Loading...
Draft TVH Helistop SEIR 2014.pdfDraft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared forCity of Temecula November 2014 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT 550 West C StreetSuite 750San Diego, CA 92101619.719.4200www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Prepared forCity of Temecula November 2014 TEMECULA VALLEY HOSPITAL HELISTOP PROJECT Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project i ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Acronyms Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project ii ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3.3-9 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 Acronyms Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project iii ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 INM 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 S-1 ESA / D130652 Draft 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 EIR 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. Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-2 ESA / D130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 This Draft SEIR 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@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. Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-3 ESA / D130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 S.5 Project Objectives City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and project area, as listed in the 2006 EIR, 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 Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-4 ESA / D130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 SEIR 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 Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-5 ESA / D130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. Executive Summary Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project S-6 ESA / D130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. Executive Summary Te m e c u l a V a l l e y H o s p i t a l H e l i s t o p P r o j e c t S- 7 ESA / D130652 Dr a f t S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t November 2014 TA B L E S - 1 SU M M A R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e Level of Impact after Mitigation Ae s t h e t i c s Im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w o u l d n o t re s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t a e s t h e t i c s i m p a c t s . Ha z a r d s Im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w o u l d no t r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t h a z a r d s i m p a c t s . No i s e Su b s t a n t i a l T e m p o r a r y o r P e r i o d i c I n c r e a s e i n A m b i e n t No i s e L e v e l s i n t h e P r o j e c t V i c i n i t y a n d E x p o s u r e o f Pe r s o n s t o E x c e s s i v e N o i s e L e v e l s Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e N O I - 1 : P r i o r t o h e l i c o p t e r o p e r a t i o n s , t h e T e m e c u l a V a l l e y Ho s p i t a l w i l l d e v e l o p a n d i n s t a l l s i g n a g e a t b o t h e n d s o f t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e e q u e s t r i a n tr a i l t h a t i s a d j a c e n t t o t h e h o s p i t a l s i t e . T h e s i g n s w i l l n o t i c e r i d e r s o f t h e h e l i s t o p lo c a t i o n a n d i t s o p e r a t i o n a t t h e h o s p i t a l . T h e s i g n w i l l i n c l u d e h e l i c o p t e r n o i s e in f o r m a t i o n a n d w a r n i n g s t o e q u e s t r i a n u s e r s . T h e T e m e c u l a V a l l e y H o s p i t a l w i l l b e re s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e s i g n , p r e p a r a t i o n , a n d in s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e s i g n , a s w e l l a s a l l re l a t e d c o s t s . Significant and unavoidable A i r c r a f t f l i g h t s f o r m e d i c a l p u r p o s e s c a n n o t b e r e s t r i c t e d d u e t o t h e a i r c r a f t ' s n o i s e le v e l p e r C a l i f o r n i a P U C S e c t i o n 2 1 6 6 2 . 4 . Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 2010). 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 EIR was inadequate, which resulted in a ruling that found that the EIR did not adequately address several areas, and that the City failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In response, the City prepared an SEIR pursuant to the court’s direction that was certified in 2008. In 2011, the project applicant, United Health Services, Inc. (UHS) filed a planning application to change the phasing of the project by reducing the number of beds from 170 to 140 in Phase 1, 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 modify the building facades, relocate the truck loading bays and service yards, and to relocate mechanical equipment. An Addendum to the 2008 Final SEIR was prepared and adopted by the City in February 2011. Additionally, in July 2012, a conservation easement was approved to satisfy the off-site mitigation requirements for impacts caused by development of the hospital. Phase 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. 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-3 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014  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 EIR was prepared and City Planning Commission hearings were held on November 16, 2005 and January 5, 2006, and the City Council adopted a resolution certifying the EIR on January 24, 2006. 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. 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-4 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 UHS began construction on the project. Construction of Phase 1 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. 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-5 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 15162 states when an EIR 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 EIR 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 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-6 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Section15163 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 EIR, and  Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR 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 SEIR 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 EIR 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 SEIR. 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-7 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 As previously stated, the focus of a SEIR 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 EIR; 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 EIR(s) already prepared for the project. A supplement to an EIR may be circulated for public review by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. A subsequent EIR, 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 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. 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 15163. 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 1. Introduction Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 1-8 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 EIR 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, 2013. 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 2-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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. 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 The proposed Major Modification would relocate the previously approved helistop1 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 SEIR. 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 EIR 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; 1 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. 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-3 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014  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 (I-15) and Temecula Parkway. The site is two miles east of I-15. Project Site Characteristics The Temecula Valley 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. Phase 1 of the hospital began operations on October 14, 2013. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 02 Miles Temecula City Boundary PROJECT SITE 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-5 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Margarita RdMargarita R d De P o r t o l a R d D e P o r t o l a R d Margarita Rd PR O J E C T S I T E P R O J E C T S I T E PR O J E C T S I T E De P o r t o l a R d 79 Te m e c u l a V a l l e y H o s p i t a l H e l i s t o p S E I R . 