Loading...
Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL SCH # 2005031017 September 26, 2005 Lead Agency: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Contact: Emery Papp, Senior Planner Planning Department Consultant to the City: P&D Consultants 800 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 CITY OF TEMECULA i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table of Contents Page 1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Project Description..................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................4-1 4.1 Aesthetics....................................................................................................4-3 4.2 Air Quality..................................................................................................4-17 4.3 Hydrology and Groundwater .....................................................................4-31 4.4 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................4-37 4.5 Noise.........................................................................................................4-43 4.6 Transportation...........................................................................................4-67 5.0 Alternatives to the Project.......................................................................................5-1 6.0 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects.........................................................................6-1 7.0 Preparers of the EIR ...............................................................................................7-1 8.0 References..............................................................................................................8-1 Appendices Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Appendix B: Air Quality Worksheets Appendix C: Noise Study Appendix D: Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix E: Burrowing Owl Survey Report Appendix F: Letter from Project Architect Regarding Project Configuration Appendix G: Water Supply Assessment prepared by Rancho California Water District Table of Contents List of Tables 1-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................1-9 1-2. Notice of Preparation Letters......................................................................................1-35 4-1. Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards ..........................................................4-19 4-2. Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded: Lake Elsinore Station...............................................................................................................................4-20 4-3. PM10 Measurements: Perris Valley Station..............................................................4-20 4-4. SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution..4-23 4-5. Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day).................................................4-24 4-6. Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day)................................4-25 4-7. State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .....................................4-46 4-8. City of Temecula Noise Standards.............................................................................4-48 4-9. Summary of Noise Measurements.............................................................................4-50 4-10. Existing Traffic Noise Levels.........................................................................................4-50 4-11. Estimate Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase....................4-54 4-12. Analysis of Estimate Construction Noise Levels......................................................4-55 4-13. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year without Project............................4-57 4-14. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phase I................................................4-57 4-15. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phases I through V ..........................4-58 4-16. Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections ......................................4-69 4-17. Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections .................................4-70 4-18. Existing (2004 and 2005) Daily Traffic Volumes.....................................................4-73 4-19. Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions and Phase I .................................4-77 4-20. Existing Conditions and Phase I Roadway Link Analysis.......................................4-79 4-21. Phase I Trip Generation................................................................................................4-81 4-22. Project at Build-out Trip Generation..........................................................................4-87 4-23. Project at Build-out Intersection Operations ...........................................................4-89 4-24a. Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Original Traffic Study)...........................4-91 4-24b. Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Traffic Study Addendum).....................4-92 5-1. Intersection Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative.....................5-12 5-2. Segment Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative ..........................5-13 5-3. Alternative 5 Project Phase I Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road).......................................................................................5-16 5-4. Project Alternative Project Phase I Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road).......................................................................................5-17 5-5. Alternative 5 Total Project Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................................................5-18 5-6. Alternative 5 Total Project Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road).....................................................5-19 5-7. Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project......5-23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ii CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table of Contents List of Figures 3-1. Regional Location Map...................................................................................................3-2 3-2. Site Plan..............................................................................................................................3-5 4-1. Photo Locations................................................................................................................4-6 4-2a. Location A – View from Hillside without Project.....................................................4-8 4-2b. Location A – View from Hillside with Project ...........................................................4-9 4-3a. Location B – View from Pio Pico Road without Project.......................................4-10 4-3b. Location B – View from Pio Pico Road with Project .............................................4-11 4-4. Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels ......................................4-45 4-5. Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations .............................4-45 4-6. Noise Measurement Locations ...................................................................................4-49 4-7. Site Plan............................................................................................................................4-52 4-8. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours...............................................................................4-60 4-9. Existing Roadway Conditions......................................................................................4-71 4-10a. Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................................4-74 4-10b. Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................................4-75 4-11a. Regional Trip Distribution ............................................................................................4-82 4-11b. Regional Trip Distribution ............................................................................................4-83 4-12a. Background Traffic Volumes without Project..........................................................4-84 4-12b. Cumulative Project Traffic Flows................................................................................4-85 5-1. Alternative Site..................................................................................................................5-8 CITY OF TEMECULA iii ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table of Contents This page is intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iv CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1.0 Executive Summary The Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: ƒ A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to 2 stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. ƒ A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. ƒ A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. ƒ A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square- foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site ƒ A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel. Project Location The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary Project Objectives City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: ƒ Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services ƒ Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base ƒ 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 ƒ Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula ƒ Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses ƒ Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: ƒ Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities ƒ Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices ƒ 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 ƒ Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Project Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-2 Executive Summary of willows and cottonwoods. The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: ƒ An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. ƒ Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. ƒ A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. ƒ An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.1 Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16% building area, 30% parking area, and 33% landscape area. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary Parking and Access Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. The project includes the following three access points: 1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location 2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. 3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building (medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the 5-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (medical office building #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000-square-foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Processing History Prior to preparation of this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-4 Executive Summary comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused EIR. The scope of the project has not changed. Required Actions While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency Action City of Temecula City Council ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code with will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits Adoption of the Focused EIR Hospital building and occupancy permits CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary Agency Action ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development City of Temecula Fire Department City of Temecula Police Department City of Temecula Public Works City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Riverside County Flood Control Riverside County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems Review of security plans and systems Approval of Mitigation Plan Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans Approval of Water Quality Management Plan ƒ Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits ƒ Review and approval of encroachment permits Review and approval of street trees Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys ƒ Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Permit) ƒ Review of helipad Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Possible review and approval water service permits Possible review and approval of permits Possible review and approval of permits Possible review and approval of permits Environmental Impacts The City of Temecula has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed regional hospital facility. In addition, the EIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-6 Executive Summary impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table ES-1 beginning on page 1-9 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the EIR uses the words “significant” and “less than significant” in the discussion of impacts. These words specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this EIR. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this EIR 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.” Unavoidable Significant Impacts The EIR identifies the following unavoidable significant impacts: ƒ Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts ƒ Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights ƒ Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. Therefore, if the City of Temecula approves the proposed project, the designated approving authority, the City Council, after certification of the Final EIR, must adopt an SOC for these unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed project. Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Mitigated This EIR identifies the following areas of potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less than significant level: ƒ Aesthetics – Light and Glare ƒ Noise – Operational Impacts (Mechanical Yard, Emergency Generators, Mechanical Equipment Room, Rooftop Equipment) ƒ Transportation – Project Impacts Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less than Significant The following project impacts were found to result in a less than significant impact, based on the analysis contained in this the EIR: ƒ Aesthetics – Scenic Highways and Visual Character or Quality ƒ Air Quality – Construction Odors and Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies ƒ Hydrology and Water Quality ƒ Land Use and Planning ƒ Noise (Construction, Ground Borne Vibration, Traffic-related Noise, Sirens, Loading Dock Activities, Parking Lot Activities, Trash Pickups, Landscaping/Maintenance, and Future Exterior/Interior Noise Environment.) CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary ENV TE IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-8 The Initial Study (see Appendix A) prepared for the project determined that the project will result in either a less than significant impact or no impact with regard to the following areas of environmental concern: ƒ Agriculture Resources ƒ Biological Resources ƒ Cultural Resources ƒ Geology/Soils ƒ Hazards/Fire Safety ƒ Mineral Resources ƒ Population and Housing ƒ Public Services ƒ Recreation ƒ Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Environmental Impacts Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the regional hospital, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Un a v o i d a b l e Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s Le a d A g e n c y m u s t i s s u e " S t a t e m e n t o f O v er r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 a n d 1 5 12 6 [ b ] o f t h e S t a t e C E Q A G u idelines i f th e agency de t e r m i n e s t h e s e e f f e c t s a r e s i g n i f ic a n t a n d a p pr ov e s t h e p r oj ec t . Ai r Q u a l i t y – Sh o r t - t e r m , L o n g - t e r m a n d Cu m u l a t i v e I m pa c t s Sh o r t - t e r m : C o ns t r uc t i o n a c ti v i t y w i l l p r od uc e da i l y e m i s s i on s a b o v e t h e S C A Q M D si g n i f i c a n c e t h r e s h o l d s f o r N O x a n d R O G . T h e NO x e m i s s i o n s a r e p r i m a r il y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o ex h a u s t f r o m co n s t r u c ti o n v e h i c l e s , a n d t h e RO G e m i s s i on s a r e p r i m a r i l y f r o m t h e ap p l i c a t i o n o f ar c h i t e c t u r a l c o a t i n g s . T h e em i s s i o n s of t h e s e p o l l u t an t s a r e c o n s i d e r ed t o pr o d u c e a s i g n if i c a n t a d v e r s e s h o r t - t e r m re g i o n a l a i r q u a l i t y i m p a c t be c a u s e t h e l e v e l s o f th e s e e m i s s i o n s a r e p r o j e c t e d t o e x c e e d SC A Q M D a i r p o l l u t a n t si gn i f i c a n c e t h r e s h o l d s . Lo ng - t e r m: A i r p o l l ut an t e m i s s i o n s a s so c i a t ed wi t h p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n s w i l l be g e n e r a t e d d u e to t h e c o n s um pt i o n o f e l e c t r i ci t y a n d n a t u r a l ga s a n d b y th e o p e r at i o n o f o n - r oa d v e h i c l e s . On c e t h e h o s p i t a l a n d o t h e r o n - s i t e f a c i l i t i es ar e i n o p e r a t i o n , e s t i m a te d e m i s s i o n s o f C O an d R O G w i l l e x c e e d t h e o p e r a t i o n a l p h as e th r e s h o l ds e s t a bl i s h e d b y t h e S C A Q M D . E v e n wi t h m e a s u r e s t o e n c o u r a g e t r i p r e d u c t i o n a n d en e r g y e f f i c i e n cy , e m i s s i o n s c a n n o t b e mi t i g a t e d t o b e lo w a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Cu m u l a t i v e : V e h i c l e t r i p s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e pr o p o s ed pr oj ec t , o t h e r k n o w n p r oj ec t s , a n d am b i e n t g r o w t h w i l l i n c r e a s e v e h i c l e s o n a r e a Pr e - g r a d i n g AQ - 1 . Th e a p pl i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h al l c o or di n a t e w i t h t h e R i v e r s i d e T r an s i t A g e n c y ( R T A ) f o r a f i n a l l o ca t i o n , d e s i g n , a n d t y p e o f st a g i n g a r e a ( o r t u r n - o u t ) a p p r o p ri at e f o r t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . W r i t t e n au t h or i z a t i o n a n d fi n a l a p p r ov e d de s i g n p l an s s h a l l be s u bm i t t e d to t h e C i t y o f T e me c u l a P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t . AQ - 2 . T h e ap p l i c a n t/ p e r m i t t e e sh al l i n c o r p o r a t e a n d e n c o u r a g e Tr a n s p or t a ti o n D e m a n d M a n a g e me n t ( T DM ) t e c h n i q u e s f o r re d u c i n g v e h i c l e t r i p s d u r i n g c o n s tr u c t i on , a s w e l l a s d u r i n g t h e da i l y o p e r a t i o n s of t h e h o s p i t a l fa c i l i t y . T D M t e c h n i q u e s s h a l l in c l u d e b u t n o t be l i m i t e d to t h e f o l l o w i n g: e n c o u r a g i n g c a r a n d va n p o ol i n g , a n d o f fe r i n g f l e x h o ur s a n d/ o r f l e x s c h e d u l es d u r i n g th e on - g oi n g o p e r at i o n o f t h e fa ci l i t y . W r i t t e n p r o o f of s u c h pr o g r a m s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e P l a n n i n g Di r e c t o r p r i o r t o t h e i s su a n c e of a g r a d i n g pe r m i t f o r co n s t r u c ti o n a c ti v i t i e s a n d p r i o r t o th e i s su an c e o f a Ce r t if i c a t e o f Oc c u p a n c y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e m e d i c a l o f f i c e s . AQ - 3 . Th e a p p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h a l l i n c o r po r at e e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y st a n d a r d s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r m e d i c a l f a c i li t i e s a n d p r of e s s i o n a l of f i c e b u i l di n g s , a s d e f i n e d b y S t a t e of C a l i fo r n i a r e g u l a t i on s . AQ - 4 . Th e a p p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h a l l s u bm i t a f i na l l a n d s c a p e p l a n f o r th e p r o j e c t si t e i n c o r p o r a t i n g n a t i ve d r ou gh t - r e s i s t a n t v e ge t a t i o n an d m a t u r e t r ee s ( 1 5 g a l l o n , 2 4 - i n c h b o x a n d 3 6 - i n c h b o x ) . I f mo re t h a n 1 0 0 d a y s e l a p se s f r o m t h e t i m e g r a d i n g i s c o mp le t e an d b e g i n n i n g o f c o n s tr u c t i on , t h e Ci t y of T e m e c u l a m ay r e q u i r e te m p o r a r y l a nd s c a p in g t o r e d u c e t h e a m o u n t of d u s t a n d t o pr e v e n t d u s t a n d e r o s i o n , w i th s u ch t e m p o r a r y l a n d s c a p i n g t o b e Significant and unavoi d ab le. EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1 -9 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation ro a d w a y s . Th es e t r i p s w i l l a ll c o n t r i b u te t o in c r e a s e d p o l l u t a n t l o a d s l o c a l l y a n d w i t h i n t h e Ba s i n a s a w h ol e . Cu m u la t i v e i m p a c t s w i l l be pa r t i a l l y r e d u c ed b y i m p l e m en t a t i o n a n d ac h i e v e m e n t of e m i s s i on s l e v e l s i d e n t i f i e d i n th e A Q M P a n d a i r q u a l i t y c o m p o n e n t s w i th i n th e T e m e c u l a Ge n e r a l P l a n . H o w e v e r , g i v e n th a t t h e p r op o s ed p r oj ec t i t s e lf w i ll r e su l t i n em i s s i o n s i n e x ce s s of S C A Q MD t h r e s h o l ds , th e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t w i l l b e s i g n i f i c a n t a s w e l l . in s t a l l e d a t t h e a p p l i c a n t / p e rm i t t e e ’ s e x p e ns e . AQ - 5 . Pr i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a g r ad i n g p e r m i t a n d d u r i n g t h e d u r a t i o n of c o n s tr u c t i on a c t i v i t i e s , th e a p pl i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h a l l v e r i f y i n wr i t i n g ( t o t h e P l a n n i n g D e p a rt m e nt ) t h at a l l e a r t h - m o vi n g a n d la r g e e q u i pm e n t a r e p r o p e r ly t u n e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d t o r e d u c e em is s i o n s . I n a d di t i o n , a l te r n at i v e c l e a n - f u e l e d ve h i c l e s s h a l l be us e d w h e r e f e a s i b l e . C o n s tr uc t i o n e q u i p m e n t s h o u l d be s e l e c t e d an d d e p l o y e d c o n s i d e r i n g t h e lo w e s t e m i s s i o n f a ct o r s a n d hi g h e s t e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y r e as o n a b l y po s s i b l e . AQ - 6 . Pr i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a gr a d i n g p e rm i t , a w a t e r i n g p r o g ra m sh a l l be s u b m it t e d t o t h e C i t y o f Te m e c u l a P u b l ic W o r k s De p a rt m e n t f o r a p p r ov a l . Sa i d p r o g ra m s h a l l i n c l u d e c o nt r o l o f wi n d - b l o w n d u s t on s i t e a n d o n a d j a c e n t a c c e s s r o a d w a y s . Th e Ci t y P u b l i c W o rk s D i r e c t o r r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o mo di f y t h i s re q u i r e m e n t a s n e c e s s a r y ba s e d up o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t pr e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s d u r i n g th e p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i on . AQ - 7 . T h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e sh a ll p r e p ar e an d s u b m i t a co mp re h e n s i v e F u g i t i v e D u s t Co nt r o l Pl a n t o t h e C i t y o f T e me c u l a , i n c l u d i n g c o m p li a n c e w i t h S C A Q M D R u l e 4 0 2 – Nu i s a n c e a n d R u l e 4 0 3 – F u g i t i v e D u s t . T h e F u g i t i ve D u s t Co n t r o l P l a n s h a l l i n c l u d e a p p l ic a b l e b e s t a v a i la bl e c o n t r o l me a s u r e s i n c l ud e d i n T a bl e 1 a n d Ta b l e 2 o f Ru le 4 03 d u r i n g gr a d i n g a n d c o n s t r uc t i o n su c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m pl e s li s t e d be l o w : ƒ So i l s t a b i l i z a t i o n m e t h o d s s u c h a s w a t e r a n d en v i r o n m e n t a l l y s a f e d u s t c o n t r o l ma t e r i a l s s h al l b e p e ri o d i c a l l y ap pl i e d t o p o rt i o n s o f th e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e in a c t i v e f o r o v er f o u r da y s . ƒ Es t a b l i s h a ve g e t a t i v e g r ou n d c o v e r w i t h i n 2 1 da y s af t e r a c ti v e o p e r a t i o n s h a v e c e a s e d . ƒ Ap p l y c h e m i c a l s t a b i l i z e r s w i t h i n f i v e w o r k i n g d a y s o f gr a d i n g c o m p le t i o n . EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 10 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation ƒ Wa t e r a l l r o a d s u s e d f o r v e h i c u l a r t r af f i c a t l e a s t t w i c e pe r d a i l y , a t l e a s t o n c e i n th e m o r n i n g a n d a t l e a s t o n c e in t h e a f te r n oo n . ƒ Re s t r i c t v e h i cl e s p e e d s t o 1 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r . ƒ Ap p l y w a t e r o r c h e m i c a l s t a b i l i z e r s t o a t l e a s t 8 0 pe r c e n t o f t h e s u r f a c e a r e a of o p e n s t o r a g e p i l e s o n a da i l y b a s i s w h e n t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f w i n d dr i v e n fu g i t i v e d u s t or i n s t a l l t e m p or a r y c o v e r i ng s . ƒ Co v e r h a u l v e hi c l e s p r i o r t o e x i t i n g t h e s i t e . ƒ Di r e c t c o n s t r uc t i o n t r a f f i c o v e r e s ta b l i s h e d h a u l r o u t e s . Th e F u g i t i v e Du s t C o n t ro l Pl a n sh a l l b e re v i e w e d a n d a p p r ov e d by t h e SC A Q M D p r i o r t o th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f g r a d i n g a n d ex c a v a t i o n o p e r a t i o n s . C o m p li an c e w i t h T h e F u g i t i v e D u s t Co n t r o l P l an sh a l l b e su b j e c t t o p e r i o d i c s i t e m o ni t o r i ng b y t h e Ci t y Gr a d i n g a n d Co n s t r u c t i o n AQ - 8 . Du r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e pr oj e c t g r a d i n g a n d c o n s tr u c ti o n , t h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l p o s t si g n s o n t h e s i te l i m i t i n g co n s t r u c ti o n - r el a t e d t r a f f i c an d a ll g e n e r a l t r a f f i c t o 1 5 m i l e s p e r ho u r o r l e ss . AQ - 9 . Th e a p p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h a l l es t a bl i s h c o ns t r uc t i o n e q u i p m e n t an d s u p p l y s t a g i n g a r e a s lo c a t e d a t l e as t 5 0 0 f e e t f r o m t h e ne a r e s t p r o p e r ty l i n e o f a r e s i d e n t i a l l y i m p r o v e d p a r c e l . AQ - 1 0 . Th e a p pl i c a n t /pe r m i tt e e s h a l l p r op e r l y m a in t a i n a l l w a s t e- r e l a t e d en c l o s u r e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s an d c o m p ly w i th t h e s t a t e em i s s i o n co n t r o l s t o e n s u r e a g a i n s t p r oj e c t s i t e r e l a t e d o d or s d u r i n g co n s t r u c ti o n a n d s u bs e q ue n t u s e . AQ - 1 1 . Al l t r u c k s e x p o r t i n g a n d / o r i m p o rt i n g f i l l t o /f r o m t h e p r o j ec t s i t e sh a l l u s e t a r p au l i n s t o f u ll y c o ve r t h e l o a d i n c o mp l i a n ce w i t h St a t e Ve h i c l e C o d e 2 3 1 1 4 . M a t e r i a l tr a n s p o r t e d i n t r uc ks o f f s i te CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -11 