation of the sign, as well as all related costs. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Signil Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report S-7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter provides an introduction and describes the background of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and the relationship to the previously certified project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and previously certified SEIR. 1.1 Summary The Temecula Valley Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a one-story; 5,000 -square -foot storage building that would provide storage space for non -hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital (extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and repair of hospital facilities), and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160 -square -foot facility that was approved in 20I0). The change in location of the helistop site, the construction and operation of the storage facility, and the potential impacts related to those project changes, is reviewed in this SEIR to determine if any additional environmental impacts would result from the revised project. 1.2 Project Background An EIR was prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital project that was certified by the City of Temecula (City) in January 2006. In February 2006, a legal challenge to the hospital project was filed on the grounds that the E1R was inadequate, which resulted in a ruling that found that the EIR did not adequately address several areas, and that the City failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In response, the City prepared an SEIR pursuant to the court's direction that was certified in 2008. In 2011, the project applicant, United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) filed a planning application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1 ESA 11306E2 November 2014 1. Introduction modify the building facades, relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment. An Addendum to the 2008 Final SE1R was prepared and adopted by the City in February 2011 . Additionally, in July 2012, a conservation easement was approved to satisfy the off-site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by development of the hospital. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on Monday, October 14, 2013. Use of helicopters to transport emergency patients to and from the hospital is part of the planned hospital services. The originally approved helistop has not been developed, and the hospital currently uses the approved helistop site as an EMS landing site, only when necessary. Use of this area as an EMS landing site is allowable under state regulations related to medical transport (CCR, Title 21, Section 3527(g)). The existing approved landing site is on the northern side of the existing hospital structure and has a shared approach and departure that consists of a single flight path into and out of the hospital site. The design does not meet current FAA recommendations for a second flight path. Additionally, the Madera Vista apartments are located next to the hospital and under the currently approved flight path, and were not developed when the helistop was approved. These multi- family residential units exist on the northwest corner of Dartolo Road and Margarita Road. Due to their location, the Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires either red obstruction lights on these residential buildings or realignment of the flight path and addition of a second egress/ingress flight path. In addition, trees are located within the County -owned drainage adjacent to the apartments, which would have to be trimmed to meet obstruction height requirements. This would require approvals or permits from County, state and federal resource agencies. As a result, the helistop facility has been redesigned and relocated to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. Because the hospital project is phased, two helistop locations would be developed, including an interim and a permanent location. When the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would be removed. 1.3 Environmental Review The following provides a history and timeline of the environmental documentation that has been prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital. January 2006 Environmental Impact Report UHS filed planning applications in 2004 and 2005 for a General Plan Amendment (PA04-0462); Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan (PA04-0463); a Tentative Parcel Map (PA04-0571); and a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9) (PA05-0302) to develop and operate the regional hospital facility. This included the following: • A General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 overlay from the General Plan Land Use Map, which limited the height of buildings along Temecula Parkway to 2 stories, and the Professional Office General Plan land use designation from the site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report 1-2 ESA / 130652 November 2014 1. Introduction • A Zone Change from Professional Office and De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO -8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9). PDO -9 allows a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. • A CUP to construct a 320 -bed hospital facility and helistop (City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses). • A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160 -square -foot hospital, a helistop, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000 - square -foot cancer center, and an 8,000 -square -foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area would involve approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31 -acre site. • A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. The City circulated an Initial Study from March 8, 2005 to April 6, 2005 (State Clearinghouse #2005031017) with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). At the Planning Commission hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City received public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR should be prepared for the project to analyze potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts. Hence, the City prepared an EIR that was circulated from September 28, 2005 to October 28, 2005. The Final E1R was prepared and City Planning Commission hearings were held on November 16, 2005 and January 5, 2006, and the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the E1R on January 24, 2006. On February 24, 2006, a legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two separate groups (California Nurses Association and Citizens Against Noise and Traffic) and resulted in a court ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: • Construction noise impacts; • Siren noise impacts; • Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and • Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site, and generate unhealthful gas vapors. January 2008 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report On May 3, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court issued a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate and directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed, and considered a SEIR that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of MTBE plumes, as previously described. Other environmental impacts addressed in the prior EIR were considered to be adequate with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and were not revisited in the SEIR. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 1. I ntroduction New planning applications for the project were submitted [PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07-0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit)], and on July 12, 2007, a scoping session was held in accordance with the Riverside County Superior Court direction. The SEIR was circulated for public review from November 5, 2007 to December 5, 2007, and on January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the new planning applications and recommended that the City Council certify the SEIR- On January 22, 2008, the City Council rescinded and invalidated its previous approvals of PA04-0462 (General Plan Amendment), PA04-0463 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan), PA04-0571 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA05-0302 (Zone Change to PDO -9); approved planning applications for PA07-0198 (General Plan Amendment), PA07-0199 (Zone Change), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), PA07- 0201 (Tentative Parcel Map), and PA07-0202 (Conditional Use Permit); and adopted Resolution No. 08-10 certifying the SEIR for the project. No additional legal challenge was brought forward. February 2011 Major Modification and Addendum On June 18, 2010, UHS filed planning application PA10-0194 for a Major Modification to a Development Plan to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1, to modify the building facades of the hospital towers, to relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment from an outdoor area at the service yard to an expanded indoor area at the northern portion of the hospital building. An Addendum was prepared to the Final SEIR to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Major Modification application. On December 15, 2010, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the Addendum and Findings that the Major Modification does not involve significant new effects, does not change the baseline environmental conditions, and does not represent new information of substantial importance that shows that the Major Modification would have one or more significant effects not previously discussed in the Final SEIR. On February 8, 2011, the City Council adopted a resolution to approve the Addendum for the project. No legal challenge was brought forward and U1 -IS began construction on the project. Construction of Phase I began in June 2011, and Phase 1 began operating on October 14, 2013. July 2012 Mitigation Easement In July 2012, a conservation easement of 1.9 -acres was approved as the Wilson Creek mitigation site through an agreement with UHS and Wilson Creek Farms, LLC. The easement is provided to satisfy the off-site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by the development of the hospital as set forth by the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region Amendment to Clean Water Act Section 401 and water quality condition 11c-031 from the Section 401 Permit, dated September 26, 2011. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Oran Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 ESA ! 130652 November 2014 1. Introduction Proposed Helistop Project The environmental analysis of the currently proposed helistop was initiated by the City with the preparation of an Initial Study. Through the preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and that a SEIR was necessary to analyze potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and distributed with the Initial Study for a 30 -day public review period. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on December 11, 2013 to introduce the proposed project to the community, and to provide an opportunity for the public to submit verbal and written comments and recommendations regarding the issues to be addressed in the SEIR. Copies of the Initial Study, notice of the public scoping meeting, and comments received in response are included as Appendix A. Section 15123 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an SEIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Key issues raised during the NOP comment period included noise from helicopter flights and impacts related to use of the adjacent equestrian trail as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop. From the Initial Study/NOP process, it was determined that potential impacts related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise be evaluated in the SEIR; and that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas would not be impacted, such that new or substantially more severe impacts, and evaluation in the SEIR would be necessary, as described in Section 1.4 below. Subsequent to the Initial Study/NOP process, the project applicant requested the addition of the proposed storage building into the proposed project being evaluated in this SEIR. The City reviewed the Initial Study prepared for the proposed Major Modification and determined that potential impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed storage building would be limited to the topics identified for the proposed helistop locations (i.e., aesthetics, hazards, and noise) and that all other CEQA-related environmental topic areas would not be affected such that new or substantially more severe impacts would require evaluation in this SEIR. 1.4 Purpose of a SEIR CEQA Guidelines Section I5162 states when an E1R has been prepared for a project, a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required only if "substantial changes" in the project or its circumstances will result in new or substantially more severe impacts that require additional analysis. A subsequent or supplemental document is required if one or more of the following events occurs: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EER due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the previous EIR due to the involvement Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5 ESA 1130652 November 2014 1. Introduction of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, showing any signs of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a "supplement` to an EIR rather than a "subsequent" EIR if: • Any of the conditions described previously in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent El R, and • Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous E1R adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. As affirmed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a SEIR is necessary if there is a change in the project or circumstances, or new information of substantial importance that was not known previously that indicates the project will have an effect on the environment that was not covered in the previous EIR. Since the additional analysis required for the changed project components and changed circumstances would not require major revisions to the previous EIR, a SE1R is the appropriate document. A SEIR, as its name implies, supplements the EIR already prepared for a project to address project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior document was certified. The purpose of a SEIR is to provide the additional information necessary to make the previous E1R adequately apply to the project as revised. Consequently, the SEIR need contain only the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review, as stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. As such, the change in location of the helistop site and the proposed storage building, and the potential impacts related to these changes, would require preparation of a SE1R. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Grafi Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-6 ESA flat/652 November 2014 1 Introduction As previously stated, the focus of a SE1R is whether the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information give rise to a significant new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was identified and analyzed in the prior EIR. Preparation of a SEIR does not "re- open" the prior certified E1R; however, the analysis is limited to whether those new changes result in new or more severe impacts. The SEIR need only consider the new project components and/or changed circumstances in light of the certified Final E1R(s) already prepared for the project. A supplement to an E1R may be circulated for public review by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final E1R. A subsequent El R, in contrast, is a complete EIR, largely rewritten, which focuses on the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Proposed Project The City has identified the proposed change in helistop locations and construction and operation of the additional 5,000 -square -foot storage building on the hospital site to be new information of substantial importance that needs to be evaluated. Because the proposed change is limited to the helistop location, flight paths, and a storage building; and no other components or operations of the hospital facility would change, a SEIR is the appropriate CEQA document. The SE1R is prepared to provide additional information to make the previous ElR adequately apply to the hospital with the relocated helistop locations and proposed storage building. As described above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that the SEIR need contain only the information necessary to respond to the project changes, changed circumstances, or new information that triggered the need for additional environmental review. As also described above, the City prepared an Initial Study and NOP, and identified that the only potential significant environmental impacts that could be generated from the proposed project are related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, which are evaluated in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis. 1.5 Organization of the SEIR The Draft SEIR will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15I63. It will include CEQA-required sections and will incorporate the balance of the CEQA sections contained in the original EIR by reference. The SEIR is organized as follows: Executive Summary: The executive summary, which precedes this introduction, includes a brief understanding of the proposed revisions to the approved project and summarizes the revised project impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed project. Chapter 1 — Introduction: The introduction includes the purpose of a SEIR, CEQA and City procedural information and a summary of the CEQA documents that have been certified for the Temecula Valley Hospital; including: the original EIR, SEIR, and Addendum to the SEIR. In addition, the introduction includes public involvement information. Chapter 2 — Project Description: The project description is based on existing information and includes the project location and setting, site characteristics, project objectives and the characteristics of the proposed helistop locations and the proposed storage building. This section will also include the requested permits and approvals for the proposed project. In addition, this Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-7 ESA 1 130652 Oran Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 1. Introduction section will include a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in the surrounding areas that will serve as the basis for the cumulative impact analysis. Chapter 3 — Environmental Impact Analysis: For each potentially significant issue identified in the NOP, this section includes a discussion of the environmental setting, project impacts, cumulative impacts, project design features, level of significance before mitigation, mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. The assessment of impacts are consistent with CEQA requirements and utilize defined thresholds of significance to determine the impacts of the proposed helistop locations. Chapter 4 — Alternatives: Several alternatives have been developed for the project and were evaluated in the previous ElR and SEIR and are incorporated by reference. The SEIR alternatives evaluation includes one alternative interim helistop site in addition to the mandatory no project alternative. For each alternative, a description of the alternative, consideration of the alternative in relation to the basic objectives of the project (established by the applicant and the City), and a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts attributable to the alternative versus those associated with the proposed project for each of the environmental categories are provided. Chapter 5 — Persons and Organizations Consulted/References: All persons and sources that contributed to the environmental analysis. 1.6 Public Involvement and Review The City, as required under CEQA, encourages public participation in the environmental review process. Opportunities for comments by public agencies and the public include responding to the NOP, written comments on this Draft SEIR, and presentation of written or verbal comments at future public hearings. An NOP for the SEIR was circulated for public comment through the State Clearinghouse for a 30 -day period, from December 2, 2013 through December 31, 20I3. A copy of the NOP is included as Appendix A of this SEIR. This SEIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the document. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public review period during which written comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Comments on the proposed project should be directed to: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-8 ESA t 130652 November 2014 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (proposed project), along with a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site, required discretionary actions, and objectives of the project. 2.1 Introduction The proposed project consists of changes to the planned helistop location on the Temecula Valley Hospital parcel located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The project applicant, UHS, is proposing a Major Modification to change the location of the planned hospital helistop that would provide new interim and permanent helistop locations on the hospital site. The hospital, as approved, is being constructed and operated in phases and at buildout would consist of: • A two -tower hospital complex containing approximately 320 beds and offering full in- patient and out-patient services. Both towers would be five stories high; • Two medical office buildings, one four stories high and the second three stories high; • A cancer center housed in a one-story building; • A fitness rehabilitation center for patients and on-site staff in a one-story building; • A helistop to support helicopter flights to transport seriously ill patients to the hospital or to another location for further care; • A truck loading area and facilities plant to provide infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area; and • A jogging path and horse trail to be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail would also connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the site. Construction of Phase 1, which includes the new 140 -bed, five -story hospital, is complete and the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 2. Project Description The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistopt to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on the roof of the future hospital tower, during a later phase of the project. The previously approved helistop location would be developed with a one-story; 5,000 - square -foot storage building that would provide storage space for non -hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building, the total square footage of hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160 -square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The change in location of the helistops, the construction and operation of the storage building, and the potential impacts related to those project changes are evaluated within this SE1R. 2.2 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the hospital project as listed in the 2006 EIR are as follows: City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed project and the project area as listed in the 2006 E1R 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. Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS for the proposed project as listed in the 2006 EIR are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; According to the FAA, in its Heliport Design advisory circular, a helistop is a term sometimes used to describe a minimally developed heliport for boarding and discharging passengers or cargo. In this case. "passengers' would be patients and/or medical crew members, and "cargo" would be live organs. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-2 ESA ! 130652 November 2014 2. Project Description • 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. Proposed Project Objectives The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport locations would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. The proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building would be developed at the previously approved helistop location, and is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital. The storage building is designed to be architecturally consistent with the main hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible development between the project site and surrounding uses. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site (Temecula Valley Hospital) is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula. The site is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 2-1. Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate -15 (1-15) and Temecula Parkway. The site is two miles east of 1-15. Project Site Characteristics The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase I of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five story hospital tower, onsite driveways, and parking lots. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Doti Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-3 ESA 130652 November 2014 Temecula City Boundary SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map 2. Project Description The existing land uses that surround the hospital include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Temecula Parkway); single-family residences to the north (along De Portola Road); professional office and commercial uses to the west; and multi -family residential, office, and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. A project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2-2. 2.4 Proposed Major Modification The project proposes a Major Modification to the planned helistop facilities in response to FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations—an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The timing of the construction of the future hospital tower and rooftop helistop is currently undetermined. A helistop differs from a heliport in that it is not a permanent base for air ambulance vehicles. There would be no fueling, service, long-term parking, or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. In addition, a single -story, 5,000 -square -foot storage building would be developed in the northeastern portion of the project site at the previously approved helistop location. Figure 2-3 shows the location of the proposed helistop and storage building. The storage building would be an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital by providing storage space for non -hazardous hospital materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital, and linens. With the addition of the proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building, the total square footage of the hospital facility would increase to 571,160 square feet (from the 566,160 -square -foot facility that was approved in 2010). The storage building is designed to be architecturally consistent with the existing and planned hospital facilities. All other components of the hospital project have been previously approved by the City and were evaluated in the 2006 EIR, 2008 SEIR, or 2011 Addendum. Helistop Relocation As shown in Figure 2-4, the approved project includes a 60 -foot by 60 -foot helistop located near the northeast corner of the hospital (approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line), which would have a single flight path into and out of the hospital site. Because this design does not meet current FAA recommendations for a second flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics has recommended a second flight path that would travel above single-family residential areas to the west. Caltrans Aeronautics requirements would also mandate obstruction lights be installed on the Madera Vista apartment buildings to the east. In response, the helistop facility has been proposed to be relocated to satisfy both FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division requirements and to reduce conflicts with adjacent development. Because the hospital project is phased, two helistops would be developed, including an interim helistop and a permanent helistop. As shown on Figure 2-4, the interim helistop location would Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5 ESA /130652 November 2014 • SOURCE: B:ng Maps Temecula Valley H, 1 *MAIM HEUS7OP pD T 200 Foal '""?e.. - 47 efAlp10411ath Interim Helistop SOURCE FI•Ipwrn EUUESTRIA TRAIL .. 411 i r %IOJECT SITE 0444 41 , o �g 90,1p1-0 Permanent Helistoop Location Atop Second Tower Addison is im _— Callrarl on Sum for this Qti'9hl Pal N— FAA Re( Topping Coordin 2. Project Description be at ground level in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west of the site. The interim location would be within a landscaped area to the west of the parking lot on the west side of the hospital tower. This location is approximately 300 feet northeast of Rancho Pueblo Road and 450 feet north of Temecula Parkway. With buildout of the hospital project, the helistop would be relocated to the roof of a future second hospital tower (Bed Tower #2), which would be approximately 350 feet north of Temecula Parkway, east of the main hospital entrance. Once the permanent helistop is operational, the interim helistop would be removed. The two helistop locations, both interim and permanent, are designed in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics flight path requirements, to minimize impacts on neighboring residences (specifically the Madera Vista apartments to the east, Los Ranchitos neighborhood single-family homes to the north, and Country Glen neighborhood single-family residences to the south), and provide operational functionality for the delivery of hospital services. In addition, each helistop site (interim and permanent) would have two flight paths to meet the FAA's requirement. The prevailing wind direction in the project region is to the east, except during Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. Helicopters approach and land heading into prevailing winds for maximum control over the aircraft. Hence, helicopters approaching the hospital helistop would generally approach from the east, flying westbound into the wind to land at the helistop; and take off also in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally in the project region, helicopters would approach from the west flying eastbound to land at the site, and take off also in an eastbound direction. Helistop Designs Pursuant to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics obstruction -clearance requirements for helistops, the interim helistop design would be circular in shape with a 48 -foot diameter touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) area from which helicopters would land and take off. As shown on Figure 2-5, Helistop Design Characteristics, the helistop would have an 86 -foot diameter final approach and takeoff area (FATO) and a surrounding 16 -foot wide safety area, which would both be centered on the TLOF area to ensure that objects remain out of the TLOF and FATO area boundaries (except for maximum 2 -inch perimeter lighting). The standard hospital helistop identifier, a red -colored 10 -foot by 6 -foot, 8 -inch underlined ``H" would be painted on a white cross within a red -colored circle denoting the location of the helistop from the viewpoint of helicopter pilots. White legends would be painted within the red circle, including '`TVH," the abbreviation for the Temecula Valley Hospital, and "PVT'', which denotes private use, as the helistop would be privately -owned and operated by UHS. Additional required markings would include a 12 -inch wide solid white perimeter stripe and a maximum helicopter overall length marking to inform approaching pilots of the size limitation of the helistop. Portland Cement Concrete materials would be used for construction of ground -level surfaces for the interim location. The interim helistop would be connected to a 4 -foot wide Americans with Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-9 ESA / 10552 November 2014 2. Project Description Disabilities Act (ADA) -compliant pedestrian walkway located adjacent to a 15 -foot wide vehicular driveway that would access an internal road on the west side of the project site. In addition, the helistop would be surrounded by a five-foot tall security fence. The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the future hospital tower. The design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 58 -foot by 58 -foot square TLOF where helicopters would land and take off.2 Markings would be identical to the interim helistop except that it would also include a 12,000 -pound weight limitation marking to inform approaching pilots of the limitations. Lighting The interim helistop would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The project proposes the use of red obstruction lights on light standards that would be photocell - controlled for dusk -to -dawn operation. The Phase 1 hospital tower (that currently exists onsite) would have red obstruction lights, one three -colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and one lighted windcone installed to provide pilots with wind information during landings and takeoffs. Other lighting would include 12 green flush -mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF, five green lead-in lights aligned with the primary approach path from the northeast, and a 1 6 -foot tall lighted windcone located northwest of the helistop. Lighting at the helistop (perimeter lights, lead-in lights and local lighted windcone) would be activated only for nighttime landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics requirements. The permanent helistop would include similar lighting except that lead-in lights would not be needed on the rooftop facility. The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent helistop commences. Hospital Storage Building As shown on Figure 2-6, Hospital Storage Building Elevations, the new storage building would be square in shape and would total 5,000 square feet in area. The structure would consist of a single story reaching a total of 22 feet high with the inclusion of a cornice that would create architectural consistency with the other hospital buildings. The exterior facades of the storage building would include the same stucco siding material and beige color palette of the main hospital building in order to maintain design compatibility throughout the hospital campus. In addition, exterior entrance and security lighting around the storage building would be consistent with that of the rest of the hospital facility, and would be limited, shielded, or directed downward, 2 Per FAA advisory circular AC 1 50/5390-2C the TLOF dimensions are increased for an elevated versus ground level TLOF. The rooftop TLOF dimensions must equal the design helicopter's overall length, which in this case would be 58 -foot by 58 -foot square for the Bell Huey 212 and 412. The larger TLOF will still support the same design helicopter as the interim ground level TLOF. The primary aircraft using the helistops will be the EC -135 as stated above; however, the "design aircraft" refers to the largest aircraft that may legally land at the helistop. Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project 2-10 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / 130652 November 2014 Site Layout • throe-Cotor(Green<Wh+ts-Yellow) i[ Portable Fres Extinguisher Haiipcn Beacon Elevations torr Airspace Conon A- Internally Lighted w,n lane with Red "" to Be Fenwvsn. LOWY'S& CO Asfotpep Obatrucv-on Light for Oostructicr Clearance, as • Pile-M«nted Dud Ra© LED Appropriate Obstruction 001 wdh RWy Green LED Flush -Mount Perimeter LgM • 3M "Raised Prvsnbm Marker" with Two Yellow Lenses or Similar IOpt,onnll SOURCE Heiplmyrr. Heliport DetaI Southwest Elevation CORNICE tEl IµTCH EXISTING HOSPITAL SHADOW SOX WOW PYP. GLAEING ON EXTERIOR. DRYWALL WILL ON INTERIOR EXTERIOR COLORS TO MATCH EXISTING HOSPITAL TYP. 11111IIII IIIII ELT7i 11! i1111`I Illi I1- I1- TOP PARA_ PES 1111- - - l I L II 1�L�11 I 1�-111 111u1 i-� J1�1-���ilIIl�IIlI fl - J- Com -I I I -I 11= I f! I 11 I f�l��l !iiilli 1-11 I- 11=1 I=1T-11 I -T- I I-� I I I I �1 II I II I 1 I f 1 H �I fII =II- I I -El JJ� �I1=111 I � f 11 1��111 11�M I I- TfLuM7 =1P -111 -FT 11 South ElRvahon TOP PARAPET ROOF zuo" 10x12 HOLL OP —seav�cE000R West Elevation CORNICE TO MATCH EXYS TING HOSPITAL SHADOWSOX WINDOW$, rye GLAZING ON EXTERIOR, DRYWALL kNFkLL ON INTERIOR Ex 1 ERIOH COLORS TO MATCH EXISTING HOSPITAL, TYP -I -0-1 1 East Elevation 11-III=I 1111 1L! f f1-11 lei f 111 111] 1IuI_II_I1!-i1Ft' North Elevation SOURCE:HMC ArCtArias 4 IT:= 1'I � 1= I� 1 117. 1 1 1 1-1 I TOP PARAPET ROOF zuo" 10x12 HOLL OP —seav�cE000R West Elevation CORNICE TO MATCH EXYS TING HOSPITAL SHADOWSOX WINDOW$, rye GLAZING ON EXTERIOR, DRYWALL kNFkLL ON INTERIOR Ex 1 ERIOH COLORS TO MATCH EXISTING HOSPITAL, TYP -I -0-1 1 East Elevation 11-III=I 1111 1L! f f1-11 lei f 111 111] 1IuI_II_I1!-i1Ft' North Elevation SOURCE:HMC ArCtArias 2. Project Description The storage building would be used to store non -hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital (extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and repair of hospital facilities), and linens. The storage building would not utilize any machinery or equipment, except for HVAC equipment that is similar to those used on other hospital buildings. In addition, the storage building would not operate in such a manner that would require or result in additional traffic trips beyond those generated by the overall hospital facility. Operation The hospital is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Helicopter flights associated with the hospital would be intermittent and take place on an emergency basis only going to or from the Temecula Valley Hospital to another hospital with more intensive care facilities. Under normal (prevailing) wind conditions, helicopters would approach the helistops from the northeast, land, pick-up (or, rarely, drop-off) a patient, and depart toward the southwest. During Santa Ana or other easterly winds, helicopters would operate in the reverse direction. The hospital operator predicts, on average, two helicopter landings would occur per week (eight per month), although actual frequency would vary depending on the timing of medical emergencies and needed transport for critical care patients. It is anticipated that two emergency medical helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, flying Airbus Helicopters EC 135 helicopters would utilize the helistop to transport patients. 2.5 Discretionary Approvals The Major Modification for the helistop relocation involves discretionary approvals from the City of Temecula, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, FAA, and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which are listed below. Agency Action City of Temecula • Development Plan Major Modification including design and site review. City of Temecula • CUP Major Modification for proposed interim and permanent helistops and storage building. City of Temecula • City Council approval of project and certification of SEIR. State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and • Review and issuance of construction permits for Development (OSHPD) windcone lighting, 3 -color helistop beacon, and red obstruction lights for the interim location have occurred. Full OSHPD review and approval for the future hospital tower and permanent helistop location would occur in the future. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Caltrans Division of Aeronautics • Review of airspace study and issuance of an airspace determination letter, consistent with Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was issued for the interim helistop on July 3, 2013; and the permanent helistop would undergo design review during the future hospital tower design phase. • Review and approval of proposed helistop and issuance of Helistop Site Approval Permit, which represents agreement with the design concept and authorizes helistop construction. The Helistop Permit follows a post - construction inspection and authorizes start-up of flight operations. Interim helistop received Conditional Plan Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-13 ESA / 130652 November 2014 2. Project Description Agency Action Approval on June 12, 2013, and the permanent helistop would undergo design review during the future hospital tower design phase. Additionally, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics makes annual onsite inspections of hospital helistops throughout the state to ensure continued compliance with its design requirements. The California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft flights for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or other persons who provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances adopted by a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. 2.6 Cumulative Projects Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that "the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee -payment programs. The EIR must examine "reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects "... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." The evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either: (A) a list ofpast, present, and probableAttireprojects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-14 ESA / 130652 November 2014 2. Project Description cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. Cumulative Projects Cumulative projects include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction, and future projects currently in development. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location as well as project schedule. The proposed project area is located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula. The potential for specific project -generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (aesthetics, hazards, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by noise generated by the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. Table 2-1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area. Locations of cumulative projects are shown in Figure 2-7, Cumulative Projects. TABLE 2-1 PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA Figure No. Pianning Development Reference Jurisdiction Type Description Status 1 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single- Proposed family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet east of Santiago and Ynez Road. 2 City of Temecula Institutional A Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula Under Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project, Construction reducing the bed count from 178 to 140 in phase one and to build out the project to 320 beds by the year 2026. The project also includes other minor site plan revisions and a change in the hospital building construction from concrete to framed construction. The project is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 650 feet west of Margarita Road. 3 City of Temecula Office A Development Plan application to allow for the Approved construction of three office buildings totaling 37,926 square feet within PDO -8 located at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road. 4 City of Temecula Commercial/ Redevelopment of the existing 305 -acre site into a Resort Proposed Residential Community by expanding the hotel with 99 new rooms, expanding the conference center, adding a spa, and adding a private residential component. The golf course would be re -designed by eliminating 9 holes and creating an 18 -hole championship golf course. Private residential land uses would be introduced that would include 409 dwelling units, with a mix of single family detached homes, townhomes and stacked flat units. The proposed Project would re -align and improve portions of Rainbow Canyon Road along the property frontage to comply with the City of Temecula's engineering standards for radii and site distance. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-15 ESA 1130652 November 2014 2. Project Description Figure No. Planning Development Reference Jurisdiction Type Description Status 5 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan lo construct 77 single family homes Approved on a condominium at the soulheast corner of Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way. 6 City of Temecula Mixed Use A Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Subdivision Proposed Maps, Development Agreement for development of up to 1,750 residential units, limited neighborhood -serving Commercial, civic/institutional uses, parks, and open space within a 270 -acre area. The proposed project would conslrud the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway wilh Rancho California Road. 7 City of Temecula Commercial A Developmenl Plan to conslrucl a 4,700 square foot Approved Navy Federal Credit Union building with Ihree drive-thru lanes located approximalely 150 feel south of Temecula Parkway, on the west side of Jedediah Smilh Road. 8 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan for the conslruclion of two slruclures Under totaling 54,860 square feet for medical offices generally Construction located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 400 feel easl of the Jedediah Smith and Temecula Parkway intersection. 9 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to conslrucl a two-slory, 11,982 Approved square foot medical office building on a 0.92 acre vacant lot located al the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora. 10 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 29,211 square fool, Approved two-slory professional office building located on the west side of Avenida de Missiones, approximately 200 feet south of Temecula Parkway. 11 City of Temecula Residential A Multi -family residential Development Plan to construct Under the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of Construction Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway. 12 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 186 single-family Under attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt Construction units) at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. 13 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct a 140 unit attached Approved residential project, including two story townhomes and three story walk-up flats, also with a pool and clubhouse for project residents, located on approximately 7 acres at the southernmost point of Pujol Street, on the west side of the street. 14 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached Approved condominium units located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. 15 City of Temecula Commercial A Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a Under one-story, 12,554 square foot outpatient surgery center Construction building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road. SOURCE: City of Temecula Planning Department, 2014. Temecuta Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-16 ESA / 136652 November 2914 ® Cumulative Projects City of Temecula 0 3.200 Feet SOURCE: ESRI, City of Temecula. Temecula Valley H CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Through preparation of an Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact related to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, and should be evaluated in an SEIR. In addition, the Initial Study determined that all other CEQA related environmental topic areas would not be impacted to such a degree as to require analysis in this SEIR. The Initial Study is included as Appendix A. Therefore, environmental impact areas evaluated within this SEIR are limited to aesthetics, hazards, and noise, as further described throughout Chapter 3. 3.1 Aesthetics The purpose of this section is to identify the existing aesthetics (visual quality) environment in the project vicinity, analyze compliance with the City of Temecula General Plan, zoning code and ordinances; identify potential significant impacts created by the proposed project, and recommend mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The Temecula Valley Hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently developed with Phase 1 of the hospital. This includes a five -story hospital tower, onsite driveways, and parking lots. The project site fronts Temecula Parkway within a developed area of the City of Temecula. The site terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward De Portola Road. The elevation at the center of the site is approximately 1,147 mean sea level (MSL), and the elevation at De Portola Road is approximately 1,065 feet MSL. North of De Portola Road, the terrain transitions to rolling hillsides, with the highest elevation above De Portola Road in the project vicinity rising to approximately 1,223 MSL, which provides views of the site, south Temecula, and the Palomar Mountains in the background. Low density single-family residential development exists within the rolling hills to the north. Multi -family residential is located to the east of the project site. Medical office buildings exist to the southeast, near the corner of Temecula Parkway and Margarita Road; and office buildings are also located to the west of the project site. In addition, retail commercial and single-family residential uses exist across Temecula Parkway to the south of the project site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics The existing hospital uses on the project site provide nighttime lighting from exterior building and parking lot lighting, lighting emanating from hospital windows and doors, and lighting associated with hospital signage. The existing hospital utilizes low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655 and City of Temecula Design Guidelines and Development Code. The areas adjacent to the project site currently generate nighttime lighting and glare from exterior lighting on residences, office buildings, and retail commercial areas. In addition, parking lot security lighting, and lighting from cars traveling along Temecula Parkway, De Portola Road, Margarita Road, Dartolo Road, and Dona Lynora currently generate a moderate level of lighting and glare, which is typical for a developed area within the City. 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting City of Temecula Outdoor Lighting Regulations — Ordinance 655 The City of Temecula has adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655), which restrict nighttime lighting for areas within a 15 -mile radius and a 45 -mile radius of the Palomar Observatory. The project site is located within the 45 -mile radius (Zone B) of the Observatory. Within Zone B, the use of most types of outdoor lighting is prohibited after 11:00 p.m., and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to be illuminated. Decorative lighting is allowed; however, decorative lighting is required to be shut off by 11:00 p.m. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11:00 p.m., the amount of light and/or glare is reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research at the Mount Palomar Observatory. The ordinance also establishes the type of lighting that may be used in Zone B, such as low-pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses. City of Temecula Design Guidelines The City of Temecula has adopted Citywide Design Guidelines, which include the following that are related to the project: a. All lighting shall be shielded to minimize glare upon neighboring properties. The shield shall be painted to match the surface to which it is attached. b. Light fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the building design. c. All building entrances shall be well -lit. d. Parking lots and access shall be illuminated with a minimum of 1 footcandle of lighting. e. Walkways and paseos shall be illuminated with a minimum of 1 footcandle to ensure safe nighttime conditions. f. Light fixtures shall be sited, directed, and/or shielded to prevent spot lighting, glare, or light spillage beyond property lines. Lighting fixtures shall be shown on the landscaping plans. g• Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics h. The lighting of building elements and trees is an effective and attractive lighting technique that is encouraged; however, light sources for wall washing and tree lighting should be hidden. 3.1.3 Impact Assessment Methodology This aesthetics analysis is based on consideration of the following: (1) the extent of change related to the proposed project from public vantage points; (2) the degree of contrast and compatibility between proposed project elements and the existing surroundings; and (3) proposed project conformance with policies and regulations. In addition, the nighttime lighting analysis is based on consideration of whether light substantially interferes with, or intrudes into, sensitive land uses (including residences), or substantially impacts views in the area. Analysis of glare takes into consideration whether glare produced by the proposed project would result in daytime interferences with activities at sensitive land uses or public roadways where drivers can be temporarily blinded by glare, thus causing a safety concern. Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to aesthetics if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As determined in the NOP/Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway; or the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is included in the EIR. Light and Glare Implementation of the proposed project would require the installation of a 48 -foot diameter interim helistop at ground level in the western portion of the project site toward the professional office and commercial uses to the west of the site. Pursuant to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics requirements, the interim helistop would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The proposed project would include red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards. The existing hospital tower would have red obstruction lights, one three -colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and one lighted windcone to provide pilots with Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Proiect Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-3 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics wind information during landings and takeoffs. The interim helistop would have 12 green flush - mounted perimeter lights surrounding the touchdown and liftoff (TLOF) area and five green lead- in lights aligned with the primary approach path. In addition, a 16 -foot tall lighted windcone would be located northwest of the helistop. The helistop lighting would be on intermittently; only prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs. The total number of helistop flights (landing and take -off) is anticipated to be eight times per month, which could occur anytime of the day or night. The permanent helistop would be located on the roof of the planned five -story hospital tower. The design of the helistop would be similar to the interim location but would consist of a 58 -foot by 58 -foot square TLOF where helicopters would land and take off. The permanent helistop would include lighting that is similar to the interim helistop, except that lead-in lights would not be needed on the rooftop facility. The red obstruction lights on parking lot light standards and other lighting associated with the interim helistop would be removed once operation of the permanent helistop commences. All of the directional and obstruction lights would be implemented in compliance with FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics permitting regulations. Helicopters using both the interim and permanent helistops would use typical running lights, which include red and green position lights on the sides of the aircraft and anti -collision lights to indicate the helicopter's position. Helicopters would also use a landing light to light the helistop during landing. This light is located in the front of the helicopter and is turned on by the pilot at nighttime upon approach, and would be directed to the helistop to support a safe landing. Under prevailing wind conditions, helicopters would approach from the east, flying west into the wind. As shown on Figure 2-4 in the Project Description, for the interim condition, this approach would cross a large portion of the site prior to the helistop, and it is likely that pilots would turn on the landing light while over the hospital site. Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopters would fly, and descend, over Temecula Parkway, office and parking lot uses, and a portion of the hospital site prior to reaching the helistop, and it is likely that pilots would turn on the landing light while over Temecula Parkway or the office uses located to the west of the hospital site. Under both conditions, the landing lights during the approach would be directed forward toward the helistop TLOF lighting that identifies the location of the helistop. Similarly, during use of the permanent helistop, the landing light would be focused on the top of the hospital tower. The height of the permanent helistop location would further reduce lighting on non -hospital ground level uses. Under all conditions, a helicopter's landing light would focus forward at an angle toward the helistop, not downward upon non -hospital uses, and this light would not interfere with, or intrude into, nighttime views or activities in the area. As a result, the use of standard helicopter lights during periodic helicopter flights would not create a new source of substantial light adversely affecting nearby uses and would not result in significant lighting impacts. In addition to the lighting described above, lighting that is similar to the existing parking lot, walkway, and security lighting would be used at night to facilitate safe transport of patients between the interim helistop location and the hospital. The permanent helistop would use footlights along the walkway between the hospital elevator and helistop deck surface. The lighting used to safely transport patients to and from the helistop locations would also be Temecula Valley Hospital Ieiistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-4 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics intermittent and would be activated after the helicopter has landed and turned off before its departure. This lighting would be directed to the specific areas where safe pass through is needed and be oriented to avoid off-site light spillover onto adjacent properties, consistent with the City's lighting standards. All helistop-related lighting that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA or Caltrans aeronautics would be regulated by the City of Temecula and comply with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant would utilize low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655 to ensure that light or glare would not result from the project that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. While some lights related to the interim helistop would be visible from nearby residences and other land uses, the landscaping around the hospital site, such as the tall trees adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project and on residential parcels to the north and northwest, reduces the potential for spillover of light onto adjacent properties. In addition, the shielding of light from appropriate installation of light fixtures limits the potential of light spillover. Because the helistop lighting would only be used prior to and during nighttime landings or takeoffs, the lights could be visible approximately eight times per month, should all flights occur at nighttime. These lights would be similar to, and blend into, the existing onsite hospital lighting and the commercial, office, residential, and street related lighting in the project vicinity. Because the lighting would be on intermittently and would be similar to existing lighting in the developed area, lighting related to the interim helistop would not substantially affect viewers' nighttime vision. The lights related to the permanent helistop would be located on the top of the five -story hospital tower building, and would be low-level lighting that is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that would be directed toward the interior of the roof top to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent properties. Some of the rooftop lighting from the permanent helistop would be visible from nearby residences and other land uses, but would be consistent with the existing hospital lighting and would not affect viewers' nighttime vision. In addition, lighting associated with the proposed storage building would be minimal, consisting of entranceway lighting and security lighting mounted on the building as well as possible footlights on the pathway leading to the building from the main hospital building. As with the helistop locations, lighting for the proposed storage building would be installed in compliance with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which requires illumination levels onto adjacent property lines be minimal. Hence, lighting from the storage building would consist of low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures that are directed down and/or shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the nighttime sky and onto adjacent parcels, which is consistent with Ordinance 655 and would not result in substantial levels of spillover light onto adjacent roadways or properties such that nighttime views or activities would be affected. Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-5 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics In conclusion, with the limited operation of lighting for helicopter landings and departures during nighttime hours, consistency with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and City of Temecula lighting regulations, lighting associated with the proposed helistop would not substantially interfere with, or intrude into, adjacent land uses, or substantially impact nighttime vision. Furthermore, the limited lighting required for the proposed storage building that would include exterior lighting to illuminate the walkway and provide a security area around the building (consistent with the other hospital buildings) would be shielded and directed downward, and installed pursuant to the City's municipal code, which requires that all lighting be prevented from spilling over onto adjacent areas. Compliance with FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and City of Temecula lighting regulations would provide that light and glare generated by the project would not substantially interfere with or intrude into adjacent land uses to affect day or nighttime vision. As a result, impacts related to light would be less than significant. The proposed project would not introduce a substantial source of glare to the project area that would affect views in the area because the project would construct the interim and permanent helistops and storage building using typical building materials (i.e., concrete, stucco, steel, paint, etc.), which would not create substantial daytime glare. Sources of daytime glare could include the helicopter while on the interim helistop, which would be at ground level. However, the helistop would only accommodate one helicopter that would be temporarily parked on the helistop between patient loading or unloading approximately eight times per month. Due to the limited and temporary source of potential glare from implementation of the proposed project, impacts related to glare would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant 3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative aesthetics study area for the proposed project is the viewshed that the project lies within. This includes the areas adjacent to the project site that can view the project. The project site is developed with hospital uses that generate light, and the vicinity of the project is fully developed with residential, commercial, and other medical or hospital related uses; and as described above, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and thereby, result in significant impacts related to nighttime lighting and glare. In general, cumulative development, including the existing, proposed, approved, and reasonably foreseeable projects listed in Table 2-1, would also result in increased nighttime lighting and daytime glare. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code and Design Guidelines would limit glare and spillover lighting that would be generated by new development throughout the City. Therefore, while development of the project and the cumulative projects would generate an increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare, future individual development projects would be required to conform to City requirements that would have a mitigating effect on light and glare. The closest cumulative projects include development of a new medical office building located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora (identified as 9 on Figure 2-7), and Temecula Valley Hospital helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-6 ESA 1 130452 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics development of three office buildings at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Margarita Road (identified as 3 on Figure 2-7). These projects have been approved by the City and would include nighttime lighting features typical of office buildings, including security lighting on the exterior of the building, entranceway and signage lighting, and parking lot lighting. As with the proposed project, the cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines, Municipal Code, and Ordinance 655, which includes requirement to minimize illumination levels onto adjacent property lines, direct lighting down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels, and the use of low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures. As a result, implementation of the lighting and glare generated from the City compliant lighting at the already developed hospital site that would include the new helistop and storage building when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to lighting and glare. Cumulative impacts are less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental EnvironmentaV Impact Report 3.1-7 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards This section describes the potential adverse impacts on public safety and the environment from hazards that could result from the proposed project. The analysis is focused on potential risks related to operation of the helistop and surrounding uses. An overview of the regulatory framework related to helistop facilities is followed by an analysis of potential impacts. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Existing Helicopter Operations at the Project Site The hospital site comprises 35.31 acres of land that is currently being used for operation of Phase 1 of the hospital. Existing development on the site includes a five -story hospital tower, onsite driveways, and parking lots. The helistop that was approved with the hospital project is not yet developed. However, the hospital currently uses the approved helistop site as an EMS landing site when necessary. Helicopter transport of patients from the hospital has been needed 29 times between the opening of the hospital on October 14, 2013 and September 30, 2014. The most helicopter transports per month took place in May 2014, when helicopter transport was necessary 7 times; followed by April 2014 when helicopter transport occurred 6 times. To ensure safety during these procedures, the City of Temecula Fire and Police Departments coordinated with the hospital to ensure safety surrounding the helicopter landing area and restrict access to the area during helicopter landing and departure. As described below in the Regulatory Setting section, the California Code of Regulations Title 21 Section 3527(g) states that a site (such as the project site) can be used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) helicopters upon approval of the fire or police departments because it is located at a medical facility, as long as it averages no more than six landings per month with patients on board over a 12 -month period. Existing Hazard -Related Conditions in the Project Vicinity Prevailing winds in the project area are traveling east. The closest public use airport facility is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 6.6 miles northwest from the project site. The project site lies far outside of the French Valley Airport compatibility zones and airport influence area, and is not within the planned traffic pattern of the proposed helistop locations. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include: • Single-family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest; • Single-family and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway; • Professional medical offices to the west; and • Multi -family residential, commercial, medical office and a flood control channel are to the east. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 ESA 1130052 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Aviation Administration The FAA is the federal agency that establishes standards for the design of the helistop, and the rules for pilot and helicopter operations. The FAA's primary responsibility is to determine what, if any, effect the landing and taking off of helicopters would have on the air traffic and related safety hazards in the vicinity of the project site. FAA Advisory Circular — (AC) 150/5390/2C, "Heliport Design" provides the standards used to design heliports in the United States. This includes defining acceptable approach, landing, takeoff, and safety areas that must be maintained clear of obstructions. The FAA also provides standards for the placement of lighting, windcones, beacons, and other heliport markings. Chapter 4 of the AC provides recommendations for hospital heliports, and describes essential features of ground -level and rooftop hospital helistops, safety areas, and minimum dimensions (Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-5; Pages 110-111, and 117 of the AC). In addition, the AC describes the appropriate approach and departure transitional surfaces, flight path dimensions, and heliport protection zones. Section 417 of the AC includes the following security and safety considerations for the design of a helistop: • Provide a means to keep the operational areas of a hospital heliport clear of people, animals, and vehicles. Use a method to control access depending upon the helicopter location and types of potential intruders. • At ground -level hospital heliports, erect a safety barrier around the helicopter operational areas in the form of a fence or a wall. Construct the barrier no closer to the operation areas than the outer perimeter of the safety area. Make sure the barrier does not penetrate any approach/departure (primary or transitional) surface. if necessary in the vicinity of the approach/departure paths, install the barrier well outside the outer perimeter of the safety area. • Barrier should be high enough to present a deterrent to persons inadvertently entering an operational area and yet low enough to be non -hazardous to helicopter operations. • Display a cautionary sign on gates and doors. As an option at hospital heliport, secure operational areas via the use of security guards and a mixture of fixed and movable barriers. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 157, Notice of Construction, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports establishes standards and notification requirements for projects that propose to construct, alter, or deactivate an air facility. The notification allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, to prevent and minimize any adverse impacts and provide safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. FAR Part 157 serves as the basis for evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground. These effects include but are not limited to evaluating: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-2 ESA f 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards • The effects the proposed action would have on existing or proposed traffic patterns of neighboring airports, • The effect the proposed action would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, and • The effects that existing or proposed objects (on file with the FAA) within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. After conducting airspace studies per FAR 157, the FAA issued its airspace determination letter for the existing site on March 15, 2012, and a separate airspace determination letter for the interim helistop on July 3, 2013. These letters document the FAA's conclusion that the proposed helistops are acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and meet all FAA design considerations. The letters state that the FAA does not object to the establishment of the proposed landing areas, and provide determinations related to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. Federal Regulation 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for: • Evaluating the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on operating procedures, • Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation, • Identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation, and • Charting of new objects. FAA FAR Part 77 includes the establishment of imaginary surfaces that allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, thus preventing or minimizing the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The regulations identify three- dimensional imaginary surfaces through which no object should penetrate. Section 77.29 (Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports) establishes this "imaginary surface" as (a) a primary surface defined as the designated takeoff and landing area of a heliport; (b) an approach surface that begins at each end of the primary surface and extends outward and upward for 4,000 feet, extending at a 8: 1 slope, and (c) a transitional surface that extends outward and upward from the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of two to one for a distance of 250 feet. An object that would be constructed or altered within the imaginary surface area of the heliport would be subject to the FAA requirements. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics The Division of Aeronautics within Caltrans is the state permitting agency for helistops, and reviews all the documentation and approvals submitted from the local government agencies and the FAA to make the final determination as to the safety and appropriateness of the location for a helistop and the adequacy of the helistop design. Caltrans has adopted many of the design Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-3 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards standards set forth in the FAA AC 15015390-2C, and has developed some additional criteria of its own (Title 21, Sec. 3525 through 3560, California Code of Regulations). California Code of Regulations (CCRs), Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560 provides rules, regulations, and permit requirements related to the proposed helistop that incorporate most of the FAA regulations, including: design standards, lighting standards, visual standards, obstruction standards. All of the standards and regulations contained with CCR, Title 21, Sections 3525 through 3560 related to the adequacy of helistop design, including marking, lighting, and visual aids must be met to receive a helistop operating permit from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. State of California Aeronautics Law, State Aeronautics Act, and Public Utility Code provides regulations to protect the public interest in aeronautics by fostering and promoting safety in aeronautics; ensuring uniformity of the laws and regulations relating to aeronautics consistent with federal aeronautics laws and regulations; assuring that persons residing in the vicinity of airports are protected to the greatest possible extent against intrusions by unreasonable levels of aircraft noise; and developing informational programs to increase the understanding of current air transportation issues including, aviation safety, planning, noise, and the role of aviation as an integral part of the state's transportation system. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics granted Conditional Plan Approval for the interim helistop on June 12, 2013. Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Landing Site is defined in CCR, Title 21, Section 3527(g) as follows: A site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and; • Has been designated an EMS landing site by an officer authorized by a public safety agency, as defined in PUC Section 21662.1, using criteria that the public safety agency has determined is reasonable and prudent for the safe operation of EMS helicopters; • Is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits; • Is not marked as a permitted heliport as described in Section 3554 of these regulations; and • Is used only for emergency medical purposes. Examples of public safety agencies could be a fire department, police department, sheriff's department, or county agency, etc. Therefore, an EMS helicopter landing site is not a state permitted helistop based on the FAA's Heliport Design Guide, which provides criteria contained to ensure an acceptable level of safety for a hospital helistop. The level of safety of each EMS helicopter landing that is not on a permitted helistop is unknown, as each individual public safety Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4 ESA 1130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards agency may have their own criteria, which may or may not be equivalent to established helistop safety standards (Caltrans, 1997). Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for reviewing projects near airports or related to air facility to make sure they are consistent with approved compatibility plans. To provide guidance for land use recommendations, an airport land use compatibility plan was developed to promote compatibility between air facilities and the land uses that surround them. The plan includes policies by which the ALUC operates and conducts compatibility reviews of proposed development actions; describes the overall context of airport land use compatibility planning in general and for airports in Riverside County in particular; and the procedures that the ALUC would follow in making compatibility determinations. The proposed helistop project was reviewed by the ALUC on February 13, 2014 received a determination of consistency with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. City of Temecula Municipal Code 17.40.130 General requirements—Airports and helipads: All wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas located at or near any airport or helipad shall comply with the following measures: A. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed within the safety zone of any airport or any helipad unless the airport land use commission indicates that it will not adversely affect the operation of the airport or helipad. B. No telecommunication facility or antenna shall be installed at a location where special painting or lighting will be required by the FAA regulations unless technical evidence acceptable to the planning director or planning commission, as appropriate, is submitted showing that this is the only technically feasible location for this facility. C. Where tower lighting is required, it shall be shielded or directed to the greatest extent possible in such a manner as to minimize the amount of light that falls onto nearby properties, particularly residences. 3.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The analysis in this section focuses on potential hazards associated with use of the proposed helistop facilities on the project site. The proposed project was evaluated for compliance with existing federal and state regulations related to hospital helistop facilities and consistency with the policies of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan that are related to implementation of the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Suppiemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5 ESA f 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to hazards if it would: • 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. As determined in the NOP/Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to routine transport of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions, location of a hazardous materials site, public airports, emergency response plans, or wildland fire hazards. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is included in the SEIR. Safety Hazards The proposed project would modify the approved, but not yet developed, helistop facilities in response to FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development near the project site and would include construction and operation of a new single -story 5,000 square foot storage building. The proposed project would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations—an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on top of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The helistop would be a location designed for the transport of patients, and would not include fueling, service, long-term parking, Temecula Valley Hospital Hehstop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6 ESA 7 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards or storage of helicopters or related equipment at the site. The hospital predicts that an average of eight helicopter flights would occur per month (four departures and four arrival flights), although actual frequency would depend on medical needs. The proposed storage building would be located at the previously approved helistop location in the eastern portion of the project site. The proposed locations of both the interim and permanent helistops and the storage building are shown on Figures 2-3 and 2-4 (Chapter 2, Project Description). The proposed flight paths would route incoming flights from the east and departing flights would leave the helipad heading west, and have been designed to avoid the existing five -story hospital building, trees, light poles, and utility lines. In addition, the proposed flight paths consider the predominant wind direction and avoid low altitude flying over residential areas. In addition, the proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building would be 22 feet high (which is lower than the main hospital building) and located between the two proposed flight paths for the interim and permanent helistops, and would not interfere with incoming or departing (lights. The proposed flight paths were designed to be consistent with the FAA I-lelistop design standards that are specified in Chapter 4 of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5390-2C that ensure sufficient airspace. In addition, the flight paths are consistent with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) that include prescriptive standards for flight paths and other safety requirements designed to provide adequate maneuvering room for pilots using the helistop. Specifically, the proposed flight paths are designed to meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards that specify a series of imaginary surfaces in the airspace surrounding landing areas. These surfaces include a primary surface (a horizontal plane at helistop elevation), approach surfaces (shallow, inclined planes along each designated flight path), and transition surfaces (steeper inclined planes to the sides of flight paths). Per these FAA and Caltrans design requirements, the proposed flight paths are approximately aligned with the prevailing wind and extend out from the edge of the helistop for a distance of 4,000 feet, at a ratio of I foot vertical for every S feet horizontal distance traveled. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics review and permitting procedures that are being conducted as part of the proposed project evaluate the effects the proposed helistop would have on the safety of persons or property on the ground and existing and proposed objects that extend into air. Prior to providing an airspace determination letter from the FAA and a helistop permit from Caltrans Aeronautics, both agencies would determine that the proposed helistop locations would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, and would not result in safety effects to persons or property on the ground. An airspace determination letter from the FAA and a permit from Caltrans Aeronautics would be required prior to construction or operation of the proposed helistop locations. In addition, the proposed project was reviewed by the Riverside County ALUC on February 13, 2014 and received a determination of consistency with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Implementation of these flight paths that are consistent with FAA and Caltrans design requirements, the airport land use plan, and operating under approvals from these agencies would reduce safety hazards to both persons in the helicopter and people residing or working in the project area. As a result, impacts related to substantial safety risks for people residing or working in the project area would be less than significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Significance Determination: Less than significant 3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts Hazard related impacts typically occur in a local or site-specific context versus a cumulative context combined with other development projccts; although it is possible for combined effects of hazards to occur by adjacent cumulative development that involves hazardous risks. Several projects shown in Figure 2-7 are in the vicinity of the project area; however, none would involve helicopter landing or other aviation -related uses. Furthermore, except for development of the hospital, none would involve building heights that would extend into the planned flight path, such that a hazardous event on the project site or related to the helicopter travel would result in cumulative impacts. A limited increase in air traffic in the project vicinity would be generated from the project, which would adhere to all safety regulations. The existing regulations related to the heliport design and flight path, and the required FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics, and ALUC review and approvals reduce the potential for hazardous conditions and provide safety measures such that a cumulatively adverse condition would not occur from implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore and as noted above, the proposed project site is not within 2 miles of a private or public airport and would not result in any other changes in existing air patterns. Flight paths to and from the project site would be regulated by the FAA and must meet FAR Part 77 obstruction clearance standards. These design considerations and the limited number of helicopter flights that would occur by the proposed project would ensure that the project's contribution to hazards impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the effect of the heliport project in combination with the cumulative development in the project vicinity would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to the safety of people residing or working in the project area. Hence, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8 ESA! 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise This section evaluates the potential for noise impacts to result from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts associated with construction noise; a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the project site to excessive noise levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Characteristics of Sound Sound can be technically described in terms of its sound pressure (amplitude) and frequency (similar to pitch). Amplitude is a direct measure of the magnitude, or loudness, of a sound without consideration for other factors that may influence its perception. The ranges of sound pressures that occur in the environment are so large that they are expressed on a logarithmic scale, The standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level in dB describes the pressure of a sound relative to a reference pressure. By using a logarithmic scale, the wide range in sound pressures is compressed to a more usable range of numbers. For example, a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB; while a sound level of 80 dB has 100 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. In terms of human response to noise, the perception of changes in noise level is very different. A sound 10 dB higher than another sound is usually judged to be twice as loud. A sound 20 dB higher is judged four times as loud and so forth. Therefore, due to the logarithmic nature of sound, linear addition cannot be applied when combining two noise levels. For instance, 50 dB plus 50 dB would not equal 100 dB. Rather, it would equal 53 dB due to the logarithmic scale of decibels. The combination of two noise levels is achieved by converting the noise levels into acoustic energy, adding the energy together, and then applying a logarithmic function to convert the resulting value back into a decibel value. The following table illustrates the principal of decibel addition. Difference between two decibel values Amount added to higher value Oor1 3 2or3 2 4to9 1 10 or more 0 SOURCE: United States Department of Labor OSHA, 2014. Noise Principles and Descriptors In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 1-lertz (Hz) and above 5,000 1-iz Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-1 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A -weighting and is expressed in units of A -weighted decibels. Frequency A -weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de -emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A - weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.3-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.3-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. 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. 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. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistcp Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-2 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL (dBA, Leq) COMMON INDOOR COMMON Ot1TC NOISE LEVELS NOISE LEVET LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud REFERENCE J—► 112 As Loud ACCEPTANCE 114 As Loud 110 Rock Band 100 90 Jet Flyover at 101 inside Subway Train (Naw York) Gas Lawn Mower Food Biandar at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 51 Garbaga Disposal at 3 Ft, Noisy Urban Day 80 Shouting at 3 Ft. 70 60 Vacuum Claanar at 10 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at Larga Business Office 50 – Dishwasher Next Room -Quiet Urban Day 40 - Small Thaatar, Larga - 30 20 10 0 Conferanca Room (Background) Library Quiet Urban Nigh Quiet Suburban I Concert Hail (Background) Quiet Rural NIgh1 Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing SOURCE: ESA Temecula Valley Hi Effe, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 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. Effects of Noise on Horses Horses have binaural hearing, which means that they can hear sounds from both ears concurrently. The size and shape of a horse ear allows the horse to detect a sound more readily and from different areas in the surrounding environment than humans (Heffner, 2000). Horse ears rotate 180 degrees and generally face the direction the animal is looking. With binaural hearing, they can focus one eye and ear on the rider (for example) and one eye and ear on something else (FHWA, 2007). When they hear something, horses want to see the cause (FHWA, 2007). However, binaural hearing is not precise; many times horses are not able to accurately detect the location of sounds in the environment (Heffner, 2000). This inability to accurately pinpoint a sound in the environment may cause a horse to become frightened or startled when certain or unidentifiable sounds are produced (Heffner, 2000). In addition, horses can hear frequencies from a wide range of 55 to 33,500 hertz (Hz), while humans hear frequency range is lower and smaller from approximately 30 to 19,000 Hz (Blazer, 2012). Because of the high frequency range, horses may be more sensitive to higher -pitched sounds than humans. The horse's natural response and survival instinct to sudden or unidentifiable sounds in the environment, or when a particular sound is perceived to be a threat, is to flee in the opposite direction of the sound (Heffner, 2000). Horses have been observed for reactions to aircraft (USAF, 2000), which show a varied response to low -altitude aircraft overflights. Some horses startle at a sudden onset of aircraft noise and gallop or kick when surprised by a low altitude aircraft overflight, but sometimes no reaction occurs. Although all horses have the same basic instincts, the reaction to environmental noise for each individual horse depends on its training, life experience, and personality (Heffner, 2000). The response varies with the horse, the rider, the terrain, and other conditions (USAF, 2000). Horses can become gradually conditioned to various noises over time (Heffner, 2000). The U.S. Air Force has evidence that horses adapt to flyovers over a month's time (USAF, 2000). Also, horses ridden in more developed environments become accustomed to unsettling noises after repeated exposure to them (FHWA, 2007). Vehicles backfiring, gunfire, firecrackers, sirens, helicopters, public address systems, hot air balloons, trains, marching bands, mechanical equipment, echoes, and bridge or tunnel sounds are tolerated by horses that are accustomed to them. Likewise, horses that spend time in rural areas get used to noises, such as the sounds of farm animals and farming activities (FHWA, 2007). Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 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 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-4 ESA f 130652 November 2014 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise (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 as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 1998). Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The proposed project is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences at approximately 305 feet away from the hospital site and a church that is over 1,000 feet away. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital include: • Single-family residences and an equestrian trail to the north and northwest; • Single-family residences and commercial properties to the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway; • Professional medical offices to the west; and • Multi -family residential, commercial, medical office and a flood control channel to the east. Existing Ambient Noise Levels Table 3.3-1 provides the ambient noise levels that were identified by noise monitoring at five sensitive noise locations that are shown in Figure 3.3-2. TABLE 3.3-1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Measured Average AMBIENT Period Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.1-61.2 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.8-63.2 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 50.1-61.7 On project site, at offset of 4 proposed five -story bed tower 20 minutes 57.9 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent 24 hours 64.2-76.5 to Highway 79) 59.6 58.9 63.5 N/A 78.7 NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute 51.4-1971. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-5 ESA 1130652 November 2014 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA © Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 0 1000 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq) during the noisiest one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dBA at exterior areas or 52 dBA within the interior of a hospital or medical building. In addition, FAA guidelines Part 150 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide that all land uses are compatible with aircraft noise at exposure levels below 65 dB CNEL (or Ldn). It is important to note that no compatibility criteria have been established for A - weighted single event noise metrics. Single event noise metrics are considered supplemental metrics to help describe the CNEL environment and the associated noise effects. California Public Utilities Code The California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a) states that emergency aircraft flightcs for medical purposes by law enforcement, firefighting, military, or other persons who provide emergency flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances adopted by a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, that restrict the departure or arrival of aircraft based upon the aircraft's noise level, or that restrict the operation of certain types of aircraft (emphasis added to project related code text). Pursuant to this, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital for medical purposes. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 California Airport Noise Standards, Subchapter 6 — Noise Standards, Article 1- General, Sections 5001 through 5006 provides noise standards governing the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines. Section 5006 defines the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport as a CNEL value of 65 dB for purposes of these regulations. This criterion level has been chosen for reasonable persons residing in urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction and may have windows partially open. It has been selected with reference to speech, sleep and community reaction. As in the federal criteria, no compatibility criteria have been established for A -weighted single event noise metrics such as SENEL or Lmax. California Department of Health Services Noise Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.3-2. In addition, Section 65302(0 of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-7 ESA f 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-2 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LDN OR CNEL} Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Multi -Family Homes Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Transient Lodging — Motels, Hotels Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 50 - 65 80 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 50-70 60-70 70-80 above80 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 75 50 - 70 above 70 50 - 75 above 75 50 - 70 67 - 75 above 75 50 - 75 70 - 80 above 80 50 - 70 67 - 77 above 75 50 - 75 70 - 80 above 75 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional Construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. b d SOURCE: OPR, 2003. The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass -by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass -by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi -family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation -related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ld11. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-8 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 33 Noise City of Temecula General Plan — Noise Element The City's noise standards are correlated with land use zoning classifications in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The City's primary goal with regard to community noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible. 'l'o this end, the Noise Element establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise. These guidelines are based, in part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the DHS for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. The City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.3-3. TABLE 3.3-3 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Land Use Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Residentiale 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Transient Lodging — Motel, Hotel 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatersf Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sportsf Playgrounds, Parks 50 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 50 - 60 60 - 70 50 - 70 50-75 70 - 80 above 80 above 70 above 75 Golf Course, Riding Stables, 50 - 70 Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Processional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Agriculture above 50 50 - 65 50 - 70 65 - 75 70-80 70 - 80 above 75 above 80 above 80 a b c d e Normally ACCeotable: Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Regarding aircraft -related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, Noise Element, 2005. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-9 ESA 1130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 60 dB Ldr, or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of noise -sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA L,;„ or CNEL or less. The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound—appropriate interior working environment. Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Policy 1.3 Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major stationary noise sources. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1 3.3 Noise Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of city, state and federal noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.20 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes citywide standards to regulate noise. The following sections from Section 9.20 are relevant to the proposed project. 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt: E. Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile. J. Safety, warning and alarm devices, including, but not limited to, house and car alarms, and other warning devices that are designed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 3.3-4. 9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 pm and 7:00 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. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.070 Exceptions Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound standards) or 9.20.060 (special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as construction -related or single event exceptions. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-11 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise TABLE 3.3-4 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE LAND USE MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Residential Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70' High 45 702 Commercial and Office Neighborhood Community — 70 Highway Tourist Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Institutional Schools All others 50 65 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture — 70 Open Space — 70/652 Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dBA are allowed for multiple -family housing. 2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code 9.20.040. An application for a construction -related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The form shall be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the city manager or designated representative. No public hearing is required. 3.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Integrated Noise Mode! The Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, has been used to quantify helicopter noise exposure in the vicinity of the interim and future helistop locations. The INM is the FAA - approved noise model for quantifying fixed -wing and rotorcraft noise. The model input requires information specific to each helistop including the total number of helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental impact Report 3.3-12 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise flight paths used to access the helistop, the specific helicopter types, and the time of day at which the operations would occur. The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level. It then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure generated by each helicopter (or aircraft) operation, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the engines by the helicopter, and speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each operation are then summed at each grid location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop CNEL contours for selected values (e.g., 55, 60, and 65 dB CNEL). Using the results of the grid point analysis, noise contours of equal noise exposure are then plotted. The INM includes the ability to model the effects of changes in ground elevations (terrain), but does not include the ability to account for shielding or reflectivity of noise from buildings or other structures. Cumulative Noise Metrics Cumulative noise metrics have been developed to assess community response to noise. They are useful because these scales attempt to include the loudness of the noise, the duration of the noise, the total number of noise events, and the time of day these events occur into one single number rating scale. • Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations specifies the use of CNEL for quantifying cumulative aircraft noise exposure. CNEL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels with an additional weighting placed on evening (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 pm) and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) operations to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. CNEL metric and the evening and nighttime weightings are described in detail in the "Time of Day" section below. The specific data used to model the CNEL contours is described in the following sections. Helicopter Operations and Fleet Based on data provided by Heliplanners (the heliport architect), it is anticipated that two local EMS helicopter operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, would utilize the helistop to transport patients an average of eight times per month over a twelve month period. This would total approximately 96 flights or 192 operations per year (one flight equals two operations: an arrival and a departure). Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations and Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual - average day operations over a 365 -day period. This equals approximately 0.526 operations per annual -average day. The proposed changes to the helistop (i.e., the decommissioning of the interim helistop and operation of permanent helistop) would not result in an increase in the number of helicopters utilizing the helistop. Thus, the same numbers of operations were used to calculate the noise exposure for both the interim and permanent helistop locations. The type of helicopter used by Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services that would utilize the interim and permanent helistops is the Airbus EC -135, which is commonly used for medical air transport, and currently does not have a noise profile in the INM. However, the EC 130 is a Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Envircnmentai impact Report 3.3-13 ESA /130552 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise similar helicopter and generates similar noise. Both helicopter models have a Fenestron tail rotor, which has an array of ten blades that are arranged asymmetrically and are spaced at different intervals, which reduces a main generator of helicopter noise. Therefore, use of the EC -130 is an appropriate substitute for the EC 135, and was used to model noise from project operations. A detailed breakdown of the annual -average day operations for the interim and future helistop locations is included in Table 3.3-5. TABLE 3.3-5 ANNUAL -AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS Daytime Evening Nighttime INM Helicopter Type Helicopter Type Operations Operations Operations Total EC 130 EC 135 0.421 0.053 0.053 0.526 SOURCE: Heliplanners, ESA Airports Analysis, 2014 Time of Day As noted previously, the separation of helicopter operations into daytime (7:00:00 am to 6:59:59 pm), evening (7:00:00 pm to 9:59:59 pm), and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) is important because the INM includes an additional weighting during the evening and nighttime hours to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Evening operations are weighted as three daytime operations and nighttime operations are weighted as ten daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 and 10 -decibel penalty for each event during these periods, respectively. Based on the annual average of approximately 192 operations per year and the average time of day those operations occurred, as provided in Table 3.3-5, Table 3.3-6 estimates the expected frequency that helicopter operations would occur at the project site at the previously defined times of day. TABLE 3.3-6 HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL) INM Helicopter Type Daytime Evening Nighttime (7:00:00 am — 6:59:59 (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 pm) pm) am) Total EC 130 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013 Flight Corridors The flight corridors used to access the helistops are an important factor in determining the geographic distribution of noise on the ground. Flight corridors for helicopter operations were modeled for the proposed north -flow and south -flow configurations for both the interim and permanent conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by Heliplanners, the heliport architect. Based on this data, use percentages were developed for north - flow and south -flow operations. Using this information, four primary arrival and departure Temecula valley Hospital Heltstop Project Draft Supplemental Enwonmental Impact Report 3.3-14 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise corridors were developed for the interim condition. When operating in a north flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 213 degrees to the interim helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 33 degrees. Figure 3.3-3 depicts the interim helistop north -flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 48 degrees to the interim helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 228 degrees. Figure 3.3-4 depicts the interim helistop south -flow flight corridors. Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop location. When operating in a north -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 218 degrees to the permanent helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 38 degrees. Figure 3.3-5 depicts the permanent helistop north -flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 49 degrees to the permanent helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 229 degrees. Figure 33-6 depicts the permanent helistop south -flow flight corridors. Flight corridor use percentages have been assigned according to the data received from Heliplanners, the heliport architect, and are shown in Tables 3.3-7 and 3.3-8. TABLE 3.3-7 EC 135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES - INTERIM CONDITION Departures Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% ANEP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% DSWP 90.0/ 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% DNEP = Departure Northeast Point -track DSWP = Departure Southwest Point -track ANEP = Arrival Northeast Point -track ASWP = Arrival Southwest Point -track SOURCE: Hellplanners, 2013 TABLE 3.3-8 EC 135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES - FUTURE CONDITION Departures Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% ANEP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% DSWP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% DNEP = Departure Northeast Point -track DSWP = Departure Southwest Point -track ANEP = Arrival Northeast Point -track ASWP = Arrival Southwest Point -track SOURCE: Heliplanners, 2013 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Daft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-15 ESA / 130652 November 2014 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR , 130652 Figure 3.3-3 Interim Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors Flight Corridors _ Arrivals _ Departures 1000 Feet SOLE: ESA; IMN 7.Od; USO& Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-4 Interim Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors • • Flight Corridors ▪ Arrivals ▪ Departures SOURCE ESA: INM 7,0d: USDA o 1000 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop — North -Flow Flight Corridors Flight Corridors Arrivals = Departures SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d, USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 136652 Figure 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop — South -Flow Flight Corridors 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to noise if it would: • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. As determined in the NOP/Initial Study (Appendix A), implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise, or noise impacts related to a public airport. Therefore, no further analysis of these topics is included in the El R. Temporary Construction Noise Construction of the approved hospital facility is ongoing as the hospital is being developed in phases and noise related impacts associated with construction activities from development of the helipad have been previously analyzed in the previous environmental documents prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital (which are described in Section I, Introduction of this SE1R and incorporated by reference). Construction of the proposed storage building would involve similar construction activities as would occur during construction of the other hospital facilities that were analyzed in the previous environmental analyses, including grading, construction, and paving. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed storage building are residential uses located over 500 feet to the west. As concluded in the 2008 FSE1R, construction activities associated with development of the proposed storage building can be expected to exceed the accepted exterior ambient noise level of 70 dB (for medium- and high-density residential uses) by more than 3 dB at the nearest sensitive receptors (as summarized in Table 3.2-5 of the 2008 FSEIR). Construction of the proposed helipad locations and storage building would utilize the same types of equipment that has been (and would continue to be) used to construct the other hospital facilities. Development of the relocated interim helistop and new storage building would not increase temporary construction activity noise levels beyond those generated by construction of the other hospital facilities, which were previously analyzed in the approved 2008 FSEIR and Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-20 ESA 1130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise were found to be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures. Hence, there would be no substantial increase in construction noise impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed project. The analysis, findings, and mitigation and noise abatement measures from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this SEI R and would apply to construction of the helipad and proposed storage building. Exceedance of Noise Standards CNEL Standards The interim helistop is located at ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an elevation of 1,060 feet MSL. The permanent helistop is planned to be located on the roof of a future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,135 feet MSL. Using the INM, the 55-65 d13 CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are shown on Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8, respectively.1 The CNEL contours shown on Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8 depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non -aircraft sources. The interim 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 2.6 acres and the future 60 d13 CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.2 acres. The CNEL contours for the permanent helistop location are larger than the interim helistop location because the increased elevation reduces the effect of ground attenuation that occurs with helicopter operations close to the ground. The reduced ground attenuation allows the sound to propagate further than the interim helipad at ground level. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium -intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi -family housing. The General Plan uses a CN EL standard that averages noise over 24 -hours. The proposed storage building would be used to store non -hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" (extra materials and supplies kept on -hand for maintenance and repair of hospital facilities), for the hospital, and linens. The storage building would not utilize any machinery or equipment, except for HVAC equipment that is similar to those used on other hospital buildings. As a result, operation of the proposed storage building would not generate noise in excess of the City's General Plan criteria. As shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting from the helicopter flights are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, the average noise increase (CNEL) resulting from the helistop would not result in a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula's General Plan. Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act also uses CNEL to identify noise impacts, and established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. As noted above, the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed project shown in Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-8 are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant noise impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act. 1 Due to their small size (i.e., less than 0.0 acres), the 70 and 75 dB CNEL contours were omitted from Figures 3.3-7 and 3.3-S. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-21 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ESA 1130652 November 2014 CNEL Contours - 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od; City of Temecula; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Interim Helistop Helistop SEIR , 130652 Figure 3.3-7 — CNEL Contours CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet SOURCE: ESA; 1NM 7.Od; City of Temecula: USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-8 Permanent Helistop — CNEL Contours 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts. and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The Riverside County ALUCP criteria for noise defines 60 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable CNEL for new residential land uses in the vicinity of airports or helistops. For other noise sensitive land uses including hotels, places of worship, meeting halls, office buildings, etc., the Riverside County ALUCP defines 65 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable noise exposure level. The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from use of the proposed helistops are completely contained within the hospital campus. As a result, no residential areas or other sensitive uses would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the Riverside County ALUCP. Short -Term Noise Standards Table 3.3-9 shows the single -event noise at nearby land uses that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the interim helistop. The locations listed in Table 3.3-9 are shown in Figure 3.3-9. TABLE 3.3-9 SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS OF THE INTERIM HELISTOP AT NEARBY USES WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Site Site Description! Ambient Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Number Address CNEL, dB Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA Lmax, dBA 1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 60.9 73.3 52.0 65.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 58.9 73.3 69.2 85.5 74.5 adjacent to portion of Equestrian Trail 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 59.6 58.9 77.8 59.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 78.7 73.2 79.7 72.8 75.6 (adjacent to Highway 79) 6 Direct Overflight of 76.3 71.9 100.8 77.6 Equestrian Trail NOTES: For this analysis, sites slightly differ from those shown in Table3.3-1 because site Number 4 is the hospital site, and is not listed because it would be shielded from helicopter noise from existing and planned structures. Site Number 6 was added to demonstrate the anticipated noise levels of helicopter overflight of the equestrian tail. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. The duration of the maximum single -event noise listed in Table 3.3-9 would be very limited occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights) as the helicopter is flying over the locations shown in Figure 3.3-9. The noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 79.7 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA. Helicopter noise would be greater from use of the interim site at ground level, than the future rooftop location where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Under both prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter noise that would occur approximately eight times per month would exceed the exterior noise limited identified in the City's Noise Ordinance. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-24 ESA / 130652 November 2014 Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations SOURCE: ESA; *IM 7.0d; USDA NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for Site 14 were unavailable and therefore omitted from the single -event noise analysis. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-9 Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise The City's Noise Ordinance (Section 9.20.040) states that noise cannot be generated that would result in the exterior sound level on single family residential land uses to exceed 65 dB, and 75 dB for multi -family residential. However, the medical helicopter noise is exempt from the City's Municipal Code standards (per Code Section 9.20.030). In addition, flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances and cannot be restricted due to noise (PUC Section 21662.4. (a)). However, because noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA under Santa Ana conditions, which is substantially higher than the noise levels allowed near residential land uses, Therefore, impacts related to noise levels from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. To reduce the helicopter noise impacts, Mitigation Measure NO1-1 has been included to provide signage at each end of the horse trail to notice riders of the helistop location and operation. This measure would provide notice; however, it would not reduce the substantial noise levels generated from helicopter overflight. As described above, aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable noise impact related to helicopter overflights. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Ambient noise is measured in CNEL, which averages noise over 24 -hours. As described above, the proposed storage building would be used for storage of non -hazardous materials such as disaster supplies, "attic stock" for the hospital, and linens and would not utilize any machinery or equipment, except for HVAC equipment, which is similar to the equipment used for the other hospital buildings. In addition, the storage building would not require or result in additional traffic trips; and traffic related ambient increases in noise from additional vehicles trips would not occur. Therefore, operation of the proposed storage building would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. For construction of new or expanded airports or heliports in locations having existing ambient noise exposure levels Tess than 60 dB CNEL, the Riverside County ALUCP identifies significant impacts resulting from the proposed action using three criteria: for locations having an existing ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less, an increase of 5 dB or more is deemed significant; for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 3 dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 1.5 dB or more is deemed significant. As shown in Table 3.3-1, all of the existing ambient noise locations have existing ambient noise levels of greater than 55 dB CNEL and two of the locations (Sites 3 and 5) have ambient noise above 60 dB CNEL. The INM was used to calculate the helicopter -generated CNEL at each of the measurement locations. The measured and ambient CNEL values were then compared to determine if these locations would experience an increase in CNEL of 3 dB or more at Sites 1 and 3, and 1.5 dB or more at Sites 2 and 5. As shown in Tables 3.3-10 and 3.3-11, Sites I and 2 did not experience an Temecula Valley Hospital HelIstop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-26 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise increase of 3 dB, nor did Sites 3 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB from the interim or permanent helistop operation. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant increase in noise as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the Riverside County ALUCP; and the project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Significance Determination: Less than significant TABLE 3.3-10 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE INTERIM CONDITION Site Site Description! Number Address Difference Between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59,6 26.9 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 46.6 59.1 +0.2 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 38.7 63.5 +0.1 4 On project site, at offset 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A of proposed five -story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 47,2 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) TABLE 3.3-11 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE PERMANENT CONDITION Site Site Description/ Number Address Difference Combined Between Ambient and Ambient and Measureme AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter nt Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 23.9 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 43.9 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 43.7 63.5 0.0 4 On project site, at offset 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A NIA of proposed five -story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 41.2 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26. 2014, All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Graft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-27 ESA / 130052 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting. Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels As described previously, the duration of maximum helicopter noise would be limited and occur as helicopters arrive and depart the helistop, which would occur approximately eight times a month (four departures and four arrival flights). Even though limited, the periodic noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the interim helistop would result in a substantial increase in short- term noise events at Sites 1 and 2 during overflight under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA during overflight. Both under prevailing and Santa Ana wind conditions, this noise would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels, and occur approximately eight times a month. An equestrian trail is located adjacent to the hospital to the north and northwest; and as described some horses startle and become frightened at a sudden unidentified noise, such as the onset of aircraft noise because this noise is abrupt and substantially louder than ambient noise levels. Hence, horses being ridden along the equestrian trail that bounds the hospital site to the north could startle and a safety hazard at the equestrian trail may occur. Conversely, horses that are accustomed to various urban noises may not react, and horses that reside locally are generally anticipated to adjust to the noise after repeated exposure. To reduce the helicopter related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, Mitigation Measure NO1-1 has been included to provide signage at each end of the horse trail to notice riders of the helistop location and operation. This measure would reduce noise impacts related to activity on the equestrian trail to less than significant; however, it would not reduce the limited, but substantial noise levels generated from helicopter overflight. Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable Mitigation Measures NOM: Prior to operation of the interim helistop, the "Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental EnvironmentaV Impact Report 3.3-28 ESA / 130652 November 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. 3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the proposed project. As noise is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed project to result in cumulative noise impacts. Similarly, the geographic area associated with cumulative construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by helistop noise associated with the proposed project and the locations of the identified cumulative projects. None of the projects listed in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description, that are near the project site would involve helistop locations, any other aviation -related uses. Nearby cumulative projects involve commercial, office, and residential development that would not result in substantial noise generation. Furthermore, there are no proposed uses that would generate noise, such that it would combine with noise from helicopter flights to result in a significant cumulative impact. Although the helicopter overflight noise would be substantially louder than existing ambient noise levels, it would be limited to occurring at noise receptors approximately eight times a month. As described in the 2008 Final SE1R, ambulance sirens generate maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dBA. However, it is not anticipated that helicopter activity and ambulance sirens would occur at the same time within the same geographic area, and cumulative noise impacts are not anticipated. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.3-29 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR, SEIR and evaluates an alternative helistop site and the no project alternative. 4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and describes the rationale for their evaluation in the SEIR, the environmental impacts associated with each alternative, and compares the relative impacts of each alternative to those of the proposed project. In addition, the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives is described. CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The "range of alternatives" is governed by the ``rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered, Section 15126.6(f)(I) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in this SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: • The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project; • The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; • The feasibility of the alternative; • The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project- alternative; and to identify an "environmentally superior" alternative in addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1 ESA f 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved based on current plans (Section 15126.6(e)(3)(c)). 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR dated January 2006: Alternative 1: No Project — No Build Alternative 2: No Project — Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site — Corona Family Properties 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. The SE1R that was prepared in January 2008 examined New Alternative 7: Former Temecula Education Center Alternative. However, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remained as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 4.3 Project Objectives The primary objectives of the hospital project are as follows. City Objectives The City's objectives for the proposed hospital project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and Temecula valley Hosp+tal Helistop Project Drat Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-2 ESA 1 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives • 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 for the proposed hospital project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; 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. Proposed Project The proposed relocation of the approved helistop is consistent with and furthers the project objectives listed above. Specifically, the proposed heliport site would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop site would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. The proposed storage building is an ancillary structure that would assist with efficient daily operations of the hospital. It is designed to be architecturally consistent with the main hospital building and would be consistent with project objectives related to providing compatible development between the project site and surrounding uses. 4.4 No Project Alternative Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the E1R shall: ..discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the proposed storage building would not be developed and that the approved helistop site would Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-3 ESA / 130652 November 2014 4, Project Alternatives be developed. The approved helistop includes a 60 -foot by 60 -foot helistop that is located at approximately 14.5 feet above grade near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line (shown in Figure 2-3, Approved Helistop Site). The helipad in this location would need to be elevated to meet airspace obstruction clearance criteria for vehicles on the adjacent driveways. This alternative would include the original flight path that would travel both to and from the helipad over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction (a true heading of 109 degrees / 096 degrees magnetic flight corridor), and a second flight path (true heading of 285 degrees / 272 degrees magnetic, which was listed as a condition in the FAA's airspace determination letter) that would travel both to and from the helipad over the Los Ranchitos single-family residential areas north of the project site. These flight paths are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. As described in Section 2.4, Project Description, prevailing winds in the project region is to the east, except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. As a result, helicopters would generally approach the approved helistop site from the east, flying northwest bound into the wind to land at the helistop; and would also take off in a northwest bound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally, helicopters would approach from the west flying southeast bound to land at the site, and take off also in a southeastbound direction. The No Project Alternative would also require installation of obstruction lights on the top of the two-story Madera Vista apartment buildings as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Environmental Analysis Aesthetics Like the interim helistop site for the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would require installation of lighting fixtures for nighttime operations. The No Project Alternative would use red obstruction lights on the adjacent apartment buildings that are photocell -controlled for dusk -to -dawn operation. The Phase I hospital tower (that currently exists onsite) would have red obstruction lights, one three -colored (green, white, and yellow) heliport beacon light, and one lighted windcone installed to provide approaching and departing pilots with wind information. Other lighting would include 12 green flush -mounted perimeter lights surrounding the TLOF, five green lead-in lights aligned with the primary approach path from the northeast, and a 16 -foot tall lighted windcone. Lighting under this alternative (perimeter lights, lead-in lights and local lighted windcone) would be activated only for nighttime landings or takeoffs and is proposed in accordance with Caltrans Division of Aeronautics standards. However, the red obstruction lights that would be mounted on the Madera Vista apartments to the east of the helistop would be additional lights that would not be installed by the proposed project. The ability to install the off-site lighting on the roof of the apartment buildings is not under the control of the applicant. This additional lighting would be outside of the project site and would be red and visible to the occupants of the apartment buildings and adjacent residences. The other lighting associated with helicopter takeoff/landing events would be within the hospital's grounds and would largely be shielded by intervening landscaping. Because the red obstruction lights would be located off-site at the Madera Vista apartment buildings under this alternative, this alternative would result in greater lighting related impacts than the proposed project. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-4 ESA / 130652 November 2014 SOURCE: ESA 1NM 7.0d; USDA Temecuia Walley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-1 Approved Helistop - East -How Flight Corridors s -i Y • • lir 4 1. At 1. rdir' ;=1 y #-...., fpr ik Flight Corridors - Arrivals - Departures fi Feet 1000 SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.Od: USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-2 Approved Helistop - West -Flow Flight Corridors 4. Project Altematives In addition, implementation of the flight path related to the proposed project would require (per Caltrans Aeronautics) reducing the height of the large row of mature trees that are located adjacent to the east of the project site, within an area under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant does not have authority to trim these trees; but should these trees be reduced, removed, or cut as a result of the heliport project, aesthetic impacts that are greater than the proposed project (that would not result in tree trimming) would occur. Hazards The helipad site that would be developed under the No Project Alternative has undergone review and approval by the FAA and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The reviews conducted by these agencies evaluate the effects the helistop would have on the safety of persons or property on the ground and objects that extend into the air. However, since the original approval of the helistop, the FAA has issued new regulations and new residential uses have been constructed within the flight path. The No Project Alternative would include a second flight path in order to meet FAA safety recommendations related to prevailing wind conditions. In addition, because the new residential uses are within the currently approved flight path, Caltrans Aeronautics Division requires that red obstruction lights be added to the residential buildings. With implementation of these required measures, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant hazards impacts as the proposed project. Noise Construction Noise As described in Section 3.3, Noise, construction of the proposed project would not substantially change, and would not increase, construction noise impacts beyond those identified for the hospital project by the previous CEQA documentation in 2006 EER, 2008 SEER, and 2011 SEIR Addendum (described in Section 1.3 of this SEIR and incorporated by reference). Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed helipad locations and storage building would not be constructed; however, construction noise associated with the approved helipad and the phased development of the other hospital facilities would continue. The approved and proposed construction activities are within the same portions of the project site, just the locations of the facilities have changed and an additional 5,000 square feet of building space would be developed. The locations of development would have the same general distance to sensitive receptors, which include the adjacent residential uses and the hospital itself. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those currently occurring and proposed to occur by the proposed project. CNEL Standards As shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, the No Project Alternative would include flight paths directly over residential uses that are adjacent to two sides of the hospital property and the planned equestrian trail. Operations using the approved helistop flight paths were modeled (as was done for the proposed project) and the 55-65 dB CNEL contours prepared. As shown in Figure 4-3, the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours are contained within the project site and the 55 dB contour encroaches onto residential land uses that are adjacent to the east of the project site. The CNEL Temecula Valley Hospital Helustop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-7 ESA 1130652 November 2014 • Alf ' • Te��eG,y1a CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 1 0 500 Feel firvir4A- List') wl.+ahaAs SOURCE: ESA 1NM 7.0d; City of TerneCuia; USDA NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the nose exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the nose exposure resulting from non -aircraft sources. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-3 Approved Helistop — CNEL Contours 4. Project Alternatives contours depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non -aircraft sources. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria sets noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium -intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL I'or multi -family housing. Similarly, Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP have also established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from use of the approved helistop site are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula's General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. The CNEL noise contour impacts from the No Project Alternative would be the same as what would occur under the proposed project, with the 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours contained within the project site and the 55 dB contour encroaching onto residential land uses. As a result, CNEL related noise impacts would be the same as those of the interim site under the proposed project. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels As described in the Section 3.3, Noise, significant impacts related to permanent increases in ambient noise would occur if locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL result in an increase of 3 dB; and if locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL have an increase of 1.5 dB. As shown in Table 4-1, all of the noise measurement locations have existing ambient noise levels greater than 55 dB CNEL; and two of the locations (Sites 3 and 5) have ambient noise above 60 dB CNEL. TABLE 4-1 EXISTING AMBIENT CNEL MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER CNEL NOISE FROM THE APPROVED SITE Combined Difference Site Site Description! Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter Ambient and Between Ambient Number Address Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB Helicopter and Combined CNEL, dB CNEL, dB 30390 De Poriola 1 24 hours 59.6 25.8 59.6 0.0 Road 2 30955 De Poriola 24 hours 58.9 46.9 59.2 +0.3 Road 3 31775 De Poriola 24 hours 63.5 47.5 63.6 +0.1 Road On project site, at 4 offset of proposed 20 minutes NIA N/A NIA NIA five -story bed tower 31602 Calle Los 5 Padres (adjacent to 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78.7 0.0 Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by Environmental Science Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. A 24-hour noise measurement was not obtained at Site 4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) $1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-9 ESA 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives The calculated helicopter -generated CNEL from use of the approved helistop at each of the measurement locations is shown in Table 4-1. Sites 1 and 2 would not experience an increase of 3 dB, nor would Sites 3 or 5 experience an increase of 1.5 dB from operation of the approved helistop. Overall, the greatest increase in noise would be 0.3 CNEL, dB at Site 2, which is below the 1.5 dB threshold. As a result, the No Project Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur by the proposed project. Short -Term Noise In addition to the CNEL noise information that averages ambient noise over a 24-hour period, modeling of single -event noise that would be generated by helicopter operations by the No Project Alternative was prepared to provide a detailed comparison of noise that would be generated by use of the approved site. Table 4-2 shows the single -event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the approved helistop at locations shown in Figure 4-4. TABLE 4-2 SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE PROPOSED INTERIM SITE Site Site No. Location WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions} Helicopter Difference Helicopter Difference Helicopter Difference Difference Departure from Arrival from Departure from Helicopter from Lmax, Interim Lmax, Interim Lmax, Interim Arrival Lmax, Interim dBA" dBA dBA" dBA dBA" dBA dBA" dBA 1 30390 De 64.4 +3.5 66.4 -6.9 48.5 -3.5 48.4 -17.2 Portola 2 30955 De 85.7 +12.4 84.9 +15.7 74.1 -11.4 75.5 +1.0 Portola 3 31775 De 74.4 +14.9 75.9 +17 74.6 -3.2 76.4 +16.8 Portola 5 31602 60.5 -12.7 61.8 -17.9 60.5 -12.3 62.5 -13.1 Calle Los Padres 6B Equestrian 97.4 +21.1. 80.6 +8.7. 79.1 -21.7. 96.0 +18.4 - Trail Overflight Noise levels from the interim site are listed in Table 3.3-9, in the Noise Section of this SEIR. Compares the noise of equestrian trail overflight per each heiistop. The locations of equestrian trail overflight are different for each helistop site. Represents noise levels that would occur from implementation of the currently approved het:stop. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-10 ESA ! 130652 November 2014 SOURCE: ESA: INM 7.0d: USDA NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for Site #4 were unavailable and therefore omitted from the single -event noise analysis, Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-4 Single -Event Noise Analysis Locations 4. Project Alternatives As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single -event noise would be very limited in length and frequency, occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). The noise generated by helicopter flights to and from approved helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 97.4 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 96.0 Lmax, dBA. This noise would be 4.8 Lmax, dBA less than what would occur under the proposed project that would result in a maximum noise level of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA in Santa Ana conditions. As provided in Table 4-2, use of the approved helistop (No Project Alternative) during prevailing wind conditions would result in a greater single -event noise level under seven scenarios (location and departure/arrival), and a reduced noise level under three scenarios compared to what would occur under the proposed project. Conversely, under Santa Ana conditions, use of the approved helistop would result in reduced noise under seven scenarios, and a greater noise level under three scenarios. The greatest differences in noise level between the approved helistop site and the proposed interim site would be during departures over the equestrian trail (Site 6B) from the approved helistop where under prevailing wind conditions single -event noise would be 21.1 Lmax, dBA greater than the proposed interim site. Under Santa Ana conditions use of the approved site would generate 21.7 Lmax, dBA less at the equestrian trail than the proposed interim site. The noise levels over the equestrian trail (Site 6E3) are a result of the flight corridor crossing above this location, which is along the equestrian trail. This noise is estimated to be the maximum noise at a specific site on the trail and not representative of the entire equestrian trail. Because the approved helistop site (No Project Alternative) would result in greater single -event noise under a greater number of scenarios than the proposed project under prevailing wind conditions, which would consist of a majority of flights to and from the hospital, the approved helistop would result in greater single -event noise impacts than what would occur from the proposed interim helistop (proposed project). As noted in Section 3.3, Noise, of this SEIR, helicopter noise would be greater from the interim helistop at ground level than at the future rooftop location where helicopters would be higher and farther from receptors. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in greater noise impacts than the proposed permanent helistop as well. Conclusion The No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and noise, and does not reduce significant and unavoidable noise impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative when compared to the proposed project. In regards to meeting the project objectives, the No Project Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objective of Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-12 ESA f 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. 4.5 Alternative Interim Helistop Site The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative site would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site as shown on Figure 4-5. This alternative would include an east -west flight path that would run along the north side of Temecula Parkway. It would travel over existing commercial and institutional uses (i.e., the Rancho Community Church and Christian Schools). Figure 4-6 depicts the north -flow flight corridors and Figure 4-7 depicts the south -flow flight corridors for the alternative helistop site. This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop described in Chapter 2, Project Description. However, red obstruction lights would also be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of the pole locations at night. As described in Section 2.4, Project Description, prevailing winds in the project region are to the east, except during occasional Santa Ana wind conditions that blow westward. As a result of wind direction, helicopters would generally approach the project site from the east, flying westbound into the wind to land at the helistop; and would also take off in a westbound direction. During Santa Ana or westbound wind conditions, which occur occasionally, helicopters would approach from the west flying eastbound to land at the site, and take off also in an eastbound direction. Both of these flight corridors are shown on Figures 4-6 and 4-7. It should be noted that this alternative helistop site only applies to the proposed interim helistop and does not affect the proposed permanent helistop, which is proposed on the roof of the future hospital tower, or the location, design, or operation of the proposed 5,000 -square -foot storage building. In addition, the proposed storage building would be developed within the northeastern portion of the project site under this alternative. Aesthetics The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would install lighting fixtures for nighttime operations that would be similar to the proposed interim site. In addition, this alternative would be required to install red obstruction lights on several SCE power poles along Temecula Parkway (shown in Figure 4-5) due to their proximity to the alternative helistop site and because the FAA identifies power lines and poles as "hard to see" objects from the air, especially at night. Should SCE not allow modification of these poles, new poles with red lighting would be required to be installed adjacent to the existing light poles to ensure adequate obstruction lighting for this flight path. One of the existing power poles is located directly south of the site and would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of this proposed flight path. Because of this, a variance to regulations related to transitional surface penetration would be required from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. However, this variance could only be granted if this light pole would be lighted at Teme0ula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-13 ESA / 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives night with red obstruction lights. If installed on the SCE poles, the lights would likely be on a dusk -to -dawn photocell system, and be on all night. If the hospital installs the lighting poles along Temecula Parkway, the lights would be connected to the helistop lighting system and activated only for nighttime helicopter operations. Either way, with the additional lighting on SCE poles along Temecula Parkway that would be on all night, or with the additional lighting poles along Temecula Parkway that would be operated during nighttime helicopter operations and visible all day along the roadway, implementation of the Alternative interim 1-Ielistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetic impacts than those of the proposed project. This alternative would result in additional nighttime lighting, and potentially additional power pole structures along the roadway. Like the proposed site, the alternative interim helistop site would be surrounded by an approximate five-foot tall security fence. However, unlike the proposed project, the heliport would not be screened behind other planned hospital facilities and parking areas. The alternative interim helistop site and the security fence would be much more visible to travelers along Temecula Parkway. The storage facility that would be constructed under this alternative would include the same massing and design features and exterior lighting features that would occur under the proposed project and would result in the same less than significant aesthetic impacts. Therefore, because this alternative would result in a more visible helipad surrounded by security fencing, this alternative increases aesthetic impacts over those of the proposed project. H azards The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located 114 -feet north of Temecula Parkway, which is lined with above ground power poles and transmission lines on the same side of the street as the proposed project. The flight path required for this site (due to the prevailing winds at the project site) is an east -west flight path that would run along Temecula Parkway. One existing power pole would penetrate the southern 2:1 transitional surface of the alternative site's flight path and the planned Medical Office Building 2 would penetrate the northern transitional surface. The alternative site flight path along Temecula Parkway would cause an additional hazard related to one power pole located directly south of the site, and additional red obstruction lighting along Temecula Parkway would be required along with a variance for a transitional surface penetration from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. It is the policy of the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics to only grant variances for one side of a flight path. Therefore, with implementation of red obstruction lighting along Temecula Parkway, development of Medical Office Building 2, which would penetrate the northern transitional surface, would not be allowed as currently planned. The planned building, along with the already developed underground utilities would need to be relocated or reconfigured so that it would not penetrate the transitional surface. Overall, the need for a variance for implementation of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative that is not needed for the proposed project indicates that potential impacts related to the alternative helistop site are greater than that of the proposed interim helistop site. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Drab Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-14 ESA 1130652 November 2014 a 200 Feat SINGLE FAYILT RESIDENT AL PIlO4ECT srrc 48' DIAMETER CONCRETE ilit SgloWlmT.au /f TLOF APPROX. 1060` MSL `yam (APPROX. 5-6' ABOVE / GRADE ON MOUND) / 87' DIAMETER PATO' �n• qwW fit, 16' -WIDE SAFETY AREA. SOL. OWIAd,,w-, e Propos AnemauYee This page left intentional va.r w.paaI RWenoPmpcl Malt 9uppannenlel Enxrpn1.en10 Impact R.pwl 4-16 Flight Corridors - Arrivals _ Departures 0 7000 Feet SOURCE: ESA; NM 7.Od; USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-6 Alternative Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors Alternative Helistop SOURCE; ESA: INM 70d; USDA - Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR _ 130652 Figure 4-7 Alternative Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors 4. Project Altematives As shown in Figure 4-5, the flight path of the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative not only travels along Temecula Parkway, but also across the frontage of the existing hospital and flights would land on the helistop on the ground. Hence, the helicopters would reduce altitude (or increase altitude) as they cross the frontage of the operating hospital site and land on the helipad that is 114 -feet away from Temecula Parkway. This helicopter activity would be adjacent to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travelers on the roadway and would be large-scale forefront activity that could cause distractions to drivers along the roadway and lead to vehicle accidents, or could cause confusion/distraction to emergency room patients entering the facility by personal vehicle. In addition, helicopter landings and take -offs 1 14 -feet away from Temecula Parkway could impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety along the sidewalk that fronts the hospital due to rotorwash (winds generated from the helicopter). In comparison, the flight path of the proposed interim helistop (shown on Figure 2-3) would travel from behind the existing and planned hospital facilities, and would cross (not travel along) Temecula Parkway at a location farther away from the hospital that would provide the distance and trajectory to be far above the roadway to not cause the distraction that could be caused by the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. The location of the proposed interim helistop is in the northwestern portion of the project site toward the rear of the hospital facilities, and helicopter activity at the proposed interim site would consist of middle ground activity, with parking lot and hospital facilities in the foreground. The middle ground helicopter activity would be buffered from Temecula Parkway by other hospital uses, which would reduce distraction to travelers along the roadway in comparison to the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. In addition, the proposed flight path would not travel above or cross vehicular paths From Temecula Parkway through the hospital site to the emergency room (such as would be done by the alternative helistop site), and would not result in the level of potential confusion for persons in an emergency situation to access the emergency room that could occur from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative flight path. Also, because helicopter landings and take -offs would not be adjacent to Temecula Parkway and would be buffered by hospital facilities, safety concerns related to pedestrians and bicyclists along the public sidewalk that fronts the hospital would not occur, as it could by the AIternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. Overall, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site AIternative results in greater potential impacts related to hazards than would occur by the interim helistop site proposed by the project. Noise Construction Noise Construction of this alternative would not result in any changes related to construction noise and construction noise impacts would be the same under this alternative as would occur under the proposed project, and No Project Alternative as described above. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-19 ESA 1130652 November 2014 4. Project Altematives CNEL Standards Figure 4-8 shows the CNEL noise contours that would result from the alternative interim helistop site. As shown, the 65 CNEL contour would remain within the project site; the 60 CNEL contour crosses the mid -line of Temecula Parkway, and the 55 CNEL contour includes a portion of the residential uses across Temecula Parkway from the project site. In comparison, the CNEL contours from the proposed interim helistop site (shown on Figure 3.3- 7) would largely remain within the project site, except for a small portion of the 55 CNEL contour that would extend north past the equestrian trail and into back yards of two residential properties. Hence, 60 dB CNEL contours from both the proposed interim and the alternative interim sites would remain within the hospital site, with small areas of the 55 dB CNEL contour including noise sensitive uses. The City of Temecula General Plan criteria set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium -density housing. Similarly, Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act and the Riverside County ALUCP also establishes that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels to a maximum of 65 dB CNEL are considered compatible with residential uses. Because the 60 dB CNEL contours from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative are completely contained on the hospital campus, a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula's General Plan, Title 21, and the Riverside County ALUCP would not occur. The CNEL noise contour impacts from the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be the same as what would occur at the interim site of the proposed project. With 65 and 60 dB CNEL contours contained within the project site, CNEL related noise impacts would be less than significant. Increase in Ambient Noise Levels The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would be located closer than the proposed interim site to Temecula Parkway and the residential neighborhood across (south of) Temecula Parkway where existing ambient noise levels are 78.7 dB CNEL. As shown on Table 4-3, the alternative site would increase noise at Site 2 by 0.1 CNEL dB and the remainder of the sites, including the residential across Temecula Parkway, would not experience an increase in CNEL noise. In comparison, the proposed project would result in an increase in ambient noise by 0.2 CNEL dB at Site 2 and 0.I CNEL dB increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-10). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-20 ESA 1130652 November 2014 CNEL Contours 55 dB - 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet SOURCE: ESA: INM 7 Od: City of Temecula: USDA Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 Figure 4-8 Alternative Helistop Location - CNEL Contours 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 43 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE Difference Between Combined Ambient and Ambient and Combined Site Site Description! Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Number Address Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 28.6 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 39.8 59.0 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 33.8 63.5 0.0 4 On project site, at offset 20 minutes NIA NIA N/A N/A of proposed five -story bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 78.7 53.4 78.7 0.0 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient Samples collected by ESA Associates between June 19 and 26, 2014. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. The differences in CNEL noise generated from the proposed interim site and the alternative interim site are very minimal and below the 3 dB threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, and below the 1.5 dB threshold for locations with existing ambient noise levels of more than 60 dB CNEL. As a result, the Alternative Interim 1-lelistop Site Alternative would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity; impacts would be less than significant, which is the same as what would occur under the proposed project. Short -Term Noise In addition to the CNEL noise information that averages ambient noise over a 24-hour period, noise modeling of single -event noise that would be generated by helicopter operations at both the interim helistop and the alternative site was prepared to provide a detailed comparison of noise that would be generated by use of the Alternative Interim 1-lelistop Site Alternative and the proposed interim helistop site. Table 4-4 shows the single -event noise that would be generated as helicopters arrive and depart the alternative helistop site. As with the proposed project, the duration of the maximum single -event noise would be very limited in length and frequency occurring approximately eight times per month (four departures and four arrival flights). The noise generated by helicopter flights to and from the alternative interim helistop would result in a maximum noise level of up to 85.7 Lmax, dBA under prevailing wind conditions (for a majority of flights to and from the hospital). Under Santa Ana wind conditions, helicopter overflight noise from the alternative helistop site could expose areas to maximum noise levels of up to 79.7 Lmax, dBA. This noise would be 21.1 Lmax, dBA less than what would occur under the proposed project, which would result in a maximum noise level of up to 100.8 Lmax, dBA in Santa Ana conditions. Temecula valley Hospital Helsstop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-22 ESA/130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives TABLE 4-4 SINGLE -EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE AND COMPARISON TO PROPOSED INTERIM SITE Site Site No. Location WEST FLOW EAST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Difference Difference Difference Difference Departure from Helicopter from Helicopter from Helicopter from Lmax, Interim Arrival Interim Departure Interim Arrival Lmax, Interim dBA dBA Lmax,dBA dBA Lmax,dBA dBA dBA dBA 1 30390 De 64.4 +3.5 66.4 -6.9 48.5 -3.5 48.4 -17.2 Portola 2 30955 De 85.7 +12.4 84.9 +15.7 74.1 -11.4 75.5 +1.0 Portola 3 31775 De 74.4 +14.8 75.9 +17.0 74.6 -3.2 76.4 +16.8 Portola 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 60.5 -12.7 61.8 -18.1 60.5 -12.3 62.5 -13.1 6C Equestrian 73.6 -2.7 73.3 +1.4 73.4 -27.4 79.7 +2.1 Trail Noise levels from the interim site are listed in Table 3.3-9, in the Nosie Section of this SEIR. Compares the noise of equestrian trail overflight per each helistop. The locations of equestrian trail overflight are different for each helistop site. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. As provided in Table 4-4, use of the alternative helistop site during prevailing wind conditions would result in a greater single -event noise levels under six scenarios, and a reduced noise level under four scenarios than the proposed interim site. Under Santa Ana conditions, use of the alternative helistop site would result in reduced noise under seven scenarios, and a greater noise level under three scenarios. Because the alternative helistop site would result in greater single -event noise under a greater number of scenarios than the proposed project under prevailing wind conditions, which would consist of a majority of flights to and from the hospital, the alternative helistop site would result in greater single -event noise impacts than what would occur from the proposed interim helistop (proposed project). The greatest difference in noise level between the interim and alternative sites would be during the less frequent Santa Ana conditions and helicopter departures at Site 6C where helicopter noise from use of the interim helistop would be 27.4 Lmax, dBA greater than at the alternative helistop site. The noise levels at Site 6C are a result of helicopters in the departure corridor flying near this location along the equestrian trail. This noise is a maximum at a point close to the flight corridor, and is not representative of noise along the entire equestrian trail. Overall, noise impacts from the Alternative Flelistop Site Alternative would be greater than the proposed project under prevailing wind conditions, due to the number of scenarios under which higher noise would result. However, the greatest noise under the Alternative Flelistop Site Alternative would be 27.4 Lmax dBA less than noise generated from use of the interim helistop Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-23 ESA f 130652 November 2014 4. Project Alternatives site. Therefore, this alternative would result in both greater and fewer noise impacts to identified sensitive receptors than the proposed project. Conclusion The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater impacts than the proposed project related to aesthetics and hazards than the proposed project; and both greater and fewer noise related impacts. Therefore, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative when compared to the proposed project. In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. 4.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative Table 4-5 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an E1R identify the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As shown in Table 4-5 and described previously in this EIR Section, the No Project Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed project; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. TABLE 4-5 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Category Proposed Project No Project Alternative Alternative Site Aesthetics Less than significant Greater Greater Hazards Less than significant Similar Greater Noise Significant and Unavoidable Greater Greater/Fewer Meets the project objectives Yes Yes, but not to the same Yes, but not to the same extent as the proposed extent as the proposed project project Temecula valley Hospital Helistop Project Draft SuppFemental Environmental Impact Report 4-24 ESA 1130652 November 2014 CHAPTER 5 References Air Combat Command. 2001. Initial F-22 Operational Wing Beddown Draft Environmental Impact Report. Volumes 1 through 3. April 2001. Accessed at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/enviro/F22DraftEis/ on June 5, 2014. Blazer, Don. 2012. Can You Hear Me Now? Horses and Hearing. Accessed at http://www.donblazer.com/ahorseofcourse/02_12_ears.html on June 5, 2014. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics. 1997. Information Concerning Hospital Heliports and Emergency Medical Service Landing Sites, May 1997. Accessed at http://www. dot. ca. gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/helipads/documents/heliport_ems_info.pdf on January 10, 2014. Caltrans, 1998. Technical Noise Supplement, A Technical Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October 1998. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Technical%20Noise%20Supplement.pdf on October 7, 2014. City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines. August 9, 2005. Accessed at http: //www. c i tyo ftemec ul a. org/Temecula/G ovemment/CommD ev/Planning/zoningdoc ume nts/citywidedesign.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula. org/TemeculalGovemment/CommDev/Planning/zoningdocume nts/generalplan.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Accessed at http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/view.php?topic=17&frames—off on December 31, 2013. Department of the Air Force. 2000. Realistic Bomber Training Initiative: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. January 2000. Accessed at http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/afd-070806-041.pdf on June 4, 2014. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2012. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular, Subject: Heliport Design. AC No: 150/5390-2C. April 24, 2012. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5390_2c.pdf on January 10, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project Orale Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1 ESA f 130652 November 2014 5. References Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines (in coordination with the California Department of Health Services). October 2003. Accessed at http://opr.ca.gov/s_generalplanguidelines.php on January 22, 2014. Riverside County. 2004. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 2004. Accessed at http://www.rcaluc.org/plan_new.asp in December 2013. State of California. 2014. Aeronautics Law State Aeronautics Act Public Utility Code. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/regulations/cpuc_21001.pdf on January 10, 2014. State of California. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Sections 3525 through 3560. Airports and Heliports. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/regulations/Reps pub.pdf on January 10, 2014. United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Appendix 1:A-1. Decibel Notation. Accessed at www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/decibels.html on January 10, 2014. Wieland Associates, Inc.. 2007. Supplemental Noise Stuar fin- the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Temecula Valley Hospital Helislop Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-2 ESA 130652 November 2014 CHAPTER 6 List of Preparers Lead Agency — City of Temecula Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Steven Alverson, Director of Noise Analysis Renee Escario, Project Manager Sean Burlingame, Noise Analyst Kelly Ross, Project Analyst Paige Anderson, Project Analyst Jason Nielsen, GIS Linda Uehara, Graphic Artist Temecula Valley Hospital Helipad Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1 ESA f 130652 November 2014 Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study / NOP Comments Notice of Preparation and Initial Study City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation To: Subject: Attached Distribution List Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Community Development Dept. 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Stuart Fisk Phone Number: (951) 506-5159 Consulting Firm: ESA 9191 Towne Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92122 Rene Escario (213) 599-4300 The City of Temecula Community Development Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a Supplemental Environmental impact Report (SEIR) for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the SEIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approvals for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Stuart Fisk with the City of Temecula Community Development Department at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Project Location: 31700 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, CA (Riverside County) Project Description: A Major Modification application for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Helistop Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new locations including an interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. Patrick Richardson, Director of Community Development Date City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) DISTRIBUTION DATE: November 25, 2013 CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk CITY QF TEMECULA: Building & Safety Fire Department Sheriff Parks & Recreation (TCSD) Public Works STATE: Caltrans Fish & Game Mines & Geology Regional Water Quality Control Board State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) Water Resources FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aviation Administration REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District Western Riverside COG Regional Conservation Authority 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Airport Land Use Commission Engineer Flood Control Health Department Parks and Recreation Planning Department Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Riverside Transit Agency.. UTILITY: Eastem Municipal Water District Time Wamer Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve Southern California Gas Southern California Edison Temecula Valley School District Metropolitan Water District OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation Eastern Information Center Local Agency Formation Comm RCTC Temecula Unified School District Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians... City of Temecula 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Environmental Checklist Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number Stuart Fisk, AICP (951) 506-5159 Project Location The project is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway, generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 800 feet east of Margarita Road. Project Sponsor's Name and Address William Seed Universal Health Services Rancho Springs Inc. Universal Corporation Center 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 General Plan Designation Professional Office (PO) Zoning Planned Development Overlay -9 (PD0-9) Description of Project A Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital tower at 31700 Temecula Parkway. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Temecula Valley Hospital project area encompasses 35.31 acres and was approved by the Temecula City Council on February 8, 2011 for a 566,160 square foot hospital and office building complex to include a 408,160 square foot, two -tower hospital complex consisting of 320 hospital beds, 140,000 square feet of office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, an 8,000 square foot Fitness rehabilitation center, a 60 -foot by 60 -foot heliport near the northeast corner of the hospital building, and associated service areas, lighting, parking, pedestrian paths throughout the project site, and a multi -use trail near the northern boundary of the site. The site has been graded, the first hospital tower is nearing completion and is expected to open in August 2013, and Phase I parking and landscaping has been installed. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Temecula Parkway); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west; and offices and commercial uses to the east. Other public agencies whose approval is required U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Planning\CEOA10EOA Initial Study.docx 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture and Forestry Resources X Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Cultural Resources X Transportation and Traffic Geology and Soils Utilities and Service Systems X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Mandatory Findings of Significance Hydrology and Water Quality None Land Use and Planning Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further i5 required. Si ature Stuart Fisk Printed Name Date City of Temecula For G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD1PIanning\CEOA Initial Study.docx 2 go ••••••• VIIHiLit rev riv 011 % 0 c' DR • DR LIE:0 111,1 41*,/ 4' 0 OR7E7RLIGE1 With • 0 r9 CIONDS-CA 40. .4, 8 )111 $ da• di °*4 • le 6 ,011 - BANDE. .17 1St .401 z •••-••••-•.__ • c p,s5t --LEES oktft "iv 4, BO% = Nor • is is 4% oriti an ass as .00 1, • 41b, 41, 4o - PI um gos 4, z EZf EZ -P ' - Project Site • 0 V01-1- 2 \ Ati 04 .4 r - s 74441NTHA LN •••-••••-••• .1 ce . co • ;•_\;•\-- ' E.09' ' • . •••••- _ - • so 111* 3!‘" r- tl 0 17, tA 11-1•11:1:17•1,.%-,\>''' • • -r. 1:11.r:3'011i ri A SlIV-9'Z)(.. /Jirlr%erf \ \ \ 1 GPAPANutA„ U 110 1, • • • •Lil.•Ak I } • •••!' R. :0 -1?! -‘71. ;1: Fr; ••• )7, • f.-1 ..• • 3:7 r - • • ti < • • E4ckii"( • s. ).;` •-• 1 • , , • . ‘. _......vv,:coRD,9f3A.,,-. • . 1, -• - •'/A '..t Ce* i tr , 0 "C — ccb• 01" , , I . r, N(,) tr..). • • "•"• ( t ' . • • ''' ' ' 4" i- SW (1 * . . . . • -.1/ " • 1 • ; ' • • 4:4 • • 6'1 e . (6. • • • 'kr/ ,r, .• • • • "Pi- • .. P • - o , • 0 413b • • • 4- 441Nos . ?;616,0 . • ii , . AA; ::,q li '(.‘ • . 1 • i i '- • • :• • • • • - ••• _ - • • -ct MON?. irC•• .r•ZS, :„••• .0. . <L' • 1 ••••-/ •, •::0X .$fjP- 2.00o. 6+: ---7--rr."\%! • >,410,,e%V.i •••. ?`-' •I'Q-• /.< • • . ••,c `.•••; !„.1, • rlf I I . % ; . •," ••• 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting information Sources swat iroomt Las Then Sialksont WWI loconzoilod Lia Then std bond No lionood a . Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic h. hway? x X c Substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? x d Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affectday or nighttime views in the area? X Comments: 1.a -c. No Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase 11 hospital tower. The proposed project is not located in a view shed area as identified by the Community Design Element of the Temecula General Plan and the project is not anticipated to result in impact to scenic vista beyond those addressed in the EIR or Supplemental EIR previously adopted by the Temecula City Council for the hospital campus. 1.d. Potentially Significant Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase 11 hospital tower. The revised flight path for the heliport will result in relocated and new lighting specific to the heliport, including lighting required to meet Federal and State regulations for the heliport. Although, the relocation of this lighting and any additional lighting associated with the heliport is not anticipated to be significant, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail. G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MMMOD'Pianning,CEQA\CEaA initial Study dacx 3 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources. including timberland, are significant environmental effects. lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest Iand, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: ttoues end Supping kilormatioe Sources Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. or a Williamson Act contract? PoMOW Signslcers impact Lass Thi^ ellirreint With bats orated Las Than Sgnibcant Impact Impact X X e Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use X Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature. could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X X. Comments: 2.a -e. No Impact: According to Figure OS -3 of the City of Temecula General Pian, the project site does not contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agriculture use and therefore will not convert or impact any of these Farmland types. The project site does not contain any type of farmland and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, nor is the project site intended to be used for an agricultural Use Furthermore, the site has been graded and has been partially developed in conformance with the approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan No impact will occur as a result of the project. G iPLANNINGt20131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD%Planntng,CEQAICEQA Initial Study.docx 4 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Sgrxhca t Impact Lsus Then Sigrw int With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant PIO Impact liresct Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially _ to an existing or projected air quality violation? c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? x x X x Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x Comments: 3.a -e. No Impact The proposed Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital tower will be completed in conformance with the EIR and Supplemental EIR adopted for the project and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and is not anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people G,IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heitporl MOO\Plannin4CEQAtiCEQA Initial Study.docx 5 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Inronnation Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signlfac ant W101 Mitigation Incorporated Liss Than Siena) ane Impact Na impact a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory Fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Comments: 4.a -f. No Impact: The project involves a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from the east side of the project site to the west side of the site and to allow for the future relocation of the heliport to the roof of the Phase II hospital tower The project site has been graded and has been partially developed in conformance with the approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR Relocation of the heliport on the developed site will not impact wildlife, habitat, federally protected wetlands, the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, nor will the relocation of the heliport conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). G'.PLANNING\20131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOolPlanningiCEQACEQA initial Study docx 6 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Immoral Supporting hibernation Sources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Sigrnflcant With Less Than Mittgaton Significant Incorporated impact No _impact X X X X Comments 5 a -d. No Impact: The project site has been graded and that grading was monitored by representatives of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians The site has also been partially developed in conformance with the approved Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR. Relocation of the heliport on the graded site will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064 5 will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064 5, will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries O'PLANNING120131PA13O141 LJHS Heliport M0D%P1anning,CEOA10EOA Initial Study docx 7 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: PotenGaAy Significant Impact No Impact Noun and Supposing Information Sources Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incooporated Leu Than Significant Impact a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X li Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv _Seismic Landslides? X b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X _ fg Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Comments: 6.a.i-iv. and 6 c. Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital, Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc . May 14, 2004) The project is located 1.6 mites from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. To address subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically induced soil liquefaction, site construction required over -excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements, which was completed with the mass grading of the site. The Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan did not identify any known landslide or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. 6.b. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is relatively flat topographically and is being developed in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices (BMPs), have been incorporated into the overall project construction and will be required for the heliport relocation, resulting in no impact with regard to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, 6.d. No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc.. May 14, 2004, the project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc. also identifies the soils on the G:\PLANN€NG20131PA13.0141 UNS Heiiport MODtPtanningiCEOA'+CEPA Snitiai Study.docx 8 project site as "very low expansion potential" as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc. end no impects ere anticipated. 6.e. No Impact: Neither the heliport relocation project nor the overall hospital project site will utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system Is available and the project has made connection to this system. No impacts are enticipated es a result of this project as the current sewer system end waste treatment facilities ere adequate to process the enticipated flow from the proposed fecility. G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD Planning\CEOAICEQA Initial Study.docx 9 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: issues and Stupport+n4 Information Sources Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly. that may have a significant impact on the environment? Sirliked ImDeN Less Thar Significar; With Morgation Incorporated Lees Then Signikare Impacthoot No X Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Comments: 7.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact: At this time there are no adopted statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts, but this is being addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), In addition, the City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. For the proposed project, the heliport relocation project would be considered to have a significant Impact if the project would be in conflict with the AB 32 State goals for reducing GHG emissions. Staff assumes that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. It is not anticipated that the heliport relocation project could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. GHG Impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non -cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts from a climate change perspective per the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA, 2008). The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction activities. However, the project will not conflict with the CARB's thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in California's AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The project is expected to have a less than significant impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. G'1PLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD+PIanntnglCEQA\CE©A Initial Study riocx 10 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: 8 Noun and Supporting InlhnnWon SoarersStenikant PtolenNOY Impact Less Than Sign cant 44' l4tit,gai 0' Incon5:- ated Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b Lass Than SIpniflca 7t _ Imyrcl X No 'moot Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c X Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d e f 9 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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? h Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X X X X Comments: 8.a -c. Less Than Significant Impact: The heliport relocation project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The project does involve a heliport to be utilized for medical purposes and as such could result in the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (such as medical waste), The project site is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed heliport relocation project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions, materials or wastes that would create a significant impact and the heliport will operate in conformance with the previously adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR for the hospital project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed heliport relocation project. 8.d. No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project site was reviewed for impact relating to Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) from nearby gas station underground fuel storage tanks. Although no detectable G:',PLANNING20131PA134)141 UHS Heliport MOO\.Rlanning3CEQA'CECIA Inkcal Study docx 11 concentrations of MTBE or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were found at the project site, mitigation measures were established and adopted with the Supplemental EIR for the hospital project. Those mitigation measures were followed during grading of the site and will be followed during all on-site construction. No impact is anticipated as a result of relocation of the heliport. 8.e. No Impact: The project site is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and there are no other airports located near the project site. 8.f. Potentially Significant Impact: Although a heliport for the project site has already been reviewed and approved and the relocation of the heliport is intended to improve safety for people residing or working in the project area, further analysis of the proposed heliport relocation areas and flight paths is necessary and a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail. 8.g. No Impact: The project site is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed heliport relocation will actually assist in local treatment of the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8.h. No Impact: Neither the heliport relocation areas nor the overall hospital project site are located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of the heliport relocation project. G:IPLANN1NG120131PA13-0141 11HS Heliport MOD\PIanning\CEQA10EQA Initial Study.docx 12 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: bsues and Supporting Information Sources PoWWII tl1peca t Inset Lennon Slgrocarotvan PAugfor ittoroorahod 1 Less Thin S TM"leant lmpect No impact X a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f Require the preparation of a project -specific WQMP? X g Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? _ X X h Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X _ X J j Inundation by seiche. tsunami, or mudflow? Comments 9.a. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Development will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt By complying with the NPDES requirements the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality 9 b No Impact: The heliport relocation project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. The proposed project is G PLANNING'2013\PA13-0141 UHS Helipo t MOD,P?anning\CEQA_CEOA In bal Study.slocx .3 required to comply with local development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. Relocation of the heliport on the project site is not anticipated to result in any impacts to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. 9.c. No Impact: The heliport relocation project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The overall hospital project includes an on-site drainage plan and the proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not atter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 9.d. No Impact: The proposed heliport relocation project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The City of Temecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 9.e. No Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 9.f. No Impact: The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the State of California. The overall hospital project was required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm -Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The WQMP was accepted prior to issuance of the grading permit for the project site. The water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into the design of the heliport relocation project and will be expected to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. 9.g. No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 9.h -i. No Impact. The project site was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. Improvements to Temecula Creek have resulted in a new 100 -year and 500 -year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and dredging were completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community -Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20, 1996). A portion of the project site is now identified as being within the 500 -year flood area. The project site was located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD provided the City with a Dam Inundation report which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shaws that the dredging of Temecula G:\PLANNING120131PA13-Q141 VHS Heliport MOO1PIanning\CEQA10EQA Initial Study.docx 14 Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Darn. The proposed project will relocate a heliport within a 500 -year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed heliport relocation project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. A letter dated January 29, 1996, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100 -year discharge capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500 -year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100 -year flood energy grade lines and 100 -year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Darn is a 51,000 acre feet facility. No impact is anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site. 9.j. No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line or large body of water which would subject the site to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MO©IPlanningLCEOAICEOA Initial Study.docx 15 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information acmes Ph sicali divide an established Community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including. but not limited to the general plan. specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Fotcr.ttally Scorecard IMO Lass Thus OMOlio hvomosted Less Than ilaniftcart N3 WWI IMpact X X X Comments. 10.a. No Impact: The project site has been approved for and constructed as a hospital facility. The proposed heliport relocation project is compatible with the hospital site and is conditionally permitted under the current zoning designation No impact is anticipated as a result of the relocation of the heliport on the hospital site. 10.b. No Impact: The heliport relocation project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The heliport is conditionally permitted in the current zoning designation and was analyzed in the previous EIR and Supplemental EIR adopted for the hospital project. 10.c. No Impact: The project site has been graded and Is being developed in accordance with the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan. the previously adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR, and the Army Corps 404 Permit, California Department of Fish & Wildlife 1602 Permit„ and Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Permit obtained for the hospital project. The relocation of the heliport will not impact compliance with any of these documents or permits, including the Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan G \PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport M0DPIanningtCEQACEQA Initial Study.docx 16 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: :suis and Sipporting rrforma:'xr ScurceApni Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the Toss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated an a local eneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? PoUrrtfally Impact Liss Thor; S'pi cant rich F.1k: palkrn Incorporated Loma Than Strew. NO IMINICI MOM X X Comments: 11.a.b. No Impact: The proposed heliport relocation project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. Per the City of Temecula General Plan, the State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. No impact is anticipated as a result of the project_ G ,PLANNiNG\20131PA13.3141 iJHS Heliport MOD\Planning\CEQACEQA Initial Study.docx 17 X 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a to c d e r haus' and Supporting information Sources Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration oryroundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within Iwo miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SignNIcant Impact Lsss Than SIgniff ant we Las Than Mitigation Significant Incurparstsd Impsr� 110 limped X X X X X Comments: 12.a.c d.f. Potentially Significant Impact: Due to the nearby commercial and office uses and residences in the area of the project site, the relocation of the heliport may result in potentially significant noise impacts. A Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess these potential impacts in greater detail. 12.b, Less Than Significant Impact: The exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels is often the result of construction activities. Though the relocation of the heliport will require the use of trucks and other equipment to construct the heliport, it is not anticipated that these activities would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impact is anticipated to be less than significant. 12 a No Impact: The project site is not 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 Therefore the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a pubic airport. G. IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD'PIanning10EGACE0A Inrhal Study.docx 18 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues End Swooning kdoim*ron Semis Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Las Tien Potentta9ty Sipni Icot With spnrrcant Mlttpatlon impact Incorporated Levi Then SternestInrnern Wool X b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Comments: 13.a -c. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the project site will not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, will not displace any existing housing, or displace any people. The project site has been approved for and is being constructed as a hospital campus. Relocating the heliport on the project site will not induce population growth, and since the site contains no housing or residents, the project will not displace housing or people. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. G IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOO PIanningtiCECIA°CEOA Initial Study doex 19 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Issues and Supporting information Sources PSignature elonaIelY Less Than Significant WRh Mitigation Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a b c d e Lube Tart hyped No kneed Fire protection? x Police protection? x Schools? x Parks? Other public facilities? Comments: 14.a b Less Than Significant Impact: The heliport relocation project is not anticipated to result in impacts regarding Fire or Police protection beyond those already anticipated as a result of the previously approved heliport once the project construction is completed. Considering both the construction of the heliport facility and the use of the facility once completed, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the heliport relocation project. 14.c -e. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the project site will not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools, parks, or other public facilities. G1PLANNING120131PAt3-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\PIanning',CEQAsCEQA Initial Study docx 20 15. RECREATION. Issues end Swearing YAooseeon tomer a b Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? PeWIMP Spritzer* 1 Less Then eianMlowil IneOCCOOKI Law then Spriloent Nseaet No IMO:* X X Comments: 15.a No Impact: The relocation of the heliport an the hospital site will not project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site. 15.b. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on the hospital site does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site. G.\PLANNiNG'ti20131PA13-0141 OHS Heliport MODiPlanniVCEQX.CEQA Initial Sludy.docx 21 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentia;ly Stgnlflcant With Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant M ligation impact Incorpora'ed Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? c Less Than Significant Impact No X Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to levet of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farrn equipment)? x Result in inadequate emergency access? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X Comments: 16.a. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. No impact is anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site. 16.b. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact is anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the hospital site. 16.c. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site may result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. A Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail. 16.d. Potentially Significant impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site may result in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Caltrans Aeronautical Division have design criteria that should be followed in order to G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 U -4S Heliport MOD1PIanningti.CEQA10EQA Initial Study.docx 22 minimize such hazards as associated with the proposed heliport facility. Although, the relocation of the heliport is intended to increase the safety of this facility, a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess this potential impact in greater detail. 16.e. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 16.f. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. All such facilities are provided with the overall hospital project and will not be affected by the relocation of the heliport. G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD1Planning\CEQA10EQA initial Stucly.docx 23 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Mama and Supporting InformatlOn SOYrc*s a1Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c d e f 9 Pottedl ly SIgntf cant Impact Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ulations related to solid waste? reg Less Than Significant Witt1 Loss Than Mitigation Significant incorporated Impact No Impact X X X X X X X Comments: 17.a.b.e. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will rot result in the project exceeding wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. From a wastewater generation perspective, the project is consistent with the Development Plan for the previously approved hospital project and the previously adopted EIR and Supplemental EIR for the project. Since the project is consistent with the previous approvals and with the City's General Plan, relocation of the heliport on the hospital site is not anticipated to result in impacts on wastewater treatment facilities 17.c. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities_ The design of the existing storm water drainage facilities on the hospital site is sufficient to handle the runoff from this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No Impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 17 d. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the relocation of the heliport on the hospital site. 17.f.g. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. As with the location for the previously approved heliport location on the hospital site. any potential impacts from solid waste created by the construction and operation of the heliport can be mitigated through participation in source reduction and recycling programs, which are implemented by the City. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. G.'PLANNING12013\PA13-1141 UHS Heliport MODtPlarning\CEQA10EQA Initaal Sludy.docx 24 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: ' Isom end Supporting intonation Smarms Potentlity SlanYrrai Lau Than Sq*cant With Irfl.ppn Incorporated Lena Than Significant Impact X No Impact !Mal a Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future •ro ects)? X c Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirect' ? X Comments: 18 a. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Relocation of the heliport on the developed hospital site will improve the safety of the heliport facility but will not impact areas of the site previously undisturbed Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of relocating the heliport on the existing hospital site. 18 b. Less Than Significant Impact: No significant cumulative impacts have been identified with the implementation of the proposed project 18 c Potentially Significant Impact: With regard to environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, as identified in the sections above, the proposed relocation of the heliport may have the potential to result in the creation of light or glare, affect the safety of people residing or working within the vicinity of the heliport, expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan and Noise Ordinance, create a substantial permanent. temporary. or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and to change air traffic patterns and any potential hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Also identified above. a Supplemental EIR should be prepared to assess these potential impacts in greater detail. G tPLANNINGS20131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD1PIanning\CEOACEOA Initial Sti.dy.docx 25 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the foliowing on attached sheets. a Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mit gation measures based on the earlier analysis. c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook G:IPLANNING120131PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOOIPIanning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 26 Scoping Session Notice NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT SEIR A SCOPING MEETING regarding the preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification has been scheduled to give the public an opportunity to provide input on what issues should be addressed in the SEIR and to provide input on what alternatives to the proposed project might be considered. Subject: General Location: Purpose: Contact Persons: Place of Meeting: Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting: The Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) project is a proposal to modify the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Helistop Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new locations including an interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. The Temecula Valley Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, on the north side of Temecula Parkway, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The scoping meeting will give the public an opportunity to provide input on what issues should be addressed in the SEIR for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification project and provide an opportunity for the public to provide input on what alternatives to the proposed project might be considered. Stuart Fisk — (951) 506-5159 Civic Center Conference Center 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:00 p.m. Project Information: Copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study are available at the City of Temecula, Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590; Temecula Public Library, 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula, CA 92592; and the City of Temecula Website: www.cityoftemecula.org. Please note: The Scoping Meeting is not a public hearing and NO DECISION on the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification project will be made at this meeting. Public testimony is limited to the issues that need to be addressed in the SEIR. Attachments: Project Location and Site Plan G:113xxxx1D130652.00 - Temecula Heliport Supplemental 118103 Working DocumentslAdmin SEAR\Appendix A\Scoping Session Notice 12-11-13.doc 1,1•-•.. to* FIrth. 1.3xxxx D130652.00 - I emecula 1 lel won Supplemental LIR 113 Wurking Documents.Admin SEAR Appendix .A Scoping S't.-ssion Notice 12-11-13.dor Notice of Preparation Comments City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Agency Distribution List PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PA13-0217, a revision to a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM 33584) to minimize retaining wall heights, balance earthwork quantities onsite, provide a water quality basin, and to reduce the density from 62 single-family condominium units to 59 units on a 7.24 acre site located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. An Initial study was previously circulated for the site (SCH# 2012091020) under PA12-0034 for a 120 unit apartment project. DISTRIBUTION DATE: December 19, 2013 CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety Fire Department Police Department Parks & Recreation (TCSD) Planning (Principals) Public Works GIS Architect Landscape Architect Telecommunication Consultant City Attorney STATE: Caltrans Districts 8 Caltrans District 10 Fish & Wildlife Mines & Geology State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) Water Resources RWQCB O SCAG 0 O WRCOG ❑ 0 ❑ RIVERSIDE COUNTY: O Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ❑ ® Riverside County EDA . ❑ E Engineer ❑ E Flood Control 0 O Health Department ❑ ❑ Health Department Haz Mat ❑ ❑ Parks and Recreation 0 Planning Department 0 County Geologist 0 0 ❑ UTILITY; ® Eastern Municipal Water District ❑ Rancho CA Water District ® Metropolitan Water District ❑ ❑ Time Warner Cable ❑ Verizon 0 So CA Gas ® So CA Edison ® CR&R OTHER: TVUSD Z MVUSD ❑ ❑ Pechanga Indian Reservation ❑ Soboba Indian Reservation 0 ❑ UCR Eastern Information Center ❑ ❑ Robert Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, ❑ Temecula, CA 92592 FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management REGIONAL: AQMD ALUC LAFCO RCA RTA RCTC GAPLANNING120131PA13-0217 Rancho Vista Village 14 AOD1PIanninglCEQAAAgency Distribution List - recirculation.docx State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Gabbi Gatchel Department of Fish and Wildlife 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside Regulatory Field Office 1451 Research Paris Drive #100 Riverside, CA 92507-2154 Doreen Stadtlander US Fish and Wildlife 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 SOUTH COAST AQMD 21865 EAST COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4182 Reg. Water Quality Control Board 9174 Sky Park Court Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92123-4353 Jim Makwinski Eastern Municipal Water District P.O. Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Mike Meyerpeter Rancho Water District P.O. Box 9017 Temecula, CA 92589-9017 SoCal Edison Amanda Renteria/Kevin Bense Wildomar S/C 1st Floor 24487 Prielipp Road Wildomar, CA 92585 So. California Gas Company Typree Lee P.O. Box 3003 Redlands, CA 92373-0306 CR&R P.O. Box 1208 Perris, CA 92572 Susan Ryan Temecula Valley School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, CA 92592 Anna Hoover Pechanga Indian Reservation P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 Edmund G Pirowr lr Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Notice of Preparation December 2, 2013 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PAI3-0141) SCH# 2013121007 Ker. Alex Director Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Temecula Valley Hospital lleiistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) draft Environmental Impact Report (FIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead A2ency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process. please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1100 TENTH STREET P,O ROX 3044 SACRAMENTO, O, CALIFORNIA 95/112.3044 TEL (916) 4450613 FAX (916) 323.301g www•.opr.ra gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2013121007 Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA13-0141) Lead Agency Temecula, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description A Major Modification application for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Helistop Conditional Use Permit in response to FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics Division regulations, safety factors, and recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. The Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop on the developed site to two new locations including an interim location for use during Phase I and a final location on top of a future hospital tower when it is constructed during a later phase. Lead Agency Contact Name Stuart Fisk Agency City of Temecula Phone 951 506 5159 Fax email Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Cross Streets Lat/Long Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to; Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Project issues Aesthetic/Visual; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Noise; Traffic/Circulation Reviewing Agen cies Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Native American Heritage Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 6; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board. Region g; Statewide Health Planning bate Received 12/02/2013 Start of Review 12/02/2013 End of Review 12/31/2013 NOP Distribution List ZesourceS Agency Resources Agency Nadelt Gayou ❑ Dept. of Boating & Waterways Nicole Wong ❑ California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs L) Colorado River Board Tanya Trujillo ❑ Dept. of Conservation Elizabeth Carpenter 13 California Energy Commission Eric Knight 13 Call ire Dan Foster ❑ Central Valley Flood Protection Board James Herota ❑ Office of Historic Preservation Ron Parsons Crept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ California Department of Resources, Recycling & Recovery Sue O'Leary ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam ❑ Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadelt Gayou :ish and Game ❑ Depart. of Fish & Wildlife Scott Flint Environmental Services Division ❑ Fish 8. Wildlife Region 1 Donald Koch ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 1E Laurie Hamsberger ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 2 Jeff Drongesen ❑ Fislt & Wildlife Region 3 Charles Arrnoi ❑ Fislt & Wildfire Region 4 Julie Vance ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 5 Leslie Newton -Reed Habitat Conservation Program Fish & Wildlife Region 6 Gabrina Gatchel Habilat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 6 UM Heidi Sickler InyoIMono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Sandra Schubert Dept. of Food and Agriculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept. of General Services Anna Garbe€f Environmental Services Section ❑ Dept, of Public Health Jeffery Worth Dept. of HealthlDrinking Water ❑ Delta Stewardship Council Kevan Sainsam Independent Commissions,Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Michael Machado ❑ Cal EMA (Emergency Management Agency) Dennis Castrillo County: T\ N-1' ' i® Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway ❑ Public Utilities Commission Leo Wong ❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration Guangyu Wang ❑ State Lands Commission Jennifer Deleong ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Cherry Jacques Business, Trans & Housing Ir^ Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Philip Crimmins ❑ Caltrans - Planning Terri Pencovic U California Highway Patrol Suzann Ikeuchi Office of Special Projects ❑ Housing & Community Development CEQA Coordinator Housing Policy Division Dept. of Transportation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District 2 MarcelinolGonzalez rJ Caltrans, District 3 Gary Arnold ❑ Caltrans, District 4 Erik Alm ❑ Caltrans, District 5 David Murray 13 Caltrans, District 6 Michael Navarro ❑ Caltrans, District 7 Dianna Watson Caltrans, District 8 Dan Kopulsky ❑ Caftans, District 9 Gayle Rosander ❑ Caftans, District 10 Tom Dumas ❑ Caltrans, District 11 Jacob Armstrong ❑ Caltrans, District 12 Maureen El Harake Cal EPA Air Resources Board All Projects CEOA Coordinator 13 Transportation Projects Jon Taylor 13 Industrial Projects Mike Tallstrup re SCH# Regi Boar ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student Intern, 401 Water Quality Certification Unil Division of Water Quality ❑ State Water Resouces Control Board Phil Grader Division of Water Rights ❑ Dept. of Toxic Substances Control CEOA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation CEQA Coordinator Last STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown, Jt GovsmOr NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 106 West Sacramento. CA 95697 (915) 373-3715 Fax (916) 373-5171 Web Site Ds nahclepacbell.net e-mail ds nahekOpacball nrt December 6. 2013 Mr Stuart Fisk. AICP, Planner City of T•m.cula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE• SCH#2013121007, CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the "Temecula Valley Hospital Haiistop Major Modification (PA13-0141); located in the City of Temecula; Riverside County, California Dear Mr Fisk The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the above -referenced environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064.5(b) To adequately comply with this provision and mitigate project -related impacts on archaeological resources. the Commission recommends the following actions be required' Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to determine If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural places(s), The NAHC recommends that known traditional cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) If an additional archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. We suggest that this be coordinated with the NAHC, if possible The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure pursuant to California Government Code Section 6254.10. A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site has been provided and is attached to this letter to determine if the proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. California Government Code Section 65040 12(e) defines "environmental justice" to provide "fair treatment of People _.with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies" and Executive Order B-10-11 requires consultation with Native American tribes their elected officials and other representatives of tribal governments to provide meaningful input into the development of legislation, regulations rules, and policies on matters that may affect tribal communities. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources. pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f) In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground -disturbing activities. Also. California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological items that meet the standard in Section 15064 5 (a)(b)(f). Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and/or historical sites, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15370(a). Then if the project goes ahead then, lead agencies include in their mitigation plan provisions for the analysis and disposition of recovered artifacts, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5(e). and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery Sincerely, Dave Singleton Program Analyst CC. State Clearinghouse Attachment. Native American Contacts list South Co,, AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • w^ww.agmd.gov Stuart Fisk City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 December 13, 2013 Notice of Preparation of a CEQA Document for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The SCAQMD statrs comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft CEQA document. Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. Note that copies of the Draft EIR that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded to the SCAQMD. Please forward a copy of the Draft EiR directly to SCAQMD at the address in aur letterhead. in addition, please send with the draft UR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses and electronk versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. These include original emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling files (not Adobe PDF files). Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Quality Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More recent guidance developed since this Handbook was published is also available on SCAQMD's website here: www.agmd.govlceaafhdbk,htm(. SCAQMD staff also recommends that the lead agency use the CaIEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently been updated to incorporate up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CaIEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS. This model is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, hut are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loadinglunloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources. that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff requests that the lead agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the results to the recommended regional significance thresholds found here: http:1/www.agitrd,sruvicegpihatulbouklsiYnthres.pelf. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, Stuart Fisk 2- December 13, 2013 when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at: http:/iwww.agmd.gov/ccgalharidbooic/ ST/L.ST.htm1. In the event that the proposed project generates or attracts vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel -fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found at: http:l/www,agmd.gov/cega/handbookimobile toxic'mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following internet address: ltttp://www,arb,ca.gpvlchihandbook.pdf. CARB's Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (ax 1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Several resources are available to assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, including: • Chapter I 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook • SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at: wwu.aq;nd.stov/ce a/handbookfmiti2;ation/MM jntro.html • CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures available here: hitp://www .capeoa,orivwp-contentiupi oads42Q1001/CAPCOA-Quantification-Rtr2-9-14-Final.gdf • SCAQMD's Rule 403 Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook for controlling construction -related emissions • Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address; ltttp;//wvvw.amend.gov/prdas/agguidelanguide.html. Dots SOccs SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's webpage ()tttp;l/www.agmd.gov). The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project emissions are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at imacmillan,a agmd.gov or call me at (909) 396-3244. Sincerely, V Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter -Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources B VC 131203-02 Control Number Mi..9.441 Gw.a1, be y.41 1%10.43014 CHAIR Simon Hammen Rancho Mirage VICE CHAIRMAN Rod Ballance Riverside COMMSSIONERS Arthur Butler Rrvers.de John Lyon Rnere4e Chin Holmes Hemet Greg NUM Cathedra City Richard Steven AAoreno Valley STAFF Moder Ed Cooper John Guerin Russo! Brady Barbara Santos Outy Ae thealaCerar ?Lirnma.lir Fker *rake, CA 42301 ISM) ass -stat itee December 9, 2013 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE : City Project Number PA13-0141 Major Modification and Supplemental EIR Dear Mr, Fisk: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project referenced above. (Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification). We support the City's decision to require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for this project addressing aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation and traffic, and mandatory findings of significance. The project team has submitted an application for review of this proposed project by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), in accordance with stale requirements, and ALUC staff awaits completion of the noise analysis prior to its evaluation of the proposed location and flight paths for consistency with Countywide noise compatibility criteria. If you have any questions, please contact John Guerin, Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION wa C. Coo JGG:bks cc: Jeff Wright, Heliplanners Rene Escario, ESA — San Diego office Y:1AIRPORTCASE FILES\French Valley\Z,AP1054FV131TemeculaPA13-0141 HospHeliportNOP Resp.doc 12/18/2013 Resident Comments and Suggestion to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification Project (PA13-0141) 1. While the new sites and the new flying paths of the proposed Major Modification for the Helistop project appear to be somewhat an improvement to those of the original proposal, they clearly have not mitigated nor have addressed the project's inherent adversity on the community in terms of safety, noise and pollution. For example, the fact that the new "interim" site appears to be less than 50 yards away from residential homes (and an even shorter distance from a community horse trail) is by itself an unsafe and unacceptable proposition. Please note a helicopter produces continuous noise up to 105dB that is twice as loud as a jackhammer. Such noise will be detrimental to the health of those who live immediately around the hospital. There are also many other adverse effects that are intrinsic to a "ground level" heliport such as dust, rotor vibration, landing lights, pollution, safety hazards etc, all of which will drastically and permanently deplete the quality of life of surrounding neighborhoods. Also an "interim" measure that is to be lasted for 5 years (until a scheduled completion of Phase 11 in 2019) is for all intents and purposes "permanent", including of its damage to the community! It certainly says a lot about the carelessness of the developer toward its neighbors. For the scope of current SEI R, 1 urge the City to at least scrape the "interim" site from consideration, concentrating instead on the study of the viability of the "final" site. 2. 1 further propose the City to use this Major Modification process as an opportunity to reexamine the validity and the legitimacy of the whole Hospital Helistop project. Here are some facts warrants for our serious consideration: a. Helicopters are prone to crash. especially medical helicopters. Medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopter crashed between 2002 and 2005. and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. Medical helicopter poses real hazard to public safety. b. Helicopters are noisy, especially medical helicopters. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB. helicopter in average produces noise up to 105dB. And unlike ambulance siren there's no way to turn off the "noise" of a helicopter in operation. The proposed heliport poses a direct threat to the health of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. 1 c. Studies and statistics show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. d. The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center raises even more questions about the need and the justification ofa helicopter facility, especially when considering all the negative impacts the surrounding neighborhoods have to put up with for such a facility. While people recognize the Temecula Valley Hospital itself as a plus to the community, to automatically assume a piggybacked heliport as an added plus is a dangerous generalization that betrays facts and logics. We need to evaluate the Helistop project by its own merit from a localized perspective with clearly defined purpose, weighing carefully the known detriments of such facility against its purported benefit. Steve Chen Resident at 44501 Verde Drive, Temecula. 2 From: Allen, Christopher [mailto:christopher allen(Wws.gov] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:52 PM To: Stuart Fisk Subject: Final: FWS-WRIV-14B0143-14CPA0108 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification Project Final Reference: FWS-WRIV-1480143-14CPA0108 Dear Mr. Fisk, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (Project), which we received on December 10, 2013. The primary concem and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.). On June 22, 2004, the Service issued a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. Permittees ensure covered activities are consistent with the MSHCP, its associated Implementing Agreement, and section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. The Service is providing the following comments as they relate to the Project's consistency with the MSHCP. The project is located within the City of Temecula. Specifically, the site is situated east of Dona Lynora Road, north of the Highway 79 south, west of Redhawk Parkway, and south of De Portola Road, The site is located within the MSHCP boundary and is not within any Criteria Cells. The proposed project includes the development of a helicopter landing facility to the west of the Temecula Valley Hospital main campus. The project is located within the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) area for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea, burrowing owl). The project site may have potential to support suitable habitat for burrowing owl. According to the documentation provided, the project includes the use of grading activities. We request clarification regarding the status of bun -owing owl within the proposed project footprint. Consistent with the MSHCP, if burrowing owl surveys have not been completed, we recommend conducting surveys using an approved protocol prior to project implementation. In addition, we recommend conducting burrowing owl pre -construction presence absence surveys within 30 days of project ground disturbing activities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. if you have any questions or comments about this letter or the MSHCP in general, please contact Chris Allen of the Service at 760-322-2070, extension 215. Sincerely, Christopher Allen Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 777 Tahquitz Canyon Drive Suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92262 T: 760.322.2070, ext. 215 E: christopher a11en@fws.gov Appendix B Noise Impact Analysis Appendix B Noise impact Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital, Helistop Relocation Prepared for City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Helistop Noise Analysis January 2014 ES Acronym List ANEP Arrival Northeast Point-track ASWP Arrival Southwest Point-track CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB decibel DNEP Departure Northeast Point-track DSWP Departure Southwest Point-track EC Eurocopter INM Integrated Noise Model MSL mean sea level RCALUCP Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan SEI R Supplemental Environmental Impact Report UHS Universal Health Services HELISTOP NOISE ANALYSIS Temecula Valley Hospital, Helistop Relocation Project Overview Universal Health Services (UHS) is proposing a major modification to the Temecula Regional Hospital, now referred to as the Temecula Valley Hospital (Hospital), to provide adjustments to the design and operations of the approved, but undeveloped helistop facility at the hospital. The Hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway in the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside County. The site is located on the north side of Temecula Parkway (also identified as Highway 79 South), south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The land uses in the vicinity of the hospital campus are as follows: • To the north and northwest, the land uses include undeveloped land and single-family residences, respectively. • To the southwest and southeast, beyond Temecula Parkway the land uses include single- family residences and commercial properties, respectively. • To the west, the land use is professional medical offices. • To the east, the land uses include multi -family residential, commercial and medical uses, as well as a flood control channel. The Hospital began operations in October 2013 and as previously approved, is being constructed and operated in several phases. The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations, an interim location for use during preliminary project phases that would be removed when the permanent location is constructed on top of the future hospital tower, during a later phase of the project. The change in location of the helistops, and the potential impacts related to those new locations, requires preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). This analysis quantifies the noise exposure of both the interim and future helistop conditions. Methodology Integrated Noise Model The Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 7.0d, has been used to quantify helicopter noise exposure in the vicinity of the interim and future helistop locations. The INM is the FAA - approved noise model for quantifying fixed -wing and rotorcraft noise. The model input requires Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 1 ESA Airports! 