130652 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map SO U R C E : B i n g M a p s 0 3 0 0 Fe e t INTERIM HELISTOP 0 200 Feet Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-3Proposed Hospital Storage Buildingand Interim Helistop Location SOURCE: HMC Architects FAA an d C a l t r a n s D i v i s i o n o f A e r o n a u t i c s Recom m e n d e d F l i g h t P a t h Interim Helistop 79 PROJECT SITE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R e d h a w k P k w y Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y D o n a L y n o r a D o n a L y n o r a Pi o P i c o R d Pi o P i c o R d V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r De Portola R d De Portola R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-4Existing and Proposed Interim andPermanent Helistop Locations SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 200 Feet 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-9 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-10 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 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 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 16-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 150/5390-2C 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 Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-5 Interim Helistop Design Characteristics Site Layout Heliport Detail Southwest Elevation SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 400 Feet 0 40 Feet 0 40 Feet Three-Color (Green-White-Yellow) Heliport Beacon Internally Lighted Windcone with Red Obstruction Light Pole-Mounted Dual Red LED Obstruction Light with Relay Green LED Flush-Mount Perimeter Light 3M “Raised Pavement Marker” with Two Yellow Lenses or Similar (Optional) Portable Fire Extinguisher Elevations and Airspace Contours To Be Removed, Lowered, or Relocated for Obstruction Clearance, as Appropriate V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r P i o P i c o R d P i o P i c o R d De Por t o l a R d De Por t o l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Dartolo RdDartolo Rd 79 C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2-6Hospital Storage Building Elevations South Elevation East Elevation West Elevation North Elevation SOURCE: HMC Architects 0 10 Feet 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-13 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Development (OSHPD)  Review and issuance of construction permits for 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)  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. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics  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 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-14 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 of past, present, and probable future projects 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 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-15 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. Reference Planning Jurisdiction Development Type Description Status 1 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 single- family residential lots located approximately 15,000 feet east of Santiago and Ynez Road. Proposed 2 City of Temecula Institutional A Major Modification application for the UHS Temecula Regional Hospital to modify the phasing of the project, reducing the bed count from 178 to 140 in phase one and to build out the project to 320 beds by the year 2026. 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. Under Construction 3 City of Temecula Office A Development Plan application to allow for the 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. Approved 4 City of Temecula Commercial/ Residential Redevelopment of the existing 305-acre site into a Resort 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. Proposed 2. Project Description Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 2-16 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 Figure No. Reference Planning Jurisdiction Development Type Description Status 5 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 77 single family homes on a condominium at the southeast corner of Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way. Approved 6 City of Temecula Mixed Use A Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Subdivision 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 construct the Western Bypass that would link Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road. Proposed 7 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 4,700 square foot Navy Federal Credit Union building with three drive-thru lanes located approximately 150 feet south of Temecula Parkway, on the west side of Jedediah Smith Road. Approved 8 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan for the construction of two structures totaling 54,860 square feet for medical offices generally located on the north side of Temecula Parkway, approximately 400 feet east of the Jedediah Smith and Temecula Parkway intersection. Under Construction 9 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a two-story, 11,982 square foot medical office building on a 0.92 acre vacant lot located at the northwest corner of Temecula Parkway and Dona Lynora. Approved 10 City of Temecula Commercial A Development Plan to construct a 29,211 square foot, two-story professional office building located on the west side of Avenida de Missiones, approximately 200 feet south of Temecula Parkway. Approved 11 City of Temecula Residential A Multi-family residential Development Plan to construct the 288 apartment units at the northwest corner of Campanula Way and Meadows Parkway. Under Construction 12 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct 186 single-family attached units (90 rowhome units and 96 motorcourt units) at the southwest corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Under Construction 13 City of Temecula Residential A Development Plan to construct a 140 unit attached 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. Approved 14 City of Temecula Residential A Tentative Tract Map revision for 59 detached condominium units located at the northeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Mira Loma Road. Approved 15 City of Temecula Commercial A Major Modification to Development Plan to construct a one-story, 12,554 square foot outpatient surgery center building on a 1.01 acre vacant lot located at the northeast corner of Temecula Parkway and Rancho Pueblo Road. Under Construction SOURCE: City of Temecula Planning Department, 2014. !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( VA I L R A N C H P K W Y M E A D O W P K W Y D E P O R T O LA R D M A R G A R I T A R D §¨¦15 UV79 YNEZ RD P A U B A R D S A N T I A G O R D PECHAN GA PK W Y B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D O L D T O W N F R O N T S T F A I R V I E W A V E D I A Z R D 3 5 6 7 8 9 4 2 1 15 11 12 10 14 13 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 2-7 Cumulative Projects SOURCE: ESRI; City of Temecula. Project Location 0 3,200 Feet !(#Cumulative Projects City of Temecula Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. g. Lighting fixtures shall be shown on the landscaping plans. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-3 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-4 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-5 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-6 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.1-7 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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: 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-3 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014  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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-4 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 standards set forth in the FAA AC 150/5390-2C, 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-5 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-6 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-7 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 flights. The proposed flight paths were designed to be consistent with the FAA Helistop 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 1 foot vertical for every 8 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Hazards Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.2-8 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 projects; 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 0 or 1 3 2 or 3 2 4 to 9 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 Hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 3.3-1Effects of Noise on People SOURCE: ESA 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION LETTERS OF PROTEST Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Large Business Office Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. COMMON INDOORNOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOORNOISE LEVELS NOISELEVEL(dBA, Leq)PUBLIC REACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial AreaHeavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud REFERENCE Small Theater, LargeConference Room (Background)Library Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-4 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-5 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 (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 Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB(A) AMBIENT CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.1-61.2 59.6 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.8-63.2 58.9 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 50.1-61.7 63.5 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes 57.9 N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 64.2-76.5 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 S1.4-1971. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations 0 1000 Feet PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Site 5 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 4 Temecu l a P k w y Te m e c u la P k w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De P o r t o l a R d D e P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-7 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 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. 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(f) 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-8 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 TABLE 3.3-2 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (LDN OR CNEL) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Multi-Family Homes 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters --- 50 - 70 --- above 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports --- 50 - 75 --- above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 --- 67 - 75 above 75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 75 --- 70 - 80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial 50 - 70 67 - 77 above 75 --- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 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. b 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. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. 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 Ldn. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-9 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. To 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 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Land Use Normally Acceptablea Conditionally Acceptableb Normally Unacceptablec Clearly 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 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatersf --- 50 - 70 --- above 70 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sportsf --- 50 - 75 --- above 75 Playgrounds, Parks 50 - 70 --- 70 - 75 above 75 Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 70 --- 70 - 80 above 80 Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Professional 50 - 65 65 - 75 above 75 --- Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 --- Agriculture above 50 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. b 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. c 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. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. e Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. f 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-10 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 60 dB Ldn 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 Ldn 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-11 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-12 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 45 65 Rural Very Low Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/701 High 45 701 Commercial and Office Neighborhood — 70 Community Highway Tourist Service Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Institutional Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture — 70 Open Space — 70/652 1 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 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 information specific to each helistop including the total number of helicopter operations, the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-13 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-14 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 INM Helicopter Type Helicopter Type Daytime Operations Evening Operations Nighttime 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 (7:00:00 am – 6:59:59 pm) Evening (7:00:00 pm – 9:59:59 pm) Nighttime (10:00:00 pm – 6:59:59 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-15 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 3.3-6 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: Heliplanners, 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 DN E P (D e p a r t u r e N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASW P (Ar r i v a l S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-3 Interim Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet 79 Interim Helistop Temecu l a P k w y T e me c ul a Pk w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De P o r t o l a R d D e P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Interim Helistop Temecu l a P k w y T e me c ul a Pk w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De P o r t o l a R d D e P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE AN E P (Ar r i v a l N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSW P (De p a r t u r e S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-4 Interim Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet DN E P (De p a r t u r e N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASW P (Arr i v a l S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-5 Permanent Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Permanent Helistop Temecu l a P k w y Tem e c u l a P k w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d D e Po r to l a R d De Porto l a R d PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-6 Permanent Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet AN E P (Ar r i v a l N o r t h e a s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSW P (De p a r t u r e S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) Temecu l a P k w y Tem e c u l a P k w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De Porto l a R d D e Po r to l a R d De Porto l a R d PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Permanent Helistop 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-20 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 EIR. 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 1, Introduction of this SEIR 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 FSEIR, 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-21 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 SEIR 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 dB 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 dB 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 CNEL 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 3.3-8. Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-7 Interim Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 05 0 0 Feet 79 Interim Helistop PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE Temecu l a P k w y Te m e c u l a P k w y Temecu l a P k w y De Porto l a R d D e P o r to l a R d De Porto l a R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-8 Permanent Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 05 0 0 Feet 79 Permanent Helistop PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE Temecul a P k w y Te m e cu la P k w y Temecul a P k w y De Porto l a R d D e Po r t ol a R d De Porto l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-24 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Site Number Site Description/ Address Ambient CNEL, dB WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA 1 30390 De Portola Road 59.6 60.9 73.3 52.0 65.6 2 30955 De Portola Road adjacent to portion of Equestrian Trail 58.9 73.3 69.2 85.5 74.5 3 31775 De Portola Road 63.5 59.6 58.9 77.8 59.6 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 78.7 73.2 79.7 72.8 75.6 6 Direct Overflight of Equestrian Trail --- 76.3 71.9 100.8 77.6 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 trail. 