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation (t o a n d / o r f r o m t h e s i t e ) s h a l l co m p ly w i th S t a t e Ve h i c l e C o d e 23 1 1 4 , w i t h s p ec i a l a t t e n t i o n t o S ec t i o n s 23 1 1 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( F ), ( b ) (F ) , (e ) ( 2 ) a n d ( e ) ( 4 ) a s a m e n d e d . M a t e r i a l t r a n s p o r te d o n -s i t e s h a l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y w a t e r e d or s e c u re d t o p r e v e n t f u g i t i v e d u s t em i s s i o n s . L o w e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e t r u c k s , i n c l u d i n g t h e w h e e l s , sh a l l be s p ra y e d w i t h w a t e r , w h i c h s h a l l b e p r o p e r l y m a na g e d s o as t o pr e v e n t r u n o f f , to r e du c e / el i m i n a t e s o i l f r om t h e t r u c k s be f o r e t h e y l e av e t h e c o n s t r uc t i o n a r e a . AQ - 1 2 . Du r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e pr oj e c t g r a d i n g a n d c o n s tr u c ti o n , t h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l e n su r e th e sw e e p i n g o f a d j a c e nt s t r e e t s an d r o a d s t o pr e v e n t t h e p l a c e m e n t o r a c c u m u l a t i on of d i r t i n th e r o a d w a y . S w e e p i n g of a d j a c e n t st r e et s a n d r o a d s s h a l l be do n e a s n e c e s s a r y , b u t n o t le s s t h an on c e p e r d a y , a t t h e e n d o f ea c h d a y o f g r ad i n g a n d / o r co n s t r u c ti o n . AQ - 1 3 . Du r i n g p e r i o d s of h i g h w i n d s ( i .e ., w i n d s p e e d s u ff i c i e n t t o ca u s e fu g i t i v e d u s t t o i m p a c t ad j a ce n t p r op e r t i e s , g e n e r a l l y w i n d sp e e d s e x c e e d i n g 2 0 m i l e s pe r h o u r , av e r a ge d o v e r a n h o u r ) , t h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l c u r t a i l a l l cl e a r i n g , g r a d i n g , e a r t h mo v i n g a n d e x c a v a t i o n op e r a t i o n s a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e C i t y En g i n e e r , t o t h e d e g r e e n e c e s s a r y t o pr e v e n t f u g i t i v e d u s t cr e a t e d b y o n - s i t e a c t i v i t i e s an d o p e r at i o n s f r o m b e i n g a nu i s a n c e o r h a z a r d , e i t h e r of f - s i te or o n - s it e , o r a s de t e r m i ne d b y th e C i t y E n g i n e e r a t h i s s o l e di s c r e t i o n . AQ - 1 4 . Th e a p p l i c a n t/ p e r m i t t e e s h al l us e z e ro V o l a t i l e O r g a n i c Co m p ou n d s ( V O C ) c o n t en t a r c h i t ec t u r a l c o a t i n g s d u r i n g t h e co n s t r u c ti o n a n d re p a i n t i n g of t h e p r o j e c t to t h e m a x i m u m ex t e n t f e a s i b l e . T h i s m e a s u r e w i l l r e d u c e V O C ( R O G ) e m i s s i o n s by 9 5 pe r c e n t o v e r c o nv e n t i o n ar c h i t e c t u r a l c o at i n gs . T h e fo l l o w i n g w e b s i t e s pr o v i d e l i s t s of m a n u f a c t u r e r s o f z e r o V O C co n t e n t c o a t i n g s : h t t p :/ / w w w . a q m d . g o v /p r d as / b r o ch u r e s / S u p er - Co m p li a n t _ A I M. p d f EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 12 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation h t t p :/ / w w w . d e l t a - i n s t i t u t e .or g / p u bl i c a t i o n s /p ai n t s . p d f AQ - 1 5 . Th e p r o j e c t s i t e s h a l l b e w a t e re d d o wn n o l e s s t h a n 3 t i m e s ( n o t in c l u d i n g t h e m o rn i n g a n d e v e n i n g w a t e r d o w n ) d u r i n g co n s t r u c ti o n a n d/ o r g r a d i n g ac t i v i t i e s t o r e d u c e d u s t . Op e r a t i o n s AQ - 1 6 . Al l r e f u s e a r e a s s h a l l b e co m p l e te l y e n c l o s e d a n d i n c l u d e a co v e r e d r o o f su b j e c t t o t h e a p pr ov al of t h e P l an n i n g D i r ec t o r . Re f u s e a r e a s s h a l l be ma i n ta i n e d w i t h i n a n e n c l o s e d s t r u c t u r e an d c o v e r e d at a l l t i m e s , e x ce p t du r i n g p i ck - u p ti m e s f o r o f f- s i t e re m o va l . AQ - 1 7 . Th e a p p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t e e s h al l pr ov i d e a cl e a r p a t h o f tr av e l f o r pe d e s t ri a n s , i n cl u d i n g d i r e c t i o n a l si g n s t o /f r o m t h e p u b l ic s t r e e t s (D e P o r t o l a R o a d a n d H i g h wa y 7 9 So u t h ) t o p r om ot e al t e r n at i v e tr a n s p o r t a t i on . No i s e – H e l i c o p t e r F l i g h t s Th e 6 5 d B C o m m u n i t y N o i s e E q u i v a l e n c y Le v e l (C N E L ) c o nt o u r a s s o ci a t ed w i t h he l i c o p t e r fl i g h t s i s l o c a t e d e n t i r e l y w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t s i t e an d n e i g h b o r i n g f l o o d c o n t r o l c h a n n e l , a n d do e s n o t e x te n d t o an y n e i g hb o r i n g n o i s e - se n s i t i v e r e c e i v e r s . T h e a m bi e n t n o i s e l e ve l a t ex i s t i n g o c c u p i e d h o m e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e pr o p o s e d h e l i po r t i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 7 d B CN E L . H e li c o p t e r f l i g h t s a r e n o t a n t i c i p a te d t o in c r e a s e t h e s e a m b i e n t n o i s e l e v e l s b y 3 d B o r mo re . Im p a c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a n y s i n g le he l i c o p t e r f l i g h t w i l l n o t b e s i g n i f i c a n t . Th e h e l i p a d p e r m i t t o b e o b ta i n e d w i l l p e r m it up t o 6 f l i g h t s p e r m o nt h . I n a w o rs t - c a s e co n d i t i o n, t h i s l e v e l o f a c t i v i ty c o u l d oc c u r . N- 2 He l i c o p t e r f l i g h t s sh a l l b e l i m i t e d t o e m e r g e n c y -o n l y ci r c u m s t a n c e s f o r c r i t i c al pa t i e n t t r a n s p o r t . T h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l a p pl y f o r a Sp e c i a l U s e H e li p a d P e r m i t fo r a n E m e r g e n c y M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s L a n d i n g S i t e , a s pr o v i d e d f o r in t h e C a l i f o r n ia C o d e of Re g u la t i o n s, T i tl e 21 , S e c t i o n 35 2 7 , Ai r p o r t a n d H e li p o r t D e f i n i t i o n s . Th i s p e r m it a l l o w s , ov er a n y 1 2 - mo nt h p e ri o d , f o r n o m o re t h a n a n a v e r a g e o f 6 l a n d in g s p e r mo n t h w i t h a p a t i e n t or pa t i e n t s on t h e h e l i c o p t e r , ex c e p t t o al l o w f o r ad e q ua t e m e d i c a l r e s p o n se t o a m a s s c a s u a l t y e v e n t , ev e n i f t h a t r e sp o n s e c a u s e s t h e s i t e t o b e u s e d b e y o nd t h e s e li m i t s . N- 3 He l i c o p t e r p i l o t s r e s p o n d i n g t o ca l l s f o r p a t i e n t t r a n s p o r t s h a l l b e in f o r m e d o f a p r e f e r r e d a p p r o a c h a n d d e pa r t u r e h e a d i n g o f 1 3 5 ° so ut h e a s t. Significant and unavoi d ab le. CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -13 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Al s o , t h e pr e f e r r e d f l i g h t p a t h m i g h t c h a n g e f o r an y g i v e n f l i g h t d e p e n d i n g u p o n w e a t h e r co n d i t i o ns a n d w i n d sp e e d/ d i r e c t i o n . Th e n o i s e l e v e l g e n e r a t e d b y a h e l i c o p t e r de p e n d s o n a nu m b e r o f fa c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e ac t i v i t y ( e . g . , h o v e r i n g , c l i m b i ng , a p p r o a c h i n g, et c . ), a i r s p e e d , p o we r s e t t i n g , a l t i t u d e , a n d gr o u n d c o nd i t i o n s . Ba s e d o n p u b l i s h e d da t a , th e h i g h e s t a v e r a g e n o i s e l e v e l s t h a t w i l l o c c u r du r i n g a h o v e r a t t h e h e l i p a d r a n g e f r o m 7 6 t o 82 d B ( A ) a t a d i s t a n c e o f 5 0 0 f e e t , d e p e n d in g on t h e o r i e n t a t io n o f t h e h e l i co p t e r r e l a t i v e t o th e r e c e p t o r . At t h e d i s t a n c e o f t h e h o m e s ne a r e s t t h e h e l i p a d ( a b o u t 6 10 f e e t ) , t h e av e r a g e n o i s e l e v e l w i l l b e a b ou t 7 4 t o 8 0 dB ( A ) . A s s u m i ng t h a t s t a n da r d b u i l d i n g co n s t r u c ti o n p r o v i d e s 2 0 dB o f n o i s e r e d u c t i o n wi t h w i n d o w s c l o s e d , t h e i n te r i o r n o i s e l e ve l i s ex p e c t e d t o b e a b o u t 5 4 to 60 d B ( A ) . T h us , i n th e w o r s t - c a s e s c e n a r i o o f 6 l a n d i n g s pe r mo n t h , n e a r b y r e s i d e n t s c o u l d e x p e r i e n c e sh o r t - te r m e x t e r i o r a n d i n t e ri o r n o i s e l e v e l s t h a t co u l d b e c o n s id e r e d a n n o y i ng . ( T h e C i t y do e s no t h a v e a n y r e g u l a t i on s a p pl i c a b le t o po i nt - so u r c e n o i s e e v e n t s . ) As s u m i ng o n e f l i g h t o n a “ w or st - c a s e” d a y , a n d th a t t h e f l i g h t ho ve r s f o r o n e m i n u t e p r io r t o la n d i n g o r c l i m bi n g , t h e s o u n d e x po s u r e le v e l fo r t h i s a c t i v i t y w o u l d b e 9 4 t o 1 0 0 d B ( A ). T h e es t i m a t e d a n n o ya n c e l e v e l a t t h e n e a r e s t re s i d e n c e s r a n g e s f r o m 3 t o 4 ( o n a s c a l e f r o m 0 t o 1 0 ) . I f t h i s c o n d it i o n o c cu r r e d u p t o 6 ti m e s p e r m o n t h , t h e l e v e l o f s h o r t- t e r m , pe r i od i c i m pa ct c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t by t h o s e p e r s on s l i v i n g cl o s e s t t o t h e h o s p i t a l . EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 14 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Ev e n w i t h m i t i g a t i o n m e a s ur e s t o r e d u ce he l i c o p t e r f l i g h t n o i s e im p a c t s , t h e s e i m p a c t s ca n n o t b e m i t i g a t e d t o b e l o w a l e v e l o f si g n i f i c a n c e b e c a u s e o f t h e un c e r t a i n t y o f t h e ex a c t n u m b e r o f f l i g h t s p e r m o n t h d u e t o th e un k n o w n n u m b e r o f e m e r ge n c i e s t h a t w i l l oc c u r w i t h i n a n y g i v e n m o n t h . Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n – C u m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s Ve h i c l e t r i p s f r om t h e p r o j e c t a n d r e l a t e d pr o j e c t s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d t o c r ea t e o r a d d t o tr a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n o n H i g h w ay 7 9 S o u t h , es p e c i a l l y n e a r t h e I - 1 5 ra m p s , a n d a t se l e ct e d ro a d w a y se g m e n t s a n d i n t e r s e c t i o n s . Th e tw e n t y - o n e ( 2 1 ) c u m u l a t i v e pr o j e c t s co n s i d e r e d w i th i n t h i s g e n e r a t e a t o t a l of 16 0 , 5 0 0 A D T w i t h 5 , 5 6 0 t r i p s i n t h e A M p e a k ho u r a n d 6 , 1 3 0 t r i p s i n t h e P M p e a k h o u r (2 , 2 0 9 i n b o u n d a n d 1 , 4 8 9 o u t b o u n d ). S o m e ve h i c l e t r i p s w o u l d b e c o n f i n ed t o t h e a r e a , wh i l e o t h e r s wo u l d t r a v e l ou t s i d e t h e p r o j ec t ar e a t o s u rr o u n di n g c o u n t i e s a n d u r b a n c e nt e r s an d a f f e c t t h e r e g i o n a l tr a n s po r t a ti o n s y s t em . Ad v e r s e i m p a c t s t o t h e c i r c u l a t i o n n e t w o r k wo u l d o c c u r i f r o a d w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d t r i p re d u c t i o n m e as u r e s a n d p r o g ra m s a r e n o t im p l e m e n t e d . Th e p r o p o se d p r oj ec t w i ll n o t r e su lt i n a n y cu m u l a ti v e i m p a c t s t o i n t e r s ec t i o n s , bu t th e fo l l ow i n g r o a d wa y l i n k s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o op e r a te ov e r c a p a c i t y : ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h w e s t o f Pe c h a n g a Pa r k w a y In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C i t y of T e m e c u la re g u l a t i o n s, e a ch d e v e l o p m e n t pr o j e c t w i l l b e a s s e s s e d i t s f a ir s h a r e f o r i d e n t i f i e d r o a d w a y im p r o v e m e n t s . P a y m en t of t h e C i t y ' s tr a f f i c i m p a c t f e es w i l l a l l o w th e Ci t y t o f u nd si g n a l i z a t i o n, ro a d w ay w i d e n i n g , a n d o t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n pr o g r a m s an d i m p r o v e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y to m a i n t a i n a c ce p t a b l e l e v e l s o f se r v i c e a t l o c a l i n t e r s e c t i o n s . In c r e a s e s i n t r a f f i c g e n e r a t e d b y n e w d e v e l o p m en t a r e g e n e r a l l y an t i c i p a t e d t o be m i t i g a t e d t o l e ss t h an s i g n if i c a n t le v e l s t h r o u g h pa ym e n t of f a i r s h a r e f e e s a n d c i t y w i d e a n d pr o j e c t - l e v e l r o a d w ay i m pr ov e m en t s . Significant and Unav oidab l e CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -15 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h w e s t o f Ma r g a r i t a Ro a d ƒ Ma r g a r i t a R o a d : D e P o r t o l a Ro a d t o Da r t ol o R o a d ƒ Ma r g a r i t a R o a d : D a r t o l o Ro a d t o Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h Cu m u l a t i v e i m pa c t s to t h e s e r o a d w a y li n k s a t pr oj ec t b u i l d- ou t w i ll b e s i g n if i c a n t a n d un a v o i d ab le . Fu r t h e r m o re , s o me i n t e r s e c t i o ns n e a r I - 1 5 w i l l co n t i n u e t o e x p e r i e n c e LO S E a n d F c o n d i t i o n s in t o t h e f u t u re . C u m u la t i v e i m pa c t s , a s n o t e d in t h e G e n e r a l P l a n E I R , w i l l b e s i g n i f i c a n t a n d un a v o i d ab le . Po t e n t i a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t I m p a ct s t h a t C a n B e A v o i d e d o r M i t i g a t e d Se c t i o n 1 5 1 2 6 . 6 ( c ) o f t h e St a t e C E Q A G u id e l i n e s Ae s t h e t i c s – L i g h t a n d G l a r e Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l i n t r o d u c e n e w so u r c e s o f l i g h t a n d g l a r e t y p i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d wi t h a h o s p i t a l a n d m e d i c a l of f i c e s ( u p to 6 st o r i e s i n h e i g ht ) . T h e C i t y i s r e q u i r i n g t h e pr oj ec t a p pl i c an t t o l o ca te a ll g r o u n d -m o u nt e d li g h t i n g a s f a r a w a y a s p o s s i bl e f r o m t h e re s i d e n c e s . A l l f r e e - s t a n di n g l i g h t i n g i n t h e pa r k i n g l o t w i l l b e c o n s i s te n t w i t h t h e s e t b ac k s se t f o r t h i n t h e D e v e l op m e n t C o d e a n d De s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s . Th e h o s p i t al t o w e r s h a v e t h e po te n t i a l t o e m it g l a r e f r om t h e u p pe r f l o o r s . A- 1 . Pr i o r t o i s s u a n ce o f a b u i l d i ng p e rm i t , C i t y s t a f f s h a l l v e r i f y t h a t a ph o t o m e t r i c pl a n h a s b e e n su b m i t t e d w h i c h d e t a i l s t h e pr o p o s e d l i g h t l e v e l s f o r t h e e n ti r e p r o j e c t s i t e o n t o a d j a c e n t pr o j e c t b o un d a r i e s a n d v e r t i c a l f u gi t i v e l i g h t, i n c l u d in g m e a n s t o mi t i g a t e . C o rr e s p o n di n g c r i t er i a fo r h e l i c o pt e r / h e l i p o r t u s e s a n d am b u l a n c e li g h t u s e a n d op e r a t i o n s s h al l a l s o b e pr e p a r e d a n d in c l u d e m e a n s t o m i t i g a t e p o t e n t i a l li g h t i m p a c t s . A- 2 . Al l wi n d o w s a b o v e t h e se co n d f l o o r o f t h e h o s p i t al a n d / o r me d i c a l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s sh a l l c o n s is t o f g l az e d w i nd ow s a n d / or ti n t i n g ( n o n - r e f l e c t i v e g l a s s / wi n d ow s ) t o re d u c e t h e a m o u n t of gl a r e e m i t t e d f r o m t h e u p p e r f l o o r s . Less than signi f icant. EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 16 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation No i s e – O p e r at i o n a l I m p a c t s Me c h a n ic a l Y a rd : T h e h o s p i t al ’ s m e c h a n i c a l ya r d i s t o b e l o ca t e d on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e pr o j e c t s i t e , b e tw e e n t h e h e l i p a d t o th e n o r t h an d t h e l o a d i n g d o c k s t o t h e s o u t h . Th e d u t y eq u i p m e n t c o n s i s t s o f 3 c o o l i n g t o w e r s a n d 2 tr a n s f o r m e r s . It i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e c o m b in e d no i s e l e v e l f o r a l l t h e e q u i pm e n t i s 7 4 d B ( A ) a t 50 f e e t . T h e c l o s e s t o cc u p i e d n o i s e - s e n s i t i v e lo c a t i on a n e x i s t i n g ho m e a p p r ox i m a t e l y 7 1 0 fe e t t o t h e n o r t h. Th e w o r s t - c a s e n o i s e - s e n s it i v e l o c a t i on i s th e re s i d e n t i a l p r op e r t y a p p r o x i m at e l y 7 1 0 f e e t t o th e n o r t h . A t th i s d i st a n c e t h e e s t i m a t e d no i s e le v e l i s 5 1 d B ( A ). O v e r a 2 4 - h o u r pe r i o d , t h e Co m m u n i t y No i s e E q u i v a l e n cy L e v e l ( C N E L ) wi l l b e a b o u t 58 d B . T h i s l e ve l c o m p l i e s wi t h th e C i t y ’ s s t a n da r d o f 6 5 d B . H o w e v e r , t h e eq u i p m e n t w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e e x i s t i n g C N E L at th e r e s i d e n c e b y 4 d B . At t h e n e a r e s t o f f i c e p r o p e r t y t o t h e e a s t ( a di s t a n c e o f a b o u t 1 6 0 f e e t ) , t h e C N E L ge n e r a t e d b y t h e d u t y e q u i pm e n t i s e s t i ma t e d to b e 7 1 d B . Th i s e x c e e d s t h e C i t y ’ s st a n da r d of 7 0 d B . Em e r g e nc y G e n e r a t o r s : O n a m a i n t e n a n ce te s t d a y , t h e t w o e m e r g e n c y g e n e r a t o r s lo c a t e d i n t h e m e c h a n i c a l y a r d w o u l d g e n e r a t e no i s e l e v e l s o f 4 1 d B C N E L of a t l e a s t 4 1 d B CN E L a t t h e w o rs t - c a s e r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n 7 5 0 fe e t t o t h e n o r t h. H o w e ve r , i f t h e g e n e r a t o rs ru n c o n t i n u o u s l y ov e r a 2 4 - h o u r p e r i o d , th e CN E L w i l l b e at l e a s t 7 0 d B . T h i s e x c e e d s t h e N- 1 On c e t h e m e c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t ( i n c l u d i n g e m e r g e n c y ge n e r a to r s ) i s f u l l y o p er at i o n a l u po n c o m p le t i o n o f pr oj e c t co n s t r u c ti o n , t h e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l c o n d u c t c o n t in u o u s , 24 - h o u r n o i s e mo n i t o r i n g f o r a pe r i o d of o n e w e e k . S u c h mo n i t o r i n g s h al l b e c o n du c t e d b y a c e r t i f i e d a c o u s t i c a l en g i n e e r . If t h e n o i s e l e ve l s e x c e e d l a n d us e / n o i s e c o m p a t i b il i t y t h r e s h o l d le v e l s s e t f o r t h i n t h e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a G e ne r a l P l a n o r o t h e r Ci t y - a do p t e d c r i t e r i a t h a t m a y b e i n p l a c e a t t h e t i m e , t h e ap pl i c a n t / pe r m it t e e s h a l l i m pl e m en t m e a s u r e s t o a c h i ev e t h e th r e sh o l ds or o t h e r a d op te d c r it e r i a . S u c h m e a s u r e s m a y in c l u d e , b u t n o t b e l i m i t e d t o , n o is e a t t e n u at i o n b a r r i e r s , eq u i p m en t b a ff l i n g , o r o t he r a p p r oa c h e s d e e m e d a p p r op r i a t e b y a c e r t i f i e d a c o u s t i c a l e n g i n e e r . O n c e t h e m i t i g a t i o n h a s b e e n im p l e m e n t e d , t h e ac o u s t i c a l e n g i n ee r s h a l l f i l e a r e p o r t w i t h t h e Ci t y d o c u m e n t in g c o m p l i a n ce . N- 4 Tr u c k d e l i v e r i e s t o t h e h o sp i t a l l o ad i n g d o ck s h a l l b e l i m i te d t o fo u r p e r d a y, be t w e e n t h e h o u r s of 7 : 0 0 A . M . a n d 6 : 0 0 P . M . N- 5 Me c h a n i c a l v e n t i l a t i o n s h al l b e p r o v i d e d f o r a l l m e d i c a l an d of f i c e b u i l d i n g s o n t h e s i t e t o en s u r e c o m p li a n c e w i t h i n t e r i o r no i s e s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s he d i n t h e G e n e ra l P l a n . N- 6 Al l d e m o l i t i o n a n d c o n s t r uc t i on ac t i v i t i e s s h al l b e l i m i t e d t o t h e ho ur s a n d o t h e r r e s t r i c t i o ns s e t f o rt h i n t h e C i t y o f T e m ec u l a Mu n i c i p a l C o d e . N- 7 Al l c o n s t r u c t i on e q u i p m e n t s h al l b e t u ne d an d m u f f l e d t o mi n i m i z e n o is e . N- 8 Du r i n g d e m o l i ti o n a n d c o n s t r uc t i o n o p e r a t io n s , th e ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e s h a l l st a g e a l l s t a t i o n a ry e q u i p m e n t op e r a ti on s a s fa r a s p o s s ib l e a n d p r ac t i c a l fr om s u r r o u nd in g re s i d e n t i a l p r op e r t i e s . Less than signi f icant. CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -17 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Ci t y ’ s 6 5 d B s t a n d a r d . A t th e d i s t a n c e o f t h e ne a r e s t o f f i c e p r o p e r t y to t h e e a s t ( a b o u t 18 5 fe e t ) , t h e C N E L w i l l b e a b o u t 5 3 d B o n a ma i n t e n a n c e t e s t d a y , w h i c h c o m p l i e s w i t h t h e Ci t y ’ s s t a n da r d o f 7 0 d B . H o w e v e r , i f t h e ge n e r a t o rs r u n c o nt i n u o us l y f o r 2 4 h o u r s , t h e CN E L w i l l b e at l e a s t 8 2 d B , w h i c h e x c e e ds t h e Ci t y ’ s s t a n da r d . M e ch an i c a l E q u i p m e n t R o o m : T h e me c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t r o o m i s t o b e l o c a te d in s i d e t h e h o s p it a l bu i l di n g , ad j a c e n t t o t h e me c h a n i c a l y a r d . B a se d o n th e f a c t t h a t t h e ce n t r a l p l a n t wi l l c o n t a i n v a ri o u s m e c h a n i c a l eq u i p m e n t i n c l u d i n g pu m p s, c h i l l e r s , a n d bo i l e r s i t i s a n ti c i p a t e d t h a t i t c o u l d p r od u c e si g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t s a t ne a r b y n o i s e - s e n s i t iv e re c e i v e r s u n l e s s m i t i g a t i on i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o th e d e s i g n . Ro o f t o p E q u i pm e n t: R o of t o p m ec h a n i c a l eq u i p m e n t s u c h a s a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g a n d re f r i g e r a t i o n u n i t s a n d t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d i n l e t a n d ex h a u s t s y st e m s a r e a l s o p o te n t i a l n o is e so ur c e s . H o w e ve r , s t r u c t ur a l d e s i g n s a r e e a s i l y im p l e m e n t e d i n n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d i t i s an t i c i p a t e d th at s u c h m e as u r es w i l l b e i n c l u d e d du r i n g t h e f i n a l d e s i g n o f th e p r o j e c t t o mi n i m i z e r o o f to p m e c h a n ic a l e q u i pm e n t n o i s e . Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Th e p r o j e c t w i ll r e s u l t i n t h e f o l l o w i n g si g n i f i c a n t t r a f f i c i m p a c t s r e q u i r i n g m i t i g a t i o n : T- 1 . Si g n a l i z e t h e ma i n p r o j e c t s i t e a c c e s s f r o m H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h op p o s i t e C o u n tr y G l e n W a y w i t h t h e f o l l ow i n g c o n f i g u r at i o n : Less than signi f icant. EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 18 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Ph a s e I Th e f o l l o w i n g in t e r s e c t i o ns wi l l o p e r a t e a t L O S E o r F a t P h a s e I o f t h e p r o j ec t d u e t o p r o j e c t - re l a t e d o r c u m u l a t i v e i m p a ct s : ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 so ut h b o u nd r a m p s – b o th pe a k h o ur s ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 no rt h b o u nd r a m p s – b o th p e a k h o ur s ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / L a P a z S t r e e t – P. M . p e a k ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y – P . M . p e a k ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / R e d h a w k Pa r k w a y / M a r g a r i t a – b o t h pe a k h o u r s Th e f o l l o w i n g ro a d w a y l i n k s wi l l o p e r a t e a t LO S E or F a t P h a s e I o f t h e pr o j e c t d u e t o pr o j e c t - r e l a t e d o r c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t s : ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h : w e s t o f Pe c h a n g a Pa r k w a y ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h : w e s t o f Ma r g a r i t a Ro a d Pr o j e c t a t B u i l d - o u t Th e f o l l o w i n g in t e r s e c t i o ns wi l l o p e r a t e a t L O S E o r F a t p r oj ec t b u i l d- o u t d u e t o pr oj ec t - re l a t e d o r c u m u l a t i v e i m p a ct s : ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 so ut h b o u nd r a m p s – b o th pe a k h o ur s ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 no rt h b o u nd r a m p s – b o th p e a k h o ur s ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / L a P a z S t r e e t – We s t bo u n d : 1 r i g h t - t u r n l a n e 3 t h r o u g h l a n e s 1 le f t - t u r n la n e Ea s t b o un d: 2 l e f t - t u r n l a n e s 2 t h r o u g h l a n e s 1 sh a r e d th r o u g h / r i g h t la n e No r t h b ou n d : 1 l e f t - t u r n l a n e 1 sh a r e d th r o u g h / r i g h t la n e So u t h b ou n d : 2 l e f t - t u r n l a n e s 1 sh a r e d th r o u g h / r i g h t la n e (2 0 fe e t wi d e ) T- 2 . T h e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t / p e r m i tt e e w i l l p a y Ri v e r s i d e C o un t y Tr a n s p or t a ti o n U n i f o r m M i t i g a t i o n F e e s ( T U M F) t o m i t i g a t e cu m u l a ti v e i m p a c t s t o th e H i gh w ay 7 9 S o u t h i n t e r s e c t i o n a t I - 1 5 . T- 3 . T h e pr o j e c t ap p l i c a n t / p e r m i t t ee w i l l c o n t r i bu t e a f a i r s h a r e to w a r d t h e pr ov i s i o n o f t h e fo l l ow in g r o ad w ay i m pr ov e m en t s t o ad d r e s s t h e p r oj e c t ’ s c o nt r i b u t i o n t o wa r d cu m u l a t i v e i m p a ct s : Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / I - 1 5 S o ut h b o u n d R a m p s : A d d i t i on a l so u t h b o u n d l e ft - t u r n l a n e Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / I - 1 5 No r t h b o u n d R a m p s : A d d i t i on a l ea s t b o un d t h r o ug h l a ne , p l u s c o nv e r t w e s t bo u n d r i g h t l a ne t o fr e e r i g h t t u r n Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / L a Pa z R o a d : W i de n s o u t h b o u n d m o ve m e n t to d u al le f t t u r n l a n e s a n d o n e s h a r e d t h r o u g h / r i g h t l a n e Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y : A dd i t i on a l n o r t h b o u n d le f t - t ur n l a n e , p l us e a s t b o un d a n d n o r t h b ou n d f r e e r i g h t - t u r n la n e s CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -19 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation P. M . p e a k ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y – P . M . p e a k ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P r o j e c t Dr i v e w a y / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y – L O S F a t A . M . a n d P . M . pe a k h o u r ƒ Ma r g a r i t a R o a d /H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h – LO S F a t A . M . a n d P . M . pe ak h o u r ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / R e d h a w k Pa r k w a y / M a r g a r i t a – b o t h pe a k h o u r s Th e f o l l o w i n g ro a d w a y l i n k s wi l l o p e r a t e a t LO S E or F a t p r oj ec t b u i l d- ou t d u e t o pr oj ec t - re l a t e d o r c u m u l a t i v e i m p a ct s : ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h : w e s t o f Pe c h a n g a Pa r k w a y ƒ Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h : w e s t o f Ma r g a r i t a Ro a d ƒ Ma r g a r i t a R o a d : D e P o r t o l a Ro a d t o Da r t ol o R o a d ƒ Ma r g a r i t a R o a d : D a r t o l o Ro a d t o Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / Pr o j e c t Dr i v e w a y / C ou nt r y G l e n W a y : Si g n a l i z e a n d pr o v i d e d u a l e a s t b o un d l e f t - t ur n l a n e s a n d du a l so u t h b o u n d l e ft - t u r n l a n e s w i th a sh a r e d t h ro u g h / r i g h t - t u rn l a n e . Pr o v i d e a d e di ca t e d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e f o r w e s t b o u n d a p pr o a c h . Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h / Re dh a w k P a r k w a y / M a rg a r i t a R o a d : Pr o v i d e so u t h b ou n d a n d e a s t b o un d du a l l e f t a n d r i gh t - t u r n t r a f f i c s i g n a l ov e r la ps . T- 4 . Im pr ov e m en t s o n t h e p r oj ec t si t e s h a ll i n c l ud e a d r i v e w a y o n t o De P o r t o l a R o a d d e v e l o p e d to t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of t h e P u b l i c Wo rk s D i r e c t o r . Im p a c t s C o n s i d e r e d b u t F o u n d t o B e L e s s T h a n S i g n i f i c a n t Se c t i o n 1 5 1 2 8 o f S t a t e CE Q A G u i d e l i n e s Ae s t h e t i c s – S c e n i c H i g h w a y s a n d V i s u a l Ch a r a c t e r o r Q u a l i t y Th e p r o j e c t s i te i s n o t l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e vi c i n i t y o f a s t a t e s c e n i c h i g h w a y , d o e s n o t in c l u d e a n y s c en i c r e s o u r c e s , i s n o t k n ow n f o r it s v i s u a l c h a r ac t e r , n o r d o e s t h e s i t e c o n t a i n sc e n i c r e s o u r c e s . A- 3 . Th e a p p l i c a n t / d e v e l o p e r s h al l pl a n t, i r r i g a t e a s n e c e s s a r y , a n d re p l a c e a s n e c e s s a r y m a t u r e t r e e s (2 4 - i n c h o r g r e a t e r ) a n d s h r u bs (1 5 - g a l l o n or g r e a t e r ) a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e te r o f t h e pr o j e c t s i t e . En h a n c e d l a n d s c a p i n g m a y b e re q u i r e d a l o n g t h e n o rt h e r n pr o p e r t y l i n e a n d a d j a c e n t t o r e s i d e n t i a l pa r c e l s . Less than signi f icant. EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 20 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation To so f t e n v i e w s a n d bl e n d t h e de v e l o p m en t wi t h s u r r o u n di ng u r b a n i z a t i o n , t h e p r e l i m i n a r y la n d s c ap e p l a n p r o po s es n u m e r o u s e v e r g r e e n tr e e s s u c h a s Af g h a n P i n e , C o a s t L i v e O a k s , an d S i l k T r e e s al o n g t h e pe r i m e t e r o f t h e s i t e be t w e e n t h e r e si d e n c e s a n d t h e h o s p i t a l , wh i c h w i l l b u f f e r t h e v i s u a l ap p e a r a n c e o f t h e bu i l di n g s a n d ma s k t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h e si t e . I n c o r p o r at i o n o f th e s e pr o j e c t f e a t u r es wi l l h e l p t o r e d u c e v i e w s h e d i m p a c t s . T h e p r op os ed h e i g h t o f t h e ho s p i t a l t o we r s w i l l co n t i n u e t o o b s t r u c t v i e w s f r o m n e a r b y lo c a t i on s . H o we v e r , t h e v i e w s a r e c o n s i d e r e d pr i v a t e , a r e n o t c o n s i d e r ed t o b e o f pu b l i c be n e f i t , a n d a r e n o t p r o t e c t e d b y a n y C i t y r e gu l a t i o n o r po li c y . Ai r Q u a l i t y – Co n s t r u c t i o n Od o r s a n d Co n s i s t e n c y w i t h A d o p t e d P l a n s a n d P o l i c i e s Co n s tr u c t i on o d or s a r e ty pi c a l o f u r b a n i z e d en v i r o n m e n t s a n d w o u l d b e s u b j e c t t o co n s t r u c ti o n a n d a i r q u a l i t y r e gu l a t i on s , in c l u d i n g p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e o f m a c h i n er y t o mi n i m i z e e n g i ne e m i s s i o n s . T h e s e e m i s s i on s ar e a l s o of s h or t d u r a t i o n a n d a r e q u i c k l y di s p er s e d i n t o t h e a t m o s p he re . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s c o n s is t e n t w i t h g o a l s an d p o l i c i e s w i th i n t h e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a Ge n e r a l P l a n . B e c a u s e t h e pr o p o s e d pr o j ec t i s co n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e G e n e r a l Pl a n L a n d Us e a n d Op e n S p a c e / Co n s e r v a t i on El e m e n t s , i t i s as s u me d t o b e c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e A i r Q u a l i t y Ma s t e r P l a n ( A QM P ) a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t ’ s as s u mp t i o n s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e m o d e l i n g fo r No m i t i g a t i on i s r e q u i r e d . L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t . CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -21 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation th e A Q M P . Hy d r o l o g y a n d W a t e r Q u a l it y Te m e c u l a i s a me m b e r o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y Fl o o d C o nt r o l D i s t r i c t ’ s St o rm W a te r C l e a n Wa t e r P r o t e c t i o n P r o g r a m a n d t h e r e f o r e re q u i r e s a l l d e ve l o p m e n t pr oj e c t a p p l i c a n ts t o pr e p a r e a S t o r m W a t e r P o l l u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n Pl a n ( S WP P P ) t o m i t i g a t e w a te r q u a l i t y i m pa c t s du r i n g s t o r m e v e n t s t h a t oc cu r d u r i n g co n s t r u c ti o n . In a d d i t i on , t h e p r o j e c t ap p l i c a n t / p e r m it t e e m u s t pr e p a r e a W a t e r Qu a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t P l a n , i n c l u d i n g B e s t Ma n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s ( B M P s ) , ou t l i n i n g h o w th e p r o j e c t w i l l m i n i m i z e w a te r q u a l i t y i m pa c t s du r i n g p r o j e c t o p e r a t i o n. Du e t o Ra n c h o C a l i f o rn i a W a te r D i s t r i c t ’ s (R C W D ) a c c e s s t o l o c a l g r o u n d w a t e r s o u r ce s , th e a v a i l a b i l i ty o f l o c a l g r o u n d w a t e r s o u r c e s , an d t h e a b i l i t y t o p u r c h a s e i m po r t e d w a t e r a n d st or e i t w i t h i n th e b a s i n , sh o r t - t e r m d r o u g h t si t u a t i o n s h a v e h i s t o r i c a l l y h a d n e g l i g i b l e ef f e c t on t h e a b i l i t y to s u p p l y c u st o m e r s . Ad d i t i on a l l y , i f s u r f a c e w a t e r f l o w s a r e r e d u c e d as a r e s u l t o f s i ng l e o r m u l t i p le d r y , o r c r i t i c a l l y dr y y e a r s , R C WD h a s t h e a b il i t y t o m e e t de m a n d s b y a u gm e n t i n g i t s s u pp ly w i t h in c r e a s e d g r o u n d w a t e r e x t r ac t i o n s , a l on g w i t h im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d o t h e r me a s u r e s . RC WD a l s o a n t i c i p a t e s th a t t h e u s e of r e c y c l e d w a t e r w i l l i n c r e a se , t h e r e b y re d u c i n g t h e u s e a n d r e l i a n ce o f d o m e s t i c wa t e r s o ur c e s , f u r t h e r i n g R C W D 's a b i l i t y t o su pp l y w a t e r d u r i n g s i n g l e o r m u l t i p le d r y, o r No m i t i g a t i on i s r e q u i r e d . Less than signi f icant. EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 22 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation cr i t i c a l l y d r y , y e ar s . T h e r e f o r e, R C W D h a s co n c l u d e d t h a t s u f f i c i e n t wa te r s u p p l y e x i s ts t o su p p o r t t h e Te m e c u l a Re g i o n a l H o s p i t a l de v e l o p m e n t a s re q u i r e d b y C a l i f o rn i a W a t e r Co d e s e c t i o n 10 9 1 0 . La n d U s e a n d P l a n n i n g El i m i n a t i o n o f th e G e n e r a l P l a n Z 2 o v e r l a y , a s pr o p o s e d , w o u l d e l i m i n a t e bu i l d i n g h e i g h t re s t r i c t i o ns . A s a d e f a u l t , t h e s t a n d a r d s o f t h e ap p l i c a b l e z o n e w o u l d a p pl y . T h e P O z o n i n g di s t r i c t h a s a bu i l d i n g h e i g h t li m i t o f 7 5 f e e t . Ho w e v e r , t h e ap p l i c a n t h a s su b m i t te d a P D O ap p l i c a t i o n w i t h t h e z o n e c h an g e a p p l i c a t i o n to a l l o w a m a x i m u m h e i g h t o f 1 1 5 f e e t f o r t h e to w e r s t r u c t u r es . I f a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y Co u n c i l , n o c o nf l i c t b e t w e e n G e n e r a l P l a n po l i c y a n d z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s w o u l d r e s u l t . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l a l l o w f o r e f f i c i e n t im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p u b l i c fa c i li t i e s a n d s e r v i c e s wi t h i n t h e p r o j e c t a r e a . P u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s a n d se r v i c e s r e q u i r e d t o se r v e t h e p r o j e c t w i l l b e ph a s e d t o c o r r es p o n d t o th e p r o j e c t ’ s ph as i n g . Po t e n t i a l j o b s wi l l b e c r e a t e d t h r o u g h de v e l o p m e n t an d p r o g r a m m in g o f t h e h o s p i t a l an d t h e h o u s i n g f o r t h e h o s p i t a l w o rk e r s w i l l be a c c o m m o d a t e d th r o u g h n e w h o u s i n g de v e l o p m e n t s a n t i c i p a t e d i n t h e C i t y ’ s G e ne r a l Pl a n . Th e p r o j e c t w i ll r e q u i r e a p p r o v a l of a p l a n ne d de v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t to p r o v id e fo r th e de v e l o p m e n t of t h e s i t e w i t h t h e u s e s , st r u c t u r e s , pa r k in g , l a n d s c a p i n g , a n d o t h e r No m i t i g a t i on i s r e q u i r e d . L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -23 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation co m p o n e n t s of t h e p r op os ed d e v e l o pm e n t, an d t o pr o v i d e d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n da r d s f o r t h e pr oj ec t . Th e C i t y h a s s t a t e d t h at a k e y p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e is t o f a c i l i t a te co n s t r u c ti o n o f a r e g i o n a l ho s p i t a l f a c i l i t y d e s i g n e d t o be a n o p e r a t i o na l l y ef f i c i e n t , s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t f a c i l i ty t h a t pr o v i d es ec o n o m i c b e n e f i t s t o th e Ci t y . F u r t h e r , C i t y ob j e c t i v e s i n c l u d e e n s u r i n g t h a t a n y s u c h ho s p i t a l i s c o m p at i b le w i t h s u r r o u n d i n g u s es i n te r m s o f t h e s i ze a n d c o n f i g ur a t i o n of bu i l di n g s , u s e o f ma t e r i a l s a n d la n d sc a p i n g, th e lo c a t i on o f a c ce s s r o u t e s , n o i s e i m p a c t s , tr a f f i c im p a c t s , a n d ot h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o ns . If a p p r ov e d b y t h e C i t y C o u n c i l , t h e p r op o s e d Ge n e r a l P l a n A m e n d m e n t a n d P D O - 9 z o n e ap p l i c a b l e t o t h e s i t e – a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t re s u l t i n g f r o m th e s e c h a n g e s t o l a n d u s e r e gu l a t i o n s – w il l b e c o n s i d er ed a p p r op r i a te la n d u s e p o l i c y a n d z o n i n g f o r t h e s u b j e c t pr o p e r t y . I f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l e l e c t s t o o t he r w i s e l i m i t b u i l d i n g he i g h t a n d / o r e s t a b l i s h ad d i t i on a l d e v e lo p m e n t co n d it i o n s , th e Co u n c i l ’ s a c t i on i n d i c a t e s i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t su c h r e g u l a t i o n s a r e a p p r op r i a t e f o r t h e s i t e , co n s i d e r i n g i t s s u r r o u n di n g s in l i g h t o f t h e st a t e d p r oj e c t o b j e c t i v e s . . No i s e Co n s t r u c t i on : C o n s t r uc t i o n n o i s e l e v e l s , as pe r c e i v e d a t l o c a t i on s n e ar t h e p r o j e c t s i t e , w i l l fl u c t u at e d e pe nd i n g u p o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r t y pe , nu m b e r , a n d du r a t i o n o f u s e o f v a r i o u s p i ec e s of c o n s tr u c t i on e q u i p m e n t , as w e l l a s th e No m i t i g a t i on i s r e q u i r e d . L e s s t h a n signi f i c a n t . EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 24 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation di s t a n c e f r o m co n s t r u c ti on a c ti v i t i e s . S h or t- te r m i m p a c t s va r y i n d u r a t i o n a n d a r e de p e n d e n t up o n t h e t y pe o f c o n s t r u c t i on ac t i v i t y , t h e a s so c i a t e d e q u i pm e n t u s e d f o r t h a t ac t i v i t y , a n d t h e p r o j e c t p h as i n g . S h or t - t e r m im pa c t s f o r t h e p r op o s ed p r oj ec t w i ll o c c u r th r o u g h o ut e a c h o f t h e p h a s e s o f c o n s tr u c ti o n an d w i l l l a st f r o m 2 m o n t h s fo r s i t e g r a d i n g t o 12 m o n t h s f o r b u i l d i n g c o n s tr u c t i o n . A t t i me s , co n s t r u c ti o n n o is e m a y c a u s e a n n o y a n c e a t no i s e - s e n s it i v e l o c a t i on s i n t h e v i c i n i t y . T h e Co m m u n i t y No i s e E q u i v a l e n cy L e v e l ( C N E L ) du e t o c o n s tr u c t i o n a c t i v i t i es i s e x p e c t e d t o ex c e e d t h e C i t y ’ s 6 5 d B t h r e sh o l d a n d i n cr e a s e th e a m b i e n t n o i s e l e v e l b y m o r e t h a n 3 d B a t re s i d e n c e s l o c a te d n o r t h w e s t o f t h e p r oj e c t . At r e s i d e n c e s l o c a t e d t o t h e s o u t h , co n s t r u c ti o n i s a l s o e x pe c t e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e CN E L a b o v e t h e C i t y ’ s 6 5 d B t h r e s h o l d . Ho w e v e r , t h e im p a c t o f c o ns t r u c t i on n o i s e i s co n s i d e r e d l e ss t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t b e c a u s e i t w i l l oc c u r w i t h i n t h e h o u r s pe r m i t t e d b y t h e Ci t y ’ s Mu n i c i p a l C o d e . Gr o u n d -b or n e V i b r a t i o n o r N o is e: Th e pr i m a r y v i b r a t o r y s o u r c e d u r i n g t h e co n s t r u c ti o n o f t h e p r o j e c t w i l l b e l a r g e bu l l d o z e r s . T y p i c a l b u ll d o z e r a c t i v i t i e s ge n e r a t e a n a pp r ox i m a t e v i br a t i o n l e v e l of 8 7 Vd B a t a d i st a n c e o f 2 5 f e e t . A t t h e d i s t a n c e o f th e n e a r e s t r e s i d e n c e s t o t h e p r o j e c t s i t e (a b o u t 3 0 5 f e e t ) t h e e s t i m a t e d v i b r a t i o n l e ve l wi l l b e 6 5 V d B . T h i s i s b e l o w t h e t h r e s h o l d a t wh i c h b u i l d i n g d a m a g e o c c u rs a n d b e l o w t h e im p a c t c r i t e r i a o f 7 5 V d B f o r r e s i d e n t i a l pr o p e r t i e s . CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -25 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Tr a f f i c - r e l a t e d N o i s e : Th e p r o p o s e d pr oj e c t wi l l i n c r e a s e t h e t r a f f i c - g e n e ra t e d C N E L b y a t mo s t 0 .5 d B . T h i s i s l e ss t h an t h e 3 d B th r e sh o l d o f si gn i f i c a n c e . A l s o , p r oj e c t t r a f f i c wi l l n o t i n c r e a s e t h e C N E L f r o m b e l o w t h e th r e s h o l d o f si gn i f i c a n c e t o a b o v e t h e th r e s h o l d o f si gn i f i c a n c e a t an y e x i s t i n g me d i c a l , r e s i d e n t i a l , s c h o ol , ag r i c u l t u r a l , o r co m m e r c i a l / o f f i c e l a n d u s e i n t h e s t u d y a r e a . Si r e n s : M a x i m u m a m b u l a n ce s i r e n n o is e l e v e l s ar e e s t i m a t e d to b e a s h i g h a s 1 0 5 d B ( A ) a t 2 5 fe e t . A l t h ou g h t h e s e l e v e l s ma y c a u s e s o m e an n o y a n c e a t ne a r b y n o i s e- s e n s i t i v e r e c e p t o r s , no i s e f r o m e m e r g e n c y v e h i cl e s w i l l o n l y oc c u r sp or a d i c a l ly a n d f o r s h or t p e ri o d s of t i m e du r i n g a n e m e r g e n c y . Lo a d i n g D o c k Ac t i v i t i e s : T h e p r o p o s e d ho s p it a l w i l l h av e 3 l o a d i n g do c k s f o r t r u c k de l i v e r i e s . T h e s e d o c k s a r e p r o p o s e d t o be lo c a t e d o n t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e p r o j e c t s i t e , so u t h of t h e h e l i p a d . O n c e op e r a t i o na l , t h e ho s p i t a l w i l l r e c e i v e a p p r ox i m a t e l y 3 t o 4 tr u c k de l i v e r i e s p e r d a y d u r i n g t h e h o u r s of 7 : 0 0 A. M . t o 6 : 0 0 P . M . No n i gh t t im e d e l i v e r i e s w i l l oc c u r . T h e e s t i m a t e d 10 - m i n u t e a v e r a g e n o i s e le v e l a t t h e h o m e l o c a t e d c l os e s t t o l o ad i n g do c k a c t i v i t i e s i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 0 d B ( A ) . T h i s le v e l i s b e l o w t h e d a y t im e s t a t i o n a r y n o i s e so u r c e s t a n d a r d s . Wi t h 4 d e l i v e r i e s o v e r a 2 4 - ho u r p e r i o d , t h is e q u a t e s t o a C N E L o f 4 2 d B . Th i s l e v e l i s b e lo w t h e d a y t i m e s t a t i o n a r y no i s e so ur c e s t a n d a rd s o f 6 5 dB . Me a s u r e m e n t s in d i c a t e t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g C N E L a t t h e h o m e i s ab o u t 5 7 d B , so l o a d in g d o c k a c t i v i t i e s w i l l n o t in c r e a s e t h e n o is e l e v e l b y 3 d B o r m o r e . EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 26 Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation Th e r e s i d e n t i a l p a r c e l i s d e si g n a t e d f o r Pr o f e s s i o n a l Of f i c e ( P O ) u s e w i t h i n t h e Ge n e r a l P l a n . R e s i d e n t i a l us e s w i t h i n t h e P O zo n e a r e a l l o w e d o n l y b y c o nd i t i o na l u s e pe r m i t , a n d a r e l i m i t e d t o e i t h e r o n e d w e l l i n g un i t o n t h e s a m e p a rc e l a s a c o mm e r c i a l o r in d u s t r i a l u s e f o r u s e of t h e p r o p r i e t o r o f t h e bu s i n e s s o r f o r a s e n i o r o r a f f o r d a b le h o u s i n g pr o j e c t . F u t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d u s e o f t h es e pa r c e l s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d to b e a s p r o f e ss i on a l of f i c e u s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h er e w i l l o n l y b e 3 to 4 d e l i v e r y t r uc k s p e r d a y , a n d t h e d u r a t io n of t h e d e l i v e r i es w i l l b e s h or t . Pa r k i n g L o t A c ti v i t i e s : P a r k i n g l o t a c t i v i t i es a t th e p r o p o s e d ho s p it a l w i l l v a ry , g e n e r a l l y oc c u r r i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a y a s p a ti e n t s a n d vi s i t o r s a r r i v e a n d l e a v e , w i t h p o te n t i a l p e ak s i n ac t i v i t y w h e n s t a f f a r r i v e a n d d e p a r t a t t h e be g i n n i n g a n d e n d o f t h e i r s h i f t s . Th e t r a f f i c da t a i n d i c a t e s th a t t h e b u si e s t h o u r w i l l b e i n th e a f t e r n o o n . T h e u n m i t i g a t e d 1 0 - m i n u t e av e r a g e n o is e l e v e l ( L e q ) g e ne r a t e d b y p a rk i n g lo t a c ti v i t i e s i s b e l o w b o th d a y t i m e a n d ni g h t t i m e s t a t i o na r y n o i s e s o u r c e s t a n da r d s. Pa r k i n g l o t a c t i v i t i e s w i l l n o t in c r e a s e t h e n o is e le v e l b y 3 d B or m o r e . I n a d d i t i on , t h i s t y pe o f no i s e w o u l d be e x p e c t e d f r o m a n y de v e l o p m e n t oc c u r r i n g o n t h i s s i t e . Tr a s h P i c k u p s : N o i s e a s s o c i at e d w i t h t r a s h pi c k u p s i s t e m p or a r y a n d w i l l n o t oc c u r o n a co n s t a n t b a s i s. A t y p i c a l tr a s h p i c k u p l a s t s o n l y 3 m i n u t e s o n av e r a g e a n d i s a c o m m o n n o i s e so u r c e t h a t e x is t s t h r o ug h o u t t h e c o m m u n i ty . La n d s c a p i n g / Ma i n t e n a n c e : La n d s c a p in g a n d CIT Y O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N MEN T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT 1 -27 GEN E R A L PL AN UP DATE Ta b l e 1 -1 Su m m a r y o f E n v i r o nm e n t a l I m p a ct s a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s ur e s EN V I R O N ME N T AL I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F TEM E CUL A TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 1- 28 Po t e n t i a l E n v i ro 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 s Level of Impa ct after Mitigation ma i n t e n a n c e ac t i v i t i e s w i l l ut i l i z e n o i s e- pr o d u c i n g e q u i p m e n t s u c h a s l a w n m o w e rs , la w n e d g e r s , l e a f b l o w e r s , a n d s w e e p e r s . Th e s e ty p e s o f e q u i p m e n t a r e o n l y u s e d oc c a s i on a l l y , an d f o r l i m i t e d t i m e p e ri o d s. S u c h a c t i v i t i e s wi l l t y p i c a ll y b e s h i e l d e d f r o m s o m e o f t h e no i s e - s e n s it i v e r e c e i v e rs b y t h e h o s p i t a l bu i l d i n g s t h e m se l v e s , f u r t h e r r e d u c i n g n o is e le v e l s . Fu t u r e E x t e r i or N o i s e E n v i r o n m e n t : T h e st a n d a r d o f 7 0 d B C N E L f o r a h o s p i t a l si t e i s ex c e e d e d a t a l l e x t e r i o r l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n 2 5 5 fe e t o f t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e n e a r e s t l a n e o f Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h . H o we v e r , n o e x t e r i o r us e a b l e / h a b i t a b l e s p a c e s a r e l o c a t e d w i t h in th i s e n v e l o p e . Fu t u r e I n t e r i or N o i s e E n v i r o n m e n t : C N E L i s ex p e c t e d t o b e u p t o 7 1 d B at t h e m e d i c a l of f i c e b u i l d i n g c l o s e s t t o H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h , an d u p t o 6 8 . 5 d B a t t h e h o sp i t a l b e d to w e r cl o s e s t t o H i g h wa y 7 9 S o u t h . B a s e d o n a re v i e w o f p r e l i m i n a r y f a ç a d e c o n s t r u c t i on de t a i l s f o r t h e me d i c a l o f f i c e a n d h o s p i t a l bu i l di n g s , i t i s es t i m a t e d t h at t h e b u i l d i n g s w i l l pr o v i d e a t l e a s t 2 1 d B of n o i s e r e d u c t i o n . Th e r e f o r e , t h e n o i s e l e v e ls i n si d e t h e b u i l di n g s wi l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e i n t e r i o r C N E L s t an d a r d o f 50 d B . A t l o c a ti o n s f u r t h e r f r o m t h e s t r e e t , t h e es t i m a t e d C N EL w i l l b e l o w e r t h a n 5 0 d B . Executive Summary Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternatives to the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be “governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the EIR. Alternative Considered but Rejected During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in Appendix F of this EIR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital per the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III: ƒ To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms ƒ To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services ƒ To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms ƒ To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies ƒ To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems ƒ To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of project objectives and the applicant’s need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in project design. Alternative 1: No Project – No Build CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means “…the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be 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.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]). The existing conditions on the project site are described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the near future. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project – No Build are described below. Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-29 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Executive Summary population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site would remain vacant. This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project – No Build Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City. Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan The No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum height of 50 feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan, could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City’s objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services nor the applicant’s objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3: Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned by Corona Family LTD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-30 Executive Summary Highway 79 South. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant’s control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-31 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project, would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community with a regional hospital. Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas.. Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-32 Executive Summary While Alternative 6 meets the City’s objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding uses, Alternative 5 fails to meet the City’s objective to support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base. Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet applicant’s objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant’s objectives. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Cumulative Impact The CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define a cumulative impact as an “impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” The project will result in significant unavoidable project-level impacts in the following areas: ƒ Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts ƒ Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights ƒ Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this EIR will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. However, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, other known projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the South Coast Air Basin as a whole. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the Air Quality Management Plan and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan. However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Potential short- and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation and measures imposed on other projects. Furthermore, vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the I-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections. The cumulative projects analyzed in the EIR generate a total of 160,500 average daily trips, with 5,560 trips in the A.M. peak hour and 6,130 trips in the P.M. peak CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-33 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area, while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation, identifies some of the regional roadway improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway improvements. The proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: ƒ Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road ƒ Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near I-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Through the Notice of Preparation process for the project, the concerns shown in Table 1-2 were raised. Additionally, at a scoping session, held on April 20, 2005 where the City received public input and testimony, the City determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential impacts identified in the attached NOP should be prepared for this project in response to resident and concerns regarding transportation, aesthetic, and noise impacts of the proposed project, and agency concerns regarding potential biological impacts associated with the extension of Dartolo Road, as described in Alternatives 4 and 5 of this EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-34 Executive Summary Table 1-2 Notice of Preparation Letters Name Agency Where Issues Are Addressed in EIR 1. Arturo Diaz Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Encroachment Permit for Temecula Creek: Section 4.3 – Hydrology and Water Quality 2. Carol Gaubatz Native American Heritage Commission Archeological Resources: Appendix A – Initial Study: Cultural Resources 3. Michael McCoy RTA – Riverside Transit Agency Public Transit Amenities: Section 4-2 Air Quality 4. Stephanie Gordin Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Conditions of Approval: Appendix A – Initial Study: Cultural Resources Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring program will be prepared for adoption by the Temecula City Council prior to certification of the Final EIR for the project. The mitigation program will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-35 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Executive Summary This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 1-36 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2.0 Introduction Purposes of the Environmental Impact Report This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, also referred herein as “the project.” According to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), an “EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project on the environment, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe alternatives to the project” Accordingly, this EIR is an information document to be used by decision makers, public agencies, and the general public. It is not a policy document of the City of Temecula. The document provides information regarding the potential environmental impacts related to the construction and long-term operation of the project. The EIR will be used by the City of Temecula in assessing impacts of the proposed project. If the project is approved, feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be applied to the project during project implementation. Legal Requirements This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and in accordance with the City of Temecula’s CEQA Guidelines. The City of Temecula is the lead agency for this EIR, as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA. This EIR meets the content and analysis requirements of a Project EIR, as defined in Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. A Project EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Prior to preparing this EIR, the City of Temecula previously circulated an Initial Study (SCH # 2005031017) for this project with the intent of preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was March 8, 2005 through April 6, 2005. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Comments received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed Mitigated Introduction ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2-2 Negative Declaration have been addressed through analysis of project alternatives in this Focused EIR. The scope of the project has not changed. This EIR was prepared by environmental planning consultants under the direction of City staff. All information, analysis, and conclusions contained in this document reflect the independent review and judgment of the City. Scope of the Project The project analyzed in this EIR is the development of a regional hospital serving the Temecula area. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 565,260 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. Scope of the Environmental Analysis Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for this project. The Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan might have a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following: ƒ Aesthetics ƒ Hydrology and Water Quality ƒ Noise ƒ Transportation Appendix A contains the Initial Study and NOP for the project. Appendix B contains water supply assessment. Appendix C contains the noise study. Appendix D contains the Traffic Study. Appendix E contains a Burrowing Owl Survey Report. Appendix F contains a letter from the project architect regarding project configuration. Appendix G contains a water supply assessment prepared for the project by the Rancho California Water District. All other reference documents cited in the EIR are on file with the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Center Drive, Temecula, CA 92589. Background A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was issued by the City on August 3, 2005 in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375. The NOP indicated that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments on the project from public agencies and the general public. Comment letters were received from the following agencies (listed in the order received): ƒ Native American Heritage Commission ƒ Riverside Transit Agency ƒ Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ƒ Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Introduction CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Written comments received during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. City staff has worked directly with the applicant, the surrounding property owners and representatives of the Los Ranchitos and Santiago Estates Home Owners Associations to identify key issues of concern. In addition, a City Council Subcommittee was formed to meet to discuss the project. The City Council subcommittee formally met with the applicant and staff on September 27, 2004 and October 11, 2004. Staff met with the Santiago Estates Home Owners Association on December 6, 2004, and held a community meeting on December 8, 2004. The community meeting notice was mailed to the surrounding home owners within 600 feet from the project site and approximately 45 residents and landowners were in attendance. At a public hearing held on April 20, 2005 to consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City heard public input and testimony and determined that a Focused EIR analyzing potential aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and groundwater, land use and planning, noise, and transportation impacts should be prepared for this project. Public Review and Comment This Draft EIR is available for public inspection at the City of Temecula Planning Department, located at the 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula. The Draft EIR is also available to the public at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. Organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the Draft EIR. Where possible, respondents are asked to provide additional information which they feel is not contained in the Draft EIR, or to indicate where information may be found. Section 15105(d)(3) and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines outline procedures whereby a lead agency may request a shortened 30-day public review period. The City of Temecula intends to apply for a 30-day public review period for this Draft EIR, pursuant to these provisions. Following the public review period for the Draft EIR, all comments and the City’s responses to those comments will be incorporated within the Final EIR prior to certification of the Final EIR by the City. Contact Person The primary contact person regarding information presented in this EIR is Emery Papp, Senior Planner. Mr. Papp may be reached at (951) 694-6400, or via email at emery.papp@cityoftemecula.org. Introduction ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 2-4 This page is left intentionally blank. 3.0 Project Description The Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: ƒ The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to 2 stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. ƒ The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO- 8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30% of the roof area of the hospital. ƒ The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. ƒ The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site ƒ The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate 8 lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surrounding Uses The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 3-1. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Description Project Objectives City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: ƒ Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services ƒ Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base ƒ 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 ƒ Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula ƒ Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses ƒ Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: ƒ Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities ƒ Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices ƒ 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 ƒ Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Project Characteristics Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Description third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Project Design The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: ƒ An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second 5 stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. ƒ Two medical office buildings, one 4 stories/73 feet high and the second 3 stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. ƒ A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. ƒ An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. Project components are shown on Figure 3-2. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.1 Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading. A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-4 Project Description This page left blank intentionally. (Back side of 11x17 figure.) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-6 Project Description Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Parking and Access Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. As shown on Figure 3-2, the project includes the following three access points: 1. Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location 2. Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. 3. Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 3-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a 6-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, , as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the 5-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet Phase III will add a 4-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000-square-foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Description Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months. As shown on Figure 3-2, the total parking spaces provided will be 1,278 which exceeds the City’s parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per 3 beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason.2 In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: ƒ Hospital – 1 story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers) ƒ Bed Tower 1 – 6 stories/106 feet ƒ Bed Tower 2 – 5 stories/83.5 feet ƒ MOB #1 – 4 stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces) ƒ MOB #2 – 3 stories/60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces) ƒ Cancer Center – 1 story/27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces) ƒ Fitness Center – 1 story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces) Project Actions and Approvals While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the EIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency Action City of Temecula City Council ƒ Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code with will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospitals 2 Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. – Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-8 Project Description Agency Action ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development City of Temecula Fire Department City of Temecula Police Department City of Temecula Public Works City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits Adoption of the Focused EIR Hospital building and occupancy permits Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems Review of security plans and systems Approval of Mitigation Plan Approval of street improvement plans, sewer plans, grading plan, and water and drainage system plans Approval of Water Quality Management Plan ƒ Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits ƒ Review and approval of encroachment permits Review and approval of street trees Approval of Burrowing Owl report/surveys ƒ Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Permit) ƒ Review of helipad Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project Description Agency Action ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Riverside County Flood Control Riverside County Health Department U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Possible review and approval water service permits Possible review and approval of permits Possible review and approval of permits Possible review and approval of permits Alternatives to the Project CEQA requires that the EIR address project alternatives that are capable of reducing or eliminating the significant effects associated with the project. The three project alternatives analyzed in Section 5.0 of this EIR are: 1. No Project: CEQA requires that the No Project alternative be addressed. In this instance, No Project means development of the site pursuant to the commercial zoning on the site, which would mean a large commercial center. 2. No Project – no build: This alternative considers the land remains vacant. The site would remain as undeveloped open space. 3. Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties: This alternative considers development of the project at a site that is generally located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South. This alternative will assess whether relocating the project to another area of the City has the potential to reduce impacts 4. Access from Dartolo Road – As an alternative to providing secondary access via the planned driveway at De Portola Road, this alternative examines extending Dartolo Road west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to Margarita Road. 5. Access from Dartolo Road and De Portola Road - This alternative enhances the secondary access using both the planned driveway at De Portola Road and by extending Dartolo Road west toward the project site, over a flood control channel, to link the site directly to Margarita Road. 6. Construction of the Hospital Only – This alternative examines the project as the development of the hospital and hospital towers only. The alternative would not include the development of the cancer center, fitness rehabilitation center, or the medical office buildings. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 3-10 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4.0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses each of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts determined to be potentially significant in the EIR analysis. Each environmental issue is discussed in the following manner. Environmental Setting describes the existing conditions in the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, to provide a baseline for comparing before the project and after the project environmental conditions. Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact defines and lists specific criteria used to determine whether an impact is or is not considered to be significant. The CEQA Guidelines; local, state, federal or other standards applicable to that impact category; and officially established thresholds of significance are the major sources used in crafting criteria appropriate to the specifics of the project, because “…an ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with setting” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[b]). Principally “…a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance…” constitutes a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15382). Environmental Impact presents evidence, based on available data, about the cause and effect relationship between the proposed project and the potential changes in the environment. The exact magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained to the extent possible to provide facts in support of finding the impact to be or not to be significant. In determining whether an impact may be significant, all the potential effects, including direct effects, reasonably foreseeable indirect effects, and considerable contributions to cumulative effects (see Section 4.0), were considered. Mitigation Measures identify the means by which a potentially significant adverse impact could be reduced or avoided. Standard existing regulations, requirements, and procedures that are applied to all similar projects are taken into account in identifying what additional project- specific mitigation may be needed to reduce significant project-related impacts. Mitigation, in addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, can also include measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091[a][2]). Level of Significance after Mitigation indicates what effect will remain after application of mitigation measures, and whether the remaining adverse effect is or is not considered significant. When an adverse impact, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant, it is identified as an unavoidable significant impact of the proposed project. In order to approve a project with significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). In adopting an SOC, the lead agency find that it has reviewed the EIR, has balanced the benefits Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-2 of the project against its significant adverse effects, and has concluded that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects, and thus, the environmental effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093[a]). 4.1 Aesthetics This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, or create new sources of light and glare and if so, how such light sources may affect uses within the project area and regional facilities such as the Palomar Observatory. Also, because the project includes a proposed General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay, which limits building heights to 2 stories, this section examines the related effect of allowing taller structures on the site. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will result in a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. The term “aesthetics” usually implies a subjective effect or personal opinion. To the extent possible, this section attempts to minimize the subjective component of the evaluation of these impacts by considering information about the project that can be evaluated objectively, such as a structure’s effects on existing scenic view corridors, visual character, and the impact of artificial light generated by the project. Visual character is measured in terms of mass and scale. These terms are defined as follows:1 Mass – Describes three-dimensional forms, the simplest of which are cubes, boxes, cylinders, pyramids, and cones. Buildings are rarely one of these simple forms, but generally are composite of varying types of masses. Scale – Is the measurement of the relationship of one object to another object. The scale of a building can be described in terms of its relationship to a human being. All of the components of a building also have a relationship to each other and to the building as a whole. Generally, the scale of the building components also relates to the scale of the entire building. Environmental Setting The project site fronts on Highway 79 South within a developed area of the City of Temecula. The site terrain is relatively flat, with a gentle slope toward De Portola Avenue. The elevation at the center of the site is approximately 1,053 above mean sea level, and the elevation at De Portola Road is approximately 1,065 feet. 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 feet, providing views over the site to south Temecula and the Palomar Mountains in the background. Very-low-density residential development (2.5 acre minimum) exists within the rolling hills to the north. The residential area is elevated above the project site. Commercial development has occurred across Highway 79 South from the project site and immediately east of the site as well. To the immediate west is a vacant parcel, adjacent to which is a church complex currently under construction. All of the remaining vacant land in the immediate project vicinity is zoned and 1 Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics designated as Professional Office (PO) or Planned Development Overlay (PDO); no designated open space is located near the project. The project site is surrounded by urban development and is considered an in-fill development site. Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. The City of Temecula Municipal Code does not contain any view protection regulations. Virtually all of the City of Temecula lies within 45 miles of the Mount Palomar Observatory. To protect Observatory operations, the City has adopted Riverside County’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of the facility.2 Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact The proposed project will result in a significant adverse impact related to aesthetics, if it will: ƒ Substantially degrade scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway ƒ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, either directly or due to changes in land use and development regulations ƒ Create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Environmental Impact State Scenic Highway The project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway, as designated by the California Department of Transportation.3 According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not include any scenic resources, is not known for its visual character, nor does the site contain scenic resources. Development of the project will result in a less than significant impact. 2 County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations – Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. Adopted by the City of Temecula on February 13, 1990. 3 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-4 Aesthetics Visual Character or Quality The residential areas north of the project site offer distant views to the south of the Palomar Mountains, with closer views overlooking the vacant project site and developed areas surrounding the site (see photograph in Figure 4-2a). At closer locations, the site appears as a vacant property with introduced landscaping and native vegetation (see photo in Figure 4-3a). The view along Highway 79 South consists of a developed and developing arterial roadway corridor, with low- and moderate-rise structures and well-landscaped frontage areas. The proposed project will include: ƒ A 60,000-square-foot, 3-story medical office building (60 feet high) ƒ An 80,000-square-foot 4-story medical office building (73 feet high) ƒ A 408,160-square-foot hospital structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories (up to 106 feet high) ƒ A 10,000-square-foot, single-story cancer center ƒ An 8,000-square-foot, single-story fitness rehabilitation center. The structures will be located toward the center of the site, surrounded by surface parking lots with extensive landscaping. Per Development Code regulations, all setback areas will be landscaped as well. To identify potential view/aesthetic impacts from locations in the project vicinity, photographs were taken from locations within the residential neighborhood overlooking the site and adjacent to the site on Pio Pico Road. Figure 4-1 shows the two locations from where photographs were taken for this aesthetics analysis. The proposed project was digitally modeled onto the photographs based on renderings provided by the project architect. The proposed project will be visible from various residential lots north of the project site, as illustrated in the photograph in Figure 4-2b. However, the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy. While the hospital/medical complex will be apparently taller than surrounding development, it will appear as infill development. As seen in Figure 4-2a, while the project site can seen from residential areas to the north, particularly in comparison from the existing view, views of Palomar Mountain will not be blocked by the proposed project. The elevation of De Portola Road and adjacent residences to the north is greater than the elevation of the pad areas of the project site. Therefore, the building height will appear slightly lower than the actual height from the residences to the north. To soften views and blend the development with surrounding urbanization, the preliminary landscape plan proposes numerous evergreen trees such as Afghan Pine, Coast Live Oaks, and Silk Trees along the perimeter of the site between the residences and the hospital, which will buffer the visual appearance of the buildings and mask the development of the site (refer to the photograph in Figure 4-3b). Incorporation of these project features will help to reduce viewshed impacts. The proposed height of the hospital towers will continue to obstruct views from nearby locations. However, because the views are considered private, are not considered to be of public benefit, and are not protected by any City regulation or policy, impact will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics This page is left intentionally blank. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics Existing view of the site looking south from the hillside above De Portola Road Figure 4-2a Location A - View from Hillside without Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-8 Aesthetics Four-story Medical Office Building Six-story hospital tower One-story hospital Proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Figure 4-2 b Location A - View from Hillside with Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics Existing view of the site looking south from Pio Pico Road Figure 4-3a Location B - View from Pio Pico Road without Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-10 Aesthetics Four-story Medical Office Building Six-story hospital tower Proposed Temecula Regional Hospital with project landscaping Figure 4-3b Location B - View from Pio Pico Road with Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-11 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics Project architecture is to consist of a Spanish-style architecture for all buildings. Building design will feature the use of earth-toned stucco, terra cotta tile roof, bronze-tinted glass, and Indian red tile at the base. The two hospital towers will be divided by an octagon-roofed rotunda. The architectural design of the proposed project is consistent with the visual character and quality of the surrounding development. The proposed terra cotta tile roofs will minimize the visual impact of the new buildings by matching the visual character of surrounding roof tops (Figure 4-2b). Perimeter landscaping will consist of a 25-foot-wide bermed landscape strip along Highway 79 South, consisting of California Pepper trees, Sycamores, and assorted shrubs. As noted above, the frontage areas along DePortola Road and the remainder of the north property line will consist of Afghan Pines and Silk Trees, which are evergreens. A 50-foot-wide swath along the western property line will be planted with assorted street trees, and an informal planting of natural turf and assorted trees is proposed along the eastern property line. Overall, the site will include approximately 176 trees. The primary issues of concern with regard to building height and views are the 2 hospital towers that are 5 and 6 stories, respectively. Currently, through the Z2 overlay designation, the General Plan limits buildings on the site to a maximum of 2 stories. The project applicant proposes to amend the General Plan to remove the Z2 overlay, and to change the zone from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The PDO-9 zone would specifically allow structures up to 115 feet in height. (The site plan indicates a maximum anticipated hospital tower height of 106 feet. The PDO-9 zone proposes a 115-foot height limit to account for adjustments as part of the final design process and to accommodate any needed parapet walls or similar roof-top treatments.) Due to the proposed change in land use regulations and as proposed by the site plan, the project will result in development of a 5-story hospital building and a 6-story building, as shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b. The project will result in a more intense use of the site than is allowed by current land use regulations. The increased building height regulation and any development pursuant to it have the potential to change the visual character of the site. Given the lower-scale character of development that currently exists in the area, this degree of change is potentially significant. As stated in the project description (see Section 3.0 of this EIR), the project requires approval of a planned development permit to provide for development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the project. The primary changes that would occur as a result of the new proposed Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and the Development Plan would be a change to the building height limit. The proposed PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height on the site as follows: The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area. The project applicant has stated that the design of the hospital is primarily based on internal functional relationships. The various uses and functions inside of the building must be located adjacent to other critical uses. This includes care rooms, treatment facilities, and equipment, as well ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-12 Aesthetics as elevators, stairs, and window placement. With the form follows function concept in mind, the design of the buildings is limited in what can be changed in regard to tower location, layout and movement (or relocation) of functioning areas. As noted in a letter from the project architect (included as Appendix F to this EIR), the proposed design of the hospital is essential to meeting the project objectives. According to the applicant, the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change to allow planned heights of the hospital bed towers respond to the following functional needs of the hospital: • To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms • To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services • To respond to Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms • To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies • To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems • To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible 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 (see page 3-3 of this EIR). The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. As shown in Figures 4-2b and 4-3b, the proposed architecture blends with the colors and styles used on buildings in the vicinity. These project features will minimize any potentially significant visual effect and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone applicable to the site – and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations – will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions, the Council’s action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site, considering its visual character, quality, and surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Therefore, with either action, impact will be less than significant. Light and Glare As noted above, in support of Palomar Observatory operations, the City 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 facility. The project site is located within the 45- CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-13 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics 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 will be 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 Zones B, such as low-pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for holiday decorative lights and nonconforming uses. The project site is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new sources of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code, and Ordinance 655. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of 1-foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading, and circulation areas, and a minimum of 2-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. The City is requiring the project applicant to locate all ground- mounted lighting as far away as possible from the residences. All free-standing lighting in the parking lot will be consistent with the setbacks set forth in the Development Code and Design Guidelines. The hospital towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors. However, as indicated in the mitigation measure described below, all windows above the second floor will have glazing and/or tinting to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. Compliance with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code, and Ordinance 655, and implementation of the mitigation measures will ensure a less than significant impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-14 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures A-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, City staff shall verify that a photometric plan has been submitted which details the proposed light levels for the entire project site onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light, including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate potential light impacts. A-2. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall consist of glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare emitted from the upper floors. A-3. The applicant/developer shall plant, irrigate as necessary, and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15-gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site. Such landscaping treatment may include decorative walls. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels. Level of Impact after Mitigation With mitigation, impact will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-15 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-16 4.2 Air Quality This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Air quality worksheets are included in Appendix B of this EIR. Environmental Setting Temecula lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin is a 6,600-square-mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains on the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. Within the Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air quality monitoring and stationary source control. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring. Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known as “smog.” Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other major metropolitan areas in the country. Climate and Meteorology The climate in and around Temecula, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high- pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April, although during these months, it is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the region’s mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Within the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone, located north of Temecula and south of Lake Elsinore, coastal winds often block air pollutants originating from the rest of the Basin from entering the Temecula Valley. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-17 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality Air Pollution Control Effects Both the federal and state governments have set health-based ambient air quality standards for the following 6 pollutants: ƒ Sulfur dioxide (SO2) ƒ Lead (Pb) ƒ Carbon monoxide (CO) ƒ Fine particulate matter (PM10) ƒ Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ƒ Ozone (O3) The standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of safety. The California standards are more stringent than federal standards and in the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, far more stringent. Table 4-1 outlines current federal and state ambient air quality standards. Despite the existence of many strict controls, the South Coast Air Basin still fails to meet federal air quality standards for 2 of the 6 criteria pollutants including O3 and PM10. Because lead-based gasoline has been phased out of California, airborne lead pollution is no longer a problem in the Basin, nor is sulfur dioxide pollution. Nearly all pollution control programs developed to date have relied on the development and application of cleaner technology and add-on emissions control devices to clean up vehicular and industrial sources, such as catalytic converters for automobiles. Recent efforts include new programs monitoring high-emitting vehicles and industries (e.g., the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program and mandatory maintenance procedures on industrial sources), and attempts to reduce overall vehicle activity (e.g. High Occupancy Vehicle [HOV] lanes). Past air quality programs have been effective in improving the Basin’s air quality. Although the magnitude of the problem depends heavily on the weather conditions in a given year, and improvements can only be compared for the same air monitoring station, ozone levels have declined by almost half over the past 30 years. However, ozone levels within the Basin remain at or near the top of all pollution concentrations within urban areas in the United States. Air Quality Monitoring The nearest air quality monitoring station to Temecula is located at Lake Elsinore. Table 4-2 shows monitored air quality for CO, O3, and NOx at the Lake Elsinore station. The data indicates that state standards are rarely exceeded for CO or NOx, yet frequently exceeded for O3. PM10 measurements are not taken at the Lake Elsinore station. The nearest air quality monitoring station for PM10 is located in the Perris Valley. Table 4-3 shows the maximum concentrations of PM10 and the number of days samples exceeded state standards at the Perris Valley station. However, both of these air quality monitoring stations are north of the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone and do not accurately reflect local air quality conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-18 Air Quality Table 4-1 Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards Air Pollutant State Standard Federal Primary Standard Sources Primary Effects Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm, 1-hour average 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average; 0.08 ppm, 8-hour average Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with nitrogen oxides in sunlight. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases; irritation of eyes; impairment of cardiopulmonary function; plant leaf injury. Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm, 8-hour average; 20 ppm, 1- hour average 9.0 ppm, 8-hour average; 35 ppm, 1-hour average Incomplete combustion of fuels and other carbon- containing substances such as motor vehicle exhaust; natural events, such as decomposition of organic matter. Reduced tolerance for exercise; impairment of mental function; impairment of fetal development; death at high levels of exposure; aggravation of some heart diseases (angina); reduced visibility. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 0.25 ppm, 1-hour average 0.053 ppm, annual average Motor vehicle exhaust; high-temperature stationary combustion; atmospheric reactions. Aggravation of respiratory illness; reduced visibility; reduced plant growth; formation of acid rain. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.25 ppm, 1-hour aver- age; 0.05 ppm, 24-hour average with ozone > = 0.10 ppm, 1 hour average or TSP > = 100 µg/m3, 24-hour average 0.03 ppm, annual average; 0.14 ppm, 24-hour average Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil fuels; smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores; industrial processes. Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema); reduced lung function; irritation of eyes; reduced visibility; plant injury; deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc. Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 30 µg/m3, annual geometric mean; > 50 µg/m3, 24-hour average 50µg/m3, annual arithmetic mean; 150 µg/m3, 24- hour average Stationary combustion of solid fuels; construction activities; industrial processes; industrial processes, atmospheric chemical reactions. Reduced lung function; aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation of respiratory and cardio-respiratory diseases; increased coughing and chest discomfort; soiling; reduced visibility Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) No Separate State Standard 65 µg/m3, 24-hour average; 15 µg/m3 annual arithmetic mean Combustion sources such as automobiles, trucks, and stationary sources; atmospheric chemical reactions. Increased mortality; reduced lung function; aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants; aggravation of respiratory and cardio-respiratory diseases; increased coughing and chest discomfort. Lead 1.5 µg/m3, 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3, calendar quarter Contaminated soil. Increased body burden; impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction; behavioral and hearing problems in children. Visibility Reducing Particles Sufficient to reduce visual range to less than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%, 8-hour average (9am - 5pm) None Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air; ppm = parts per million parts of air, by volume. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 2001 (Version 3) update. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-19 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality Table 4-2 Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded Lake Elsinore Station Carbon Monoxide1 Ozone2 Oxides of Nitrogen3 Year Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) *Days standard exceeded Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) *Days standard exceeded Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) *Days standard exceeded 1997 -- -- 0.16 49 0.11 0 1998 -- -- 0.17 52 0.09 0 1999 -- -- 0.14 51 0.11 0 2000 2.0 0 0.13 45 0.08 0 2001 2.0 0 0.151 61 0.09 0 2002 2.0 0 0.139 52 0.07 0 2003 1.3 0 0.154 50 0.08 0 2004 0.9 0 0.130 41 0.06 0 * Number of days state standard was exceeded in calendar year. ppm=parts per million parts of air, by volume 1 State standard for carbon monoxide: 20 ppm 1-Hour; 9.0 ppm 8-Hour 2 State standard for ozone: 0.09 ppm 1-Hour 3 State standard for nitrogen dioxide: 0.25 ppm 1-Hour Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004. Table 4-3 PM10 Measurements Perris Valley Station Year Maximum Concentration (Fg/m3) Days (% of) Samples Exceeding California standard* 1997 139 19 (31.7) 1998 98 14 (26.4) 1999 112 30 (50) 2000 87 13 (22) 2001 86 16 (27) 2002 100 24 (39.3) 2003 142 19 (32.8) 2004 83 15 (25.4) Fg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air *State standard for PM10 >50 Fg/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-20 Air Quality Sensitive Receptors SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors located in or near the vicinity of known air emissions sources, including freeways and intersections, are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to the project area and include the following: ƒ Residential developments surrounding the site except for the commercial property located west-southwest ƒ Nine primary schools, 2 middle schools and 3 high schools within 2 miles of the site ƒ Two parks within 2 miles of the site ƒ There are no hospitals, care facilities, or day-care facilities within 2 miles of the site. Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots, or areas where carbon monoxide is concentrated, typically occur near congested intersections, parking garages, and other spaces where a substantial number of vehicles remain idle. Petroleum-powered vehicles emit carbon monoxide, an unhealthy gas (see Table 4-1), which disperses based on wind speed, temperature, traffic speeds, local topography, and other variables. As vehicles idle in traffic congestion or in enclosed spaces, CO can accumulate to create CO hot spots that can impact sensitive receptors. Toxic Air Pollutants Toxic air pollutants, such as asbestos, can be emitted during the demolition of buildings that contain toxic contaminants, and during the operation of certain industrial processes that utilize toxic substances. Federal and state governments have implemented a number of programs to control toxic air emissions. For example, the federal Clean Air Act provides a program for the control of hazardous air pollutants. In addition, the California legislature enacted programs including the Tanner Toxics Act (Health and Safety Code Section 25300 et. seq.), the Air Toxics Hot Spot Assessment Program (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et. seq.), the Toxics Emissions Near Schools Program (Public Resources Code Section 21151.8), and the Disposal Site Air Monitoring Program (Health and Safety Code Section 41800 et. seq.). SCAQMD has developed and implements rules to control emissions of toxic air pollutants from specific sources. These include Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), which requires certain businesses to obtain a permit to emit toxic air pollutants, and Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Renovation/Demolition Activities), which regulates asbestos emissions during construction activities. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-21 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality Related Plans and Programs Air Quality Management Plan The 2003 AQMP updates the demonstration of attainment with thefFederal standards for ozone and PM10, replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard, provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future, and updates the maintenance plan for the Federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the Basin has met since 1992. The 2003 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the Basin. The revision to the Plan also addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. This Plan is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin. However, this revision points to an urgent need for additional emissions reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) to offset increased emissions estimates from mobile sources and to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact The project will result in a significant adverse impact on air quality if its long-term operational emissions, due to combined stationary and vehicular emissions, result in any of the following: ƒ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation ƒ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant ƒ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ƒ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable regional and/or local Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The SCAQMD has established air pollutant emission thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the construction or operation of a project results in significant impacts. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these thresholds, the project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality. These thresholds are summarized in Table 4- 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-22 Table 4-4 SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution Threshold of Significant Effect Pollutant Operation Phase Construction Phase Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 55 lbs/day 75 lbs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 55 lbs/day 100 lbs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day, 24.75 tons/quarter Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day, 6.75 tons/quarter Sulfur Oxides (SO2) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day, 6.75 tons/quarter Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with updates through 2001. Environmental Impact Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project can be classified as either short-term or long-term impacts. Short-term impacts result from construction activities, and long-term impacts are associated with daily activities at the hospital and medical office buildings and the daily vehicle trips to and from the facilities. Short-Term Impacts Development of the proposed project will result in the addition of approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital building and other medical facilities on the 35.31-acre site. Construction of the proposed project will generate pollutant emissions from the following activities: demolition, grading and paving operations; travel by construction workers to the site; delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project sites; fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; the application of architectural coatings and asphalt that release reactive organic gases (ROG); and dust (PM10) generation from construction vehicle travel. Short-term impacts vary in duration and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the five phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building construction. Estimated daily construction-related emissions for the proposed project are presented in Table 4-5. As shown, construction activity will produce daily emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and ROG. The NOx emissions are primarily attributable to exhaust from construction vehicles, and the ROG emissions are primarily from the application of architectural coatings. The emissions of these pollutants are considered to produce a significant adverse short- term regional air quality impact because the levels of these emissions are projected to exceed SCAQMD air pollutant significance thresholds. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-23 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Table 4-5 Daily Construction Emissions (in pounds per day) Pollutants (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Demolition Emissions 11.66 91.55 86.18 4.73 0.03 Site Grading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 129.67 0.01 Mitigated Site Grading Emissions 41.91 282.81 338.51 53.80 0.01 Building Construction Emissions 223.91 216.46 317.50 8.17 0 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Exceed Thresholds? YES YES NO NO NO Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Note: Bolded values denote an exceedance of threshold. Assumptions: The total construction for the project was assumed to begin January 2006 and terminate in December 2010. The default values in URBEMIS2002 were used to determine timing for each individual phase of construction (demolition, site grading, building construction). Construction Odor Impacts The proposed project has the potential to create objectionable odors during construction. Some odors may be associated with the operation of diesel engines during site preparation. However, these odors are typical of urbanized environments and would be subject to construction and air quality regulations, including proper maintenance of machinery to minimize engine emissions. These emissions are also of short duration and are quickly dispersed into the atmosphere. Therefore, the project will not create significant objectionable odor impacts during construction. Long-Term Impacts Air pollutant emissions associated with project operations will be generated due to the consumption of electricity and natural gas (so-called stationary sources) and by the operation of on- road vehicles (mobile sources). Because it is not possible to isolate geographically where production of electric power occurs, these emissions are considered to be regional in nature. Emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the production of energy were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Project-related operational emissions for on-road mobile sources and stationary sources are summarized in Table 4-6. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-24 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality Table 4-6 Operational Phase Regional Emissions (in pounds per day) Pollutants (lbs/day) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 SO2 Area Source Emissions 8.39* 3.79 4.43 0.01 0 Vehicular Source Emissions 85.73 94.69 1,139.90 123.28 0.86 Total 94.11 98.48 1,144.33 123.29 0.86 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Exceed Thresholds? YES NO YES NO NO Source: P&D Consultants in August 2005 using the URBEMIS2002 emissions inventory model. Note: Bolded values denote an exceedance of threshold. *94% of ROG is from architectural coatings and will be mitigated by measure AQ-14. As illustrated in Table 4-6, regional emissions from the operation of the proposed project are estimated to produce air pollutant emissions above the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO and ROG. As such, regional emissions associated with the operational phase of the project will result in a significant adverse air quality impact related to ROG and CO. CO Operational Impacts Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO concentrations called “hotspots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the state 1-hour standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. As shown in Table 4-2, ambient CO concentrations at the nearest air monitoring station are less than 2.0 ppm and have been holding steady for the years studied. To identify CO hotspots, the SCAQMD methodology recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. Due to the low ambient CO concentrations and because the project will not create any significant impacts at the studied intersections, a CO hotspot analysis is not warranted. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies With respect to determining project consistency with SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it must be recognized that air quality planning in the South Coast Air Basin focuses on the attainment of the ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. The SCAQMD CEQA emissions thresholds for construction and operational phase emissions are designed to identify those projects that would result in significant levels of pollutants, as well as promote the attainment of the California ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. General Plans are used to assist in development of the AQMP, which provides the framework for attainment of the ambient air quality standards and national ambient air quality standards. The Temecula Hospital project proposes development on the project site with at an intensity greater than the 2-story building height limit established in the General Plan Land Use Element for this site. However, the proposed hospital and medical uses involve a total of 566,160 square feet of building CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-25 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality area, whereas a commercial development constructed pursuant to current land use regulations could yield up to 769,059 square feet based on an assumed Floor Area Ratio of 0.5. More to the point, the proposed uses would generate 65% fewer vehicle trips than the commercial uses on the site assumed in the General Plan (see discussion of Alternative 2 in Section 5.0 of this EIR). Finally, Policy 1.8 in the Land Use Element states: Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. Because the proposed project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements, it is assumed to be consistent with the AQMP and the development’s assumptions are included in the modeling for the AQMP. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will reduce emissions to less than significant levels for all pollutants except NOx: Pre-grading AQ-1. The applicant/permittee shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for a final location, design, and type of staging area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. AQ-2. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction, as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, and offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices. AQ-3. The applicant/permittee shall incorporate energy efficiency standards appropriate for medical facilities and professional office buildings, as defined by State of California regulations. AQ-4. The applicant/permittee shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought-resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and to prevent dust and erosion, with such temporary landscaping to be installed at the applicant/permittee’s expense. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-26 Air Quality AQ-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the applicant/permittee shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth- moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. AQ-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Public Works Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Public Works Director reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. AQ-7. The applicant/permittee shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula, including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance and Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall include applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 and Table 2 of Rule 403 during grading and construction such as the following examples listed below: ƒ Soil stabilization methods such as water and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be periodically applied to portions of the construction site inactive for over four days. ƒ Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. ƒ Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion. ƒ Water all roads used for vehicular traffic at least twice per daily, at least once in the morning and at least once in the afternoon. ƒ Restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour. ƒ Apply water or chemical stabilizers to at least 80 percent of the surface area of open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust or install temporary coverings. ƒ Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. ƒ Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. Compliance with The Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be subject to periodic site monitoring by the City Grading and Construction AQ-8. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall post signs on the site limiting construction-related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. AQ-9. The applicant/permittee shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-27 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality AQ-10. The applicant/permittee shall properly maintain all waste-related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. AQ-11. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels, shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. AQ-12. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant/permittee shall ensure the sweeping of adjacent streets and roads to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. AQ-13. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the applicant/permittee shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. AQ-14. The applicant/permittee shall use zero Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content architectural coatings during the construction and repainting of the project to the maximum extent feasible. This measure will reduce VOC (ROG) emissions by 95 percent over convention architectural coatings. The following websites provide lists of manufacturers of zero VOC content coatings: http:// http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf http://www.delta-institute.org/publications/paints.pdf AQ-15. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. Operations AQ-16. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. AQ-17. The applicant/permittee shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (De Portola Road and Highway 79 South) to promote alternative transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-28 Air Quality Level of Impact after Mitigation As discussed above, the proposed Temecula Hospital project will result in significant air quality impacts during the project’s construction and operational phases. During the construction phase, compliance with existing SCAQMD regulations will reduce ROG emissions from the application of architectural coatings to levels below the SCAQMD daily construction emission thresholds. Therefore, with mitigation, ROG emissions will be less than significant. However, NOx emissions from construction vehicle exhaust will continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold and result in a significant, unavoidable short-term air quality impact. Once the hospital and other on-site facilities are in operation, estimated emissions of CO and ROG will exceed the operational phase thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Even with measures to encourage trip reduction and energy efficiency, emissions cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Long-term air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-29 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Air Quality This page is left blank intentionally. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-30 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Water supply is addressed in this section of the EIR in compliance with California Water Code Section 10912 (a)(2) because the proposed project is greater than 500,000 square feet. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to water quality standards, depleting groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge; substantially altering the existing drainage pattern in the area resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, or increase the amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site; and exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation. Environmental Setting Storm Water Drainage The existing storm water drainage system in the City of Temecula, including the project site is governed by the Riverside County Flood Control District, Zone 7.1 Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one- third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. The western watershed drains toward the northeast corner of the adjacent property and into an earthen drainage channel that conveys water along the northerly property line of the church development to the west of the site. This runoff will eventually flow to a storm water system that crosses Highway 79 South at Jedediah Smith Road. The eastern watershed drains into an earthen flood control channel that parallels the eastern site boundary and crosses Highway 79 South approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. This channel is open and contains dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Storm water from this channel is conveyed across Highway 79 South to an enclosed storm water system that drains to the Temecula Creek Channel located approximately 1,500 feet to the south of the property.2 1 Riverside County Flood Control District. “About the District.” http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/districtsite/. Date Accessed: August 9, 2005. 2 Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center. November 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-31 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality The project site lies within the San Diego Basin, known as Region 9 of the State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Basin consists of 11 major drainage basins which encompass most of San Diego County, parts of southwestern Riverside County, and portions of southwestern Orange County. These basins are under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Temecula is located within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit,3 a rectangular area of about 750 square miles encompassing portions of Camp Pendleton, as well as the civilian population centers of Murrieta, Temecula, and portions of Fallbrook in San Diego County. The RWQCB adopted a new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit on July 14, 2004 (Order No. R9-2004-001) for the Santa Margarita River Watershed permittees in Riverside County. The Santa Margarita River permittees consist of the City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, County of Riverside, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.4 The MS4 permit requires the City of Temecula to designate temporary and permanent pollution prevention, source-control, and treatment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on all new developments. All new development projects such as the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital will be subject to the Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Water Quality Management Plan requirements consist of structural source control and treatment control BMPs to be maintained by facility owners for as long as the facilities are in operation. The Water Quality Management Plan requires the designation of responsible parties (i.e. property owners, developers, and business operators) for installing and implementing the required BMPs, as well as establishing a funding source for the maintenance of all structural BMPs. California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 Sections 10910-10915 of the California Water Code identify consultation, noticing, and water supply assessment and provision requirements for proposed projects meeting specific criteria identified in Sections 10910 and 10913 of the Code. The City must consult with local and regional water agencies to assess whether the water demand associated with the project is included in an agency’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan, and whether existing supplies can meet the project’s demand for water. Based on the entire record, the City will determine within an EIR whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. 3 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/programs/basinplan.html. 1994. 4 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information. http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Date accessed: August 10, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-32 Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact Impacts of the proposed project to hydrology and water quality will be significant and adverse if it will: ƒ 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 ƒ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality Environmental Impact Storm Water Drainage and Water Quality To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the City of Temecula are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District prior to approval by the City of Temecula. New development projects are required to provide on-site drainage and to pay area drainage fees per acre of development. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system.5 State of California Water Resources Control Board requires all development projects to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur during construction. Through the MS4 Permit, Temecula is required to ensure that these projects comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In addition, all commercial development proposals where the land area represented by the proposed map or permit is 100,000 square feet or more must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project operation.6 Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact on storm water drainage and water quality. California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact. Water Code section 10910 applies to the project because the proposed hospital and medical office building complex meets the criteria established in California Water Code section 10912 (a)(1) in square feet and potential employment. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) owns, operates, and maintains the public water system within which the proposed project will be located. RCWD will be the water purveyor to the 5 Riverside County Flood Control District. “Area Drainage Fees.” http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/Area_Drainage_Plain_Summary.pdf. 6 Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region. September 17, 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-33 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Hydrology and Water Quality project. RCWD has prepared a water supply assessment for the proposed project, which is included as Appendix G to this EIR. Findings and conclusions of the water supply assessment are summarized in the following paragraphs. Rancho California Water District Urban Water Management Plan The development area of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital was identified in RCWD’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD’s 1997 Water Facilities Master Plan, and RCWD’s recently adopted 2005 Master Plan Update. The 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan shows an estimated demand of 129,545 acre-feet per year for 2025. The projected water demand for the Temecula Regional Hospital is approximately 42 acre-feet per year. This projection includes an allowance of 28 acre-feet for the hospital, 12 acre-feet for the medical office buildings, 1.2 acre-feet for the fitness center, and 0.8 acre-feet for the proposed cancer center7. This demand has been anticipated and included in the adopted Urban Water Management Plan and Water Facilities Master Plan for RCWD. According to RCWD’s Water Facilities Master Plan and 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, RCWD has an existing and planned combined well, imported, and recycled water production capacity of approximately 150,000 acre-feet. The ultimate annual water demand of the RCWD is estimated to be 129,545 acre-feet, while the existing demand for 2004 was approximately 85,000 acre-feet. Based on the projected water demands for the Temecula Regional Hospital and future demands projected for the project service area, this project demand is less than the Water Facilities Master Plan projected demands based on land use for the project location. The Master Plan projected demands for the project site are based on use of the site as 30 acres of Business Park/Industrial (1500 gallons per day) and 6 acres of Estate Residential (0.75 acre-feet per acre), resulting in a total of 55 acre-feet for the project area. Therefore, the 42 acre-feet demand estimated for the project has been provided for and can be met with existing supply capacities. To accommodate future developments such as the Temecula Regional Hospital, the Rancho California Water District intends to meet supply planning issues through a combination of the following alternatives: 1. Continued practice of managing groundwater levels through natural and artificial recharge via groundwater extracted using existing and planned RCWD-owned wells. 2. Annual water purchase of direct imported and replenishment water via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and from Vail Lake. 3. Orderly implementation of recycled water system use expansion as proposed to be available. 4. Conservation measures. Due to RCWD’s access to local groundwater sources, the availability of local groundwater sources, and the ability to purchase imported water and store it within the basin, short-term drought situations have historically had negligible effect on the ability to supply customers. Additionally, if surface water flows are reduced as a result of single or multiple dry, or critically dry years, RCWD 7 HKS Inc./CCRD Partners – Project Architects and Engineers. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-34 Hydrology and Water Quality has the ability to meet demands by augmenting its supply with increased groundwater extractions, along with implementation of conservation and other measures. RCWD also anticipates that the use of recycled water will increase, thereby reducing the use and reliance of domestic water sources, furthering RCWD's ability to supply water during single or multiple dry, or critically dry, years. Therefore, RCWD has concluded that sufficient water supply exists to support the Temecula Regional Hospital development as required by California Water Code section 10910. Impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measures No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required. Level of Impact after Mitigation Hydrology and water quality impacts will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-35 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Hydrology and Water Quality This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-36 4.4 Land Use and Planning This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project site. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to this EIR), the proposed project will not result in physical division of an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. To address habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site, a comprehensive biological resource survey and focused surveys for the Burrowing Owl were conducted, pursuant to the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) guidelines. The surveys concluded that no protected species or habitats and no Burrowing Owls occur on the project site (see Appendix E of this EIR). Thus, habitat conservation planning issues are not addressed in this EIR. Environmental Setting Three principal land use planning and regulatory documents govern the use of land in the City of Temecula: the Temecula General Plan (primarily the Land Use, Growth Management/Public Facilities, and Community Design Elements), the City’s Development Code (Title 17, Zoning of the Municipal Code), and the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As noted in the introductory statement above, investigations have been performed pursuant to the MSHCP and have concluded that MSHCP policies do not apply due to the absence of biological resources on the site. Thus, this discussion focuses on the General Plan and zoning regulations. Temecula General Plan Land Use Element: The General Plan Land Use Element contains citywide policies for growth and development, as well as specific policies relevant to target areas of the community. The citywide Land Use Element goals and policies most relevant to the project site are as follows: Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure. Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university. Goal 3 A City of diversified development character, where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-37 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Land Use and Planning Policy 3.1 Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density residential development. Goal 5 A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. Policy 5.2 Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. The General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the site as Professional Office. Also, a specific plan overlay, Z2, applies to the site which limits building heights to 2 stories. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element: Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula residents. Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that new development is adequately supported as it develops. Policy 2.5 Encourage new development that helps create and maintain a balance between jobs and housing opportunities. Temecula Development Code The Temecula Development Code (Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning) establishes zoning districts and regulations applicable to properties in the City and based upon General Plan land use policy. The Development Code includes zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, environmental review procedures, and the sign code. Per State law, Development Code regulations and maps must be consistent with the land uses, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan. The project site currently has two zoning designations. The three lots that abut De Portola Road are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The balance of the site is zoned Professional Office (PO). Surrounding Land Uses Under the Professional Office (PO) District medical office buildings are permitted uses and hospitals are conditionally permitted uses. The maximum height allowed in the PO District is 75 feet and the maximum lot coverage is 50 percent, with a 25 percent minimum required landscaped open space. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-38 Land Use and Planning Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact The potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use are considered significant and adverse if the project will conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Environmental Impact Temecula General Plan and Development Code Consistency The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan designation, as buildings taller than two stories are proposed. Project applications include a General Plan Amendment to remove the Z2 Overlay and thus allow for greater building height, a change to the Official Zoning Map from PDO-8 and PO to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), and a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the hospital. The PDO-9 zone would allow development of the site pursuant to the precise plan described in Development Plan application, as ultimately approved by the City Council. The proposed project will change the use on the project site from vacant land to a regional hospital, medical office buildings, a cancer center, a fitness rehabilitation center, a helipad, and related parking. General Plan Policies Land Use Element: The Professional Office General Plan land use designation will continue to apply to the project site. The uses proposed are all permitted within this designation. Thus, no conflict with underlying General Plan land use policy will apply. The project will implement General Plan land use Policy 1.8, which supports development of a hospital. Pursuant to Policies 3.1 and 5.2, the development will be buffered from lower intensity uses to the north with parking lots and landscaped areas. The residential uses to the north will be buffered from the main hospital structures by approximately 210 feet of open space including a horse trail and jogging path located immediately north of the proposed fitness center, as well as 350 feet of open parking area. Additionally, approximately 228 feet of landscaped area is provided immediately south of the proposed jogging path, and west of the parking lots north of the hospital. The project is consistent with overall land use intent for the project site. Impact is less than significant. Elimination of the Z2 overlay would eliminate building height restrictions. As a default, the standards of the applicable zone would apply. The PO zoning district has a building height limit of 75 feet. However, the applicant has submitted a PDO application with the zone change application to allow a maximum height of 115 feet for the tower structures. If approved by the City Council, no conflict between General Plan policy and zoning regulations would result and impact would be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-39 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Land Use and Planning Growth Management/Public Facilities Element: The proposed project will be a phased development that will allow for efficient implementation of public facilities and services within the project area. Pursuant to Policy 2.2, public facilities and services required to serve the project will be phased to correspond to the project’s phasing. Pursuant to Policy 2.5, potential jobs will be created through the development and programming of this regional hospital and the housing for the hospital workers will be accommodated through new housing developments anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with goals and polices of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element listed above. Impact is less than significant. Development Code All uses currently permitted in the existing PO zoning district will still be permitted in proposed PDO-9 zone. Thus, no conflict or impact would result. The primary changes that would occur as a result of the new proposed PDO and the Development Plan would be a change to the building height limit (to allow up to 115 feet) and the establishment of development standards applicable strictly to this site. The PDO document submitted with the application indicates an allowable maximum building height limit of 115 feet. The PDO text clarifies the allowances for increased building height as follows: “The development standards set forth in Section 17.08 for the Professional Office Zone shall apply to this PDO with the exception of the following. No more than 30% of the total roof area of the hospital building may exceed the 75-foot maximum building height limit. The maximum building height for those portions of the hospital building within the 30% area may not exceed 115 feet. For the purposes of this Section, roof area is defined as that portion of the roof above occupied conditioned spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall that defines the roof area” The City has stated that a key project objective is to facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City. Further, City objectives include ensuring that any such hospital is compatible 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 (see page 3-3 of this EIR). If approved by the City Council, the proposed General Plan Amendment and PDO-9 zone applicable to the site – and the development resulting from these changes to land use regulations – will be considered appropriate land use policy and zoning for the subject property. If the City Council elects to otherwise limit building height and/or establish additional development conditions, the Council’s action indicates its determination that such regulations are appropriate for the site, considering its surroundings in light of the stated project objectives. Therefore, with either action, impact will be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-40 Land Use and Planning Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. The Professional Office designation includes primarily single or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Typical uses include legal, design, engineering, or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development to the east and west (some currently under construction), and residential development across De Portola Road and Highway 79 South. The proposed hospital, medical office, and related uses are consistent with established and planned development uses and patterns along Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road. With regard to the residential uses, the site is separated from these uses by, respectively, a 6-lane roadway to the south and an approximate 88-foot road right-of-way to the north. Also, the site plan builds in buffers in the form of parking lots and landscaping to ensure compatibility between the uses on the site and residential uses. The proposed project will result in beneficial impacts to surrounding uses. The proposed project includes the development of a public horse trail will follow the border of proposed project from he northeast corner at De Portola Road leading toward the western edge of the property. Most of the horse trail will be buffered from the proposed project by improvements such as landscaped areas and a split rail fence. The horse crossing issue at De Portola Road to the proposed project parcels was discussed at previous public hearings for the proposed project. This issue is currently a problem and will continue to be a problem with or without the proposed project. The uses proposed are considered consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; impact will be less than significant. With regard to intensity of use, the project will result in a more intense use of the site than is currently allowed under land use regulations due to the proposed increased height standard. The project will require approval of a planned development permit to provide for the development of the site with the uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components of the proposed development, and to provide development standards for the project. The hospital bed towers will be set back and located toward the center of the site. The nearest tower will be set back approximately 210 feet from the nearest residentially zoned parcel and approximately 630 feet from De Portola Road. Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings will be provided. These project features will minimize perceived visual effects and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts with regard to development standards are not considered significant. Refer to Section 4. 1 (Aesthetics) of this EIR for a discussion of potential aesthetic impacts associated with the hospital bed towers and overall site development. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-41 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures No impact will result; therefore, no mitigation is required. Level of Impact after Mitigation Land use and planning impacts will be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-42 4.5 Noise This section examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will generate or expose persons to short-term or operational noise levels in excess of City standards, or create a substantial permanent or periodic increase in ambient noise within the project area. Appendix C includes the noise study and detailed noise measurement worksheets compiled by Wieland Associates that provide the basis for the following analysis. Environmental Setting The noise environment in the project area is characterized by typical urban noises, such as traffic noise, heavy machinery associated with construction activities, and day-to-day outdoor activities. Noise in the community is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources. Transportation noise refers to noise from automobile use, trucking, airport operations, and rail operations. Stationary noise refers to noise from sources such as commercial establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, and landscape maintenance equipment. Regardless of the type of noise, the noise levels are highest near the source and decrease with distance. How Sound Is Measured The following describes the noise descriptors that will be used throughout this section. Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (µPa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of µPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, 2 cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-43 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise ENVTE IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULAMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-44 A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. 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 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 4-5 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-term noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 4-4. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. A-Weighting TY O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N ME N T A L I M PA CT RE PO RT 4- 45 TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L So u r c e : Wi e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , In c . , 2 0 0 5 . So u r c e : Wi e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , In c . , 2 0 0 5 . Fi g u r e 4 - 4 Co m m o n N o is e S o u r c e s a n d A - W e ig h t e d N o i s e L e v e l s Fi g u r e 4 - 5 Co m m o n CN E L No i s e E x p o s u r e L e v e l s a t V a rious Locations CI Noise Noise Standards California Code of Regulations In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise attributable to outside noise sources. Title 24 also specifies that acoustical studies be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is proposed to be located within exterior CNEL or Ldn contours of 60 dB or greater attributable to an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source. The acoustical analysis must show that the building has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL or Ldn of 45 dB. Table 4-7 outlines the interior and exterior noise standards set forth by Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations. Table 4-7 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Standards1 Land Use Interior2,3 Exterior Residential – Single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB4 Residential – Transient lodging, hotels, motels, nursing homes, hospitals CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB4 Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, board rooms, conference rooms, theaters, auditoriums, concert halls, meeting halls, etc. Leq(12) 45 dB(A) --- Schools Leq(12) 45 dB(A) Leq(12) 67 dB(A)5 General offices, reception, clerical, etc. Leq(12) 50 dB(A) --- Bank, lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing pool, etc. Leq(12) 55 dB(A) --- Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. Leq(12) 65 dB(A) --- Parks, playgrounds --- CNEL 65 dB5 Gold courses, outdoor spectator sports, amusement parks --- CNEL 70 dB5 Source: Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations. Notes: 1. CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12): The A-weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12-hour period (usually the hours of operations). 2. Indoor standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation would be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi-family patios and balconies (with a depth of 6 feet or more) and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic area, and other areas of frequent human use. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-46 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Noise Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Under FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the interior of a hospital or medical building. City of Temecula General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan provides noise guidelines for various land uses. The following is a summary of the guidelines that apply to the land uses in the project vicinity. Table 4-8 presents the City’s adopted guidelines for all land use types. These guidelines are to be used in determining land use compatibility in development decisions. Residential – For all high-density residential land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For all other residential uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Schools – For all schools, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Public/Institutional (including hospitals) – For all public/institutional land uses (except schools, which are addressed above), a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB and a maximum interior CNEL of up to 50 dB are permitted. Open Space – For open space land uses, including agricultural uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. An exception is for open space land uses where quiet is a basis for the land use, in which case a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Commercial and Office – For all commercial and office land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For professional offices, there is also a maximum interior noise standard of 50 dB CNEL. In addition, new development projects are required to comply with interior noise standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-47 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Table 4-8 City of Temecula Noise Standards Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Hillside Rural Very Low Low Low Medium 45 65 Medium 45 65 / 70 Residential High 45 701 Neighborhood Community Highway Tourist Service -- 70 Commercial and Office Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Schools 50 65 Public/Institutional All others 50 70 Vineyards/Agriculture -- 70 Open Space Open Space -- 70 /652 Source: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. 1 Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. 2 Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. City of Temecula Municipal Code The City of Temecula does not have a noise ordinance. However, the City has adopted construction-related noise controls. The City of Temecula Municipal Code (Section 8.32.020) provides restrictions on the times during which construction activity can take place. For construction sites within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, it limits construction to between the hours of 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M.., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, State, or local entity and emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of Section 8.32.020. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of Section 8.32.020. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-48 Noise Existing Noise Traffic on local streets is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. To document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained at 3 locations throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 4-6. Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Figure 4-6 Noise Measurement Locations The locations are identified as follows: #1 - In the rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road #2 - On the project site, at the offset of the proposed 5-story bed tower #3 - In the rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (this location is adjacent to Highway 79 South) CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-49 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise At locations #1 and #3, the measurement was obtained over a continuous 24-hour period. A 20- minute measurement was obtained at location #2. The results of the noise measurements, provided in Appendix C, are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9 Summary of Noise Measurements Location # Location Description Measurement Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 Rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 44 - 55 57 2 On project site, at offset of proposed 5-story bed tower 20 minutes 56 N/A 3 Rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79 South) 24 hours 52 - 63 65 Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 These results were used to model existing traffic noise levels adjacent to various street segments in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the noise receptor. The results of modeling for existing traffic noise levels, provided in Appendix C, are summarized in Table 4-10. It should be noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from the traffic noise by walls of various heights that reduce the noise levels identified in Table 4-10 by about 5 to 10 dB. Table 4-10 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Centerline in feet Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD North of Highway 79 South 68.0 dB 215 90 --- --- --- South of Highway 79 South 67.5 dB 200 83 --- --- --- PECHANGA PARKWAY South of Highway 79 South 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- REDHAWK PARKWAY South of Highway 79 South 69.5 dB 278 120 --- --- --- HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH West of I-15 Freeway 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- --- West of Pechanga Parkway 78.0 dB 860 460 215 90 --- West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- West of Butterfield Stage Road 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- --- East of Butterfield Stage Road 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- --- Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-50 Noise Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact A significant impact will result if implementation of the project will: ƒ Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Municipal Code, or applicable standards of other agencies. This impact will occur if: (1) the CNEL exceeds 70 dB at the exterior or 50 dB at the interior of the proposed hospital or medical buildings; or (2) the project increases the exterior CNEL above the maximum permitted by the City’s General Plan at existing land uses. ƒ Expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. ƒ Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact will occur if the project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dB or more. ƒ Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This condition will occur if construction activities occur outside the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal Code. ƒ Expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. Environmental Impact The proposed project is not located within an airport influence area, and no public or private airport is within 2 miles of the project site. Therefore, no environmental impact associated with airport operations will result. However, the proposed project includes a helipad that would be used for transporting patients to other locations in the event on-site staff cannot address a specific medical need; this impact is discussed below. Site Plan The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4-7. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad will also be located on the site near the northeast corner of the hospital. Approaches and takeoffs associated with the helipad will be oriented to the southeast. A truck loading zone and mechanical yard for the hospital will be located on the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. The loading zone and mechanical yard will provide infrastructure to support the hospital, including a cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-51 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Construction In compliance with the City’s Municipal Code noise requirements (Section 8.32.020), construction activity will occur only between 6:30 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on Saturday. No construction activities will be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels, as perceived at locations near the project site, will fluctuate depending upon the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment, as well as the distance from construction activities. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short term. Short-term impacts vary in duration and are dependent upon the type of construction activity, the associated equipment used for that activity, and the project phasing. Short-term impacts for the proposed project will occur throughout each of the phases of construction and will last from 2 months for site grading to 12 months for building construction. Based on the estimated combined construction noise levels identified in Table 4-11, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. This analysis is summarized in Table 4-12. At times, construction noise may cause annoyance at noise-sensitive locations in the vicinity. Referring to the table, the CNEL due to the construction activities is expected to exceed the 65 dB threshold and increase the ambient noise level by more than 3 dB at the residences to the northwest. At the residences to the south, construction is expected to increase the CNEL above the City’s 65 dB threshold. However, the impact of construction noise is considered less than significant because it will occur within the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal Code. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-53 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Table 4-11 Estimated Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase Construction Phase & Equipment Avg. Equipment Noise Level @ 50’a Load Factorb Avg. Equipment CNEL @ 50’ with Load Factorc Phase 1 - Demolition 1 crusher/processor 88 dBA 0.780 82 dBA 2 dozers 88 dBA 0.590 81 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 1 tractor/loader/backhoe 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA Combined 86 dBA Phase 2 - Site Grading 2 excavators 83 dBA 0.580 76 dBA 1 grader 85 dBA 0.575 78 dBA 2 tractors 83 dBA 0.410 74 dBA 5 trucks 95 dBA 0.490 87 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 2 scrapers 92 dBA 0.660 85 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 2 trenchers 83 dBA 0.695 76 dBA Combined 91 dBA Phase 3a – Building Construction 1 concrete saw 90 dBA 0.730 84 dBA 2 cranes 91 dBA 0.430 82 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 forklift 76 dBA 0.475 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA Combined 87 dBA Phase 3b – Paving 1 truck 88 dBA 0.490 80 dBA 3 pavers 94 dBA 0.590 87 dBA 5 paving equipment 92 dBA 0.530 84 dBA 2 rollers 77 dBA 0.430 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 1 surfacing equipment 80 dBA 0.490 72 dBA Combined 90 dBA Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from: Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 31, 1971. and Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. April 1995. b. Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site. c. CNEL assumes all equipment operates simultaneously during an 8-hour workday. Source: Wieland Associates, September 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-54 Noise Table 4-12 Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels Noise-Sensitive Location Construction Phase Estimated CNEL @ 50’, dB Attenuation Due to Distance, dBa Estimated CNEL @ Sensitive Location, dBb Estimated Construction Noise + Ambient, dB Estimated Increase due to Construction, dB Nearest residences to the northwest Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -16 (305’) 70 75 71 74 70 75 71 74 13 18 14 17 Nearest residences to the south Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -24 (760’) 57 62 58 61 66 67 66 66 1 2 1 1 Nearest offices to the east Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -25 (880’) 61 66 62 65 71 71 71 71 1 1 1 1 Nearest offices to the west Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -23 (745’) 63 68 64 67 71 72 71 72 1 2 1 2 Notes: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to SR-79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 4-10. Source: Wieland Associates, September 2005. Ground-borne Vibration or Noise Ground-borne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When ground-borne vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based on published data1, typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. At the distance of the nearest residences to the project site (about 305 feet) the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold at which building damage occurs and below the impact criteria of 75 VdB for residential properties. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. However, if a bulldozer moves within about 100 feet of an existing residence, 1 Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-55 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise it is possible that vibration will be perceived by residents, if the home is occupied. The impact will not be significant, however, because the vibration will not be sufficient to cause building damage. Ambient Noise Levels Operational Noise The proposed project will introduce a number of new noise sources into the study area, including increased traffic (including emergency vehicles), occasional helicopter flights, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, trash pickups, and landscaping and maintenance activities. Each of these sources is discussed in greater detail below. The traffic analysis assesses the impacts of both Phase I traffic and cumulative traffic for Phases I through V. The worst-case future operational noise levels will occur when the entire project is operational (i.e., Phases I through V are complete); therefore, the remaining analyses assume the entire project is complete and operational. Traffic An estimate of traffic noise levels associated with various street segments in the study area was based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the noise receptor. The results of the analyses are provided in Table 4-13 for the Opening Year Without Project scenario, in Table 4-14 for the With Project Phase I scenario, and in Table 4-15for the With Project Phases I through V scenario. Each table identifies the estimated CNEL generated by traffic. Many of the residences in the study area are buffered from traffic noise by walls of various heights that are estimated to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of noise reduction. The data in the noise-level projection tables indicate that: ƒ The proposed project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance. Therefore, impact is less than significant. ƒ Project traffic will not increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above the threshold of significance at any existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or commercial/office land use in the study area. Therefore, impact is less significant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-56 Noise Table 4-13 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year without Project Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.0 dB 1,050 600 300 130 50 West of Margarita Rd. 78.5 dB 905 490 235 100 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Table 4-14 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phase I Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-57 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Table 4-15 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels with Project Phases I through V Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- Source: Wieland Associates, Inc., September 2005 Sirens Another potential noise source related to hospital traffic is emergency vehicles and their sirens. Based on previously conducted measurements of ambulance sirens, maximum noise levels are estimated to be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these levels may cause some annoyance at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. Helicopter Flights The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to 6 landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any twelve month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits.2 Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading (i.e., back the same way it came). In order to analyze the potential noise impacts of helicopter flights, the Helicopter Noise Model version 2.2, developed by the Federal Aviation Administration, was utilized. The exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but the Bell 222 has been identified as 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-58 Noise a model that could potentially be used. Specific information regarding the flight profile was unavailable. Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to conduct the analysis: ƒ The helicopter was assumed to be a Bell 222. ƒ The helicopter takeoff and approach profiles were assumed to be the default profiles provided by Helicopter Noise Model version 2.2 for a Bell 222 helicopter. ƒ The helicopter heading for both takeoff and approach was assumed to be exactly southeast on a heading of 135° for at least several thousand feet from the helipad. ƒ To identify the worst-case noise levels, the analysis assumed that typically, an entire flight would occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. Figure 4-8 shows the results of the analysis and identifies the 60, 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours. As shown, the 65 dB CNEL contour is located entirely within the project site and neighboring flood control channel, and does not extend to any of the neighboring noise-sensitive receivers. The ambient noise level at existing occupied homes in the vicinity of the proposed heliport is approximately 57 dB CNEL. The 60 dB contour does not extend as far as these homes, so helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Based on the assumptions stated above, the analysis indicates that impacts associated with any single helicopter flight using the flight path stated will not be significant. As stated above, the helipad permit to be obtained will permit up to 6 flights per month. In a worst- case condition, this level of activity could occur. Also, the preferred flight path might change for any given flight depending upon weather conditions and wind speed/direction. The key concern associated with this scenario would be the maximum noise level. The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity (e.g., hovering, climbing, approaching, etc.), airspeed, power setting, altitude, and ground conditions. Based on published data, the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the homes nearest the helipad (about 610 feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB(A).3 Assuming that standard building construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is expected to be about 54 to 60 dB(A). Thus, in the worst-case scenario of 6 landings per month, nearby residents could experience short-term exterior and interior noise levels that could be considered annoying. (The City does not have any regulations applicable to point-source noise events.) 