130652 January 2914 Helistop Noise Analysis information specific to each helistop including the total number of helicopter operations, the flight paths used to access the helistop, the specific helicopter types, and the time of day at which the operations occur. The INM works by defining a network of grid points at ground level. It then selects the shortest distance from each grid point to each flight track and computes the noise exposure generated by each helicopter (or aircraft) operation, along each flight track. Corrections are applied for atmospheric acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the engines by the helicopter, and speed variations. The noise exposure levels for each operation are then summed at each grid location. The cumulative noise exposure levels at all grid points are then used to develop Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours for selected values (e.g. 55, 60 and 65 dB CNEL). Using the results of the grid point analysis, noise contours of equal noise exposure are then plotted. The INM includes the ability to model the effects of changes in ground elevations (terrain), but does not include the ability to account for shielding or reflectivity of noise from buildings or other structures, or non -aircraft generated noise sources. Characteristics of Sound Sound can be tcchnically described in terms of its sound pressure (amplitude) and frequency (similar to pitch). Amplitude is a direct measure of the magnitude, or loudness, of a sound without consideration for other factors that may influence its perception. The ranges of sound pressures that occur in the environment are so large that they are expressed on a logarithmic scale. The standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel (dB). A sound pressure level in dB describes the pressure of a sound relative to a reference pressure. By using a logarithmic scale, the wide range in sound pressures is compressed to a more usable range of numbers. For example, a sound level of 70 dB has 10 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB; while a sound level of 80 dB has 100 times the acoustic energy as a level of 60 dB. In terms of human response to noise, the perception of changes in noise level is very different. A sound 10 dB higher than another sound is usually judged to be twice as loud. A sound 20 dB higher is judged four times as loud and so forth. Therefore, due to the logarithmic nature of sound, linear addition cannot be applied when combining two noise levels. For instance, 50 dB CNEL plus 50 dB CNEL would not equal 100 dB CNEL. Rather, it would equal 53 dB CNEL due to the logarithmic scale of decibels. The combination of two noise levels is achieved by converting the noise levels into acoustic energy, adding the energy together, and then applying a logarithmic function to convert the resulting value back into a decibel value. The following table illustrates the principal of decibel addition. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 2 ESA Airports 1130652 January 2014 Heiistop Noise Analysis Difference Amount between two added to decibel values higher value Dor 1 3 2or3 2 4to9 1 10 or more 0 Source: United Stales Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration. ?ANNA( osha.govldtsiostaiotminoiselhealth_ effectsidecibels.html, accessed January 10, 2014. Cumulative Noise Metrics Cumulative noise metrics have been developed to assess community response to noise. They are useful because these scales attempt to include the loudness of the noise, the duration of the noise, the total number of noise events, and the time of day these events occur into one single number rating scale. • Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations specifies the use of CNEL for quantifying cumulative aircraft noise exposure. CNEL is the 24-hour average sound level in decibels with an additional weighting placed on evening (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 pm) and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) operations to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. CNEL metric and the evening and nighttime weightings are described in detail in the Time of Day" section below. The UHS helistop planning consultant, Heliplanners, provided the information needed to generate the CNEL contours. Additional information was obtained from the previously prepared EIRs. The specific data used to model the CNEL contours is described in the following sections. Helicopter Operations and Fleet Based on the helicopter operations data provided, two primary local operators, Mercy Air and REACH Air Medical Services, would access the helistop eight times per month during a twelve month period, accounting for a total of 96 flights or 192 operations (one flight equals two operations: an arrival and a departure). Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Regulations and Federal Aviation Regulation Part l50 require that the CNEL contours be based on the annual - average day operations over a 365 -day period. This equals approximately 0.526 operations per annual -average day. The hospital improvements (i.e., the decommissioning of the interim helistop and operation of permanent helistop) are not expected to result in an increase in the number of helicopters utilizing the helistop. Thus, the same numbers of operations were used to calculate the noise exposure for both the interim and permanent helistop locations. The type of helicopter that would utilize the interim and permanent helistops is the Eurocopter 135 (EC -135), which currently does not have a noise profile in the INM. However, the EC -130 is an appropriate substitute for the EC -135 and was used to model the EC -135 operations. Temecula Valley Hospital Hehstop Relocation 3 ESA Airpo.ts 1 /30652 January 2014 Helistop Noise Analysis A detailed breakdown of the annual -average day operations for the interim and future helistop locations is included in Table 1. TABLE 1 ANNUAL -AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS INM Helicopter Type Helicopter Type EC -130 EC -135 Total Daytime Evening Nighttime Operations Operations Operations 0.421 0.053 0.053 0.421 0.053 0.053 Total 0.526 0.526 Individual operations numbers may not sum to the total due to rounding. Source: Heliplanners, ESA Airports Analysis, 2013 Time of Day As noted previously, the separation of helicopter operations into daytime (7:00:00 am to 6:59:59 pm), evening (7:00:00 pm to 9:59:59 pm), and nighttime (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 am) is important because the INM includes an additional weighting during the evening and nighttime hours to account for the increased sensitivity people have to noise events during these hours. Evening operations are weighted as three daytime operations and nighttime operations are weighted as ten daytime operations. This results in a 4.77 and 10 -decibel penalty for each event during these periods, respectively. The time of day that each operation occurred was noted in the data provided by Heliplanners and summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 HELICOPTER OPERATION TIMES OF DAY (CNEL) INM Helicopter Type EC -130 Daytime Evening Nighttime (7:00:00 am — 6:59:59 (7:00:00 pm — 9:59:59 (10:00:00 pm — 6:59:59 Total pm) pm) am) 80.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0% Source: Heliplanners, 2013 Flight Corridors The flight corridors used to access the helistops are an important factor in determining the geographic distribution of noise on the ground. Flight corridors for helicopter operations were modeled for the north -flow and south -flow configurations for both the interim and permanent conditions. Flight corridor use percentages were derived from information provided by Heliplanners. Based on this data, use percentages were developed for north -flow and south -flow operations. Using this information, four primary arrival and departure corridors were developed for the interim condition. When operating in a north flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 213° to the helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 33°. Figure 1 depicts the interim helistop north -flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 480 to the helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 228°. Figure 2 depicts the interim helistop south -flow flight corridors. Future operations were modeled to and from the future permanent helistop. When operating in a north -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 218° to the helistop, while Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 4 ESA Airports 1 130652 January 2014 Helistop Noise Analysis departures would fly a true heading of 38°. Figure 3 depicts the permanent helistop north -flow flight corridors. When operating in a south -flow configuration, arrivals would fly a true heading of 49° to the helistop, while departures would fly a true heading of 229°. Figure 4 depicts the permanent helistop south -flow flight corridors. Flight corridor use percentages have been assigned according to the data received from Heliplanners and are shown in Tables 3 and 4. TABLE 3 EC -135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES INTERIM CONDITION Departures Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% ANEP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% DSWP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Heliplanners, 2013 DNEP: Departure Northeast Point -track DSWP: Departure Southwest Point -track ANEP: Arrival Northeast Point -track ASWP: Arrival Southwest Point -track TABLE 4 EC -135 HELICOPTER FLIGHT CORRIDOR USE PERCENTAGES FUTURE CONDITION Departures Arrivals Corridor Day Evening Night Corridor Day Evening Night DNEP 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% ANEP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% DSWP 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% ASWP 10.0% 10.0% 10.00/0 Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source. Heliplanners, 2913 CNEL Contours The interim helistop is located at ground level on the western side of the hospital property at an elevation of 1,060 feet mean sea level (MSL). The permanent helistop is planned to be located on top of a future second hospital tower at an elevation of 1,135 feet MSL. Using the INM, the 55-65 dB CNEL contours have been prepared for the interim and permanent helistop locations and are shown on Figures 5 and 6, respectively.' The CNEL contours shown on Figures 5 and 6 depict noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non -aircraft sources. The interim 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 2.6 acres and the future 60 dB CNEL contour encompasses approximately 3.2 acres. While the total operations, time of day, and helicopter types operating at the hospital are not expected to change as a result of the modifications to the hospital campus, the contours are different in size and location due to the change in pad location, change in elevation, and the use of unique flight paths in the interim and permanent condition. For example, the CNEL contours for the permanent I Due to their small size (i.e., less than 0.0 acres), the 70 and 75 dB CNEL contours were omitted from Figures 5 and 6. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 5 ESA Airports 1130652 January 2014 Heiistop Noise Analysis helistop location are larger than the interim helistop location because the increased elevation reduces the effect of ground attenuation that occurs with helicopter operations close to the ground. The reduced ground attenuation allows the sound to propagate further than the interim helipad at ground level. Title 21 of the California State Aeronautics Act established that areas exposed to aircraft noise levels less than 65 dB CNEL are consider compatible with residential uses. The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed project shown in Figures 5 and 6 are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant noise impact from the proposed helistop facilities as defined by Title 21 of the State Aeronautics Act. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) criteria for noise defines 60 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable CNEL for new residential land uses in the vicinity of airports or helistops. For other noise sensitive land uses including hotels, places of worship, meeting halls, office buildings, etc., the RCALUCP defines 65 dB CNEL as the maximum allowable noise exposure level. The 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed project are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant noise impact as defined by Table 2B in the RCALUCP. For construction of new or expanded airports or heliports, the RCALUCP identifies significant impacts resulting from the proposed action using three criteria: for locations having an existing ambient noise level of 55 dB CNEL or less, an increase of 5 -dB or more is deemed significant; for locations having an existing ambient noise level between 55 and 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 3 -dB or more is deemed significant; and for locations having an existing ambient noise level of more than 60 dB CNEL, an increase of 1.5 -dB or more is deemed significant. Table 5 below was taken from the previous SE1R conducted in January of 2008. As part of the SEIR, noise monitoring was performed at five locations (see Figure 7) to determine the ambient noise levels in proximity to the hospital. The [NM was used to calculate the helicopter -generated CNEL at each of the measurement locations. The measured and ambient CNEL values were then compared to determine if these locations would experience an increase in a CNEL of 3 -dB or more at Sites 1 and 3, and I.5 -dB or more at Sites 2 and 5. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, Sites 1 and 3 did not experience an increase of 3-d13, nor did Sites 2 and 5 experience an increase of 1.5dB from the interim or permanent helistop operation. Therefore, no residential areas would experience a significant increase in noise as defined by Section 5.1.2 of the RCALUCP. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 6 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 Helistop Noise Analysis TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Measured Average AMBIENT 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 tower 20 minutes 50.3 NIA 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient 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. TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE INTERIM CONDITION Combined Difference Ambient and Between Site Site Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter Helicopter Ambient and Number Description/Address Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB CNEL, dB Combined Helicopter CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.8 26.9 59.8 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 62.8 46.6 62.9 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 57.8 38.7 57.9 +0.1 On project site, at offset 4 of proposed five -story 20 minutes N/A NIA N/A N/A bed tower 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 24 hours 60.8 47.2 61.0 +0.2 (adjacent to Highway 79) NOTES: Ambient 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) 51.4-1971. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, ESA Airports Analysis. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 7 ESA Airports 1 130652 January 2014 Helistop Noise Analysis TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE PERMANENT CONDITION Site Site Description! Measurement AMBIENT Helicopter Number Address Period CNEL, dB CNEL, dB Combined Difference Ambient and Between Helicopter Ambient and CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portota 24 hours 59.8 23.9 59.8 0.0 Road 2 30955 De Portola 24 hours 62.8 43.9 62.9 +0.1 Road 3 31775 De Portola 24 hours 57.8 43.7 58.0 +0.2 Road On project site, at offset of proposed 4 five -story bed 20 minutes N/A N/A NIA NIA tower 31602 Calle Los 5 Padres (adjacent 24 hours 60.8 41.2 60.8 0.0 to Highway 79) NOTES'. Ambient 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) 51.4-1971. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, ESA Airports Analysis. For non -aircraft noise sources, the City of Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan criteria set noise standards for residential areas at 65 dB CNEL for low- and medium -intensity housing, and 70 dB CNEL for multi -family housing. With respect to aircraft -related noise, the City's Noise Ordinance and General Plan set the maximum acceptable noise exposure for new residential development at 60 dB CNEL. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the 60 dB CNEL contours resulting from the proposed actions are completely contained on the hospital campus. Therefore, no residential land uses would experience a significant noise impact as defined by the City of Temecula's Noise Ordinance and General Plan. Mitigation: None required. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 8 ESA Airports 1130652 January 2014 Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures ott 0 1,000 Feet SOURCE ESAAlrports, 2013. INM 7.0d, USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 Figure 1 Interim Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESAAirports, 20131 INM 7.0d, USDA. 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130d5 Figure 2 Interim Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors a3 isg Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 11, J r �'. r 1 .4'11 T4 0 1,000 1 � Feet SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.Od. USDA, 2012 Tenecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 Figure 3 Permanent Helistop - North -Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE ESA Airports. 2013; INM 7,Od; USDA. 2012 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 Figure 4 Permanent Helistop - South -Flow Flight Corridors Legend CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB or ‘41 - 65 dB Hospital Campus Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 1 Feet SOURCE: ESA Airports. 2013: INM 7-0d: City of Temecula: USDA. 2012 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non -aircraft sources. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR .130652 Figure 5 Interim Helistop - CNEL Contours Legend CNEL Contours O55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Hospital Campus Noise Sensitive Land Use 0ts 0 500 Feet SOURCE: ESA Airports. 2013; INM 7.Od, City of Temecula: USDA, 2012 NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the nose exposure resulting From nomaircraft sources Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR.130652 Figure 6 Permanent Helistop - CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESAAi ports, 2013; INMA 7.Od. USDA, 2012 Temecula Valley Hospilal Helistop SEIR.130d52 Figure 7 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations ADOPTED 2006 FINAL EIR (AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST) ADOPTED 2008 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST) ADOPTED 2011 ElR ADDENDUM (AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST) RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION LETTER DATED MARCH 4, 2014 ki ustn� $e [punly A:y;r( L,IWI Use Commisswn CHAIR Simon Housman Rancho Mirage VICE CHAIRMAN Rod Ballance Rivers'de CCIAl1sSjCt Rs Arthur Butler Riverside John Lyon Riverside Glen Holmes Hemet Greg Pettis Cathedral City Richard Stewart Marano Valley STAFF Director Ed Cooper John Guerin Russell Brady Barbara Santos Cartyktnre amCertsr 4t]Bl lertra,14N Floor. Rverside, CA 92501 :950;55.5132 www.rgWc.Org AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY March 4, 2014 Mr. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW File No.'. ZAP1054FV13 Related File No.: PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit) APN: g5g-080-026 Dear Mr. Fisk: On February 13, 2014, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of Temecula Case No. PA 13-0141 (Modified Conditional Use Permit), a proposal to establish a temporary (interim) heliport (specifically, a hospital helistop), consisting of a 48 -fool diameter (1,808 square foot) Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) Area on a ground mounted concrete landing pad with perimeter lighting and painted markings, within an 87 -foot diameter final approach and takeoff area, plus a 16 -foot tall ground mounted illuminated wind cone, on the grounds of Temecula Valley Hospital, located northerly of Temecula Parkway and south of De Portola Road, CONSISTENT with the Countywide Policies of the 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1, No operations (takeoffs or landings) shall be conducted until such time as the State of California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has issued a Site Approval Permit and subsequent Heliport Permit pursuant to Sections 3525 through 3560 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. The heliport shall be designed and constructed in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 15015390-2B, Heliport Design. 3. Establishment and operations shall comply with the recommendations and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration letter dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is attached hereto. 4. Helicopter idle time shall be minimized as much as possible, 5. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) requests that Temecula Valley Hospital consider returning to ALUC to seek advisory comments regarding mitigation of noise impacts on surrounding properties in the event that the average number of monthly operations exceeds sixteen (16) within any given quarterly period. RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION March 4, 2014 This finding of consistency applies only to the interim helistop as evaluated in the attached noise study. The permanent helistop will require subsequent review by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. It is recommended that single -event noise analysis be conducted in conjunction with ALUC review of the permanent helistop, by which time known activity levels at the interim helistop will allow for a more precise projection of noise levels. If you have any questions, please contact Russell Brady, ALUC Contract Planner, at (951) 955- 0549, or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY D USE COMMISSION dwar. C. Coo. • Direct RB:bks cc: Temecula Valley Hospital (applicant) (site address) Temecula Valley Hospital, Inc., c/o George Brunner, King of Prussia (tax roll address) Jeff Wright (representative) DPR/Turner, a Joint Venture (payee) Amy C. Towel) (nearby landowner) ALUC Staff Y:\AIRPORT CASE FILES1French Valley \ZAP1054FV1312APS054FV13.LTR.doc 2 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION LETTER DATED JULY 3, 2013 U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 3, 2013 Mr. Jeffery Wright Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del Reposo Temecula, California 92591-1718 Dear Mr. Wright: Western -Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles Airports District Office Los Angeles, CA 90009 Temecula Valley Hospital Temecula, California Airspace Case No. 2013 -AWP -745 -NRA Lat. 33-28-48.80 N, Long. 117-06-28.80 W (NAD 83) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed an airspace study in response to your proposal submitted on FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, for the activation and establishment of the subject private heliport in Temecula, California on behalf of the hospital. Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint and will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Therefore, the FAA does not object to the establishment of the proposed landing area, provided the following conditions are met: a. The landing area is operated for private -use only. b. Operations are to be conducted at this facility only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions, and in accordance with the restrictions/communications requirements of the overlying class of airspace. c. The landing area operator shall ensure and maintain obstruction -free routes of ingress/egress to the landing area. d. Ensure unauthorized persons are restrained from access to the takeoff/landing area during helicopter flight operations by use of erecting a non-obstructing safety barrier such as fencing. e. Lower the nearest parking light poles northeast of the touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) area that penetrate the 871 slope. From the center point of helipad TLOF, Pole#1 036 degrees, 168 ft., Pole#2 013 degrees, 221 ft., Pole#3 003 degrees, 222 ft. f. Adjust the ingress/egress routes in the northeast quadrant or shift the TLOF area north a few feet. Recommend changing egress route heading from 028 degrees to 020 degrees or by shifting location of the helipad prior to construction by a few feet north would allow departure on a 028 degree heading or adjust the outbound heading to 020 degrees MAG from current TLOF location to clear the main hospital building. Northwest corner of the hospital building penetrates 8:1 departure surface and 2:1 transitional surface. g. A representative of Flight Standards Service (AFS) must evaluate/conduct a follow-up inspection of the heliport after construction for compliance prior to its operational use, h. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CALTRANS) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport permit. Your point of contact is: Mr. Jeff Brown Senior Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274 916-654-4565 This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), as amended. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effect the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effect it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the heliport proposal. Also, this determination in no way preempts or waives any ordinances, laws, or regulations of any other government body or agency. The FAA cannot prevent the construction of structures near heliports. The facility environs can only be protected through such means as local zoning ordinances or acquisition of property rights. This determinetion expires on December 3, 2014, unless it is otherwise extended, revised, or terminated, or the facility is constructed before that date. An extension may be requested through our office, if necessery, up to 15-deys prior to this expiretion date, Also enclosed is the Airport Mester Record, FAA Form 5010-5 for establishment of a "private use" landing area within our database system. Within 30 -days after the landing area becomes operational, we would appreciate you completing this form for the heliport by signing, dating and returning it to me at this office, so your facility can be added into the FAA Airport Data System. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 310/725-3628. Sincerely, Margie Drill ng Airport Planner. CC: California Department of Transportation Mr. Jeff Brown Senior Aviation Safety Officer Division of Aeronautics, MS 40 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274 CALTRANS DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS E-MAIL DATED DECEMBER 29, 2011 Printed 6/13/2013 1:25 PM1:25 PM Jeff Wright From: Phillip Miller <phillip_miller@dot.ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:34 AM To: Jeff Wright Cc: Jeff Brown Subject: Re: UHST-1 Temecula Valley Hospital -- Revised HLP Categories: Business Jeff, To recap our conversation this morning we understand that only one approach / departure path is possible due to a previously established environmental evaluation and your clients insistence. In light of this fact, and to enhance both safety and compatibility, we would like for you and your client to consider rotating the proposed flight path to the south as to clear (from overflight) the existing and proposed apartment buildings in the Summerhouse complex. Should this not be possible we will require the obstruction lighting of all two story or higher buildings in the complex that underlie the depicted approach/departure path. As usual, we will need to have the obstruction lights or the adjusted approach / departure path shown on the HLP for permit committee approval. Thanks, Phillip Miller, C.M. Aviation Safety Officer California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, MS#40 P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Office: (916) 654-5507 Fax: (916) 653-9531 E-mail: phillip.miller@dot.ca.gov Website: www.dot.ca.gov/aeronautics 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 2014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Its C�UFLHAII iJ WCIH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION John R. Hawkins -- Fire Chief 210 West San Jacinto Avenue — Perris. CA 92570 (951) 940-6900 — www rvcfire org PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CPTIES OF: BANN ING BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKE COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS EASTVALE INDIAN WELLS IND30 JURUPA VALLEY LAKE EFSINORE LA QUINTA MENIFEF MORENO VALLEY NORCO PALM DESERT PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RUS1Doux CSD SAN JACINTO TE EC ULA WILDOMAR BOARD OF SUPERVtSORS: KEVIN JEFFRIES DISTRICT t JOHN TAVAGLIONE DISTRICT 2 JEFF STONE DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOIT DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY DISTRICT 5 April 23, 2014 Temecula Valley Hospital 31700 Temecula Pkwy. Temecula CA 92592 Re: Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site at Temecula Valley Hospital would greatly enhance the health, safety and ability to provide life-saving medical care in our community and for the patients treated by your facility. Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code, Section 2662.1, the Riverside County Fire Chief, as the authorized public safety agency, hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This designation is located at the eastern portion of the facility, situated at the proposed permanent landing site. This site is approved for one (I) year pending the implementation of the following administrative regulations, operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone (LZ) location: Operational Requirements (California Code of Regulations — Title 21 Requirements) • Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations • Title 21 Section 3527 - Emergency Landing Site o Over a twelve month period with 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. a Not marked as a permitted heliport a Used for emergency medical purposes Safety Enhancements • Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings • Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements • Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards • Remove trees, vegetation, parking spaces, etc... as necessary to accommodate L7 requirements • Maintain white landing dot, per specifications in center of LZ • Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ • Prevent parking, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area • Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital • Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter activity when a landing or take -off is proposed The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the health, safety and welfare of our community. Furthermore, we are readily available to meet and discuss any questions or conceyou may have with this project. ohn R. awkins re Ch f RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT LETTER DATED MARCH 16, 2015 CAL PIREo`RIVERS= UM RIVERSIDE MUM", FIRE Dammam CM= CIP EMERGENCY SERVICES John R. Hawkins — Fire Chief 210 West San Jacinto Avenue -- Perris, Ca 92570-1915 Bus: (951) 940-6900 - Fax: (951) 940-6910 - www.rvcfire.org PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND THE CmES OF: BANNING BEAUMONT CAUMESA CANYON LAKE COACHELLA DESERT HOT SPRINGS EASrVALE INDIAN WELLS INDIO JURUPA VALLEY LAKE ELSINORE LA QUINTA MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY NORCO PALM DESERT PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RUBIDOUX CSD SAN JACINTO TEMECULA WILDOMAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: KEVIN JEFFRIES DISTRICT 1 JOHN TAVAGUONE DISTRICT 2 CHARLES WASHINGTON DISTRICT 3 JOHN BENOIT DISTRICT 4 MARION ASHLEY DISTRICT 5 March 16, 2015 Temecula Valley Hospital 31700 Temecula Pkwy. Temecula CA 92592 Re: Temecula Valley Hospital EMS Landing Site Mr. Michael Smith, The establishment of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Site at Temecula Valley Hospital would greatly enhance the health, safety and ability to provide life-saving medical care in our community and for the patients treated by your facility. Pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code, Section 21662.1, the Riverside County Fire Chief, as the authorized public safety agency, hereby approves Temecula Valley Hospital as an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing site for intermittent emergency helicopter operations. This designation is located at the eastern portion of the facility, situated at the proposed permanent landing site. This site is approved for one (1) year pending the implementation of the following administrative regulations, operational requirements and safety enhancements at and for the designated landing zone (LZ) location: Operational Requirements (California Code of Regulations — Title 21 Requirements) • Location is reserved for medical emergencies and transportations • Title 21 Section 3527 - Emergency Landing Site o Over a twelve month period with 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. O Not marked as a permitted heliport O Used for emergency medical purposes Safety Enhancements • Maintain appropriate lighting for night landings • Provide for appropriate fire extinguishing requirements • Maintain a minimum of 100' landing area clear of obstructions and hazards • Remove trees, vegetation, parking spaces, etc. as necessary to accommodate LZ requirements • Maintain white landing dot, per specifications in center of LZ • Designate an appropriate safety area surrounding LZ • Prevent parking, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in proposed LZ area • Mount and maintain a lighted wind cone on roof of hospital • Utilize hospital security personnel to ensure the LZ is safe and secure for helicopter activity when a landing or take -off is proposed The Riverside County Fire Department is proud to partner with your organization to enhance the health, safety and welfare of our community. Best Regards, 1 Fir- ' lef kins TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2015 --- !\,1 TemeculaValley HOSPITAL March 9, 2015 Stuart Fisk Senior planner, City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Fisk: I am writing on behalf of Temecula Valley Hospital regarding the important public interest which will be served through the hospital's helistop. The hospital's Board of Governors, Medical Staff and Management Team believe strongly that the public benefit of having a helistop greatly outweigh impacts of having a helistop, such as noise. Helicopter transports include a critical care team which has advanced scope of practice to continue the same level of care initiated at the hospital. The clinical need for rapid transportation into or out of a hospital are predominantly for the following reasons: • Rapid access to specialty services requiring time-limited treatments -such as stroke care. • Access to specialty services only available at a few centers, such as critical pediatric care, trauma and burn services. The most common patients who have been flown by helicopter out of Temecula Valley Hospital have been critically ill children. When a critically ill pediatric patient is flown to Rady Children's Hospital San Diego or another Children's Hospital, the helicopter arrives quickly with a team that includes a pediatric specialty nurse and a pediatric physician who come into the hospital's ER, speak with the ER physician caring for the patient to appropriately transition care, and then accompanies the critically ill child back to the Children's Hospital. A child's hemodynamic stability can change in an instant. It is imperative to get them to the specialized services they need as quickly as possible and to send them from TVH with the best team of providers possible helps ensure the best possible outcome. Additional critical patients who are transferred out via helicopter include patients who require very specialized lifesaving procedures such as certain types of brain and heart vessel aneurysm repair. When trying to save a brain that is bleeding or a major heart vessel that has dissected every second counts. These types of patients need to get transported with a critical care team and cannot afford to be held up in traffic. They do not have time to spare. In addition to transferring out critical patients, as a STEM! Receiving Center and a Stroke Ready Hospital, Temecula Valley Hospital also receives in critically ill patients. There are occasions when due to distance, remote access location, or a traffic situation, it is important to be able to transfer patients to Temecula Valley Hospital via helicopter to maximize the opportunity to provide timely lifesaving care. Temecula Valley Hospital .31700 Temecula !'urkivuy Temecula, CA 92592 www.temeculavulleyhospltal.com '.�r TemeculaValley H0SP1TA[. Without a helistop, hospitals address the need for critical care transports through these options:: • The most frequently utilized option is to call 911 and transport in ground ambulance staffed with paramedics. o Paramedics have a more limited scope of practice compared with a critical care team, thus must cease medications and interventions during transport. o Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. o Utilizing 911 ambulances for these transports takes the 911 ambulance out of service in the community for an extended time. • An option to 911 ambulance transportation is to utilize critical care ground transport ambulances. o There are fewer such ambulances available so there can be delays in availability of this specialty ambulance. o Ground transportation can be delayed due to traffic congestion. • Without a helistop a last option is to have a helicopter land at a remote off-site location such as an airport, park or field. The critical care response team takes a ground ambulance to the hospital to pick up the patient and returns to the helicopter for flight out. o This option provides significant enough time delay that it is typically impractical. o This option ties up the local fire department engines because they have to "secure" the off-site landing area and provide ground to air radio communications for safety. This takes the 911 fire engines out of service to the community for a period of time. In critical medical situations, there is a correlation between the speed of response and a favorable outcome for the patient. When a hospital does not have a helistop care for patients can suffer. Patients in the community do not have rapid access to the specialty services they need, and upon case review their outcomes are affected in an undesirable way. Having a helistop at a hospital provides the community with all potential options to receive rapid access to any care required at a specialty center with no change in the level of care during transport. Temecula Valley Hospital leaders and physicians believe that significant public interest is served by having the helistop which outweighs the unavoidable impacts (noise) that would result from the project. Sincerely, atzteN Darlene Wetton Chief Executive Officer 1e°rrme ul(j Valles' HoNpih11 .317[x) lemeadin Parkway Temecula, CA 92592 www.temeculavalleyhospital.com PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Stuart Fisk From: Lee R <Ieerosu@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:35 PM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Maryann Edwards; Jeff Comerchero; Mike Naggar; Chuck Washington; Matt Rahn Subject: Helistop SEIR- resident feedback Attachments: Resident_Comments on TVH Helistop DSEIR 2014.pdf; Temecula_Hospital_EmergencyGenerator_ Notice_12-15-14.PDF Dear Mr. Fisk, Please find attached our response to the hospital helipad SEIR. This isn't the first message we sent to the City of Temecula officials. In all messages we're bringing up the problems the hospital placement brought to the community. The first issue associated with the hospital ( even without the helipad or emergency generator) is increase in traffic and noise. The helipad and emergency generator ( see letter attached) bring additional health and safety issues to the community. Nobody denies the need for healthcare facilities in this area, but the planning of such facilities is what is creating all these issues. The location of the hospital lacks common sense and therefore we suspect some special interests at work here! A more appropriate site location for a hospital would have been a parcel near the freeway, for instance at the WEST end of Temecula Pkwy. Advantages of such site: easy access to /from freeway, non-residential community, plenty of room for a helipad and ultimately, such placement would have shown that the City actually cares about it's residents! There is still time to do the right thing: the best solution for the helipad issue would be to place the helipad at location mentioned above. I hope the City will make a decision in the best interest of the community! Thank you, Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTOLA AVE 1 �r. II flEC 1 7 20/4 Y, To: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 (via USPS certified mail #7003 0500 0003 9665 3622) From: Steve Chen 44501 Verde Dr Temecula, CA 92592 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 Date: 12/16/2014 Dear Sir, 1 oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: 1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (ER) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. ■ In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. • But the City's subsequent 2008 SE1R that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. ■ The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" E1R are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to. 1 3. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces I05dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. • Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • The proposed helistop sites arc less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. • Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Steve Chen 2 Katie &. Hobert Jenkins 13810 Villa Del Sur Dr Temecula CA 92592 Attn Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 December 16, 2014 Dear Sir, We oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: 1. The hospital is not a trauma center so there is no good reason for a helistop other than to run up larger bills for the patients and insurance companies. 2. Despite the current (2014) SEIR's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105dB of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. • Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. • Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 1 3. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. • But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop impacts at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SE1R. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 4. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" EIR are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop EIR to be "supplemented" to. 5. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that in fact outweighs its detriment to the environment. 6. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR § 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already available, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Katie and Robert Jenkins 2 Siiuif;'Ci�fist� Q'QMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE "PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT/OPERATE" PURSUANT TO RULE 212 This notice is to inform you that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has received an application for permit to construct an internal combustion engine driving an emergency generator at a location in your neighborhood. The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Anyone wishing to install, operate, or modify equipment that could be a source of air pollution within this region must first obtain a permit from the SCAQMD. Rule 212 requires the applicant for certain projects, such as this one, to distribute a public notice prepared by the SCAQMD prior to the issuance of a permit. This notice is being distributed because the project is located within 1000 feet of Rancho Community Christian School located at 31300 Rancho Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592. The SCAQMD has evaluated the permit applications for the following equipment and determined that the equipment will meet all applicable air quality requirements of our Rules and Regulations. COMPANY NAME: TEMECULA CA UNITED SURGERY CENTER, LP APPLICATION NO.: 567707 LOCATION ADDRESS: 31469 RANCHO PUEBLO RD, TEMECULA, CA 92592 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INSTALL AND OPERATE AN INTERNAL --- ---- -__-- COMBUSTION ENGINE DRIVING_AN_ -_ EMERGENCY GENERATOR Temecula CA United Surgery Center, LP, is a new surgical center. The engine will drive an electrical generator that supplies power in case of an electrical emergency. The engine will be tested on a weekly basis for a maximum of one hour. Our calculations show that based upon a 30 -day average a maximum of 0.28 Ib/day of nitrogen oxides, 0,07 lbs/day of carbon monoxide, 0.002 lbs/day of fine particulates, 0.01 lbs/day of organic gases, and 0.0006 Ibiday sulfur oxides will be emitted from project described above in any one day. Generally, the amount will be less as most emergency generator engines do not operate at maximum capacity. The engine operation will emit small quantities of some toxic compounds. The SCAQMD has evaluated the long term (chronic) health impacts associated with the maximum potential emissions. Using worst case conditions, our evaluation shows that the chronic health risk is well below our rule's toxic thresholds (below a Hazard Index of 1). According to the state health experts, a hazard index of one or less means that the surrounding community including the most sensitive individuals such as very young children and the elderly will not experience any adverse health impacts due to exposure to these emissions. In addition, the cancer risk from these emissions is below the SCAQMD risk threshold of one in a million. The air quality analysis of this project is available for public review at the SCAQMD's headquarters in Diamond Bar, A copy of the draft permit to operate can be viewed at http://www3.agmd.gov/webappl/publicnotices2/Search.aspx. Information regarding the facility owner's compliance history submitted to the SCAQMD pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 42336, or otherwise known to SCAQMD, based on credible information, is also available from the SCAQMD for public review. Anyone wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of this permit should submit their comments in writing within 30 days of the distribution date shown below. If you are concerned primarily about zoning decisions and the process by which this facility has been sited at this location, you should contact your local city or county planning department. Please submit comments related to air quality to Ms. Vicky Lee, Air Quality Engineer, Engineering and Compliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4178. For additional information, please call Ms. Vicky Lee at (909) 396-2284. For your general information, anyone experiencing air quality problems such as dust or odor can telephone in a complaint to the SCAQMD by calling 1 -800 -CUT -SMOG (1-800-288- 7664). Distribution Date: 12-15-2014 Stuart Fisk From: Azim Azhand <azimazhandmd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 1:02 PM To: Stuart Fisk Subject: Against having Helicopter landing pad at Temecula Valley Hospital 1 am a doctor and living in Santiago Estates, despite the pollution and noise issue with Helicopters disrupting the lives of the community, one have to ask the need and the necessity of having the Helicopter landing pad. TVH is not a trauma center and neither has newborn or OB services, so that there is no urgency to use Helicopters for transportation of patients, for all other medical cares the hospital should be able to provide initial care, stabilized patients could be transferred in and out of the hospital safely and cost effectively by BLS or ACLS Ambulance services. Azim U. Azhand, MD Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main St Temecula, CA 92590 95I-694-6444 May 1`t , 2014 To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED JUN 022014 1, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident in Temecula, oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons: •.• The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center nutans there is no need or justification of a helicopter facility, especially when consider•iva the extreme detriments. the srrrrorntdin2 neighborhoods have to put up with. Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65d13, helicopter produces 105dB of noise (that's twice as loud as a jackhammer) CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. ❖ Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. •.• Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. ❖ No human, structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead — the noise, the vibrations and the rattling. Please, please, please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our community. Sincerely, -i. `re vWCt. 1. 3ch nc/LjY Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main St Temecula, CA 92590 951-694-6444 April 23, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: I, as a city resident of Temecula in the best interests of my residency and every other current and future resident in Temecula, oppose the Temecula Valley Hospital heliport project for the following reasons: The fact that Temecula Valley Hospital is not a trauma center means there is no need or justification of a helicopter facility, especially when considering the extreme detriments the surrounding neighborhoods have to put up with. • Helicopters are extremely noisy. While the city's outdoor noise limit is 65dB, helicopter produces 105dB of noise (that's twice as loud as a jackhammer) CONTINUOUSLY. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. •• Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. A medical helicopter is usually 3 to 4 times the size and weight of police helicopter and flies much closer to the ground than its law enforcement counterpart. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • Studies and statistics show NO evidence that a medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. • No human, structure or animal is undisturbed by the helicopters overhead — the noise, the vibrations and the rattling. Please, please, please do not allow this project to go forward for the continued peace and beauty in our community. 43810 Villa Del Sur Dr Temecula, CA 92592 From: Simona Rosu 30451 DE PORTOLA RD TEMECULA,CA 92592 To: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Comments/Objection to Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project SEIR 2014 Date: Dear Sir, We, as residents of Temecula in the best interests of our community, oppose Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project and its purported Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the following reasons: 1. The City violated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 2007 Court order in approving of the original (2008) helistop permit. The City had never completed any CEQA compliant Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the helistop project. • The City had never properly informed the surrounding communities about the helistop project. There is no evidence that residents of the surrounding areas were aware of the existence of this project before November 2013. • A 2007 Court order required the City to set aside its approval of the hospital project (that includes this helistop project), including without limitation, its certification of the 2006 Final EIR and all related approvals and permits, until the City brings the project into compliance with CEQA. • In response to the 2007 Court order, the City invalidated its 2006 Final EIR certification for the hospital project (that includes this helistop project) in January 2008. • But the City's subsequent 2008 SEIR that was used to approve the general hospital project in January 2008 did not address the helistop issue at all. There was no environmental analysis, mitigation measures nor alternatives for the helistop project in this 2008 SEIR. • The 2007 Court order did not exempt the City from CEQA compliance in addressing environmental impacts of the helistop. In fact it specifically required the City to address noise and traffic impacts of the project. But the City ignored the Court order circumventing all CEQA requirements and went ahead approve the helistop permit. 2. Since the City's original permit process for the helistop was flawed and illegal, all overriding excuses used in current (2014) "Supplemental" E1R are preposterous and irrelevant. There is simply no valid helistop E1R to be "supplemented" to. 1 3. Despite the current (2014) SE1R's attempt in papering over the helistop's negative effects, the facts remain: • Helicopter is extremely noisy in operation. It produces 105d11 of noise continuously which is 4 times the City's noise limit of 65dB. And unlike ambulance siren, helicopter "noise" can not be turned off at will during operation. ■ Helicopters are prone to crash, especially medical helicopters. Statistics show one in ten of all medical helicopters crashed between 2002 and 2005, and most of these crashes occurred during takeoff and landing. • The proposed helistop sites are less than 50 yards away from residential neighborhoods and bordered right next to the region's busiest highway (Highway 79). The effects of low altitude helicopter operation (noise, pollution, vibration, dust, landing lights etc) will pose immediate and unacceptable health and safety hazards to residents and motorists. • Studies show no evidence that medical helicopter in fact saved more lives than traditional ambulance in overall comparison. Researchers found that when adjusting for other risk factors, transportation by helicopter did not affect the estimated odds of survival. Researchers also found that medical helicopter makes sense only when and where the ground ambulance transport time exceeds 60 minutes. That means only those extremely rural or hard to reach locations would actually be benefited by such service, Temecula (along with 99% of all places in Southern California) certainly is not one of them. While the real world usefulness of medical helicopter is highly dubious, there is no doubt that if approved, the environmental impact of this helistop project will be significant and detrimental to Temecula communities. 4. The City has never proved of any compelling public interest in this helistop project that outweighs its significant environmental damage to the surrounding communities. 5. "California Environmental Quality Act 14 CCR ,§ 15021: A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment." The feasible alternative to medical helicopter is obvious and already exists, the ground transport ambulance, no helistop is needed in Temecula! Sincerely, Simona Rosu 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: PA 13-0141 Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital. The modification would relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase. The modification would also allow for the construction of an approximately 5,000 square foot single -story storage building for non -hazardous material storage to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31780 Temecula Parkway. Consistent with Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), a Supplemental EIR was prepared for this modification application. Stuart Fisk, (951) 506-5159 City of Temecula, Council Chambers April 15, 2015 6:00 p.m, The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orci — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA13-0141, A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PA07-0200) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA07-0202) FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL TO RELOCATE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP TO TWO NEW LOCATIONS INCLUDING AN INTERIM LOCATION FOR USE DURING PRELIMINARY PROJECT PHASES AND A PERMANENT LOCATION ON THE ROOF OF A FUTURE HOSPITAL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING A LATER PHASE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY STORAGE BUILDING FOR NON- HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE TO BE LOCATED AT THE SITE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HELISTOP. THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 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 of Rancho Springs, 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 Methyl tent -butyl ether (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 of 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 and 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 of or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary Project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. Thereafter, City staff circulated a Notice of Completion indicating the public comment period and intent to adopt the SEIR as required by law. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from November 12, 2014 through December 26, 2014. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; and the City of Temecula website. HH. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or in opposition to this matter. 11. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA13-0141 and adopt a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding Considerations for noise impacts, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. JJ. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on July 28, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or in opposition to this matter. KK. 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. LL. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings: Development Code Findings (Section 17.05.030.E): A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Modification to a Development Plan is in conformance with the goals and policies in the General Plan for the City of Temecula, the Development Code, and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City of Temecula. As designed and conditioned the project is consistent with all applicable zoning ordinances, State laws and the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public, health, safety and general welfare; The overall development of the land has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare as the project has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts upon the surrounding neighborhood and has been reviewed and conditioned to comply with the General Plan, Development Code, and uniform building and fire codes. Conditional Use Permit Findings (Section 17.04.010.E): A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed Conditional Use Permit modification is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposal, a Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan and land use standards in the Development Code. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses" (Goal 1); "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development" (Goal 3); and "A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns" (Goal 8). In addition, the project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed modifications to the hospital's Conditional Use Permit are consistent with the previously approved helistop site with regard to the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and affect on the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the Supplemental EIR identifies "Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and exposure of persons to excessive noise levels" it also identifies that Section 9.20.030 (Noise Ordinance) of the Temecula Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from "Public safety personnel in the course of executing their official duties, including, but not limited to, sworn peace officers, emergency personnel and public utility personnel. This exemption includes, without limitation, sound emanating from all equipment used by such personnel, whether stationary or mobile" and the Supplemental EIR identifies that limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to Public Utilities Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As such, the proposed project modifications are compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use modifications (exempting noise pursuant to Section 9.20.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Section 21662.4. (a) of the Public Utilities Code) will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Additionally, the proposed storage building integrates into the hospital complex and is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the adjacent hospital uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The site for the conditional uses, including the hospital buildings and helistop, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The project is in compliance with the development standards of the Development Code and associated Planed Development Overlay (PDO -9), including setbacks, parking, landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed hospital facilities without affecting the yard, parking and loading areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The modification to the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of the modification to the helistop location is to address Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration safety concerns in a manner that minimizes impacts to the surrounding community with regard to aesthetics, hazards, and helicopter noise. As such, with regard to the helistop, the purpose of the modification to the use permit is specifically to redesign the helistop to ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the proposed modification application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the City Council. Section 3. Environmental Findings. On July 28, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved Resolution No. 15-_ entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (A.P.N. 959-080-026) Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop on 35.3 acres generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor Parcel Number 959-080-026, as set forth in Planning Application No. PA13-0141, subject to the specific Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk Planning Application No.: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA13-0141 A Major Modification to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate a previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. The 35.3 acre hospital site is generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road at 31700 Temecula Parkway. 959-080-026 Commercial Service Commercial/Office Service Commercial/Office NA (Non -Residential Project) July 28, 2015 July 28, 2017 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report required 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 Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR, Supplemental EIR, and second Supplemental EIR for the Temecula Valley Hospital. 6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 7. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 8. Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours on telecommunication towers, equipment, walls, or other structures. 9. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than stormwater, it is illegal to allow liquids, gels, powders, sediment, fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not wash, maintain, or repair vehicles onsite. c. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. d. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. e. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 10. Paint Inspection. The applicant shall paint a three -foot -by -three-foot section of the building for Planning Division inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building. 11. Photographic Prints.. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved color and materials board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the color and materials board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 12. Materials and Colors. The Conditions of Approval specified in this resolution, to the extent specific items, materials, equipment, techniques, finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staff's prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the Conditions of Approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal, the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Material Storage building main body color Storage building base color Storage building aluminum shadow box windows Storage building tinted glass Storage building stucco cornice Color Dryvit #456, "Oyster4 Shell" in Dryvit "Sandblast" texture to match existing hospital building Indian Red to match existing hospital building Medium bronze to match existing hospital Building Bronze tint to match existing hospital building Indian Red to match existing hospital building trim 13. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 14. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 15. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 16. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 17. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 18. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 19. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in -lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 20. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 21. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 22. Compliance with Previous Approvals. Except where modified by this approval, all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA10-0194 (Major Modification), PA07-0200 (Development Plan), and PA7-0202 (Conditional Use Permit) remain in effect and shall be complied with. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 23. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 24. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 25. Archaeoloqical/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 26. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 27. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 28. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 29. MSHCP Pre -Construction Survey. A 30 -day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30 -day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. 30. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre -grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30 -day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 31. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 32. Downspouts. All downspouts shall be internalized. 33. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee. 34. Photometric Plan. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan, including the parking lot, to the Planning Division, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Riverside County Palomar Lighting Ordinance 655. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely affect the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 35. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal) and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. 36. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 37. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 38. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 39. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 40. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 41. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property. 42. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping. 43. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 44. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 45. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after -thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 46. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. 47. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 48. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 49. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 50. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 51. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 52. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 53. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way) shall be obtained from Public Works. 54. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s) are required; and shall be obtained from Public Works for public offsite improvements. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 55. Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 56. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction -phase pollution -prevention controls to adequately address non -permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www. cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/engineeringconstmanual. htm 57. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 58. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml 59. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a revision to the original WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) that was approved with the original grading permit. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the updated project -specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, the updated WQMP Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement shall be revised accordingly and submitted for review and approval. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www. cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/PublicWorks/WQMPandN PDES/WQ M P. htm 60. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted. 61. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the site's soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 62. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer -of -record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer -of -record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 63. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 64. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies (i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.) for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 65. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 66. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 67. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. b. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. c. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. d. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site. 68. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 69. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi -family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 70. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 71. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 72. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 73. Demolition. Demolition permits require separate approvals and permits. 74. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 75. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. At Plan Review Submittal 76. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 77. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 78. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 79. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 80. Pre -Construction Meeting. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 81. Fire Requirement. Guard posts will need to be constructed of steel not less than 4 -inches in diameter and concrete filled. They need to be set not less than 3 -feet deep in a concrete footing of not less than a 15 -inch diameter. Top of posts shall not be less than 3 -feet above ground (CFC Chapter 3) Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 82. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). For the new proposed storage building the developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5) 83. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. For the new proposed storage building fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 84. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). The new proposed storage building will be required to be equipped with a fire alarm system. For the new proposed storage building fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP RELOCATION AND STORAGE BUILDING MAJOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ON THE 35.3 ACRE HOSPITAL SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TEMECULA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD (APN 959-080-026) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On June 30, 2004, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. ("UHS"), filed Planning Application No. PA04-0462, a General Plan Amendment; on October 12, 2005 filed PA05-0302, a Zone Change to PDO -9 (Planned Development Overlay -9); on June 30, 2005 filed PA04-0463, a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan; and on November 4, 2004 filed PA04-0571, a Tentative Parcel Map, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 959-080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"). B. The Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). C. On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. D. The Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for this Project. E. On April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. F. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through October 28, 2005. G. On November 16, 2005, and again on January 5, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the Project at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. H. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 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 of Rancho Springs, 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 Methyl tent -butyl ether (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 of 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 and 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 of or in opposition to this matter. BB. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10- 28 recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA10-0194 and adopt an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project. CC. On February 8, 2011, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. DD. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-17 approving Planning Application No. PA10-0194 (Major Modification) and certifying an addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Major Modification at a noticed public hearing. EE. On May 31, 2013, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA13-0141, a Major Modification Application to a Development Plan (PA07-0200) and Conditional Use Permit (PA07-0202) for the Temecula Valley Hospital to relocate the previously approved helistop to two new locations including an interim location for use during preliminary project phases and a permanent location on the roof of a future hospital tower to be constructed during a later phase and to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot single story storage building for non -hazardous material storage (including disaster supplies, linens, and storage of excess construction materials to allow for repairs) to be located at the site of the previously approved helistop. FF. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. GG. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on April 15, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or in opposition to this matter. HH. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission heard, was presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during the hearing. 11. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-06 recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared for the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit Major Modification, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-05, thereby recommending that the City Council approve a Major Modification to the Temecula Valley Hospital Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. JJ. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. KK. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. LL. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. MM. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. NN. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. 00. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. PP. A discussion of the Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. QQ. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. RR. On July 28, 2015, the City Council considered the Final SEIR for the Project at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. SS. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re -circulation of the SEIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed environmental impacts identified. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Certify that the Final SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. D. Declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the SEIR, the responses to comments on the SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. Section 3. Certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final SEIR, adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit A, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 4. Conditions of Approval. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Development Plan (PA13-0141) each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. Section 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randy Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk EXHIBT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the "project"), as more fully described in the Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As originally established in the 2006 EIR, and set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula's employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; 1 • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in November 2013, to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agricultural and Forest Resources; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (E) Cultural Resources; (F) Geology and Soils; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality; (H) Land Use and Planning; (I) Mineral Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; (M) Transportation and Traffic; and (N) Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the SEIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and (C) Noise. A. On December 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the project. The NOP requested comments within 30 days of the notice. On December 11, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR The Draft SEIR completed on November 12, 2014, found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the SEI R. A. Aesthetics 2 1. The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. C. Noise 3. Cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level in the SEIR The Draft SEIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of noise. No measures were identified that would mitigate impacts to noise to a less than significant level. VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of noise there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Noise 1. Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity and Exposure of Persons to Excessive Noise Levels a. Findings Limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to California's Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21662.4. (a), which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flight departures and arrivals to particular hours of the day or night, or restrict flights due to noise. As a result, the City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to reduce the helicopter noise related safety hazards at the equestrian trail. The mitigation measure below is required in order to reduce this impact to the extent practicable. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, 3 preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. Facts in Support of Findings Although the above mitigation measure would reduce the project's helicopter noise related safety hazard to the equestrian trail, limitations on medical flights are not allowed pursuant to PUC Section 21662.4. (a)., which states that aircraft flights for medical purposes are exempt from local ordinances that restrict flights due to noise. The City cannot restrict helicopter activity at the hospital to reduce helicopter noise. Therefore, it is anticipated that the nearest offsite sensitive receptors would experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during helicopter operations. Therefore, impacts related to substantial periodic increases in ambient noise levels from helicopter overflights would be significant and unavoidable. VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Not Evaluated in the SEIR CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of feasible alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). According to CEQA Guidelines, alternatives should be those that would attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). The "range of alternatives" is governed by the "rule of reason," which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). CEQA requires that feasibility of alternatives be considered, Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be taken into account in determining feasibility are: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans and regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site. Furthermore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, and that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The alternatives addressed in this SEIR were identified in consideration of one or more of the following factors: 1. The extent to which the alternative could avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the proposed project; 2. The extent to which the alternative could accomplish basic objectives of the proposed project; 3. The feasibility of the alternative; 4 4. The requirement of the CEQA Guidelines to consider a "no project" alternative; and to identify an "environmentally superior" alternative in addition to the no project alternative (Section 15126.6(e)). The SEIR analyzed two project alternatives. These alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the SEIR 1. Alternative One — No Project Alternative (Existing Approved Helistop) a. Summary of Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that none of the requested project approvals are granted, and that the existing approved helistop location would be developed. The approved helistop is located at ground level near the northeast corner of the hospital, approximately 100 feet from the eastern property line. This alternative would include two flight paths — the original flight path that would travel over the recently constructed Madera Vista apartment buildings in a southeasterly direction to and from the project site, and a second flight path that would travel above single-family residential areas to the west of the project site. The No Project Alternative would also involve the addition of obstruction lights on the top of the two- story Madera Vista apartment buildings, and removal or trimming of trees within the offsite riparian area that is adjacent to the project site as required by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The No Project Alternative would not include development of the proposed one-story 5,000 square foot storage building. b. Reasons for Rejecting the Alternative The No Project Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of access routes, noise impacts, and other environmental conditions to the same extent as the proposed project. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would route the helicopter flight paths over existing the Los Ranchitos single-family residential neighborhood to the north and the Madera Vista apartments to the east, which would increase safety hazards and noise impacts on those neighborhoods as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the No Project Alternative would require obstruction lights atop the Madera Vista apartments, which would result in greater aesthetic impacts. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not align the flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which would eliminate the benefit of 5 maximum control over the aircraft, and again, result in greater safety hazards than would occur under the project as proposed. 2. Alternative Two — Alternative Interim Helistop Site a. Summary of Alternative The Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would develop the proposed interim helistop at a different location on the project site. The alternative interim site would be at ground level in the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 144 feet north of Temecula Parkway and approximately 275 feet from the western boundary of the project site. This helistop would include the same design, lighting, and security features as the interim helistop. However, red obstruction lights would be required on (or next to) several Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles along Temecula Parkway to warn pilots of their locations at night. This alternative would include development of the proposed one-story 5,000 square foot storage building. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative In regards to meeting the project objectives, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would (consistent with the proposed project) meet the project objectives of providing superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula. This alternative would also align the flight paths with the prevailing and Santa Ana winds, which would make take -off and landings safer. However, it would not meet the objective of ensuring compatibility of development with surrounding uses in terms of aesthetics and hazards impacts. Specifically, this alternative would route the flights paths in the vicinity of nearby power lines, increasing safety hazards related to visibility of these features as well as flight path obstructions, requiring a variance from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for transitional surface penetration. Furthermore, this alternative would result in greater aesthetics impacts due to the requirement that red obstruction lights be placed on or adjacent to the power lines as well as visually prominent security fencing that would be required to surround the at -grade helistop location. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As described in the Draft SEIR, the No Project Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and noise impacts than would occur by the proposed project; and the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative would result in greater aesthetics and hazards impacts than would occur by the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed project is provided in Table 1. 6 TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact Category Proposed Project No Project Alternative Site Alternative Aesthetics Less than significant Greater Greater Hazards Less than significant Similar Greater Noise Significant and Greater Greater/Fewer Unavoidable Meets the project Yes Yes, but not to the Yes, but not to the objectives same extent as the same extent as the proposed project proposed project D. The Project as Proposed 1. Summary of Project The project is described in detail in the SEI R. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final SEIR and have compared them with those of the proposed project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various economic, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals of providing superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed heliport facilities would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities. In addition, the proposed helistop locations would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, the project as proposed would further the project objective of providing buffers that minimize the impacts of helicopter related noise, light, and visibility of activity on surrounding residential uses and would respond to requirements of the FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and addresses various impacts to recent residential development adjacent to the hospital site. 7 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project (the "project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to noise generated by helicopter activities. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed project would provide for superior, easily accessible, operationally efficient, emergency medical services within the City of Temecula that help meet the medical needs of the region. The proposed project would provide hospital doctors and patients enhanced accessibility to state -of -the art medical procedures at other regional hospitals or specialized hospital facilities when ambulance transport is inappropriate or not advantageous to patients. C. The proposed project would reduce noise and safety conflicts with adjacent residential development, as compared to the previously approved helistop site by rerouting the flight paths to avoid crossing residential uses and locating the flight paths over less developed areas as well as aligning flight paths with prevailing or Santa Ana wind conditions, which allows for maximum control over the aircraft. D. As compared to the previously approved helistop site, the proposed project would reduce safety conflicts and biological impacts with the existing tall trees 8 within the adjacent riparian area, which FAA would require to be trimmed under the currently approved flight path and helistop location. Thus, the proposed Major Modification would provide a benefit to the community by enhancing access to specialized medical procedures in the region, and would provide a benefit to the local community by reducing effects and improving safety over the existing approved helistop locations. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Impact Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Noise Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to helicopter operations, the Temecula Valley Hospital will develop and install signage at both ends of the portion of the equestrian trail that is adjacent to the hospital site. The signs will notice riders of the helistop location and its operation at the hospital. The sign will include helicopter noise information and warnings to equestrian users. The Temecula Valley Hospital will be responsible for the design, preparation, and installation of the sign, as well as all related costs. Aircraft flights for medical purposes cannot be restricted due to the aircraft's noise level per California PUC Section 21662.4. Ongoing Temecula Valley City of Temecula Field verification Hospital Building Official and sign -off by or other City of Temecula Designee Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1 ESA / 130652 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2015 Date: April 18, 2015 From: George Di Leo To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Temecula Hosp Helicopter Pad Location/Planning Commission Hearing My wife and I moved to Temecula in March of 2000. I am a retired Federal Aviation Administration employee with assignments in five different states.. I started my career in the New York City area. I was an Air Traffic Controller, Union Representative (prior to 1970 strike), Computer Specialist, FAA Oklahoma Training Academy Unit Supervisor and Manager, Air Traffic Facility supervisor and Manager and member of several FAA commissions handling changed Air Traffic Operations with public hearings. You may ask how does one go from a Union Representative to Management. After the successful 1970 strike, the FAA upper management decided, in its wisdom, that if the Union leaders could accomplish what they did in the Federal sector, they have a connection with the workforce and must have something on the ball. Therefore, most of the Union leaders were promoted into first, second, and third level supervisory and management positions. I also had a peripheral connection to some aircraft accident investigations. I believe this qualifies me to comment on the Temecula Hospital helicopter pad and flight path requested change to the south end of the hospital adjacent to Temecula Parkway. The hospital has made a bad decision. I spoke with the person who submitted the plans for the new location. She was not aware that the Eastern flight path along the north edge of Temecula Parkway goes directly over Paseo Del Sol and an elementary school. This is a very dense residential community with an elementary school. The western flight path goes over Rancho Community Church and the new HS under construction.. Doesn't appear there was an in depth research done concerning impacted areas. If such a proposal went to the FAA for approval we would require in-depth charts depicting zones of impacted areas, population density, schools, etc.. In addition noise abatement procedures would be mandatory due to location in a dense population and commercial area. This is why I presented my questions in the hopes of awakening the need for a controlled environment with written procedures that mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. It is not as simplistic as saying "this is about saving lives" and leaving it at that. Another problem is the Helicopter Service Operator. His response to a commissioners question related to my presentation was totally unprofessional. He commented that my concerns would be addressed through a handout about operations he would give to all pilots and they would know what to do. That is totally unacceptable and should be unacceptable to the city of Temecula. In the world of aviation, and aircraft operations there isn't room for handouts. It is a world of procedures, rules, and responsibilities all clearly spelled out and reinforced with written directives and charts and leaving no room for deviation except for aircraft emergencies.. This is much more complex then some handouts. Regarding his comment that my concerns are addressed by his issuing handouts to pilots as to what they should do. This is the most hap -hazard management proposal for aviation operations I have ever seen. This is why the FAA has rules and rule making procedures. Valid procedures and directives are clearly spelled out. They are bolstered with mandatory adherence by pilots. We should require no less then the FAA would here in Temecula. It is not the communities fault that hospital management just picked the wrong location to build a hospital. They needed a fairly isolated area, maybe west of I-15 to accommodate helicopter movement and room for much future expansion. The hospital and helicopter operator must operate under stringent rules as set forth by the City of Temecula as the FAA would require. This is due to it's location in the midst of one of the most dense residential, commercial, school, church and park areas in Temecula. I know everyone, including doctors in white coats, are shouting about saving lives. The community still has a right to a decent quality of life without hindering saving of lives.. The noise factor along Temecula Parkway, which has a serious and dangerous effect on health , has already created an unlivable situation for all who live along Temecula Parkway. This is due to the out of control speeding traffic, associated noise, and ear shattering noise from motorcyclists who travel at unbelievable speeds along the parkway. When at the light, just east of Apes (Walmart), motorcycle drivers gun their engines and depart the light with a vengeance. Saturdays and five AM daily are really bad. No one enjoys sitting out in or using their back yards. No one uses their back yard for Barbecue cookouts. Comments from visitors are WOW! The city administration has not entered into any resolution and mitigation of this situation. I recently sent the council an email concerning reports of dangerous health impacts on people living adjacent to roadways like Temecula Parkway. I did not receive any possible solution or mitigation responses, I received responses from various departments about what cannot be done, no can do attitude and response. I realize residents do not attend council and Planning Commission meetings. Most people in Temecula commute, arrive home late in the evening and are unable to attend meetings. This is not an excuse it is a reality. Therefore no one should be under the delusion that residents don't care or that they are not concerned. Most of the people, in my community, know I am a delegate of our HOA and was a regular attendee at council meetings. All have always contacted me asking that I speak for them. I had given up on attending council meetings and planning commission meetings due to not having received any feedback or acknowledgement from the Council or Planning Commission. I had attended one commission meeting, a year or so ago, when I was advised to attend a planning commission meeting by Councilman Edwards. She suggested I should raise our concerns and contact a police manager, by name, who attends meetings. I did not receive an acknowledgement, feed back or any proposed investigation plans. It is quite a serious situation when a citizen brings a very serious problem to the attention of city officials and we are just kind of tolerated and ignored. My impression has been that the officials just listen and probably say "well there goes another disgruntled person, it will pass" I didn't intend to be overly critical, but you should remember `It's in the eyes of the beholder'. I'm sure and hopeful there are exceptions. I did influence the recognition of a famous retired Old Town $5,00 barber. It was refreshing that two commissioners asked that I send follow up comments to Commission members and that I spell out my credentials. I wish I could get all of the residents in Paseo Del Sol, and other communities I contacted, to attend meetings. You would get a resounding earful. We have had enough, and we're about to have another attack on our sanctity. I or we are not against saving lives. There has been enough mitigating of traffic, helicopter operations, and hospital operations.. I believe it's time for doing some mitigating of impacts on residents right to a positive quality of life. Is this not one of the paramount duties and responsibilities of city government. It seems we have been left at the starting gate. The situation is much more complex then the beliefs of all those who spoke and expressing that nothing matters except saving lives. I apologize for the length of this correspondence and do pray you give it your full attention with an eye toward consideration for the silent community. I believe they don't want to be associated with the possible belief they don't care about saving lives. I did not air the above comments at Wednesday's meeting since I felt it would be inappropriate. I'm not interested in being known as the person who fought city hall. I'm interested in solutions and leaving you the room to solve without finger pointing. Sincerely, George Di Leo I have a few questions, concerning helicopter operations, that need to be considered tonight, if anyone on this commission has an awareness of flight rules. I know the questions are rather complex for a full and complete response tonight. It also may not be customary to expect a response tonight. - Where will the penetration point be ( point at which helicopters begin descent on approach and landing) - What will be the Approach flight path. - What is the minimum altitude on initial approach and final approach and along departure routes. - What are the noise abatement procedures - Where is the departure funnel climb altitude point, to avoid great impact on the area. - What is the minimum climb to altitude prior to entering departure flight path Same reason as above - What are the designated departure flight paths and how do pilots get to the departure flight path or route. - You should have departure and approach plates depicting mapping of routes and minimum altitude points, for departures and arrivals, in relation to area facilities, schools, churches, residential, retail areas, and parks. - Plans for emergency responders, Fire, and Police, to respond to and handle potential aircraft accidents with associated fuel fires and explosions. It should be required that before any plans fpr the operations are changed and finalized there should be a public comment period. You have a hospital and associated helicopter operations located in a very dense retail, traffic, and residential area, not to mention schools, churches, and parks. There is much due -diligence to be done if it hasn't been done. If done that due diligence report must be made public. Please don't create another Rte 79S/Temecula Parkway disaster with its out of control speeding traffic, noise, and close proximity to dense residential and commercial areas.. I'm sure you realize that all of the activity associated with the hospital has been planned and implemented after all of the local activity developed, therefore residents, business owners, schools, and churches have a right to a great deal of say as to what happens with helicopters or anything else associated with the hospital. I have given the clerk copies of my comments. And I appreciate you indulgence June 9, 2015 City of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • www.cityoftemecula.org Mr. George DiLeo 31428 Corderro Lane Temecula, CA 92592 SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Dear Mr. DiLeo: Thank you for your interest in the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop relocation project and your attendance at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing on this matter. In response to the written questions you submitted regarding the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop, I have worked with Jeff Wright of Heliplanners, who is a consultant to Temecula Valley Hospital, to respond to your concerns. Attached please find correspondence from Mr. Wright responding to your comments. With regard to the public comment period you mention in your correspondence, we did begin public outreach efforts in December, 2013, when the City and our environmental consultant, ESA, held a noticed public scoping meeting to discuss the scope of the environmental review for the helistop relocation project. Following completion of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the helistop relocation project in November, 2014, notice was provided to the community and reviewing agencies of the completion of this document, which went out for public review from November 12, 2014, through December 26, 2014. The Planning Commission hearing that was held for this project on April 15, 2015 was also noticed by posting of the site, a notice in the Union Tribune, and mailed notices sent in conformance with the City's Municipal Code. A City Council hearing will be required for a final decision on the helistop relocation application (possibly on July 14, 2015, but this date has not yet been confirmed) and newspaper notice, site posting, and mailing of hearing notices will also occur for this hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (951) 506-5159 or by e-mail at stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.com Sincerely, uart Fisk, AIC Senior Planner enclosures X:\Planning\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Planning\Correspondence\Response to George Di Leo.doc Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del Reposo, Temecula, California 92591-1718 USA Phone, (951) 693.5090 Fax. (951) 693.50,12 CeN. (951) 203.8900 www.heliplanners.com May 19, 2015 Mr. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Aviation Planning Consultants Heliport Specialists Subject: Response to Temecula Resident's (George Di Leo) comments Dear Stuart: Per your request, Heliplanners has prepared this response to Mr. George Di Leo's comments that are specific to Temecula Valley Hospital's helistop planning and approval process: • Proximity to neighborhoods, schools, churches, parks, etc. The helistop's location and accompanying flight path alignments were carefully chosen given the site layout (existing and future), school locations, surrounding land uses, community noise levels, patient service needs, prevailing winds and operational safety. Much thought and due diligence went into this process. The proposed flight paths were in fact carefully plotted and we ensured that they would not overfly school properties. The selected site was found to be much superior to the originally approved site from many aspects, including noise and safety impacts on the neighboring Los Ranchitos community and Madera Vista apartment complex. • Agency Review We consulted with all aviation -focused public agencies and complied with their requirements. The helistop location and flight path layout were submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). All three agencies found the project acceptable. The FAA conducted an airspace study as mandated by Part 157, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FARs). FAA issued its resulting airspace determination letter on July 3, 2013, stating that "the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint". FAA issued an extension on November 25, 2014, The Riverside County ALUC considered the project at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 13, 2014 and found it "consistent with the County's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan". Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics is responsible for reviewing the design of and permitting airports and heliports throughout California. Caltrans reviewed the Heliport Layout Plan and issued Conditional Plan Approval on June 12, 2013. Caltrans Aeronautics will conduct a final inspection at the end of construction. At that time, assuming that their aviation safety inspector finds that the UHST-1 Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service May 19, 2015 Mr. Fisk Page 2 Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants — Heliport Specialists completed project complies with the Division's safety-related criteria, he will issue the Heliport Permit authorizing the startup of flight operations. • Helicopter Noise Throughout the EMS helicopter industry, the Helicopter Association International's "fly neighborly" procedures are stressed. These procedures include advisories regarding noise abatement and not overflying homes if possible. The SEIR, which focused primarily on the helistop, included a helicopter noise study prepared by an experienced aviation acoustics consultant. That study found noise levels to be acceptable, especially considering the low level of activity anticipated. EMS helicopters are much smaller and lighter weight than Marine Corps and other military helicopters that frequently fly over the Temecula Valley. Their resulting noise levels are much lower. • Pilot's Information Sheet The "handout" that Mr. Di Leo references is in fact a "Pilot's Information Sheet". It is a professionally developed document that follows a standard format used for hospital helistops throughout the state. It does in fact provide pilots with prescribed flight paths and also cautions them about noise -sensitive areas to avoid. It provides significant technical information for pilots' reference. Upon permitting the helistop, Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics will also add the helistop to its online database of hospital heliports throughout California. This database provides pilots with a ready reference source of technical information, including approved flight path alignments, for all hospital heliports. It is important to understand that helicopters serving Temecula Valley Hospital will not operate in a highly structured airspace environment that Mr. Di Leo likely encountered while working at air traffic control facilities in the New York City area (in Class B airspace). There, extremely defined procedures are the norm—standard terminal arrival routes (STARs), standard instrument departures (SIDs), etc. Here, pilots would operate in Class G airspace beneath overlying Class E airspace. The helistop will be a VFR (visual flight rules) only facility. The very precise procedures used in complex airspace would not be needed or even relevant. Professional EMS helicopter pilots land every day at hospitals throughout California (and throughout the country) without the level of control that Mr. Di Leo suggests would be required. And, many of those hospitals are trauma centers with much higher helicopter activity levels than anticipated here. The Temecula area is similar to many communities throughout the state that host non -trauma hospitals with low -activity helistops. • Public comment The proposed helistop relocation from the originally approved site resulted in the City commissioning the SEIR to study environmental issues. The City of Temecula released the SEIR for a 45 -day public review and comment period from November 12, 2014 through December 29, 2014. In addition, City of Temecula Planning staff and project team representatives met several times with members of the Los Ranchitos Board of Directors regarding their specific concerns. The Temecula Planning Commission UHST-1 Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service May 19, 2015 Mr. Fisk Page 3 Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants — Heliport Specialists considered and voted unanimously in favor of the project at its regularly scheduled April 15, 2015 meeting. That meeting included a formal public hearing during which the Commission received public comments. It is only after this extensive procedure including environmental analysis, public review and comments (including the upcoming City Council meeting) and review by all applicable aviation agencies that the helistop will be allowed to move forward to construction. In regards to Mr. Di Leo's questions about flight paths and minimum obstruction clearance, we enclose Heliplanners' flight path plan and profile drawings. It is important to understand that the 8:1 -sloped approach/departure surfaces that comply with Part 77 (Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace) of the FARs represent quite conservative criteria. Our flight plan profile provides a more realistic portrayal of how pilots actually fly. It shows that pilots typically approach and depart at much steeper angles to maximize safety and minimize noise levels. As Roy Cox with Mercy Air (one of the region's primary EMS helicopter operators) stated at the Planning Commission meeting, EMS pilots maintain an altitude at least 1,000 feet above ground level while enroute before descending to a hospital helistop. After reviewing the above, we hope that Mr. Di Leo will agree that a great deal of thought, planning and analysis has gone into the helistop. We truly believe that the helistop will be an asset to the entire Temecula Valley, providing rapid access to more intensive medical facilities for Temecula's residents. Remember that none of us ever knows when we personally—or a loved one in our family—might critically need the services of an EMS helicopter for transport to Scripps, UCSD Medical Center, Rady Children's Hospital, etc. We hope that we have been able to answer Mr. Di Leo's questions and that he will now join the many Temecula residents who support this most worthwhile project. Sincerely,7 /9#7 Jeffrey W. Wright encl Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service UHST-1 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL Interim Helistop Flight Path Alignments JUNE 4. 2015 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE .ao 310 a Y 90 /7eliplanners ' Ahiafian Poamig Consultants NO1 SPaciits!' Approx, 250' AGL Hover Altitude 30' L. Approx. 210' AGL Approx, 440' AGL Approx. 670' AGL 2— Story Medical Office Buildings 0 A LYNORA Trees Behind Flight Path 5—Story Hospital Building in Front Of Flight Path i 2— Story Madera Woods Multifamily Residential In Front Of Flight Path MARGARITA TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL Helicopter Flight Profiles As Viewed From Temecula Parkway JUNE 4, 2015 0 50 00 10 .[O AGL = Above Ground Level HHell planners wrthdplm,nerxcum t A�ialim Planning Conanlicwasiintat Specialists Date: April 18, 2015 From: George Di Leo To: Planning Commissioners Subject: Temecula Hosp Helicopter Pad Location/Planning Commission Hearing My wife and I moved to Temecula in March of 2000. I am a retired Federal Aviation Administration employee with assignments in five different states.. I started my career in the New York City area. I was an Air Traffic Controller, Union Representative (prior to 1970 strike), Computer Specialist, FAA Oklahoma Training Academy Unit Supervisor and Manager, Air Traffic Facility supervisor and Manager and member of several FAA commissions handling changed Air Traffic Operations with public hearings. You may ask how does one go from a Union Representative to Management. After the successful 1970 strike, the FAA upper management decided, in its wisdom, that if the Union leaders could accomplish what they did in the Federal sector, they have a connection with the workforce and must have something on the ball. Therefore, most of the Union leaders were promoted into first, second, and third level supervisory and management positions. I also had a peripheral connection to some aircraft accident investigations. I believe this qualifies me to comment on the Temecula Hospital helicopter pad and flight path requested change to the south end of the hospital adjacent to Temecula Parkway. The hospital has made a bad decision. I spoke with the person who submitted the plans for the new location. She was not aware that the Eastern flight path along the north edge of Temecula Parkway goes directly over Paseo Del Sol and an elementary school. This is a very dense residential community with an elementary school. The western flight path goes over Rancho Community Church and the new HS under construction.. Doesn't appear there was an in depth research done concerning impacted areas. If such a proposal went to the FAA for approval we would require in-depth charts depicting zones of impacted areas, population density, schools, etc.. In addition noise abatement procedures would be mandatory due to location in a dense population and commercial area. This is why I presented my questions in the hopes of awakening the need for a controlled environment with written procedures that mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. It is not as simplistic as saying "this is about saving lives" and leaving it at that. Another problem is the Helicopter Service Operator. His response to a commissioners question related to my presentation was totally unprofessional. He commented that my concerns would be addressed through a handout about operations he would give to all pilots and they would know what to do. That is totally unacceptable and should be unacceptable to the city of Temecula. In the world of aviation, and aircraft operations there isn't room for handouts. It is a world of procedures, rules, and responsibilities all clearly spelled out and reinforced with written directives and charts and leaving no room for deviation except for aircraft emergencies.. This is much more complex then some handouts. Regarding his comment that my concerns are addressed by his issuing handouts to pilots as to what they should do. This is the most hap -hazard management proposal for aviation operations I have ever seen. This is why the FAA has rules and rule making procedures. Valid procedures and directives are clearly spelled out. They are bolstered with mandatory adherence by pilots. We should require no less then the FAA would here in Temecula. It is not the communities fault that hospital management just picked the wrong location to build a hospital. They needed a fairly isolated area, maybe west of I-15 to accommodate helicopter movement and room for much future expansion. The hospital and helicopter operator must operate under stringent rules as set forth by the City of Temecula as the FAA would require. This is due to it's location in the midst of one of the most dense residential, commercial, school, church and park areas in Temecula. I know everyone, including doctors in white coats, are shouting about saving lives. The community still has a right to a decent quality of life without hindering saving of lives.. The noise factor along Temecula Parkway, which has a serious and dangerous effect on health , has already created an unlivable situation for all who live along Temecula Parkway. This is due to the out of control speeding traffic, associated noise, and ear shattering noise from motorcyclists who travel at unbelievable speeds along the parkway. When at the light, just east of Apes (Walmart), motorcycle drivers gun their engines and depart the light with a vengeance. Saturdays and five AM daily are really bad. No one enjoys sitting out in or using their back yards. No one uses their back yard for Barbecue cookouts. Comments from visitors are WOW! The city administration has not entered into any resolution and mitigation of this situation. I recently sent the council an email concerning reports of dangerous health impacts on people living adjacent to roadways like Temecula Parkway. I did not receive any possible solution or mitigation responses, I received responses from various departments about what cannot be done, no can do attitude and response. I realize residents do not attend council and Planning Commission meetings. Most people in Temecula commute, arrive home late in the evening and are unable to attend meetings. This is not an excuse it is a reality. Therefore no one should be under the delusion that residents don't care or that they are not concerned. Most of the people, in my community, know I am a delegate of our HOA and was a regular attendee at council meetings. All have always contacted me asking that I speak for them. I had given up on attending council meetings and planning commission meetings due to not having received any feedback or acknowledgement from the Council or Planning Commission. I had attended one commission meeting, a year or so ago, when I was advised to attend a planning commission meeting by Councilman Edwards. She suggested I should raise our concerns and contact a police manager, by name, who attends meetings. I did not receive an acknowledgement, feed back or any proposed investigation plans. It is quite a serious situation when a citizen brings a very serious problem to the attention of city officials and we are just kind of tolerated and ignored. My impression has been that the officials just listen and probably say "well there goes another disgruntled person, it will pass" I didn't intend to be overly critical, but you should remember `It's in the eyes of the beholder'. I'm sure and hopeful there are exceptions. I did influence the recognition of a famous retired Old Town $5,00 barber. It was refreshing that two commissioners asked that I send follow up comments to Commission members and that I spell out my credentials. I wish I could get all of the residents in Paseo Del Sol, and other communities I contacted, to attend meetings. You would get a resounding earful. We have had enough, and we're about to have another attack on our sanctity. I or we are not against saving lives. There has been enough mitigating of traffic, helicopter operations, and hospital operations.. I believe it's time for doing some mitigating of impacts on residents right to a positive quality of life. Is this not one of the paramount duties and responsibilities of city government. It seems we have been left at the starting gate. The situation is much more complex then the beliefs of all those who spoke and expressing that nothing matters except saving lives. I apologize for the length of this correspondence and do pray you give it your full attention with an eye toward consideration for the silent community. I believe they don't want to be associated with the possible belief they don't care about saving lives. I did not air the above comments at Wednesday's meeting since I felt it would be inappropriate. I'm not interested in being known as the person who fought city hall. I'm interested in solutions and leaving you the room to solve without finger pointing. Sincerely, George Di Leo I have a few questions, concerning helicopter operations, that need to be considered tonight, if anyone on this commission has an awareness of flight rules. I know the questions are rather complex for a full and complete response tonight. It also may not be customary to expect a response tonight. - Where will the penetration point be ( point at which helicopters begin descent on approach and landing) - What will be the Approach flight path. - What is the minimum altitude on initial approach and final approach and along departure routes. - What are the noise abatement procedures - Where is the departure funnel climb altitude point, to avoid great impact on the area. - What is the minimum climb to altitude prior to entering departure flight path Same reason as above - What are the designated departure flight paths and how do pilots get to the departure flight path or route. - You should have departure and approach plates depicting mapping of routes and minimum altitude points, for departures and arrivals, in relation to area facilities, schools, churches, residential, retail areas, and parks. - Plans for emergency responders, Fire, and Police, to respond to and handle potential aircraft accidents with associated fuel fires and explosions. It should be required that before any plans fpr the operations are changed and finalized there should be a public comment period. You have a hospital and associated helicopter operations located in a very dense retail, traffic, and residential area, not to mention schools, churches, and parks. There is much due -diligence to be done if it hasn't been done. If done that due diligence report must be made public. Please don't create another Rte 79S/Temecula Parkway disaster with its out of control speeding traffic, noise, and close proximity to dense residential and commercial areas.. I'm sure you realize that all of the activity associated with the hospital has been planned and implemented after all of the local activity developed, therefore residents, business owners, schools, and churches have a right to a great deal of say as to what happens with helicopters or anything else associated with the hospital. I have given the clerk copies of my comments. And I appreciate you indulgence June 9, 2015 City of Temecula Community Development 41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590 Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • www.cityoftemecula.org Mr. George DiLeo 31428 Corderro Lane Temecula, CA 92592 SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Dear Mr. DiLeo: Thank you for your interest in the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop relocation project and your attendance at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing on this matter. In response to the written questions you submitted regarding the Temecula Valley Hospital helistop, I have worked with Jeff Wright of Heliplanners, who is a consultant to Temecula Valley Hospital, to respond to your concerns. Attached please find correspondence from Mr. Wright responding to your comments. With regard to the public comment period you mention in your correspondence, we did begin public outreach efforts in December, 2013, when the City and our environmental consultant, ESA, held a noticed public scoping meeting to discuss the scope of the environmental review for the helistop relocation project. Following completion of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the helistop relocation project in November, 2014, notice was provided to the community and reviewing agencies of the completion of this document, which went out for public review from November 12, 2014, through December 26, 2014. The Planning Commission hearing that was held for this project on April 15, 2015 was also noticed by posting of the site, a notice in the Union Tribune, and mailed notices sent in conformance with the City's Municipal Code. A City Council hearing will be required for a final decision on the helistop relocation application (possibly on July 14, 2015, but this date has not yet been confirmed) and newspaper notice, site posting, and mailing of hearing notices will also occur for this hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (951) 506-5159 or by e-mail at stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.com Sincerely, uart Fisk, AIC Senior Planner enclosures X:\Planning\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Planning\Correspondence\Response to George Di Leo.doc Heliplanners 31110 Avenida Del Reposo, Temecula, California 92591-1718 USA Phone, (951) 693.5090 Fax. (951) 693.50,12 CeN. (951) 203.8900 www.heliplanners.com May 19, 2015 Mr. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Aviation Planning Consultants Heliport Specialists Subject: Response to Temecula Resident's (George Di Leo) comments Dear Stuart: Per your request, Heliplanners has prepared this response to Mr. George Di Leo's comments that are specific to Temecula Valley Hospital's helistop planning and approval process: • Proximity to neighborhoods, schools, churches, parks, etc. The helistop's location and accompanying flight path alignments were carefully chosen given the site layout (existing and future), school locations, surrounding land uses, community noise levels, patient service needs, prevailing winds and operational safety. Much thought and due diligence went into this process. The proposed flight paths were in fact carefully plotted and we ensured that they would not overfly school properties. The selected site was found to be much superior to the originally approved site from many aspects, including noise and safety impacts on the neighboring Los Ranchitos community and Madera Vista apartment complex. • Agency Review We consulted with all aviation -focused public agencies and complied with their requirements. The helistop location and flight path layout were submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). All three agencies found the project acceptable. The FAA conducted an airspace study as mandated by Part 157, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FARs). FAA issued its resulting airspace determination letter on July 3, 2013, stating that "the proposal is acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint". FAA issued an extension on November 25, 2014, The Riverside County ALUC considered the project at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 13, 2014 and found it "consistent with the County's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan". Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics is responsible for reviewing the design of and permitting airports and heliports throughout California. Caltrans reviewed the Heliport Layout Plan and issued Conditional Plan Approval on June 12, 2013. Caltrans Aeronautics will conduct a final inspection at the end of construction. At that time, assuming that their aviation safety inspector finds that the UHST-1 Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service May 19, 2015 Mr. Fisk Page 2 Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants — Heliport Specialists completed project complies with the Division's safety-related criteria, he will issue the Heliport Permit authorizing the startup of flight operations. • Helicopter Noise Throughout the EMS helicopter industry, the Helicopter Association International's "fly neighborly" procedures are stressed. These procedures include advisories regarding noise abatement and not overflying homes if possible. The SEIR, which focused primarily on the helistop, included a helicopter noise study prepared by an experienced aviation acoustics consultant. That study found noise levels to be acceptable, especially considering the low level of activity anticipated. EMS helicopters are much smaller and lighter weight than Marine Corps and other military helicopters that frequently fly over the Temecula Valley. Their resulting noise levels are much lower. • Pilot's Information Sheet The "handout" that Mr. Di Leo references is in fact a "Pilot's Information Sheet". It is a professionally developed document that follows a standard format used for hospital helistops throughout the state. It does in fact provide pilots with prescribed flight paths and also cautions them about noise -sensitive areas to avoid. It provides significant technical information for pilots' reference. Upon permitting the helistop, Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics will also add the helistop to its online database of hospital heliports throughout California. This database provides pilots with a ready reference source of technical information, including approved flight path alignments, for all hospital heliports. It is important to understand that helicopters serving Temecula Valley Hospital will not operate in a highly structured airspace environment that Mr. Di Leo likely encountered while working at air traffic control facilities in the New York City area (in Class B airspace). There, extremely defined procedures are the norm—standard terminal arrival routes (STARs), standard instrument departures (SIDs), etc. Here, pilots would operate in Class G airspace beneath overlying Class E airspace. The helistop will be a VFR (visual flight rules) only facility. The very precise procedures used in complex airspace would not be needed or even relevant. Professional EMS helicopter pilots land every day at hospitals throughout California (and throughout the country) without the level of control that Mr. Di Leo suggests would be required. And, many of those hospitals are trauma centers with much higher helicopter activity levels than anticipated here. The Temecula area is similar to many communities throughout the state that host non -trauma hospitals with low -activity helistops. • Public comment The proposed helistop relocation from the originally approved site resulted in the City commissioning the SEIR to study environmental issues. The City of Temecula released the SEIR for a 45 -day public review and comment period from November 12, 2014 through December 29, 2014. In addition, City of Temecula Planning staff and project team representatives met several times with members of the Los Ranchitos Board of Directors regarding their specific concerns. The Temecula Planning Commission UHST-1 Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service May 19, 2015 Mr. Fisk Page 3 Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants — Heliport Specialists considered and voted unanimously in favor of the project at its regularly scheduled April 15, 2015 meeting. That meeting included a formal public hearing during which the Commission received public comments. It is only after this extensive procedure including environmental analysis, public review and comments (including the upcoming City Council meeting) and review by all applicable aviation agencies that the helistop will be allowed to move forward to construction. In regards to Mr. Di Leo's questions about flight paths and minimum obstruction clearance, we enclose Heliplanners' flight path plan and profile drawings. It is important to understand that the 8:1 -sloped approach/departure surfaces that comply with Part 77 (Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace) of the FARs represent quite conservative criteria. Our flight plan profile provides a more realistic portrayal of how pilots actually fly. It shows that pilots typically approach and depart at much steeper angles to maximize safety and minimize noise levels. As Roy Cox with Mercy Air (one of the region's primary EMS helicopter operators) stated at the Planning Commission meeting, EMS pilots maintain an altitude at least 1,000 feet above ground level while enroute before descending to a hospital helistop. After reviewing the above, we hope that Mr. Di Leo will agree that a great deal of thought, planning and analysis has gone into the helistop. We truly believe that the helistop will be an asset to the entire Temecula Valley, providing rapid access to more intensive medical facilities for Temecula's residents. Remember that none of us ever knows when we personally—or a loved one in our family—might critically need the services of an EMS helicopter for transport to Scripps, UCSD Medical Center, Rady Children's Hospital, etc. We hope that we have been able to answer Mr. Di Leo's questions and that he will now join the many Temecula residents who support this most worthwhile project. Sincerely,7 /9#7 Jeffrey W. Wright encl Established 1987 — Over a Quarter Century of Service UHST-1 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL Interim Helistop Flight Path Alignments JUNE 4. 2015 0 50 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE .ao 310 a Y 90 /7eliplanners ' Ahiafian Poamig Consultants NO1 SPaciits!' Approx, 250' AGL Hover Altitude 30' L. Approx. 210' AGL Approx, 440' AGL Approx. 670' AGL 2— Story Medical Office Buildings 0 A LYNORA Trees Behind Flight Path 5—Story Hospital Building in Front Of Flight Path i 2— Story Madera Woods Multifamily Residential In Front Of Flight Path MARGARITA TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL Helicopter Flight Profiles As Viewed From Temecula Parkway JUNE 4, 2015 0 50 00 10 .[O AGL = Above Ground Level HHell planners wrthdplm,nerxcum t A�ialim Planning Conanlicwasiintat Specialists Item No. 21 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager It CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Interim Community Development Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Adopt Weed Abatement Lien Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014-15 PREPARED BY: Steve Lankenau, Building Official RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is responsible for weed abatement for properties that are not cleared of hazardous weeds during the spring and summer abatement season. On April 28, 2015, City Council approved a contract with Inland Empire Property Services to bring parcels with hazardous conditions into compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The owners of these parcels are billed by the City to recover the costs of the contractor plus an administrative fee. If the owners do not respond to the billing request, the City is required to place a lien on the property to recover the costs. All of the owners were properly notified via certified mail, return receipt requested, of the need to abate weed conditions on their properties and were given three months to remove the weeds themselves prior to the City taking weed abatement action. The lien process requires that a public hearing be held before the City Council to take comments from the property owners with respect to the costs proposed to be assessed against their properties and to confirm those costs. The Notice of Public Hearing was printed in the Union Tribune San Diego on July 13, 2015. Following the public hearing, the Council must adopt a resolution for the fiscal year which: 1 Confirms the costs incurred by the City in performing the weed abatement work. 2. Provides that the actual abatement costs will become a lien upon the properties, and upon recordation, in the amount of the costs shown on the attached "Exhibit A". 3. Provides that the Resolution will be transmitted to the Riverside County Treasurer -Tax Collector so the amounts of the assessment can be entered upon the parcels as they appear on the assessment rolls and the costs will be collected on the property tax bill. Staff is requesting Council action for the Fiscal Year 2014-15. Upon adoption of the resolution, staff will forward the adopted resolutions for filing with the Riverside County Treasurer -Tax Collector and for recording with the County Recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: The recording of these liens will enable the City to recover abatement costs through the County's property tax collection system. The City will recover actual amounts paid out to the weed abatement contractors. Further, the City will recover the administrative fee placed on each parcel that was abated by the City's contractors. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A — Abatement Charges for Fiscal Year 2014-15 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ORDERING CONFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR COSTS OF ABATEMENT AND REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code provides for expedited abatement of hazardous vegetation from vacant lots and parcels. Section 2. Abatement of hazardous vegetation has been completed for each of the parcels as described in the attached list of parcels (Exhibit "A"), at a cost equal to the costs of abatement and removal of hazardous vegetation on each parcel. Section 3. A hearing was held on July 28, 2015, duly noticed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 8.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code, concerning the costs of abatement of these parcels at which time the Council heard all objections of property owners liable to be assessed for the costs of abatement. Section 4. The list of parcels and costs of abatement and removal of hazardous vegetation for each parcel is hereby reconfirmed and said costs shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land, and are a lien on said land in the amount of the respective assessments. Section 5. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the Treasurer -Tax Collector who shall enter the amounts of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear in the current assessment roll, and shall collect said assessments at the same time in the same manner as ordinary municipal ad valorem taxes as provided in Section 39577 of the Government Code. Section 6. The costs against any parcel of land listed in Exhibit "A" assessed by this resolution and the lien created thereby shall be deemed discharged and released upon the payment for said parcel of the property taxes for the tax year above - noted. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July , 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, Clerk Parcel Number Owner Balance Due 944232015 David Mathews 1,678.00 921242008 Thomas Berumen 305.00 944330019 Global Hotel Network 410.00 922034022 Old Town Center I 285.00 922053047 U2 285.00 919043003 Shio Chao Lee 285.00 961101014 Georgena Marruffo 290.00 920090003 Winchester Meadows Inv 2,300.00 957150017 Scott Vanyo 290.00 922210042 King Chai 410.00 921730065 DCH 1,250.00 944290016 William Tekunoff 1,100.00 922053037 S&L Hasan Inc. 285.00 921730071 HYE 305.00 919152004 Peter Nguyen 285.00 921070011 Anay LLC 285.00 944290015 William Tefunoff 1,310.00 921070017 Dennys 285.00 922120017 David Shek 285.00 957170037 J&L Property 1,340.00 909370048 American Life Dev 860.00 944060007 Arthur Jurado 365.00 922120019 David Shek 285.00 922054011 U2 285.00 922120018 David Shek 285.00 922190033 Temecula Valley Hospitality 515.00 957202030 Daniel Little 290.00 944290017 William Tekunoff 1,040.00 910282002 Japan Inv, Inc 305.00 922034021 Old Town Center I 285.00 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 22 Approvals City Attorney Finance Director City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Receive Report and Provide Direction Regarding Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Workshop Community Outreach Project PREPARED BY: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council do the following: 1. Receive presentation and provide additional direction as needed; 2. Authorize City Manager to engage consultant and/or experts in subject area to design and conduct community outreach efforts; 3. Designate subcommittee of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to provide general project guidance to staff. BACKGROUND: On May 27, 2015, the City Council conducted the annual Budget Workshop in preparation for the formal adoption of the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget. During the workshop, the City Council received information about the challenges associated with increasing public safety costs projected over the next several years and the impacts of those costs on the operating budget. While the City Council generally discussed several ideas for expenditure reduction and revenue generation, the Council wholeheartedly expressed its desire to conduct community outreach on this topic to inform the citizens of the challenges and to solicit ideas and solutions addressing the challenge. In addition, the City Council provided direction to staff to return within 30-60 days with next steps. This presentation and requested recommendation is in response to that direction. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the specific consideration of this item. Costs associated with any community outreach on this project are incorporated in the current year budget and fall within the City Manager's contract authority. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 23 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Interim Director of Community Development DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Introduce an Ordinance Extending the Term of Active Development Plans Approved Prior to July 1, 2015 (At the Request of Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt by a 4/5 vote the Interim Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER CERTAIN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO DECEMBER 1, 2015 TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF A PERMANENT EXTENSION ORDINANCE; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3) 2. Direct Staff to continue developing an ordinance extending the term of active development plans and present the ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in public hearings. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of Temecula Municipal Code Title 17, Chapter 17.05 states that approved development plans have two years to commence construction before the approval for the development plan expires. Additionally, the Director of Community Development can grant up to three (3) individual extensions of one (1) year each as long as the development plan still conforms to the Development Code. On November 18, 2014, the City Council directed staff to analyze and prepare a Development Code update that examines the merits of modifying the development plan extension of time regulations. The economic recession beginning in 2008 severely and negatively impacted property owners in the City of Temecula and continues to impair the ability of property owners to finance new development on their properties. The economy of the City and the surrounding areas is strengthened by strong, vibrant and well-planned development of property in order to meet the employment and economic needs of the community. In order to preserve the substantial efforts of property owners to develop new projects, the extensive reviews of those projects by the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, and strengthen the employment and economic needs of the community, the Council directed Staff to study an extension of the expiration dates of development plans. The changes could potentially include creating additional extensions of time that would extend the life of a development plan approval beyond the currently allowed two (2) years for initial approval and three (3) individual one (1) year administrative extensions (total of 5 years). The new extension framework is initially contemplated to require City Council approval before an extension beyond that which is currently permitted would be granted. Since initial City Council direction on November 18, 2014, Staff has conducted a review of development plan approval regulations in comparable cities throughout Southern California. In addition, a public workshop was held to receive input from the community on potential changes to the City's Municipal Code. In order to complete the review of potential changes to the term of development plans, and avoid the expiration of active development plans, Staff has been directed to seek authorization from City Council to move forward with the analysis and drafting of an ordinance extending the term of development plans approved prior to July 1, 2015. The intent of the ordinance is to extend the term of active development plans until the Planning Commission and City Council have had the opportunity to considered, in public hearing, the potential changes to the Municipal Code regarding the current development plan approval term regulations. The proposed Interim Ordinance will preserve the status quo of the existing development permits until such time as a permanent ordinance can be completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. It simply provides that any approved Development Plan that has an expiration date between July 1, 2015 and December 1, 2015, shall be extended to December 1, 2015. This provision shall apply to the expiration of the Development Plan under Section 17.05.010 G. or to the expiration of any extension of the Development Plan granted pursuant to Section 17.05.010 H. This Interim Ordinance does not authorize construction. The Interim Ordinance is a procedural change to the existing development permits. The Interim Ordinance does not add to or modify the various projects that might be affected. All of the development permits to which the Interim Ordinance will apply were subject to review under CEQA at the time of approval. The Interim Ordinance will preserve the status quo of the existing development permits until such time as a permanent ordinance can be completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. These findings are premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency Interim Ordinance will maintain the current environmental conditions arising from the current land use regulatory structure as adopted by the City without change or alteration. This Interim Ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Interim Ordinance 2. Existing Section 17.05.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER CERTAIN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS TO DECEMBER 1, 2015 TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF A PERMANENT EXTENSION ORDINANCE; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS INTERIM ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. Currently, Chapter 17.05 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that approved development plans have two years to commence construction before the approval for the development plan expires. Additionally, the Director of Community Development can grant up to three (3) individual extensions of one (1) year each as long as the development plan still conforms to the Development Code. (Section 17.05.010 G. and H.) B. On November 18, 2014, the City Council directed staff to analyze and prepare a Development Code update that examines the merits of modifying the development plan extension of time regulations. The economic recession beginning in 2008 severely and negatively impacted property owners in the City of Temecula and continues to impair the ability of property owners to finance new development on their properties. The economy of the City and the surrounding areas is strengthened by strong, vibrant and well-planned development of property in order to meet the employment and economic needs of the community. This Ordinance will preserve the status quo of the existing development permits until such time as a permanent ordinance can be completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. In order to preserve the substantial efforts of property owners to develop new projects, the extensive reviews of those projects by the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, and strengthen the employment and economic needs of the community, the Council directed Staff to study an extension of the expiration dates of development plans. C. The suggested changes could potentially include creating additional extensions of time that would extend the life of a development plan approval beyond the currently allowed two (2) years for initial approval and three (3) individual one (1) year administrative extensions (total of 5 years). The new extension framework is initially contemplated to require City Council approval before an extension beyond that which is currently permitted would be granted. D. Since initial City Council direction on November 18, 2014, Staff has conducted a review of development plan approval regulations in comparable cities throughout Southern California. In addition, a public workshop was held to receive input from the community on potential changes to the City's Municipal Code. In order to complete the review of potential changes to the term of development plans, and avoid the expiration of active development plans, this ordinance would extend the term of approved development plans expiring between July 1, 2015 and December 1, 2015 to December 1, 2015. Section 2. Extension of Development Plans. For any approved Development Plan that has an expiration date between July 1, 2015 and December 1, 2015, the expiration date for commencement of construction shall be extended to December 1, 2015, notwithstanding the provisions of Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.05.010. G. and H. This provision shall apply to the expiration date a Development Plan under Section 17.05.010 G. or to the expiration date of any extension of a Development Plan granted pursuant to Section 17.05.010 H. Section 3. Urgency Findings. The City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety requires that this Interim Ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937 and take effect immediately upon adoption. A. As described in Section 1 of this Interim Ordinance, the economic recession beginning in 2008 severely and negatively impacted property owners in the City of Temecula and continues to impair the ability of property owners to finance new development on their properties. Strong, vibrant and well-planned development of property in order to meet the employment and economic needs of the community will strengthen the economy of the City and the surrounding areas. This Ordinance will preserve the status quo of the existing development permits until such time as a permanent ordinance can be completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. In order to preserve the substantial efforts of property owners to develop new projects and the extensive reviews of those projects by the City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, and strengthen the employment and economic needs of the community the City Council finds it necessary to adopt an interim regulation that both respect property rights and protect the public health, safety and general welfare. B. For the reasons specified in Sections 1 and 3 of this Interim Ordinance and all the evidence in the record, the City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare caused by the premature expiration of development permits within the City. Therefore, this Interim Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare and its urgency is hereby declared. Section 4. CEQA Finding. The City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption and implementation of this Interim Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. This Interim Ordinance does not authorize construction. This Ordinance is a procedural change to the existing development permits. The Ordinance does not add to or modify the various projects that might be affected. All of the development permits to which this ordinance will apply were subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act at the time of approval. This Ordinance will preserve the status quo of the existing development permits until such time as a permanent ordinance can be completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. These findings are premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency Interim Ordinance will maintain the current environmental conditions arising from the current land use regulatory structure as adopted by the City without change or alteration. This Interim Ordinance is therefore exempt from the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective as of July 28, 2015. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 28th day of July, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15- was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 28th day of July, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk 7/21/2015 Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS Temecula Municipal Code R-,:, 4ious Next Title 17 ZONING Title 17 ZONING Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS 17.05.010 Development plans. Main Collapse Search Print Print A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish the requirements and processing procedures for a development plan. The development plan process provides a mechanism by which all new construction or remodeling of industrial, commercial or multiple -family residential development can be reviewed for consistency with the general plan, and the design standards and performance standards of this development code. A development plan is intended to promote compatibility in planning and building design throughout the community and to provide a method of encouraging and implementing developments with a high level of design quality. B. When Required. 1. When no other discretionary permit is required, a development plan shall be required for all residential development (excluding individual single-family homes as provided below) and for all commercial or industrial developments. 2. Development of an individual residential project (i.e., custom home or speculative house) is exempt from the development plan process. Residential development projects (merchant built subdivisions) for which a tentative tract or parcel map is or was required, are not exempt from submitting a development plan. 3. When several permits or multiple applications are required for the same project, a combined hearing and review process may be permitted. However, separate applications shall be filed for each action requested. 4. A development plan may be required for conditional use permits and for variances where new development is consistent with subsection (B)(3) of this section. C. Application Requirements. Applications for all development plans shall be completed in accordance with Section 17.03.030 of this development code. D. Hearing Procedures for Approval of a Development Plan. 1. Approval by the Director of Planning. When a proposed project is less than ten thousand square feet of new building area or is the review of single-family tract homes, and requires a negative declaration, EIR, or other action under CEQA, the director of planning shall have the authority to approve, approve conditionally, or deny the project. The director of planning will conduct a noticed public hearing prior to making a determination on the application. All decisions of the director of planning are subject to appeal to the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.03. For projects that may have special community impacts or other unique circumstances, the director of planning may refer the application to the planning commission for consideration. 2. Approval by the Planning Commission. Projects that are ten thousand square feet or greater of new building area shall be reviewed by the planning commission at a noticed public hearing. The planning commission shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Decisions of the planning commission are subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.03. E. Notice of Decision. Notice of decision upon an application for a development plan shall be in fi Ie:///C:/Users/Luke. W atson/Desktop/Tem ecula%20M unici pal %20Code. htm 1 1/5 7/21/2015 Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS accordance with Section 17.03.040(E) of this development code. F. Findings. The planning commission or director of planning shall approve, or conditionally approve a development plan application in whole or in part, only if all of the following findings are made: 1. 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. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. G. Expiration of Development Plans. Within two years of development plan approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extensions. The planning director may, upon an application being filed prior to the expiration, grant a time extension of one year (up to three extensions may be granted). Upon granting the extension, the planning director shall ensure that the development plan complies with all development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the planning director's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the county of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the county of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the planning director's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the planning director to be affected by the application. 2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the planning director may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing. I. Revocation. Approval of a development plan may be revoked or modified by the approving body in accordance with Section 17.03.080. (Ord. 10-07 § 30; Ord. 06-06 § 6(C); Ord. 01-14 § 2; Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(T) and (U); Ord. 95-16 § 2) 17.05.020 Administrative approval of development plan. A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to provide for the administrative approval of projects which, because of their limited size and scope, have minor aesthetic, land use or traffic implications and do not create significant impacts on public utilities or services. The administrative review process is intended to assure that such limited projects comply with all applicable city standards and ordinances, yet provide a streamlined review procedure. B. When Required. Administrative review is permitted for applications for minor exceptions, temporary uses, secondary dwelling units, and for minor modifications to approved development plans and conditional use permits that were previously approved pursuant to Chapter 17.05. C. Application Requirements. Applications for administrative approval of development plan shall be completed in accordance with Section 17.03.030 of this development code. D. Authority. The director of planning shall have the authority to act upon applications for administrative review in accordance with the provisions of this section. E. Hearings and Notice. Within thirty days after accepting a completed application the director of planning shall make a decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the request. F. Findings. The director of planning shall consider applications for administrative approval and may, file:///C:/Users/Luke. W atson/Desktop/Tem ecula%20M unici pal %20Code.htm 1 2/5 7/21/2015 Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS with such conditions as are found necessary, approve the project. In making such determination, the director of planning shall find the proposed use in general accord with the following findings: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and applicable provisions of the development code, and the purpose of the zoning district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed project is consistent with the general plan. 3. That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. G. Expiration of Administrative Approval. Within two years of administrative approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extension. The planning director may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one-year increments only. Upon granting of an extension, the planning director shall ensure that conditions of the administrative approval comply with all current development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the planning director's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the county of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the county of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the planning director's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the planning director to be affected by the application. 2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the planning director may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing. I. Revocation. Administrative approval for a development plan may be revoked or modified by the director in accordance with Section 17.03.080. (Ord. 10-07 § 29; Ord. 08-08 § 22; Ord. 03-06 § 2; Ord. 96-19 §§ 2(V)—(X); Ord. 95-16 § 2) 17.05.030 Modifications to an approved development plan. A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish the requirements and procedures to allow the administrative modification of an unexpired development plan or conditional use permit. For the purposes of this section, the following changes are not eligible for consideration as an administrative modification: a change in the type of building (commercial, office, industrial), a substantial intensification of the project or type of use, or substantial changes to the project layout or access. Proposed project changes that are not eligible for a modification under this section will require resubmittal of a new application. B. Types of Modifications. Modifications to approved development plans are divided into two categories: major and minor. If a proposed modification includes both major and minor modifications, the application shall be considered a major modification. The final decision as to whether a modification is major or minor shall be at the sole discretion of the director of planning. 1. Major modifications to approved development plans include the following types of project file:///C:/Users/Luke. W atson/Desktop/Tem ecula%20M unici pal %20Code.htm 1 3/5 7/21/2015 Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS changes: a. Increasing the height of the building by more than ten feet or one-story; b. An increase of more than ten percent of the building footprint; c. A substantial change in the architecture of the building or substantial changes to the exterior elevations including, but not limited to, the locations of windows or doors; d. A modification in the approved access to the project site; e. The shift of building location that effects the layout and location of the required parking, site access, or substantially changes the conceptual landscape plan; f. A change in the number of primary structures; g. Changes to a conditional use permit that requires the physical modification of the site. 2. Minor modifications to approved development plans include the following types of project changes: a. An increase of less than ten percent of the building footprint; b. A change in the layout of the parking or loading area; c. The relocation of windows or doors on one or two wall surfaces; d. An adjustment in the location of buildings provided the general location of each building is similar to the approved development plan; e. Changes to a conditional use permit that does not require the physical modification of the site. 3. Modifications to approved development plans that are subject to the administrative development plan process include the following: a. Changes to the approved landscaping plant palette; b. Changes in exterior colors or materials. C. Application Requirements. Applications for modifying development plans shall be completed in accordance with Section 17.03.030 of this development code. D. Procedure for Approval. Minor modifications may be approved administratively and never require a specific notice or consideration at a public hearing. The approval of major modifications requires consideration by the original approval body. Major modifications which were approved at a director hearing may be approved administratively by the director of planning, providing the revised project could have been approved initially by the director of planning. The director of planning may refer any modifications or changes in building design to the planning commission for consideration. Construction plans that do not adhere to the exact details of an approved development plan shall not be administratively approved without filing an application for a major or minor modification, whichever is applicable. However, if the director of planning determines that changes to an approved development plan are insignificant and they are not specifically cited in subsections (B)(2) and (B)(3) of this section, then an application for a minor modification may not be necessary. E. Findings. Approving modifications to an approved development plan shall require the same findings as were made on the original approval. F. Revocations. Approval of a modification to a development plan may be revoked or modified by the director of planning in accordance with Section 17.03.060. (Ord. 06-06 § 6(D); Ord. 03-04 § 1) file:///C:/Users/Luke. W atson/Desktop/Tem ecula%20M unici pal %20Code.htm 1 4/5 7/21/2015 Chapter 17.05 DEVELOPMENT PLANS View the mobile version. file:///C:/Users/Luke. W atson/Desktop/Tem ecula%20M unici pal %20Code.htm 1 5/5 DEPARTMENT REPORTS Item No. 24 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, City Manager DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: City Council Travel/Conference Report — June 2015 PREPARED BY: Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. On June 18, 2015 Mayor Jeff Comerchero traveled to San Francisco, California to attend the United States Conference of Mayors Annual Conference. ATTACHMENTS: Meeting Agenda 83rd ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF MAYORS June 19-22, 2015 San Francisco, CA Hilton San Francisco Union Square DRAFT AGENDA (As of March 17) MESSAGES TO CONFERENCE ATTENDEES Unless otherwise noted, all plenary sessions, committee meetings, task force meetings, workshops and social events are open to all mayors and other officially -registered attendees. However, only member mayors of a standing committee are eligible to vote on resolutions before that standing committee. The deadline for submission of proposed resolutions by member mayors is May 19, 2015 at 5:00 pm EDT. This is the same deadline for standing committee membership changes. Philips is pleased to provide charging stations for electronic devices during the 83rd Annual Meeting in San Francisco. The charging stations are located in the Philips Lounge, within the meeting registration area. THURSDAY, JUNE 18 Registration 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. FRIDAY, JUNE 19 Registration 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Orientation for New Mayors and New Members 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. 1 Title S onso WELLS FARGO FRIDAY, JUNE 19 (CONT.) Membership Standing Committee 10:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. Traveling Workshop: Site Visit To New Door Ventures 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. This state-of-the-art facility serves the "opportunity youth" population with education and workforce training to reconnect them to employment. COUNCIL MEETINGS 9:00 a.m. - 10:15 a.m. Council on Metro Economies and the New American City Mayors Water Council TASK FORCE MEETINGS 10:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Opening Press Conference 11:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AWARDS LUNCHEON 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Sponsor: Walmart STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS 2:30 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. Criminal and Social Justice Energy Jobs, Education and the Workforce Metro Economies SPECIAL SESSION 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Women Mayors Meeting 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 2 Title Sponsor: WELLS FARGfi FRIDAY, JUNE 19 (CONT.) San Francisco City Hall: "City by the Bay Welcome Gala" 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. To kick-off the Conference, Mayor Lee will welcome the mayors to City Hall for a spectacular opening night celebration. City Hall will be decked out in glorious fashion with banners, flowers and decorative lighting. The event will feature signature cocktails, fine California wines, and gourmet food stations positioned throughout the venue, including the Light Courts and balconies. Throughout the evening, guests will be entertained by an array of performances by San Francisco's premiere cultural groups, followed by an intimate concert by celebrity performers. For the finale, the mayors will be invited to join the official lighting ceremony for the City Hall Centennial. This will truly be a magical evening and the perfect way to kick-off the meeting. (Buses will begin to depart at 6:30 p.m., and will be available for return.) SATURDAY, JUNE 20 Registration 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Golden Gate Bridge Walk 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. The mayors and their guests will have a chance to take a memorable morning walk across one of the world's most iconic architectural treasures with its spectacular views of San Francisco, Alcatraz, and the surrounding cities. Morning delicacies, juices, and coffee will be available as the guests complete their hike. TASK FORCE MEETINGS 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. OPENING PLENARY SESSION 9:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. 3 Title Sponsor: WELLS FARGO SATURDAY, JUNE 20 (CONT.) STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS 11:15 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Children, Health and Human Services Community Development and Housing Environment Transportation and Communications ANNUAL LUNCHEON: A Celebration of City Livability 12:30 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. Sponsor: Waste Management, Inc. BEST PRACTICE FORUMS 2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. U.S. Conference of Mayors Nominating Committee (Closed) 2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS 4:15 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. International Affairs Tourism, Arts, Parks, Entertainment and Sports California Academy of Sciences: "Global Celebration in the Park" 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The Saturday night festivities will take the mayors and their guests to the innovative California Academy of Sciences in the heart of Golden Gate Park. The event will highlight two of the major themes of the San Francisco meeting: technology and the environment. The party will have a global overlay with food stations and entertainment, showcasing the diversity of San Francisco and the City's place as the "Gateway to the Pacific." In addition to non-stop entertainment in the central Piazza, guests will have an opportunity to enjoy the Academy's spectacular show and exhibits, including a four story rain forest teeming with life, The Dark Universe planetarium show, and one of the world's most biodiverse aquariums. We will also populate the venue with a variety of high-tech, interactive activities. The large entry area lends itself to a spectacular entrance with global decor and entertainment, creating a powerful first impression. The exhibits and the museum's environmental themes, LEED certification, and Living Roof will highlight the City's focus on the environment and sustainability. (Buses will begin to depart at 6:30 p.m., and will be available for return) 4 SUNDAY, JUNE 21 Registration 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. MAYORS AND BUSINESS LEADERS PLENARY BREAKFAST 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. Glide Memorial Church: A Celebration of Faith and Community Service 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. The mayors and their guests will have an opportunity to attend a special service at San Francisco's historic Glide Memorial Church. Under the leadership of Reverend Cecil Williams, Glide has been at the center of community outreach and social justice work for the past 50 years. Glide Memorial has the only program in San Francisco to provide three nutritious meals a day, 364 days a year, to the city's poor, homeless, and hungry. Their Glide Ensemble gospel choir is one of San Francisco's most celebrated performing groups. BEST PRACTICE FORUMS 10:45 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. PLENARY LUNCHEON 12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. PLENARY SESSION 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. TASK FORCE MEETINGS 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. U.S. Conference of Mayors Executive Committee 3:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Community Leaders of America: Republican Mayors 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. National Conference of Democratic Mayors 5:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 5 SUNDAY, JUNE 21 (CONT.) Embarcadero: "Celebration On the Bay" 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. The Sunday night party will take place at a picturesque location on the Embarcadero, just below the Bay Bridge. The event will incorporate the Epic Roasthouse and the Waterbar restaurants, the adjacent Rincon Park, and the open space between the restaurants and the Bay. This location is ideally positioned to showcase the beauty of the Bay and the Bay Bridge. With indoor and outdoor spaces in play, the event will include featured entertainment, thematic rickshaw rides, street performers moving along the promenade and "happenings" throughout the night. The event will end with a spectacular fireworks show and/or other special effects (e.g. lasers, water projection), and fireboats from the nearby fireboat station. (Buses will begin to depart at 6.•30 p.m., and will be available for return) Celebration Honoring Outgoing USCM President Kevin Johnson of Sacramento and Incoming USCM President Stephanie Rawlings -Blake of Baltimore MONDAY, JUNE 22 Registration 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Walk in the Golden Gate Park 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. TASK FORCE MEETINGS 7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. 6 Title Sponsor: WELLS FARGO MONDAY, JUNE 22 (CONT.) PLENARY/BUSINESS SESSION 9:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. Debate and Adoption by Membership of Resolutions Reported out by the Standing Committees Vote on Nominating Committee Recommendations Installation of Officers TASK FORCE MEETINGS 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. INAUGURAL LUNCHEON HONORING THE 73rd PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 12:45 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Sponsors: JPMorgan Chase & Co. Philips San Francisco Tech and Innovation Tour 2:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. The mayors will have a chance to visit several of the leading-edge high tech companies based in San Francisco. Throughout the tours they will be able to use their cell phones to participate in a virtual scavenger hunt using augmented reality software Chinatown Festival 7:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. For their final night in San Francisco, the mayors will journey into Chinatown for a multi -course feast of Chinese cuisine and a street celebration featuring lion dancers, dragons, traditional music and a performance by the world renown St. Mary's Chinese Girls Drum and Bell Corps. (Buses will begin to depart at 6:•30 p.m., and will be available for return.) 7 Item No. 25 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Luke Watson, Interim Community Development Director DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Community Development Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Lynn Kelly -Lehner, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following are the highlights for the Community Development Department for June 2015. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases: In June 2015, Planning received 36 new applications. A detailed account of current planning activities is attached to this report. Audi Dealership: On February 18, 2015, staff received a pre- application for a 37,000 square foot Audi dealership to be located on Temecula Center Drive, adjacent to 1-15 and south of the existing Mercedes-Benz of Temecula dealership. A community meeting was held with the Harveston community on March 25, 2015 to discuss the plans for the dealership. Approximately 20 Harveston residents attended the meeting and were all positive about the addition of the Audi dealership to the community. Staff received a Development Plan application in April 2015. A Supplemental EIR is being prepared for the project and is anticipated to go out to the public in July 2015. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is anticipated in October 2015. (FISK) Altair Specific Plan: On November 12, 2013, City Council approved an Entitlement Processing Agreement with Ambient Communities (Developer) to process extensive land use entitlements for the 270 acre property located west of Old Town including General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Subdivision Maps, Development Agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ambient Communities is proposing a mixed-use development comprised of residential single-family and multi -family units, as well as retail/commercial, open space, and institutional uses. Staff is currently reviewing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Report and has prepared an Initial Study. The City entered into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates in July 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on December 3'2014. Staff entered into an agreement with Keyser Marston Associates for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis in April. (PETERS) Temecula Valley Hospital: City Council approved the Temecula Valley Hospital project on January 22, 2008. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Phase I hospital bed tower was received from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) on July 19, 2013. United Health Services obtained State licensing to open the hospital for patients on October 14, 2013. On May 31, 2013, staff received a Major Modification application to modify the site plan and heliport Conditional Use Permit to relocate the heliport from an area near the northeast corner of the hospital building. UHS indicated that the heliport needs to be relocated based on concerns from the FAA and the aeronautical division of Caltrans. UHS proposed two phases of movement for the heliport: Phase I would place the heliport to the west of the hospital building, in one of the parking lot areas. Phase 11 would place the heliport on the roof of the second hospital tower. In both cases, the proposed locations result in a change to the flight path that move it away from the Madera Vista residential project and changes the path to either head directly into or away from the prevailing wind direction (rather than perpendicular to the prevailing winds), as directed by the FAA and Caltrans. A Supplemental EIR (SEIR) was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA). In July 2014, the applicant indicated intentions to add a 5,000 square foot facilities maintenance building to the hospital site. Staff has provided information regarding this new building to ESA for analysis in the SEIR, and the 45 -day public review was from November 12, 2014 through December29, 2014. The project was reviewed at the April 15, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and received a 4-0 vote (Guerriero absent) recommending approval. Staff has worked with the applicant's consultant and ESA to respond to comments received from the community at the Planning Commission hearing and has worked with the applicant's consultant to prepare additional graphics for use at the City Council hearing, which is scheduled for the July 28, 2015 hearing. (FISK) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan: In 2013, the Planning Commission approved KB Homes, Standard Pacific, and Van Daele Developments' applications for Home Product Reviews in the Roripaugh Specific Plan Area. KB Home plans to construct 98 single-family homes. Standard Pacific plans to build 200 single-family homes under the names Montego and Cambridge. Van Daele Development will construct 113 single-family homes, 56 marketed as Verona, and 57 as Sorrento. The three builders will construct 411 homes in four of five available planning areas in the area commonly referred to the "panhandle." Three hundred and four (304) residential permits have been issued to date. (PETERS) Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement Amendment: In March 2014, Roripaugh Valley Restoration (RVR) applied for an amendment to the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement to modify the timing of infrastructure improvements and building permit thresholds for "pan" area the Specific Plan. Staff has been working with RVR to refine the deal points of the Development Agreement Amendment (DAA). RVR has been working with the second owner in the "pan" area of the Specific Plan, Wingsweep, to come to agreement on improvement cost sharing, and those negotiations are ongoing. RVR and Wingsweep previously agreed to meeting with an arbitrator to assist in resolving their differences; however Wingsweep later elected to continue discussions with RVR. It is possible RVR and Wingsweep could conclude their discussions in July 2015, the applicant could present their proposed DAA changes to the Nicholas Valley community in August, the DAA could be brought before the Planning Commission in September and before the City Council in October 2015. (FISK) Temecula Gateway: On November 3, 2014, staff received applications related to the proposed Temecula Gateway project. The proposed project will consist of a Planned Development Overlay/Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Community Commercial and the zoning designation to Planned Development Overlay 14, a Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the creation of seven lots from four, a Development Plan to allow for the construction of four commercial buildings totaling approximately 19,669 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an automobile service station with a corresponding carwash and convenience store that will serve alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a drive-thru for a restaurant. The City has entered into an agreement with PMC to create an Environmental Impact Report for the project. (Jones) LONG RANGE PLANNING Hike Bike Temecula (Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update): On May 14, 2013, City Council awarded a contract to KTU+A to update the City's Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. A community workshop was held on October 26, 2013, and attendees provided feedback on bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, hiking paths, and equestrian connections. Community input was also collected through a survey via the project website www.hikebiketemecula.orq. A Steering Committee meeting was held on February 25, 2014 at the Merc Theater, with over 30 participants in attendance. The focus of the meeting was to summarize the survey results and to get feedback on proposed improvements in Old Town. The Old Town improvements include sharrows (shared bike lane markings) on Old Town Front Street, Bicycle Friendly Community signs, and strategically placed bike racks. On March 25, 2014, City Council approved an amendment to the contract that included Phase II of the Master Plan Update and additional sidewalk analysis. Phase I concluded with a community walk -ride event on May 10, 2014, highlighting priority locations for future trails and bike lanes based on the community's feedback. Phase II is under way. Staff participated in Bike to Work Day on May 14th and celebrated the ribbon cutting for the Interim Murrieta Creek Regional Plan on June 6th. (PETERS) Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan: The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area encompasses approximately 560 acres and is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. Staff has held eight Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meetings to develop policies, and obtain direction on the content of the Specific Plan. Between October 2011 and July 2013, staff held six visioning workshops. These workshops solicited feedback from the public and key stakeholders about the future vision of the Specific Plan area. Eight recommendations emerged from the public visioning process: 1) strengthen economic development, 2) expand the mix of uses, 3) define districts and neighborhoods, 4) improve transportation, mobility, connectivity and circulation, 5) integrate recreation, open space and trails, 6) create updated and flexible development standards, 7) build and maintain a comprehensive utility infrastructure network and 8) establish a district identity. On June 13, 2013, staff held a Developer Focus Group to determine the future economic feasibility of the Specific Plan based upon anticipated market conditions, economic demands, demographic trends, and available financing. From July 2013 through December 2013, staff held six public Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Steering Committee Meetings with members of the public. Two commissioners from each of the City's commissions (Planning, Community Services, and Public/Traffic Safety Commissions) serve on the Committee. Staff presented form -based code principles and drafts of the district map, land use matrix, street cross sections, streetscape beatification plan, circulation network, future block standards, urban parking standards, design guidelines, plan administration, sign standards, adaptive reuse standards, plan financing, and the anticipated 20 -year build out scenario. The project website, www.envisionjefferson.orq, continues to provide project information and updates to the public. The draft Specific Plan is based upon the eight visioning recommendations, plan framework, and the concepts presented at the six public Steering Committee meetings. The draft Specific Plan is now available for the public to review and may be downloaded from the Envision Jefferson website at envisionjefferson.orq or at cityoftemecula.orq, The Specific Plan adoption and certification of the EI R is anticipated in fall 2015. (WEST, WATSON) Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR): An EIR Scoping meeting was held in June 2013, providing interested parties an opportunity to submit comments related to the scope of the EIR. As a courtesy, all property owners and businesses within the Specific Plan area were mailed notices for this meeting. The draft EIR is now complete and has been circulated for public comment. The public comment period is from May 19, 2015 to July 6, 2015. The Draft EIR is available for public review on the Envision Jefferson website at envisionjefferson.orq and cityoftemecula.orq. Certification of the Final EIR is anticipated in fall 2015 along with the adoption of the Specific Plan. (WEST, WATSON) SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Town Square Marketplace: On January 13, 2015, City Council entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Truax Development (Truax) in order to negotiate the disposition and development of the two, currently Successor Agency owned, vacant lots in front of the Civic Center, flanking the Town Square Park on the north and south sides of Main Street. On June 23, 2015, City Council extended the term of the ENA for an additional six months. While both Truax Development and the City have been negotiating in good faith, the complexities of the project require that the ENA be extended to allow for additional work to be completed. Upon agreeing to terms, the City and Truax envision drafting a disposition and development agreement that will be brought back before the Council for approval. (WATSON) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule: As part of the ongoing wind -down of the former Temecula Redevelopment Agency, the Successor Agency (SARDA) is required to complete a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) outlining the financial and debt obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency. Based on the outstanding obligations that are due in the six month period being reviewed, SARDA makes requests from the Property Tax Trust Fund to make the appropriate payments. On February 24, 2015 the SARDA board approved the ROPS for the period of July 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (ROPS 15-16A). On February 25, 2015 the Oversight Board of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency approved the ROPS 15- 16A. On March 2, 2015, the Oversight Board resolution approving ROPS 15-16A was delivered to the California State Department of Finance, the California State Controller, and the Riverside County Auditor Controller per the requirements of the redevelopment dissolution legislation. (WATSON) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) & HOUSING Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): The City received the annual CDBG allocation letter from HUD on February 18, 2015. The total Fiscal Year 2015-16 CDBG grant allocation for Temecula is $540,214. Prior to receiving the formal annual allocation letter, staff presented the draft funding priorities to the Finance Subcommittee, consisting of Councilmember Naggar, on January 27, 2015. The FY 2015-16 CDBG funding recommendations from the Finance Subcommittee, including the redirect of $160,561 of unused funds from previous fiscal years, will be noticed for a 30 -day public review period in March, and scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 14, 2015. The recommendations, totaling $700,775, were adjusted to reflect a $3,856 reduction in the City's actual FY 2015-16 funding allocation. The FY 2015-16 Annual Action Plan, inclusive of a Substantial Amendment to redirect the unused funds from FY 2012-13 and FY 2013- 14, was submitted to HUD on May 15, 2015. (LARSEN) Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinance: The City Council adopted the 2014- 2021 General Plan Housing Element Update on January 28, 2014, and the City received certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on March 10, 2014. A project processing schedule has been prepared for the Affordable Housing Overlay and Density Bonus Ordinances as required by Programs 1 and 4 of the Housing Element. The Code Amendment will also encompass land use updates as required by Program 3. The project is in the initial planning phase. Staff is currently conducting research and anticipates completing the ordinances for adoption in late 2015. (LARSEN) ENERGY & CONSERVATION Temecula Energy Efficiency Management (TEEM) Fund: The TEEM Fund is a self-sustaining fund that utilizes rebate incentives while also re -directing annual utility cost savings from energy efficiency projects into the fund. City Council established the fund in June 2013, with an initial deposit of $119,728.90 in SCE and SCG rebates. Staff is working with Public Financial Management, funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership, to develop an policy manual for the TEEM Fund, focusing on policies and methodologies for determining the amount of utility savings to be deposited into the fund after projects are completed. (WEST) Western Riverside Energy Leadership Partnership: This Partnership, consisting of eleven Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) member cities, Southern California Edison (SCE), and Southern California Gas (SCG), provides incentives for participants to develop energy efficiency programs. Temecula was the first City in the Partnership to achieve Gold Level status by completing 13 energy efficiency projects in FY 2012-13, resulting in nearly $100,000 of annual utility cost savings. In FY 2013-14, the City has upgraded the Community Recreation Center parking lot lights with new LED lighting fixtures. This resulted in 9,155 kWh saved and an additional $2,280 in annual savings. Staff recently completed a comprehensive energy audit of the Temecula Library with assistance from the Partnership. The audit identified 9 energy efficiency measures which could save an estimated 107,429 kWh annually, which also equates to an estimated annual cost savings to the City of $17,278. If all efficiency measures are implemented, the City would receive approximately $20,952 in rebate incentives from SCE and SCG. Implementing these measures would allow the City to achieve Platinum Level in the Partnership kWh savings requirements, giving the City higher rebate incentives for future energy efficiency measures. (WEST) Energy Action Plans (EAP): The final draft Municipal and Community Energy Action Plans have been prepared for the City of Temecula. The Plans were funded through the Western Riverside Energy Partnership. Both EAPs establish energy reduction goals, policies, and implementation measures to achieve energy reduction goals. (WEST) Solid Waste and Recycling: Staff manages the City's Solid Waste and Recycling Agreement with CR&R and acts as a liaison between the City, CR&R, and their customers. City staff and CR&R coordinate two Citywide Clean-up events each year for residents to dispose of household waste and large miscellaneous items that do not fit into the standard residential trash receptacle. The Fall Citywide Clean -Up is scheduled for October 24, 2015 at Chaparral High School. Staff also assists with outreach for the Riverside County Mobile Household Hazardous Waste Collection events and the Backyard Composting Workshops. This event is an effort to promote the recycling of used and other household hazardous waste. The annual rate adjustment was adopted by the City Council at a public hearing on the June 23rd The 2015-2016 rates included an organic waste recycling component to the residential rate. The residential organic recycling program will go into effect January 1, 2016. Staff is working with CR&R on an outreach and education campaign regarding the types of organic waste allowed. (WEST) BUILDING & SAFETY Inspections: For the month of June, Building and Safety conducted 2,296 inspections. On average, there were 104.36 inspections per day, or 23.19 inspections per day, per inspector. Permits: During the month of June, Building and Safety issued 362 building permits. Of these permits, 9 were single family units. Some of these permits from this month included: Non -Construction Certificate of Occupancy Zabber Thai Fusion — 41789 Nicole Lane Meineke Car Care Center — 27685 Jefferson Avenue Triple Q Noodles — 29073 Overland Drive Rancho Auto Service and Smog — 27591 Commerce Center Drive Horizon Valley Home Health Care Inc. — 28991 Old Town Front Street California Cardiology Clinic — 31537 Rancho Pueblo Road Coast Dental Services Inc. — 32909 Temecula Parkway New Commercial Buildings Parker Medical Center — 44605 Avenida De Missiones Tenant Improvements Creme de la Creme Bakery — 26490 Ynez Road Dr. Briggs Family Practice — 31170 Temecula Parkway Temecula Valley Cardiology — 31565 Rancho Pueblo Road CODE ENFORCEMENT During the month of June, Code Enforcement responded to 75 web complaints. In addition, the division opened 95 code cases and forwarded 25 referrals to Public Works, Police, Animal Control, and Fire. Weed abatement season continued in June with 48 warrants being posted on properties identified in violation. Code Enforcement also pulled 400 non -conforming signs in the community and assisted 25 people at the Community Development Counter. Detailed Code Enforcement case activity can be found in the following chart: TYPE OF CODE CASE TYPE TOTAL Abandoned or Inoperable Vehicle 4 Vacant Home / Property Maintenance / Rodent infested 10 Business or Home Occupation w/o license 18 Trash and Debris / Parking lot maintenance 5 Overgrown Vegetation / Weeds / Fire Hazard 5 Green Pool / Vector Control 9 Graffiti 7 Noise 0 Trailer / RV Stored 10 Construction w/o Permit 7 Encroach Public ROW / Trash Cans 6 Other / Homeless Encampment 8 Signs Pulled - Violations 6 TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES 95 Foreclosure Tracking: Code Enforcement works with the local real estate community to monitor foreclosures, defaults and real estate owned properties. The following charts demonstrate the past six months of activities in Temecula. Residential Foreclosure Tracking January February March April May June 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 DEFAULT 92 94 92 83 78 73 FORECLOSED 82 74 76 70 63 60 REO 108 108 96 95 94 95 TOTALS 282 276 264 248 235 228 Commercial Foreclosure Tracking January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 DEFAULT 0 0 0 0 0 1 FORECLOSED 1 1 1 0 0 0 REO 13 14 13 14 14 12 TOTALS 14 15 14 14 14 13 PLANNING ACTIVITY REPORT Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0829 909-254-002 Brandon Rabidou 06/09/2015 David Carreon Case Title / Description: Code 3 RV CUP: A Major Conditional Use Permit to allow for Code 3 RV to operate RV Rentals and Repairs at an existing facility located at 42046 Rio Nedo Road. (951) 234-0203 Plan Review PA15-0830 955-550-007 Jaime Cardenas 06/02/2015 06/17/2015 CHRISTOPHER LONG Approved Case Title / Description: Jungle Sun Design PA 15-0831 960-052-015 Case Title / Description: Crown Rosaries Jaime Cardenas 06/02/2015 06/02/2015 Andrea Corona Approved PA15-0832 962-400-034 Case Title / Description: e Knowledge e Jaime Cardenas 06/02/2015 John Gellentien (805) 598-4605 BRIAN EASTMAN Plan Review PA15-0834 960-203-008 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: DWD Hardwood Flooring 06/02/2015 06/02/2015 Donald Holimon Jr (951) 999-5820 Approved PA15-0836 910-110-039 Scott Cooper 06/02/2015 Gary Baker (858) 793-4777 Plan Review Case Title / Description: 40761 County Center Drive Minor Mod: Minor Modification to add office space and parking to an existing industrial building. The project is located at 40761 County Center Drive. PA15-0837 953-314-001 Case Title / Description: Doc Brown's Auto Scott Cooper 06/03/2015 06/05/2015 Jerald Willough-Brown Approved PA15-0838 961-440-016 Jaime Cardenas 06/03/2015 Case Title / Description: ABC Tree Farms TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow pumpkin patch from October 1st to October 31st and Christmas tree sales from November 24th to December 26th, seven days a week, located at 31309 Temecula Parkway Karin Raubenheimer (951) 764-7281 Plan Review PA15-0842 960-020-058 Scott Cooper 06/03/2015 06/15/2015 Chris Hopwood (951) 626-4515 Approved Case Title / Description: Sinnet Photovoltaic Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to install a roof mounted ballasted solar system with 147 panels. The project is located at 32467 Temecula Parkway PA15-0844 955-413-011 Case Title / Description: Color Spot Carpet Jaime Cardenas 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 DAVID CHRETIEN Approved Page 1 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0845 959-341-017 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: JAC Property Management LLC 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 Alen Cooper Approved PA15-0847 959-341-017 Case Title / Description: JAC Construction, LLC 06/04/2015 Carrie MacElwee (951) 970-7166 Plan Review PA15-0848 916-550-056 Case Title / Description: Quality Lawn Service Jaime Cardenas 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 Dean Thompson (562) 307-1190 Approved PA15-0854 953-442-018 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: Michelle Beeson Photography 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 Michelle Beeson Approved PA15-0856 962-132-002 Case Title / Description: RW Sales Jaime Cardenas 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 Robert White Approved PA15-0857 953-121-017 Case Title / Description: Statewide Transport LLC Jaime Cardenas 06/04/2015 06/04/2015 Jason Grosso Approved PA15-0858 921-290-010 Jaime Cardenas 06/04/2015 Plan Review Case Title / Description: Zoning Letter for the address at 27420 Ynez Road (APN 921-290-010) PA15-0859 06/05/2015 Kristin McMillan Plan Review Case Title / Description: Fit Mama 2.0 PA15-0860 921-280-001 Scott Cooper 06/05/2015 Scott Cairns (858) 793-4777 DONALD Out MANDERSCHEID Case Title / Description: Ballast Point Minor Mod: A Minor Modification for exterior modifications including adding two doors, a roll -up door, and extending the existing patio dining area. The project is located at 28551 Rancho California Road. PA15-0865 909-310-015 James Atkins 06/08/2015 Vicky Phillips (951) 296-3466 ext Plan Review 202 Case Title / Description: Diamond Hearts landscape construction plan submittal. PA15-0868 961-123-001 Eric Jones 06/08/2015 06/08/2015 Marie San Dino San Buenaventura Buenaventura Case Title / Description: Cupcakes by Joanne Approved PA15-0870 960-214-033 Jaime Cardenas 06/08/2015 06/08/2015 Jessica Prado Approved Case Title / Description: Cleanitforya Cleaning Services Page 2 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA 15-0874 06/09/2015 David Carreon Case Title / Description: VOID/Applicant had a previous CUP application in for PA15-0829 (951) 234-0203 Void PA15-0878 910-420-030 Scott Cooper 06/09/2015 06/11/2015 Ed DeLeon (760) 638-9873 Approved Case Title / Description: A Major Temporary Use Permit to allow Hokulia Authentic Hawaiian Shaved Ice of Temecula to operate a kiosk at an exterior location of the Promenade Mall from June 15, 2015 through November 15, 2015. The project is located at 40820 Winchester Road. PA15-0880 957-301-033 Jaime Cardenas 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 Arlene Lillie Approved Case Title / Description: Arlene Cleaning Service PA15-0881 962-102-001 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: Bottles"n"Brushes Temecula 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 Ruth Hobbs STEPHEN HOBBS Approved PA15-0887 920-201-008 Jaime Cardenas 06/10/2015 06/10/2015 Benjamin Powell (434) 610-3733 Approved Case Title / Description: Leveled Up Construction PA15-0889 959-070-018 Eric Jones 06/10/2015 07/07/2015 Gary Barry (760) 468-9747 Approved Case Title / Description: Connecting Point Building - Rancho Community Church: A Minor Modification Application (Planning Review Only) to allow a change to the approved elevations. A dome will now be changed to a steeple. The project is located at 31300 Rancho California Road. PA15-0891 909-270-008 Brandon Rabidou 06/10/2015 Case Title / Description: Black Market Brewery Modification: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for Black Market Brewery to install an exterior chilling facility at an existing location at 41740 Enterprise Circle Road. (951) 250-0608 Plan Review PA15-0892 922-110-030 Eric Jones 06/11/2015 Mike Sirota (310) 387-7619 Louis Kashmere Plan Review Case Title / Description: Jack In The Box 2 MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for Jack In The Box to install canopies and awnings onto the west and east exterior elevations of the existing building. The site is located at 29105 Old Town Front Street. PA15-0893 962-390-015 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: ZEUS Managment Ltd. 06/11/2015 06/11/2015 Joseph D'Alfo Approved PA15-0895 922-022-007 Brandon Rabidou 06/11/2015 Case Title / Description: Perdue 5th Street MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for the conversion of a single-family residential home into an office - in the LMR zone of the Old Town Specific Plan area. The site is located at 41881 5th Street in Old Town Temecula. Christopher Campbell (951) 639-0301 Robert Perdue Corrections Page 3 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0896 910-290-015 Scott Cooper 06/11/2015 Tom Le (714) 936-9867 Void Case Title / Description: McDonalds drive-thru MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for McDonalds to remodel the single drive-thru into a dual drive-thru. A new dual canopy adjacent to the menu board will also be installed. The site is located at 40465 Winchester Road. PA15-0898 910-290-015 Scott Cooper 06/11/2015 Tom Le (714) 936-9867 Plan Review Case Title / Description: McDonalds Drive-Thru MOD: a Minor Modification to allow for McDonalds to remodel the single drive-thru into a dual drive-thru. The site is located at 40465 Winchester Road. PA15-0904 960-300-024 Jaime Cardenas 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 Branton Stewart Approved Case Title / Description: CDI Network PA15-0906 06/15/2015 Claudia Delgado Plan Review Case Title / Description: Mis Amigos Preschool Daycare PA15-0909 916-670-028 Brandon Rabidou 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 Brandi Kwasney Approved Case Title / Description: Kwasney Designs PA15-0911 962-470-054 James Atkins 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 John Portugal Approved Case Title / Description: John Michael Portugal Maui Wowi Hawaiian PA15-0912 922-080-010 Brandon Rabidou 06/16/2015 Mary Tenorio (951) 522-7173 Plan Review Case Title / Description: St. Catherine of Alexandria 1st Annual Parish Festival TUP: A Major Temporary Use Permit for a three day outdoor festival that includes food, games, entertainments, and a carnival. The event will be located at 41875 C Street. PA15-0913 961-191-002 Case Title / Description: Sybcorp.org Dawn Adamiak 06/16/2015 06/16/2015 Jade Richardson Approved PA15-0918 966-091-042 Case Title / Description: CMI Event Services Brandon Rabidou 06/17/2015 06/17/2015 Rene Cinq-Mars Approved PA15-0920 System Administrator 06/17/2015 06/17/2015 Justin Carlson Approved Case Title / Description: Carlson Insurance Brokers PA15-0923 910-110-039 Scott Cooper 06/17/2015 Gary Baker (858) 793-4777 Plan Review Case Title / Description: 40761 County Center Drive Minor Exception: Minor Exception to allow 9 fewer parking spaces than what is required by code. The project is associated with PA15-0836 and is located at 40761 County Center Drive. Page 4 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0926 06/18/2015 Christopher Saunders Plan Review Case Title / Description: Christopher Saunders PA15-0930 910-320-041 Scott Cooper 06/18/2015 06/19/2015 Amanda Uhlarik (206) 623-4646 Ashok Gupta Approved Case Title / Description: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to an Existing AT&T Building for the addition of aluminum composite panels to the exterior in two locations. The project is located at 26580 Ynez Road. PA15-0935 965-351-020 Case Title / Description: Iverson Engineering, Inc 06/19/2015 Dennis Iverson Plan Review PA15-0936 953-082-016 Brandon Rabidou 06/19/2015 Case Title / Description: Clark Addition Minor Modification (Planning Review Only): A Minor Modification to allow for a 374 square foot expansion to an existing single family home located at 32019 Merlot Ct. Dave Henderson (951) 764-2302 John Musch Plan Review PA15-0937 955-421-059 Matt Peters 06/22/2015 Lena Hoffmeyer Case Title / Description: A Conditional Use Permit for Crown Castle to install a 40' high concrete street light pole as part of its wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) Master Plan (Node TM -08m1) in the City of Temecula right-of-way at the intersection of Messina Street and Asti Lane (714) 608-5052 Plan Review PA15-0939 922-110-013 06/22/2015 Scott Kelley (858) 490-2347 Plan Review Case Title / Description: Planning Application for landscape construction fee tracking originally approved under PA13-0155, Shearwater Creek. PA15-0940 953-281-033 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: Water Quality & Training LIC 06/22/2015 07/01/2015 James Kaylor Approved PA15-0945 962-102-001 System Administrator 06/23/2015 Case Title / Description: Paint Wine and Vines Temecula Ruth Hobbs Plan Review PA15-0946 916-662-031 Brandon Rabidou 06/23/2015 Case Title / Description: Harveston Entry Monument Upgrade Minor Mod: Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to upgrade two entries into Harveston. Suzanne Green (951) 693-4076 Suzanne Green Plan Review PA15-0947 962-020-018 Scott Cooper 06/23/2015 Lise Cowderoy Case Title / Description: Landscape HOA Construction Documents Review for Redhawk PA -13. (714) 679-8551 Plan Review PA15-0948 962-020-018 Scott Cooper 06/23/2015 Lise Cowderoy Case Title / Description: Landscape Typicals Construction Documents Review for Redhawk PA -13. (714) 679-8551 Plan Review Page 5 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0950 953-102-002 Case Title / Description: John Boatner Reily V Jaime Cardenas 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 John Reily Approved PA15-0951 921-030-043 Brandon Rabidou 06/24/2015 Elias Zeitoune Case Title / Description: Temecula Recycling MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to install a solar carport with 162 solar panels at property located at 27635 Diaz Road. (760) 802-2331 Plan Review PA15-0953 910-420-030 Mauro Guevara 06/24/2015 Cody Shields (951) 440-2027 Plan Review Case Title / Description: A Major Temporary Use for a pumpkin patch to be operated from September 25th to October 31st 2014 between the hours of 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; and, 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday. daily. The event will also include inflatables, a petting zoo, tractor rides, an obstacle course, face painting, music, DJ, kiddie zippy ride, carnival games, and food. The event site is located within the south east parking area of the Promenade Mall near Edwards Cinema at 40820 Winchester Road. PA15-0954 06/24/2015 Ceasar Gonzalez Plan Review Case Title / Description: Denim Exchange PA15-0958 954-121-027 Jaime Cardenas Case Title / Description: Captured Photo Booths 06/25/2015 06/25/2015 John Briganti (951) 543-5340 Approved PA15-0959 909-325-034 06/25/2015 Christopher Campbell (951) 639-0301 Temecula Corporate Plan Review Center Case Title / Description: Temecula Corporate Center MOD: a Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow changes to the south elevation to include the installation of a roll -up door, replacing the existing primary door with windows to match the existing, and install a new primary door. The site is located at 27342 Via Industria. PA15-0962 921-060-054 Jaime Cardenas 06/26/2015 Case Title / Description: Zoning Letter for the address at 28190 Jefferson Ave (APN 921-060-054). Christopher Haar Plan Review PA15-0964 06/26/2015 Frederick Shafer Plan Review Case Title / Description: Invisco LLC PA 15-0967 953-222-003 Jaime Cardenas 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 Karen Landrum Approved Case Title / Description: Karen Landrum PA15-0968 921-040-018 Eric Jones 06/29/2015 Carlos Alvarez Plan Review Case Title / Description: Refuge Brewery, Expand the Tasting Room Area, Hours of Operation, construct an outdoor patio, and add live entertainment, to the existing Conditional Use Permit: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit for Refuge Brewery. The project is located 43040 Rancho Way, Suites 100 and 200. Page 6 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PA15-0969 953-021-007 Case Title / Description: Richie Rich Marketing Jaime Cardenas 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 Richard Garcia ARTHUR JURADO Approved PA15-0972 961-458-070 Case Title / Description: Midnight Satellite Jaime Cardenas 06/29/2015 06/29/2015 Ryan Kilpatrick Approved PA15-0973 909-310-062 Jaime Cardenas 06/29/2015 Jeff Armstrong (951) 296-6928 Plan Review Case Title / Description: RCWD's 50th Anniversary Celebration: A Minor Temporary Use Permit to allow for an anniversary celebration for Rancho Water on August 13, 2015 from 11:30 Am to 1:30 PM located at 42135 Winchester Road. Food will be served. PA15-0975 960-010-022 Brandon Rabidou 06/30/2015 Marlene Ortiz (760) 746-6414 Corrections Case Title / Description: Redhawk Towne Center MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to allow for the removal of 157 low pressure sodium parking lot fixtures and replacing them with 69 LED fixtures as well as 12 low pressure sodium wall fixtures with 12 LED wall fixtures at 32065 Temecula Parkway. PA15-0976 960-010-022 Brandon Rabidou 06/30/2015 Marlene Ortiz Case Title / Description: Palm Plaza Minor MOD: A Minor Modification (Planning Review Only) to remove 171 parking lot fixtures, 22 wall fixtures and replace them with 171 LED parking lot fixtures and 22 LED wall fixtures at the Palm Plaza Shopping Center. (760) 746-6414 Corrections PREAPP15-0840 916-560-007 James Atkins 06/03/2015 06/30/2015 Joshua Misigaro (281) 919-9120 Completed Case Title / Description: A pre -application to allow for a Farmer's Market within the Harveston community. It is proposed to operate on Saturdays between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on a weekly basis. The proposed location is within the City owned park area adjacent to the lake, at the intersection of Village Road and Harveston Way. PREAPP15-0900 921-050-015 James Atkins 06/12/2015 Jim Lorimer (602) 263-6502 Cancelled Case Title / Description: A Pre -Application to allow for U -Haul to add two additional structures to an existing site: a 15,296 square foot 2 -story building, and a 2,497 square foot building. The site's landscape will also be redesigned. The site is located at 27941 Jefferson Avenue. P REAP P 15-0901 957-080-014 Eric Jones 06/12/2015 07/01/2015 Mark Doty (951) 676-8042 Dave Arnold Completed Case Title / Description: A Pre -Application to amend the Seraphina Development to reduce the amount of improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek and identify lots the will not permit the construction of homes. PREAPP15-0956 957-190-001 James Atkins 06/25/2015 Case Title / Description: Ameribuild Freedom Farms Education & Training Campus Pre -Application: A Pre -Application to review an education and training campus providing production -scale commercial greenhouses to provide a two-year program for veterans in nutrient dense produce through hydrophonic farming. The project is located at 30925 Nicolas Road. Kevin Bunn (951) 698-8751 Barbara Davis Plan Review Page 7 of 8 Approval PA Number APN Assigned Planner Apply Date Date Applicant Business Phone Owner Status PREAPP15-0963 921-020-041 James Atkins 06/26/2015 Pete Kruse (760) 845-2400 DONALD Plan Review MANDERSCHEID Case Title / Description: Home 2 Temecula pre -application: A pre -application for a 120 unit hotel at a site located atAPN:921-020-041. PREAPP15-0965 961-410-018 Scott Cooper 06/26/2015 07/13/2015 Lawrence Kourie (760) 846-4332 Completed Case Title / Description: A Pre -Application to allow for Valero Circle K to expand their existing car wash facility's services to provide automotive detailing services. Services will include drying, waxing, tire dressing, polishing, interior detailing, etc. The site is located at 30535 Temecula Pkwy. Page 8 of 8 Item No. 26 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jeffrey Kubel, Chief of Police DATE: June 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Police Department Monthly Report PREPARED BY: Joseph Greco, Sergeant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. The following report reflects the activity of the Temecula Police Department for the month of June 2015. PATROL SERVICES Overall calls for police service 3,114 "Priority One" calls for service 64 Average response time for "Priority One" calls 7.03 Minutes VOLUNTEERS Volunteer administration hours 169 Special Events hours 217 Community Action Patrol (CAP) hours 982 Reserve officer hours (patrol) 28 Training hours 84 Total Volunteer hours 1295 CRIME PREVENTION Crime prevention workshops/Neighborhood watch meetings conducted 1/2 Safety presentations/Training 10/7 Special events 1 Residential/Business security surveys conducted 0/4 Businesses visited 1 Residences/Businesses visited for past crime follow-up 0/3 Station Tour 1 Planning Review Projects/Temp Outdoor Use Permits/CUP 0/0/0 Square Footage of Graffiti Removed 2,372 OLD TOWN STOREFRONT Total customers served 253 Sets of fingerprints taken 53 Police reports filed 25 Citations signed off 32 Car Seat Inspections 0 Total receipts $2,544.00 SPECIAL TEAMS (POP / SET) On sight felony arrests 11 On sight misdemeanor arrests 8 Felony arrest warrants served 7 Misdemeanor arrest warrants served 10 Follow-up investigations......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ....... ... 7 Parole/Probation Searches 0/7 Pedestrian Checks... ...... ............... ...... ...... ............... ...... 10 Traffic Stops/Vehicle Checks 7 Crime Free Housing Checks 74 TRAFFIC Citations issued for hazardous violations 1816 Grant funded D.U.I. / Traffic safety checkpoints 1 Grant funded traffic click it or ticket 0 D.U.I. Arrests 10 Non -hazardous citations 434 Stop Light Abuse/Intersection Program (S.L.A.P.) citations 156 Neighborhood Enforcement Team (N.E.T.) citations 119 Parking citations 105 School Zone 26 Seatbelts 110 Cell Phone Cites 137 Injury collisions 25 INVESTIGATIONS Beginning Caseload 194 Total Cases Assigned 76 Total Cases Closed 99 Search Warrants Served 11 Arrests............ ...... ............ ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ..............6 Outof Custody Filings............ ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ...... .............2 PROMENADE MALL TEAM Calls for service 496 Felony arrest/filings 1 Misdemeanor arrest/filings 27 Traffic Citations 0 Fingerprints/Livescans 212 Total receipts $5,026.00 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS Felony arrests 0 Misdemeanor arrests 1 Reports 4 Youth counseled 38 Meetings 15 Item No. 27 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Thomas W. Garcia, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: July 28, 2015 SUBJECT: Public Works Department Monthly Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the Public Works Department Monthly Report for Capital Improvement Projects, Maintenance Projects, and Land Development Projects. City of 'TemecuCa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JULY 28, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CIRCULATION PROJECTS Interstate -15 / State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, PW04-08 Construction of ramp system that will improve access to Interstate 15 from Temecula Parkway / State Route 79 South $50,646,123 • Bid advertising planned for December 2015 Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Rancho California Road (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road), PW10-12 $729,000 • Under construction . Completion is scheduled for end of July 2015 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS: Citywide Storm Drain Improvements — Old Town Front Street, PW12-19 Replacement of the cross gutter at the south end of Old Town Front Street with underground pipes; rehabilitate Old Town Front Street from Temecula Parkway to First Street $585,000 • Bid advertising planned for August 2015 Fire Station 73 Living Quarters Upgrade, PW13-07 Improvements to living and sleeping quarters to accommodate staff $1,859,500 • Under construction • Project completion expected in December 2015 Theater Remediation, PW12-04 Addresses design and construction deficiencies $3,857,558 • Under construction • Project completion expected by September 2015 YMCA Repair and Remediation, PW12-10 Repair and remediate the YMCA building and correct building deficiencies $1,448,569 • Bid advertising planned for August 2015 • Construction to begin Fall 2015 Citywide Concrete Repairs, PW14-07 Annual Citywide concrete repairs to various facilities maintained by the City $412,786 • Under construction • Project completion expected August 2015 City of 'TemecuCa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNE 23, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PARKS & RECREATION PROJECTS: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Enhancement, PW12-20 Design and construct a new innovative play area to replace the existing equipment $648,888 • Notice to Proceed with Design and Fabrication was issued on June 9, 2015 • An Agreement is forthcoming for the Construction portion of this project PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED/CURRENT MILESTONES LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS EMWD (Utility Project) Old Town Sewer Project located at Old Town Front Street and Moreno Road to First Street • Pipe segment between First Street and Second Street is currently underway • Sewer pipe installation from First Street to Third Street, and Fourth Street to Sixth Street is currently underway Walcott Estates Walcott Lane • Developer is progressing with street improvements which are anticipated to be complete by the end of July 2015 Standard Pacific Terracina — Housing development in County • Exporting of material from this County project site via City streets is currently on hold due to the Contactor's dirt balancing issues • The proposed sewer improvements along Deer Hollow are anticipated to begin by the end of July 2015, as the Contractor has submitted the Traffic Control Plan for review City of TemecuCa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT STATUS REPORT JUNE 23, 2015 PROJECT NAME BRIEF DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATED / CURRENT MILESTONES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing Replace aging play structures and associated safety surfacing $275,000 • Priority list and replacement program being prepared • Estimated completion date is July 2015 City Facilities Rehabilitation — Community Recreation Center Swimming Pool Heater Replacement Replace aging pool heater with a new high efficiency unit $75,000 • This project was estimated to start in December 2015, but because the heater developed a leak, it was replaced in June 2015 City Facilities Rehabilitation — Mary Phillips Senior Center Rehabilitation Install new flooring throughout various areas of the facility, paint interior, upgrade front reception area, repair damaged trim molding, and replace ceiling tiles $125,000 • Start date to be determined • Estimated completion date is June 2016 City Facilities Rehabilitation — TVE2 Second Story Deck Repair and Restoration Repair and replace rotted wood subfloor and install new waterproof deck coating/membrane $5,000 • This project was completed in June 2015 City Facilities Rehabilitation — TVE2 Interior Wall Installation Install an interior wall with door and appropriate hardware to create rentable space in the large conference room $5,000 • This project was completed in June 2015 Parks Improvement Program — Patricia H Birdsall Sports Park Shade Structure and Railing Restoration Preparation and repainting of the steel and wood shade structures and steel hand rails throughout the park site $26,700 • This project was completed in June 2015 City Facilities Rehabilitation — Temecula Valley History Museum Remove existing brick entry walk that has been lifted by tree roots, remove all tree roots and level sand bed, and reinstall engraved bricks in original location $10,000 • Estimated start date will be determined by TCSD/Museum •Estimated completion date is December 2016 REQUESTS TO SPEAK REQUEST TO SPEAK � CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: � WC. � Z' o I wish to speak on: � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/ CSD/SARDA ITHA/TPFA (Circle One) � Subject: � �V�c� � S {'V`E�1�C�l ��N � Agenda Item No. For � Against � Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk arior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name,for the record. Name: �T'r1NC. 1�-���� Address: PhoneNumber: ` If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: �� w►MN i S �'.��^--�o o-� �'2 U�L Ku--Qt�4- P/ease nofe that al/information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK � CITY OF TEMECULA 1989 Date: �� / ✓ I wish to speak on: �/ Public Comment CITY COUNCIL/CSD/SARDA ITHA/TPFA(Circle One) Subject: KtW1�'�.l�S Y►'IE�tC{� ` ��{"�� � Agenda Item No. For ❑ Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Pubiic Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk arior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: �J � Y1�, 11,(,l/� � �� Y"1G�2'� Address: Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, lease give the name: k,� �a�-,� c S C-1,.�-la a� 'C��c.�� at-- Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. �"-� REQUEST TO SPEAK �1-� CITY OF TEMECULA '� Date: �I�-C�I�L'�� 1989 �� I wish to speak on: � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: � Agenda Item No. For � Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk priOf to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: �G 5i(,' � /�L'GI,�S C`/1 ��hCL�C���'Gth h-C J�t ��S�r1 I2Cc L Address: Phone Number: '��� � If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: �� . �/�cii�riP � �.d'�i',�4r�, Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. A/l information provided is optional. �:<� REQUEST TO SPEAK �- CITY OF TEMECULA L�- � �'`"�11�' IY89 Date: ���6 ��-� I wish to speak on: � � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: �'r�T ����5/�i�Q � Agenda Item No. For � Against � Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to City Clerk rior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your n�rne en the atter co es up. Plea o to the podium and state your name for the record. Name�� ��.,�\J� ,�{'211�1 Address: � � � � Phone Number: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK �� =�� CITY OF TEMECULA � ���� Date_ �� Z f� ��S b� IY89 I wish to speak on: � Public Commen[CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS s�b�eot: RPP �OV� MASv2 nno9 /Fi� lyT� vN Td TV/-� �eV }� Agenda Item No. �� For � Against ❑ 4�) Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: ��O I�Ci � �r� �E' O Address: % Phone Number: �-�� — ? ��� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. AlI information provided is optional. �� REQUEST TO SPEAK / � � �_ . CITY OF TEMECULA ,� �''� ivav Date: ���(/ �/ � I wish to speak on: � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: �Agenda Item No. �U For Against � Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Cierk prior to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. � ; Name: �f � %-GC%J�_ . Address: PhoneNumber. ������� ���� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: � , f� /��G''sr�/�' l'/'���'-<j L� ,1 rz ( d C� ��-js ( � ,/� (� ����A' / %�f�-�� � ��-P`%Ci l/�- .�". Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA �1989 Date: 'J /�TJ/`� I wish to speak on: � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL CSD SARDA/THA/TPFA (Circle One) Subject: ���L� ( �/S—�.2�1/�/ ��f,7J�T ��7,Y%F�/'f't—IC C �)1U7��� � Agenda Item No. For � Against ❑ Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Co�sent Caiendar must be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form must be submitted to the City Clerk p�iOr to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: /�/�� ��Tl� Address: ��1�� /�//��/�,/,/yJ ( � 0 � Phone Number: � �� If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: �E� /J��/� C/ f2T l�� ���� �G'NLI�UE�1�t,��ZL11�) y� �� C�' c�� c�� Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. REQUEST TO SPEAK � ;-!F ' �'v� CITY OF TEMECULA �� I �- �� ' � ' . i 1989 � Date: 1 rC � I wish to speak on: � Public Comment CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Subject: � Agenda Item No. � For � Against � (j 1 Request to Speak forms for Public Comments on Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk pflOf to the City Council addressing that item. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Name: /"(a�/1� � Address: � Phone Number: - � If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: 1� �� Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. AlI information provided is optional. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD � � �; � � � � � .: �� � � . �,� � �; ��: � , . ��1,. ti � i �i �° � y •� �M.� . �. 9 ' . � . . �� � � � �; ��� � � Has Heart The H-�rs s�f�=_•utham i�elif�_mie ...Because Nfe�Matters "a�"ine��cuntr}� P - B W rk h ost u et o s o � p Presentation �,� �.� �.,� �.,� r � �.;� � ��� �� �.� r �� J u ly 28, 2015 - . ,� c�4 - �.; -� , � 1 � � ! � , :� v� � �� ���� f r Reca o Wo s o p p • Budget Workshop — May 27, 2015 • Identified Challen�e - Based on rising costs for public safety, now and into the future, the five- year projection for overall revenues and expenditures shows that expenditures begin to outpace revenues next year and the gap between the two continues to increase in future years . The five-year shortfall is approximately $5 .9 million and continues to grow thereafter. , . :� , � ' �� r�' � > i� � 1 � ! . Y� � � ���� � _ Re ca Co nt i n u e p • Council Discussion and Direction in Response to Challenge • City Council Consensus on Several Key Points of Consideration 1. High quality of life for all residents in the City 2. High level of services, specifically public safety and community services, for all residents in the City 3. Desire to maintain and/or enhance the current quality of life and service levels 4. Desire to look at every idea/solution to address challenge 5. Desire to educate the community and engage the citizens in a dialogue to find ideas/solutions to address the challenge "Tell the Truth, Trust the Citizens" — Pat Birdsall (Founding Council Member) , -� . , � ' �� r�- � ; i� � 1 � ! . Y� � � ���� � _ TWO- PRONGED SOLUTION TO CHALLENGE EXPENDITURE REDUCTION and REVENUE GENERATION Parks CIP Admin Maintenance o Operating 3_Zo/ ��g�o O1helrRevenue Pro ert Tax Pol4ce Transfers In iZo,o p y Public Worksl �38.3% 4i� i�i $a�o \ flntergovemmental � Revenues Land � — 11°!0� Development� 22% _ -- � Building& Safety _ SpecialTax 37% � (AAeasure C) Fire 3� f 9.6°/a Planning ^ 3.1% Administration Transierct �Animal Control Occupancy Tax ���3��� Department�C ���% 5� �Frac�chiseFees SalesandVJseTax 12.9% s% 48^/0 � -„ � :� �_ .c = � �� - � _ �� 1 � � : .. :� . � � � � _ � Potentia l Ideas/Sol utions EXPEN DITU RE REDUCTION EFFORTS • Actively Engage at Local, County and State Levels - Ongoing Discussions with Riverside County Sheriff, Board of Supervisors Regarding Public Safety Costs - Legislative Platform - Track, Monitor and Engage on Legislation Affecting Citywide Operations and Finances - Monitor and Seek Funding through Public and Private Grant Opportunities ��vt�T fA4FF,/. Z�p4 OF rH i x � . . � ;� �o� �P J��1 L�S [`(; � � � \�� - � W�e'd� �T f ✓m.°'. Y !+� . ,i v '��t,,, 198�) — C,qL�FORNtP ��v:rs.vt�uew�`: � '� i � � � - �� � �.�" � - > . � 1 � � ! � , � � �� ���� Potentia l I deas/Sol utions EXPEN DITU RE REDUCTION EFFORTS, CON 'T. • Consumer Price Index ( CPI ) Escalators • Sponsorship Policy for Community Services • uti I ity Aud its for city-Owned Faci I ities • Private Uti I ization of City Assets I ncl ud i ng Parks • Add itiona I Efforts — Fee Study, Eff iciency Study, Fire Staffing, Development Fiscal I m pact Ana lysis, Econom ic Related Stud ies, etc . _ � � � �� ��- �� :� � i� � � � � ! � : .� v� � � ���� � _ Potentia l I deas/Sol utions NEW REVENUE GENERATION • Public Safety / Community Services Sales Tax • TransientOccupancyTax (TOT) • Measure C Enhancement and/or Escalator • Utility Users Tax ( UUT) • Community Facilities District (CFD) . , .- �_:. �r�; � e �. - __ _� ti��' :_ �_.- .-_ - .- _�� - -� .� a� v- � --� �a , --_- � . .�� .3 -..� � � . � � - F -� 4� � --.;� �` ± � � ...... . ' ` ' IC...� as� I.�` _.�. �� �_ ,ix s �: ux-":�' ,��+'�,-gq.^��>�,t.i`.ti'q+�'�.x ��.rr._Y+..� +ii..^�.s 4 �:"MF� ., ,' „a�..��� .� ��.�r ` � - ^i�.._ _ C'¢� ,X�r �, �'�,y,atL.�' e�` �. ,� r�++ - +�_ - 'd�r-�;' .- ' + �.rrasi4 'w js`ySe! �"-.�` . `�1..`z'�* } � :y�.''t.re y� . 'r'""�-�..�a-a`f-`s'''� .-. k�..�.�s ._a+.� .av3+�. �' . .ha�.�:. s�'#''�r-�.. �c"8t.' ...�' x�� � .�= Y_ � _ F_ '�e�c,-�-r_.,_. +�e �3y-��"�y��k� `,.. —=��d.� £ _..� ..z _ �u �-�� �^�.: Y� a��� -- .�,"i��c-�.< -l� _. �Lk" . � � _ �� �„ '��-�� 4 - $"� ay'r •,�s. � � `+�s'� A�.� xvu�.�`.s3-T.� ���� - t::� - . ,� c�4 : �-; .� , � 1 � � ! � : :� v� � �� ���� SA L E S TAX M EAS U R E • Idea Description : Levy on Retail Sale of Tangible Goods Paid by Purchaser of Goods at Point of Sale • Financial Impact: Temecula = 8% / Average City = 8.5% % cent = $8M, %z cent = $16M, 1 cent = $32M (Approximate) • Public Engagement: Citizen Vote (General Purpose = Majority, Special Purpose = 2/3) • Time Reference: General Purpose = Regular Election (November 2016 , S ecial Purpose = Regular or Special __ � �-.-»- �_, . .. Election _- , .� � - - �, J � �.. k .� . ,..--,� ���: . . -. � �_` - � � I �il . ' - . . � I �� ,1� � � . ' �� �! N .. y � � =s � � " ' { Q �4y' .. ' 3 ��� ' � � � _ � �■■� .,_', ' - " � ��ewr r�� • �; : • �i s� ;, �� � ���.'_ � � � i -�!"��,� �.r :,�'. � �1 ,���'��. � s� ..� r�. � �''`,r > � � 1 � � ! � : Y� � �� ���� TRANSI ENT OCCU PANCY TAX TOT • Idea Description : Levy on Occupancy of Hotels, Motels, or Similar Short-Term Lodging Paid by Occupant ("Hotel Tax") • Financial Impact: Temecula = 8% / Average City = 10% +2% _ $800k, +4% _ $1.6M, +8% _ $3.2M (Approximate) • Public Engagement: Citizen Vote (General Purpose = Majority, Special Purpose = 2/3) • Time Reference: General Purpose = Regular Election, Special Purpose = Regular or Special Election � ar : _. e�������_� , � -� � � •. - � '"� ,4�i {� _ �-• •�. , ?g� �' l.:;q , �C' � — �{ � � °r -�{s..�=_ ,��—�++Y' �� y J� .,`�7 F �: � .. . _ _ .I� -- - _ - � , �����, _ �i�� - 7 �� �_ - f_'�_ , ----- - - . .�-.«_—.��. :...�. . .... � � ._ . � . ' A''�'Z`:•T. - .. .. , ;� �� .. �. '�` '. . �� . .� . � � � � '� .� Y� � i�' � I� Measure C En ancement Esca ator • Idea Description : Levy for the Collection of Parks and Lighting Special Tax Paid by Property Owner • Financial Impact: Temecula = $74.44 / Local Measure 25% _ $900k, 50% _ $ 1.8M, 100% _ $3.7M (Approximate) • Public Engagement: Citizen Vote - Special Purpose (2/3) • Time Reference: Special Purpose = Regular or Special Election 1'-� � � ,��� � � .��. ` ��,.. - _. � =� s,-�.. ��,,�' rd #.._.: � . . •�g�,p 1_-a M1� � ���� �� i� �I : !�. �8��.��'�'4`,y����:� *�i _� .. �'�.� , � � �� � _- ` _ — � � — � �J►���- a . — � - -- — — —_ --—� - — — — — —_ -_ __ — _—_ -— - —+— �� :.� � " :_�-�,-:�F -; - _ _ _ �K�` . ,�1 ..,�' '� �� .. ' i� ��- :. �- '� ' _ " � 1 � � ! � : :� v� � �� ���� UTI LITY U S E RS TAX U UT • Idea Description : Levy on Use of Various Utilities (i .e., Gas, Electricity, Telecommunications, etc. ) Paid by Utility User • Financial Impact: Temecula = None / Average City = 5% $6. 1M (4%), $7.6M (5%), $9. 1M (6%) • Public Engagement: Citizen Vote (General Purpose = Majority, Special Purpose = 2/3) • Time Reference: General Purpose = Regular Election, Special Purpose = Regular or Special Election .� oLa TowN T�EMECVLA ^ �<< >>� T � wz-�a IlISTRICT , , � �� ��__ �� �' { " � 1 � � . .� v� � �� ���� -� � _ � mm ni F ili i Di ri FD C o u t a c t e s st ct C • Idea Description : Special Tax on Real Property in Designated CFD Area for Public Infrastructure or New Public Services Paid by Property Owner • Financial Impact: Varies Based on Rate and Method of Apportionment, Typically Based on Property Type (i .e., Res i d e nt i a l, Reta i I, Off i ce, etc. ) • Public Engagement: Citizen Vote — 2/3 Property Owners • Time Reference: - — General, Special or Mail Election � , xti- i x �.. ., j ..�i J�rS���s.. ���a � :� '�� � �� }� M.� — y ..� r ... ' _..����?�.'+[�� __ . _ �-- _...�+`�� �_.�1:�'; _ L_ ���� . : �� :�- � � =� , _ _ ,_ _- - _ _=��. t r ;i Fa _ �' .� c _ � �� ��.,_ I � � -. :� � � �� � � � � Has Heart ...Because Nftt Matters N EXT STE P TELL THE TRUTH, TRUST THE CITIZENS �t�r�,��* «� �: �' �`'� , - .� , � �� �`'�, .;,� � _�� � .:. �� �d Y$ € �`',.,�{ `.� � f. F��. �3�,,., :4 �� � � Y� y� 2' .+fi _� � �� ,,�� ! a�� �{°' T._ •II � � �:sY„�f'� .� ;� �"- � x 1 � ��� � �Y�.'?�^pP�,.�`'�r x f � � . _ F�� ~ ��>`r�.s ��'€ �,. � g, �� �tGa� � I Fj,�� �. 9� �� �"[, �fr- 'a �',��-gf*��x'y: .�wny ., y �� (]- gi�` ' �� f Cg�,y.•� - ����� � K� l� /r+ ,��� ('. � "SY 'D & 5'. . .r k� �[�� i , j ��� � 1. s� � .�� � ' �- � �• K'A��'.'� 8' ,.. ���� _� :�. . ' �'NC� .��.1" � S �p.m". - _ —�� - ��� ��r�. �,"� ! � "��v' � . � r�4�,�� � �� �� _ �"� ; ����� �-�� { '� � , - v. �'' _'�,r� � �� ��� � ��$� � _ ».� � `a� _ ` A�r� . _ . � � . � ti� y '�-+r:,�+ '1� -��� 4� � � � � �'� � �4 ,j f ' ' � � r�Y'� ��� � ;)T - � i � 7 � Y �;:� � � � � � I� ���._ .aP` � : � _ i e _ � � , 4 t � . . . � � ' �. � 0. � �-�_ . �, : v�� i ��� " . _m-_ --I I � ��K - �J � . _�- . - � , � -��— �` � � , ������ __._�--��• –- - - r� � ��� � �a' � �� — � -- —� — — — ,� ;� - �; �� _ � , ��, l��._ � � � � � r� � i� � �� ���� The Temecula Way = Community Participation * I ncorporation _ �... _ -- -.�.�.� * Citizen Satisfaction Survey --- _ * Qualit of life Master Plan -_ v . � ��� � 'i ��� ,�- � , �' �� , ���� �� � � � � y ��� I�� _ � � _ . � '"''i�` '� � � � � . � ,, . ��. �' ,_ , , �,, � _ v ._ _.—. . _��� _ __ z..�, , , r �-� �. ti - —_� ' - , ;� � c�4 �. .� ' _ �, r��:_ � ' � � ' , ;� v� � �� �'f� COM M U N ITY OUTREACH PLAN * Ed ucation � _ t � , � -i q 4 t. , Q^;�,A� y �ii. . / W � � � }� � 'F '«:�.��f ������.y� - f v I` T �'� i , 7� � ��~ .a°Sr Pa rtici ation �- �� � � �� . r 4: ,� . �. p '� �-� �r�� � � �°�'� ����' � ` � iY I ' . .�x.��y� ' ��_,�i r : .r. ~, �ff,F�� • -f i.� r.e .r,=. " �"y�,....; r t'�1 •� • • • ^ J�' ! � � � �� r��� �' * SoI icitation � �� ,:, � �� .� .���.,e�� � :, � .��..��� : �� , ��_ �, . � o-�� .� ,� �'�",�►� .� � . ,�--.�,� . , ��< ���� ,� '- � r. . y��, � wF. �r �'���`;,�„ ,—��y4y.�z' _ . Y: � .. < !�tn�'1.i.y'� �"1 •j). '! �h �l� *1.����� � � f,. ��.,�' y 1;.� 1��eA`�[``� � �.�r _ �k Y�� •��;��`�x�'°�° � �- ' �� Cons � derat � on . � .,� �- , � � �� � � -� ,�� Y �� '� ��,� �, �'�=* r• � • i � f��� ��-�i �'� �� �� � I ncor oration ��� � �� .�r � �. ; .� � �� ;;� � ;,��,.. ,� _ -i - �- L —� , ;•� ►+ , ��i`.,'a�3�'�� ,���. �.1�_�`�� . - , ,� c� �-: .r ' � " � 1 � � ! � : .� v� � � ���� STAFF RECOM M EN DATION • Receive Presentation a nd Provide Add itiona I Direction As Needed • Authorize City Manager to Engage Consultant a nd/or Experts i n Su b ject Area to Design a nd Conduct Community Outreach Efforts • Designate Subcommittee of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to Provide General Project G u i d a n ce to Staff _ . -� . , � ' �� r�- � ; i� � 1 � ! . Y� � � ���� � _