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 SEIR . 130652 Figure 3.3-9 Single-Event Noise Analysis Locations SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Single-Event Noise Analysis Locations 0 1000 Feet NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for Site #4 were unavailable and therefore omitted from the single-event noise analysis. PROJECTPROJECT SITESITE PROJECT SITE 79 Site 5 Site 3 Site 1 Site 2 Site 6 Temecu l a P k w y Te m e c u la P k w y Temecu l a P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d R e d h a w k P k w y R edha w k Pk wy R e d h a w k P k w y De P o r t o l a R d D e P o r t o l a R d De P o r t o l a R d 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-26 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 NOI-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 less 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 1 and 2 did not experience an 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-27 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Number Site Description/ Address Measurement Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Combined Helicopter 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 of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 47.2 78.7 0.0 TABLE 3.3-11 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE PERMANENT CONDITION Site Number Site Description/ Address Measureme nt Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Helicopter 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 of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 41.2 78.7 0.0 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. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-28 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 NOI-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 NOI-1: 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 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Noise Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 3.3-29 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 SEIR, 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 4-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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)(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:  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)). 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 SEIR 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 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-3 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014  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 EIR 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 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-4 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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. Approved Helistop Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d ANWP (Arrival N o r t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSEP (Depart u r e S o u t h e a s t Point-tr a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-1 Approved Helistop – East-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Approved Helistop Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d DNWP (Departu r e N o r t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) ASEP (Arrival S o u t h e a s t Point-tr a c k ) Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-2 Approved Helistop – West-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-7 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 EIR, 2008 SEIR, 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 Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-3 Approved Helistop – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet NOTE: The CNEL contours depict the noise exposure from helicopter operations only and do not represent the noise exposure resulting from non-aircraft sources. 79 Approved Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-9 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 for 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 Site Number Site Description/ Address Measurement Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Combined CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.6 25.8 59.6 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 58.9 46.9 59.2 +0.3 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 63.5 47.5 63.6 +0.1 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 34.5 78.7 0.0 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) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-10 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Site No. Site Location Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA** Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA** Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA** Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA** Difference from Interim dBA 1 30390 De Portola 64.4 +3.5 66.4 -6.9 48.5 -3.5 48.4 -17.2 2 30955 De Portola 85.7 +12.4 84.9 +15.7 74.1 -11.4 75.5 +1.0 3 31775 De Portola 74.4 +14.9 75.9 +17 74.6 -3.2 76.4 +16.8 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 60.5 -12.7 61.8 -17.9 60.5 -12.3 62.5 -13.1 6B Equestrian Trail Overflight 97.4 +21.1* 80.6 +8.7* 79.1 -21.7* 96.0 +18.4* 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 helistop. The locations of equestrian trail overflight are different for each helistop site. ** Represents noise levels that would occur from implementation of the currently approved helistop. SOURCE: ESA Airports Analysis, 2014. Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 5 Site 6A Site 6B Site 6C T emecula P a r k w a y ST79 Re dh awk P ky M a r g a r i t a R d De Po rt ol a R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-4 Single-Event Noise Analysis Locations SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Site Locations 0 1000 Feet NOTE: Latitude and longitude coordinates for Site #4 were unavailable and therefore omitted from the single-event noise analysis. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-12 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 6B) 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 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-13 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-14 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 Helistop 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. Hazards 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. Equestrian Trail PROJECT SITEPROJECT SITE P i o P i c o R d P i o P i c o R d V i l l a D e l S u r D r V i l l a D e l S u r D r 79 Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y C o u n t r y G l e n W y C o u n t r y G l e n W y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d De Po r t o l a R d De Po r t o l a R d Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4-5Alternative Heliport Location SOURCE: Heliplanners 0 200 Feet 4. P r o j e c t A l t e r n a t i v e s Te m e c u l a V a l l e y H o s p i t a l H e l i s t o p P r o j e c t 4-16 ESA / 130652 Dr a f t S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t November 2014 This page left intentionally blank Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-6 Alternative Helistop – North-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Alternative Helistop Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 DNEP (Departur e N o r t h e a s t Point-trac k ) ASWP (Arrival S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) DSWP Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-7 Alternative Helistop – South-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; USDA Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1000 Feet Alternative Helistop Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y M a r g a r i t a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Re d h a w k P k w y Re d h a w k P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE 79 ANEP (Arrival N o r t h e a s t Point-trac k ) DSWP (Departure S o u t h w e s t P o i n t - t r a c k ) 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-19 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 114-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 Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative. Overall, the Alternative Interim Helistop Site Alternative 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. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-20 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 0.1 CNEL dB increase at Site 3 (Table 3.3-10). Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652Figure 4-8 Alternative Helistop Location – CNEL Contours SOURCE: ESA; INM 7.0d; City of Temecula; USDA CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB 65 dB Noise Sensitive Land Use 0 500 Feet 79 Alternative Helistop PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Temecula P k w y Temecula P k w y De Portola R d De Portola R d 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-22 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 TABLE 4-3 EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND HELICOPTER NOISE FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE Site Number Site Description/ Address Measurement Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Combined Helicopter 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 of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 78.7 53.4 78.7 0.0 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 Helistop 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 Helistop 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. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-23 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 TABLE 4-4 SINGLE-EVENT NOISE LEVELS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE INTERIM SITE AND COMPARISON TO PROPOSED INTERIM SITE WEST FLOW (Prevailing Winds) EAST FLOW (Santa Ana Conditions) Site No. Site Location Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Departure Lmax, dBA Difference from Interim dBA Helicopter Arrival Lmax, dBA Difference from Interim dBA 1 30390 De Portola 64.4 +3.5 66.4 -6.9 48.5 -3.5 48.4 -17.2 2 30955 De Portola 85.7 +12.4 84.9 +15.7 74.1 -11.4 75.5 +1.0 3 31775 De Portola 74.4 +14.8 75.9 +17.0 74.6 -3.2 76.4 +16.8 5 31602 Calle Los Padres 60.5 -12.7 61.8 -18.1 60.5 -12.3 62.5 -13.1 6C Equestrian Trail 73.6 -2.7 73.3 +1.4 73.4 -27.4 79.7 +2.1 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 Helistop 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 Helistop Site Alternative would be 27.4 Lmax dBA less than noise generated from use of the interim helistop 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 4-24 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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 EIR 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 extent as the proposed project Yes, but not to the same extent as the proposed project Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 5-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Planning/zoningdocume nts/citywidedesign.htm on December 31, 2013. City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan. Accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/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. 5. References Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Project 5-2 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report November 2014 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/Regs_pub.pdf on January 10, 2014. United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). Appendix I: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 Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Temecula Valley Hospital Helipad Project 6-1 ESA / 130652 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 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 Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study / NOP Comments Notice of Preparation and Initial Study City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA 13-0141) DISTRIBUTION DATE: November 25, 2013 CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk CITY OF TEMECULA: RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Building & Safety ........................................... (X) Airport Land Use Commission ...................... (X) Fire Department ............................................ (X) Engineer ....................................................... (X) Sheriff ............................................................ (X) Flood Control ................................................. ( ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .......................... ( ) Health Department ........................................ (X) Public Works ................................................. (X) Parks and Recreation .................................... ( ) __________ ............... ( ) Planning Department ..................................... (X) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ........ (X) STATE: Riverside Transit Agency ............................... ( ) Caltrans ......................................................... (X) ----------............. ( ) Fish & Game ................................................. (X) Mines & Geology ........................................... ( ) UTILITY: Regional Water Quality Control Board ........... (X) Eastern Municipal Water District .................... ( ) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ................... (X) Time Warner .................................................. ( ) Water Resources ........................................... ( ) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ............ ( ) __________ ............. ( ) Southern California Gas ................................. ( ) Southern California Edison ........................... (X) FEDERAL: Temecula Valley School District. .................... ( ) Army Corps of Engineers .............................. (X) Metropolitan Water District.. ........................... ( ) Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... (X) Federal Aviation Administration ..................... (X) OTHER: __________ ............... ( ) Pechanga Indian Reservation ....................... (X) Eastern Information Center ............................ ( ) REGIONAL: Local Agency Formation Comm ..................... ( ) Air Quality Management District .................... (X) RCTC ........................................................... ( ) Western Riverside COG ................................ ( ) Temecula Unified School District .................. ( ) Regional Conservation Authority ................... (X) Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians .................. ( ) __________ ............. ( ) 2 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) Zoninq Planned Development Overlay-91PD0-91 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 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration is required and the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (CAL TRANS) G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 1 :v ., -v),~ -~ \7..;1>. I ~~ 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Less i han Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No lrnoact lncomorated l rnoact imoact a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? d Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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 II 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 II 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 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 land, 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: Less Than Potentially Significant With l:e_sS'll'han Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation SjgniHeant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c 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 X Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X to non-forest use e Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: 2.a-e. No Impact: According to Figure OS-3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 4 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X 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 X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA 13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 5 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncoworated Impact 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 X 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 X Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 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\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 6 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? 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. G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 7 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Sfgrj\flcant With Less Than Issues and Supporting lnfonnatlon Sources Significant Mitigation Slgn!Ocant No lmoact lnll'orool'Bied li'nO"acl Impact a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, 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 X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv 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 X potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994 ), creating substantial risks X to life or property? e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 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 miles 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial 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. and no impacts are 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 anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 9 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? 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 em1ss1ons. 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 C02, emitted by construction activities. However, the project will not conflict with the GARB'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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 10 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Slgniflcant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncoi'Dorated lmoa.ct lmllact a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of X hazardous materials? b Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous X materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? h Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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. B.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:\PLANNING\2013\PA 13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial 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. B.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. B.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. B. 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 12 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water X 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 X 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)? c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 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 X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Require the preparation of a project-specific WQMP? X g Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which X 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 X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 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 Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 13 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 alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 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 1 00-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 1 00-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 shows that the dredging of Temecula G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA 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 Dam. 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 1 00-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 1 00-year flood energy grade lines and 1 00-year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 15 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lmp_act a Physically divide an established community? X b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific X plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Comments: 1 O.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. 1 O.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. 1 O.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 MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 16 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: L!!S'sTilpn P.ote~tf~lly ,S!gAIIIs.aOI ~I heS;S Than .tiJs.ues•and.:Sll!RPOrtln~ lmf.oJma en Saur;ces S!gnl.ftcStOI MIL@ allan Slgnl.ftoant 1\10 lmpJICl lncoroorated lmp~ol lm{>act a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the re.gion and the X residents of the state? b Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 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\2013\PA13·0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Piannlng\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 17 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than Potentially Slgnlflcant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact lncoroorated Impact Impact a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan X or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the X project area to excessive noise levels? 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 ground borne 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.e. 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 18 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoacl Incorporated Impact Impact a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 19 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No lmcact lncorcorated Impact Impact 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 Fire protection? X b Police protection? X c Schools? X d Parks? X e Other public facilities? X 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. G:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 20 15. RECREATION. Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No lmoact lncoroorated lmoact lmoact a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 15.a. No Impact: The relocation of the heliport on 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\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 21 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With '"-ess-Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a 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 X 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? b Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X in substantial safety risks? d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e Result in inadequate emergency access? X f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 23 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 17.a.b.e. No Impact: The proposed relocation of the heliport on the hospital site will not 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA 13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 24 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Less Than Potentially Significant With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact lnco(J)orated Impact Impact 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 X 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 X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly? 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: implementation of the proposed project. No significant cumulative impacts have been identified with the 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.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 following 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 mitigation 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:\PLANNING\2013\PA13-0141 UHS Heliport MOD\Pianning\CEQA\CEQA Initial Study.docx 26 Scoping Session Notice G:\13xxxx\D130652.00 - Temecula Heliport Supplemental EIR\03 Working Documents\Admin SEIR\Appendix A\Scoping Session Notice 12-11-13.doc 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: 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. General Location: 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. Purpose: 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. Contact Persons: Stuart Fisk – (951) 506-5159 Place of Meeting: Civic Center Conference Center 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Date of Meeting: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 Time of Meeting: 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:\13xxxx\D130652.00 - Temecula Heliport Supplemental EIR\03 Working Documents\Admin SEIR\Appendix A\Scoping Session Notice 12-11-13.doc 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 (TIM 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 Lorna 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 CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ........................................... D Fire Department ............................................. D Police Department ......................................... D Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ........................... D Planning (Principals) ...................................... D Public Works .................................................. r8:l GIS ................................................................ D Architect. ........................................................ D Landscape Architect ...................................... D Telecommunication Consultant ...................... D City Attorney .................................................. D STATE: Caltrans Districts 8 ........................................ D Caltrans District 10 ......................................... D Fish & Wildlife ................................................ r8:l Mines & Geology ........................................... D State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ................... r8:l Water Resources ........................................... D FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ............................... r8J Fish and Wildlife Service ................................ r8J Bureau of Land Management. ........................ D REGIONAL: AQMD ............................................................ r8J ALUC ............................................................. D LAFCO ........................................................... D RCA ............................................................... D RTA ............................................................... D RCTC ............................................................ D CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk RWQCB ........................................................ r8J SCAG ............................................................ D WRCOG ........................................................ D RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors .................. D Riverside County EDA ............................... 0 Engineer ....................................................... D Flood Control ................................................ D Health Department ........................................ D Health Department Haz Mat .......................... D Parks and Recreation .................................... D Planning Department .................................... D County Geologist .......................................... D UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ................... r8J Rancho CA Water District ............................. r8J Metropolitan Water District ............................ D Time Warner Cable ....................................... D Verizon .......................................................... D So CA Gas .................................................... r8J So CA Edison ................................................ r8J CR&R ............................................................ r8J OTHER: TVUSD .......................................................... r8J MVUSD ......................................................... D Pechanga Indian Reservation ....................... r8J Soboba Indian Reservation ........................... D UCR Eastern Information Center ................... D Robert Oder, 29911 Mira Lorna Drive, Temecula, CA 92592 G:\PLANNING\2013\PA 13-0217 Rancho Vista Village MOD\Pianning\CEQA\Agency Distribution List-recirculation.docx SCH# 2013121007 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Project Title Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification (PA 13-0141) 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 Agency Phone email Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 951 506 5159 Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Cross Streets Latl Long Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Range Fax State CA Zip 92590 Section Base Project Issues AestheticNisual; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Noise; Traffic/Circulation Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Native American Heritage Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Statewide Health Planning Date Received 12/02/2013 Start of Review 12/02/2013 End of Review 12/31/2013 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-1 0-11 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. CC: State Clearinghouse Sincerely, Dave Singleton Program Analyst Attachment: Native American Contacts list Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians Shane Chapparosa, Chairman P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla Warner , CA 92086 (760) 782-0711 (760) 782-2701 -FAX Pala Band of Mission Indians Historic Preservation Office/Shasta Gaughan 35008 Pala Temecula Road, PMB Luiseno P-ala , CA 92059 Cupeno PMB50 (760) 891-3515 sgaughen@ palatribe.com (760) 742-3189 Fax Pauma & Yuima Reservation Randall Majel, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma Valley CA 92061 paumareservation@ aol.com (760) 742-1289 (760) 7 42-3422 Fax Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Manager P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula , CA 92593 (951) 770-8100 pmacarro@ pechanga-nsn. gov (951) 506-9491 Fax This list Is curTent only as of the date of this document. Native American Contacts Riverside County California December 6, 2013 Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Joseph Hamilton, Chairman P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 admin@ramonatribe.com (951 ) 763-41 05 (951) 763-4325 Fax Rincon Band of Mission Indians Vincent Whipple, Tribal Historic Preationv. Officer 1 West Tribal Road Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 jmurphy@ rincontribe.org (760) 297-2635 (760) 297-2639 Fax Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians John Marcus, Chairman P.O. Box 391820 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 (951 ) 659-2700 (951) 659-2228 Fax Morongo Band of Mission Indians William Madrigal, Jr.,Cultural Resources Manager 12700 Pumarra Road Cahuilla Banning , CA 92220 Serrano (951) 201-1866-cell wmadrigal@ morongo-nsn. gov (951) 572-6004 Fax Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Reaourcea Code. his list s only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2013121007; CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification; located In the City of Temecula; Riverside County, California. Rincon Band of Mission Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson 1 West Tribal Road Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 bomazzetti@ aol.com (760) 749-1051 (760) 749-8901 Fax Pechanga Band of Mission Indians Mark Macarro, Chairperson P.O. Box 1477 Luiseno Temecula , CA 92593 (951) 770-6100 hlaibach@ pechanga-nsn. gov (951) 695-1778 FAX William J. Pink 48310 Pechanga Road Temecula , CA 92592 wjpink@ hotmail.com (909) 936-1216 Prefers e-mail contact Cahuilla Band of Indians Luther Salgado, Chairperson Luiseno PO Box 391760 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 Chairman@ cahuilla. net 760-763-5549 760-763-2631 -Tribal EPA This list Is current only aa of the date of this document. Native American Contacts Riverside County California December 6, 2013 Pechanga Cultural Resources Department Anna Hoover, Cultural Analyst P.O. Box 2183 Luiseno Temecula , CA 92593 ahoover@ pechanga-nsn .gov 951-770-8104 (951) 694-0446-FAX SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department P.O. BOX 487 Luiseno San Jacinto , CA 92581 jontiveros@ soboba-nsn .gov (951) 663-5279 (951) 654-5544, ext 4137 Dlsb1butlon of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory raponalblllty as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Coda and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. his list s only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#2013121007; CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Temecula Valley Hospital Major Modification; located In the City of Temecula; Riverside County, California. 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://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/LSTILST.html . 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://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/mobile toxi.c/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: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.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 (a)(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 11 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook • SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at: www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/mitigation/MM intro.htrnl • CAPCOA's Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures available here: http ://www.capcoa.org/wp-cont.ent/uploads/20 I 0/ll/CA PCOA-Ouantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. • 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: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/agguide.htm l. Data Sources 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 Puolic Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's webpage (http://www.aqmd.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@agmd.gov or call me at (909) 396-3244. RVC131203-02 Control Number Sincerely, /.-1/ /?t ?JlL Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter-Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources 1 Renee Escario From:Stuart Fisk <Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org> Sent:Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:30 AM To:Renee Escario Subject:FW: City of Temecula - PA13-0141 - Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification Renee: For your records, below is the County of Riverside Dept of Environmental Health’s response to the NOP for the Hospital SEIR. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula (951) 506-5159 stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org 41000 Main St, Temecula, CA 92590 Connect with the City of Temecula From: Mistica, Michael [mailto:MMistica@rivcocha.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:28 AM To: Stuart Fisk Cc: Riha, Matt; Hinde, Steve; Barrios, Heidi Subject: City of Temecula - PA13-0141 - Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Major Modification   Good Morning Stuart,    After reviewing the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project  listed in the subject heading of this email, the Department of Environmental Health (DEH)    has no objections with the City of Temecula, Planning Department’s (“Lead Agency”) determination that the Project’s  “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment     requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the effects listed on Page 2 of the NOP. Upon its availability,  DEH would like the opportunity to review the Project’s EIR to address specific area(s) of concern as identified by the  Lead Agency on     Page 2 of the NOP that falls within the purview of DEH (i.e. Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise).     Thank you,    Michael Mistica, MBA, REHS  County of Riverside, Department of Environmental Health    Environmental Protection and Oversight Division  Land Use and Water Resources Program  (951) 955‐8980  (951) 955‐8988 fax    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 II 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 SEIR, I 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. I 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 of a 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@fws.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-14B0143-14CPA0108 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 concern 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 seq.). 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 burrowing 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_allen@fws.gov Appendix B Noise Impact Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital, Helistop Relocation January 2014Prepared for City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Helistop Noise Analysis 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 SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report UHS Universal Health Services Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 1 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 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 Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 2 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 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 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 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. Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 3 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 Source: United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/health_effects/decibels.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 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 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. Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 4 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 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 Daytime Operations Evening Operations Nighttime Operations Total EC-130 EC-135 0.421 0.053 0.053 0.526 Total 0.421 0.053 0.053 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 Daytime (7:00:00 am – 6:59:59 pm) Evening (7:00:00 pm – 9:59:59 pm) Nighttime (10:00:00 pm – 6:59:59 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 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 48° 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 Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 5 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 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% 10.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Heliplanners, 2013 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.1 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 1 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. Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 6 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 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 SEIR 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 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 a 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 6 and 7, Sites 1 and 3 did not experience an increase of 3-dB, 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. Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 7 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB(A) AMBIENT 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 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes 50.3 N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 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 Site Number Site Description/Address Measurement Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and 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 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 60.8 47.2 61.0 +0.2 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, ESA Airports Analysis. Helistop Noise Analysis Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop Relocation 8 ESA Airports / 130652 January 2014 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AND INM LOCATION POINT NOISE FOR THE PERMANENT CONDITION Site Number Site Description/ Address Measurement Period AMBIENT CNEL, dB Helicopter CNEL, dB Combined Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB Difference Between Ambient and Helicopter CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 59.8 23.9 59.8 0.0 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 62.8 43.9 62.9 +0.1 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 57.8 43.7 58.0 +0.2 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 60.8 41.2 60.8 0.0 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, 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. Interim Helistop Temecula P a r k w a y ST79 Re dh aw k P ky M a r g a r i t a R d De Po rt ol a R d Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1,000 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 1 Interim Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012 DNE P ASW P ANE P DSW P Interim Helistop Temecula P a r k w a y ST79 Re dh aw k P ky M a r g a r i t a R d De Po rt ol a R d Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1,000 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 2 Interim Helistop - South-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012 Temecula P a r k w a y Permanent HelistopST79 De Po rt ol a Rd Margarita Rd Re dh aw k P ky Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1,000 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 3 Permanent Helistop - North-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012 DNE P ASW P Temecula P a r k w a y Permanent HelistopST79 De Po rt ol a Rd Margarita Rd Re dh aw k P ky Legend Flight Corridors Arrivals Departures 0 1,000 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 4 ANE P DSW P Permanent Helistop - South-Flow Flight Corridors SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012 Interim Helistop Temecula P a r k w a y ST79 De Porto l a R d Legend CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB Noise SensitiveLand Use 65 dB Hospital Campus 0 500 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 5 Interim Helistop - CNEL Contours 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 P a r k w a y Permanent Helistop ST79 De Porto l a R d M a r g a r i t a R d Legend CNEL Contours 55 dB 60 dB Noise SensitiveLand Use 65 dB Hospital Campus 0 500 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 6 Permanent Helistop - CNEL Contours 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. Site 2 Site 1 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Temecula P a r k w a y ST79 Re d h a w k P k y M a r g a r i t a R d De P o r t o l a R d Legend Hospital Campus Monitoring Locations 0 1,000 Feet _ Temecula Valley Hospital Helistop SEIR . 130652 Figure 7 Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations SOURCE: ESA Airports, 2013; INM 7.0d; USDA, 2012