3 Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. February 1984. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-59 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Source: Wieland Associates, Inc. September 2005. Figure 4-8 Helicopter Flight Noise Contours ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-60 Noise A study was conducted to gauge community reactions to helicopter noise based not only on the level of noise but on the number of helicopter events per day.4 This study identifies the following formula for predicting the annoyance of helicopter noise: A = Bo+BL*L+BN*log(N) where, A = annoyance (rated on a scale from 0 = “not at all annoyed” to 10 = “extremely annoyed”), BO = -16.5, BL = 0.20, L = sound exposure level (SEL), BN = 1.64, and N = number of events. Assuming one flight on a “worst-case” day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB(A). Using this formula, the estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). If this condition occurred up to 6 times per month, the level of short-term, periodic impact could be considered significant by those persons living closest to the hospital. Loading Dock Activities The proposed hospital will have 3 loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are proposed to be located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. No nighttime deliveries will occur. In order to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the loading docks, data obtained as part of a previous study5 for a food processing and storage facility was utilized. The previous study reported that the highest noise levels measured at the loading docks were associated with large refrigerated trucks idling as they were unloaded; the measurements indicated a noise level of approximately 75 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming the worst-case 10-minute average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance from the loading docks to the nearest occupied home (approximately 845 feet), the estimated 10-minute average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is approximately 50 dB(A). With 4 deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is below the daytime stationary noise source standards of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 4 Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. 5 Noise Measurements of Existing Truck Facility and Assessment of Noise Impacts for Proposed New Facility in the City of Vernon. Wieland Associates, Inc. October 15, 2003. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-61 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet), the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City’s standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is less than significant. The residential parcel is designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. This land use designation and the underlying PO and PDO-8 zones are intended primarily for single- tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to either one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business or for a senior or affordable housing project. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. Furthermore, because there will only be 3 to 4 delivery trucks per day, because the duration of the deliveries will be short, impact is less than significant. Mechanical Equipment Four primary sources of mechanical equipment noise are associated with the hospital: (1) the duty equipment located in the mechanical yard, (2) the emergency generators located in the mechanical yard, (3) the mechanical equipment room, and (4) rooftop mechanical equipment. Each of these noise sources is addressed below. Mechanical Yard Duty Equipment – The mechanical yard is to be located on the east side of the project site, between the helipad to the north and the loading docks to the south. The duty equipment consists of 3 cooling towers and 2 transformers. Based on noise data for the cooling towers provided by the manufacturer, and on prediction algorithms for transformer noise (the transformers are assumed to be 1,000 kVA each based on discussions with the project’s consulting engineers), it is estimated that the combined noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet. The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 710 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A). Over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City’s standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment will increase the existing CNEL at the residence by 4 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB. This exceeds the City’s standard of 70 dB; therefore, the impact is significant, and mitigation is required. Mechanical Yard Emergency Generators – Also proposed within the mechanical yard are 2 emergency generators. Each of these generators will be tested for approximately 5 minutes each month but may run for an indefinite period in the event of an emergency. Based on noise data provided by the generator manufacturer it is estimated that the noise level for each generator is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. This level does not include the contribution from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler. The worst- case noise-sensitive location is an existing home approximately 750 feet to the north. At this distance, the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A), without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City’s standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be at ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-62 Noise least 70 dB. This exceeds the City’s 65 dB standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant (depending on how long the generators run during a 24-hour period, and during which hours of the day they run). At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the CNEL will be about 53 dB on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City’s standard of 70 dB. However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which exceeds the City’s standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant at this location as well. The Mechanical Equipment Room – The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the central plant room noise levels is not currently possible, as the construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the central plant will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at nearby noise-sensitive receivers unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant, and mitigation is required. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment – Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise sources. However, structural designs are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the project to minimize rooftop mechanical equipment noise. Parking Lot Activities The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming, cars starting, cars accelerating away from the parking stalls, and people talking, shouting and laughing. The estimated noise generated by people talking at a normal conversational level was too low to be measured over the existing ambient. Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will vary, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. To estimate the 10-minute average noise level that will be generated by these activities, an analysis was conducted using traffic data contained in the project traffic study. The traffic data indicates that the busiest hour will be in the afternoon, when 334 vehicles arrive and 595 vehicles leave the hospital site. The results of the analysis indicate that the unmitigated 10-minute average noise level (Leq) generated by parking lot activities will be about 44.5 dB(A) at the nearest neighboring properties. This level is below both the daytime and nighttime stationary noise source standards. Existing daytime ambient noise levels range from 49 to 55 dB(A), so parking lot activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any development occurring on this site. Therefore, impact is less than significant. Trash Pickup Trash pickup is frequently a cause of complaints from residents living adjacent to commercial uses. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source during raising, lowering, and compacting operations. However, this noise is temporary and will not occur on a constant basis. A typical trash pickup lasts only 3 minutes on average and is a common noise source that exists throughout the community. Therefore, this project impact will be less than significant. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-63 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise Landscaping and Maintenance Landscaping and maintenance activities will utilize noise-producing equipment such as lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. However, these types of equipment are only used occasionally, and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise levels. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. Future Noise Environment at the Project Site Discussion of future noise impacts at the hospital site has been divided into two sections: exterior and interior noise levels. Exterior Noise Levels: An analysis was conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur at the project site. Results of the analysis are provided in Appendix C, and are summarized in previous Table 4-15. The standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of Highway 79 South. However, no exterior useable/habitable spaces are located within this envelope. Therefore, impact will be less than significant. Interior Noise Levels: As shown in previous Table 4-15, CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the medical office building closest to Highway 79 South (approximately 225 feet from the center of the nearest lane), and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closest to Highway 79 South (approximately 340 feet from the center of the nearest lane). Based on a review of preliminary façade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the interior CNEL standard of 50 dB. At locations further from the street, the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50 dB. Therefore, impact is less than significant. Summary of Noise Impacts Using the thresholds described above, the following may be concluded regarding the noise impacts of the proposed project: ƒ Construction noise impacts will be less than significant due to compliance with Section 8.32.020 of the Municipal Code. ƒ The proposed project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. ƒ One helicopter flight per month will not create significant noise impacts. However, up to 6 flights per month may be considered by some residents near the hospital to be a significant impact and annoyance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-64 Noise ƒ Noise associated with the mechanical yard equipment (including the emergency generators) may expose persons to noise levels in excess of the noise/land use compatibility standards established in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, impact is potentially significant. ƒ Traffic noise, parking lot noise, and noise associated with site maintenance will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures To mitigate the project’s significant noise impacts, the following mitigation measures are required relative to the design and operation of the project: N-1 Once the mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) is fully operational upon completion of project construction, the applicant/permittee shall conduct continuous, 24- hour noise monitoring for a period of one week. Such monitoring shall be conducted by a certified acoustical engineer. If the noise levels exceed land use/noise compatibility threshold levels set forth in the City of Temecula General Plan or other City-adopted criteria that may be in place at the time, the applicant/permittee shall implement measures to achieve the thresholds or other adopted criteria. Such measures may include, but not be limited to, noise attenuation barriers, equipment baffling, or other approaches deemed appropriate by a certified acoustical engineer. Once the mitigation has been implemented, the acoustical engineer shall file a report with the City documenting compliance. N-2 Helicopter flights shall be limited to emergency-only circumstances for critical patient transport. The applicant/permittee shall apply for a Special Use Helipad Permit for an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. This permit allows, over any 12-month period, for no more than an average of 6 landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. N-3 Helicopter pilots responding to calls for patient transport shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 135° southeast. N-4 Truck deliveries to the hospital loading dock shall be limited to four per day, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. N-5 Mechanical ventilation shall be provided for all medical and office buildings on the site to ensure compliance with interior noise standards established in the General Plan. N-6 All demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and other restrictions set forth in the City of Temecula Municipal Code. N-7 All construction equipment shall be tuned and muffled to minimize noise. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-65 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Noise N-8 During demolition and construction operations, the applicant/permittee shall stage all stationary equipment operations as far as possible and practical from surrounding residential properties. Level of Impact after Mitigation With implementation of mitigation measures, the impact of noise generated by activities at the hospital facility upon surrounding residential locations — with the exception of helicopter noise — will be less than significant. Even with mitigation measures to reduce helicopter flight noise impacts, these impacts cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance because of the uncertainty of the exact number of flights per month due to the unknown number of emergencies that will occur within any given month. Helicopter flight noise impacts will be significant and unavoidable. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4-66 4.6 Transportation This section of the EIR examines whether development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in increased vehicle trips to the degree that the level of service standard established by the City of Temecula for designated roads or highways will be exceeded. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will not result in increased hazards due to road design features, result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies or plans. The information presented in this section is summarized from the Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center (Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004) and the subsequent Temecula Medical Center Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum, September 16, 2005, included as Appendix D of this EIR. As described in Section 3, Project Description, construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. All five phases of the proposed project are included in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the EIR. The November 4, 2004 traffic study was supplemented by the Addendum to account for the following change to the project: prohibiting left-turn movements from the site onto De Portola Road (that is, limiting movements at this location to right-turn in and out and left-turn in only). Also, updated traffic counts were obtained at selected locations for focused analysis of the changed conditions, and the background future traffic growth was adjusted to account for cumulative projects and time that had passed since preparation of the November 4, 2004 study. The Addendum also addresses two alternative access scenarios as a Project Alternative; this issue is presented in Section 5, Alternatives to the Project of this EIR. The discussion in this section references Highway 79 South as the roadway fronting the project site. The traffic study uses the term State Route 79, or SR-79. Since completion of the original traffic study in November of 2004, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has transferred ownership of the roadway to the City of Temecula, hence the name change to Highway 79 South. Also, since publication of the original traffic study, Pala Road has been renamed Pechanga Parkway. Methodology Ten intersections and 10 roadway links were analyzed during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for existing conditions (base conditions in 2004 for the original traffic study and July, 2005 for the Addendum), pre-project conditions, and post-project conditions (future conditions with the project). The following intersections and roadway links were selected because they were considered most likely to be impacted by the project. The intersections and roadway segments indicated in italicized text below were addressed as part of the traffic study Addendum. Signalized Intersections ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-67 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Transportation ƒ Highway 79 South/Pala Road ƒ Highway 79 South/Avenida De Missiones ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South/Butterfield Stage Road ƒ Margarita Road/De Portola Road ƒ Dartolo Road/Margarita Road ƒ Highway 79 South/ Margarita Road Unsignalized Intersections ƒ De Portola Road/Project Driveway ƒ Highway 79 South/Country Glen Way Roadway Links ƒ Highway 79 South: West of I-15 Freeway ƒ Highway 79 South: West of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South: West of Margarita Road ƒ Highway 79 South: West of Butterfield Stage Road ƒ Highway 79 South: East of Butterfield Stage Road ƒ Pechanga Parkway: South of Highway 79 South ƒ Redhawk Parkway: South of Highway 79 South ƒ Butterfield Stage Road: North of Highway 79 South ƒ Butterfield Stage Road: South of Highway 79 South ƒ De Portola Road west of Pio Pico Road ƒ De Portola Road east of Pio Pico Road ƒ Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road from Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South The study area intersections and roadway links were analyzed in the following scenarios to determine the impacts to the road network: ƒ Existing traffic ƒ Background Traffic without Phase I Operations ƒ Background Traffic with Phase I Operations ƒ Background Traffic with Phase I with Improvements ƒ Background Traffic with Total Project Operations ƒ Background Traffic with Total Project with Improvements For the purpose of the original traffic study and to allow for a conservative (worst-case) assessment of traffic impacts, the first project phase was defined as 170 hospital beds and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. The second phase represents the entire project. For the Addendum, the project at build-out was analyzed. Measures of Operations and Effectiveness Utilized The measure of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The LOS analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-68 Transportation Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 4-16 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. Table 4-16 Level of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Level of Service (LOS) 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 21.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.0 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e., less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections were analyzed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak-hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and LOS was determined based upon the 2000 HCM. Table 4-17 summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-69 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Transportation Table 4-17 Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Level of Service (LOS) 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. The City of Temecula has established an intersection capacity performance standard of LOS D for peak-hour intersection operation impacts. Roadway Link Analysis Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout the project area are based upon the latest traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from the peak hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT Environmental Setting The project site is located in the City of Temecula on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Existing Street System The following describes the existing street system in the project area. Street classifications, where noted, are based on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. Figure 4-9 shows existing roadway conditions. Highway 79 South is classified as a 6-lane prime arterial in the project area immediately south of the project site. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79 South, and the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-70 Transportation La Paz Street is a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79 South. Pechanga Parkway is currently a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79 South, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79 South. De Portola Road is currently a 2-lane undivided roadway in the project area, providing one lane of travel per direction. The General Plan Circulation Element designates De Portola Road as a Modified Secondary Arterial. This classification consists of a 4-lane undivided roadway with a cross section of 70 feet within 88 feet of right-of-way, which allows for a trail alongside the roadway. Avenida de Missiones is a 4-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Avenida de Missiones is currently unsignalized at its intersection with Highway 79 South. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Avenida de Missiones is proposed to be signalized at Highway 79 South as part of the Rancho Community Church project. Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and is currently built to that configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a 4-lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway is signalized at Highway 79 South. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a 4-lane major roadway and currently exists in that configuration in the project area, with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79 South. Existing Traffic Conditions Table 4-18 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways and the corresponding level of service. ADT volumes on area roadways throughout the project area are based upon the traffic data collected by LLG Engineers at the key intersections and factored up from the peak-hour counts using the following formula for each intersection leg: PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) * 12 = ADT Existing peak hour manual intersection counts were conducted during the traditional weekday A.M. (7:00 – 9:00) and P.M. (4:00 – 6:00) peak hours on March 23, 2004. Supplementary counts were obtained in July of 2005 for the traffic study Addendum. Figures 4-10a and 4-10b show the A.M./P.M. peak-hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-72 Transportation Table 4-18 Existing (2004 and 2005) Daily Traffic Volumes Street Segment Year Volume (ADT) Highway 79 South West of I-15 freeway 2004 17,700 West of Pechanga Parkway 2004 57,300 West of Margarita Road 2004 38,700 West of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 20,400 East of Butterfield Stage Road 2004 15,200 Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 South 2004 34,000 De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 2005 6,600 East of Pio Pico Road 2005 7,000 Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 South 2004 18,000 Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 South 2004 12,400 South of Highway 79 South 2004 10,700 Margarita Road De Portola to Dartolo Road 2005 23,500 Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 2005 23,500 Note: ADTs estimated from the Approach/Exit volumes during the PM peak hour at the key intersections. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-73 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Transportation ENV TE IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-76 As Table 4-19 indicates, all study intersections currently operate at or above the City’s LOS D standard, except for the following: The current levels of service for study intersections and roadway segments were calculated based upon traffic counts and current intersection and roadway configurations. Table 4-19 summarizes the existing levels of service for the study intersections, and Table 4-20 indicates roadway service levels. (Also shown in the tables are LOS for future conditions at project build-out, which are discussed later in this section under the heading Environmental Impact.) Urbanized areas such as Riverside County are required under state law to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Riverside County CMP is updated every 2 years. The goals of the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion, to improve air quality, and to provide a coordination mechanism between land development and transportation improvement decisions. The CMP is administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). In 1997, RCTC significantly modified the original CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System (CMS) guidelines. This effort included development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System, in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. As a result, the submittal of Traffic Impact Assessments for development proposals to RCTC is no longer required. However, the City is required to maintain minimum LOS thresholds identified in the General Plan and continues to require traffic studies on development projects. Riverside County Congestion Management Program The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal, long-range planning document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, freight, and financing. The RTP is prepared every 3 years to address a 20-year projection of needs. Each agency responsible for building and managing transportation facilities, including the City of Temecula, has implementation responsibilities under the RTP. The RTP relies on local plans and policies governing circulation and transportation to identify the region’s future multi-modal transportation system. SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Related Regional Plans Current Levels of Service As Table 4-20 indicates, all study roadway segments intersections currently operate under the LOS D capacity. ƒ Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps (A.M. peak hour) ƒ Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps (A.M. and P.M. peak hours) ƒ Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way (A.M. and P.M. peak hours) Transportation CIT Y O F T E M E C U L A 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 4- 7 7 TE M E C U L A R E G I O N A L H O S P I T A L Ta b l e 4 - 1 9 In t e r s e c t i o n O p e r a t i o n s – E x i s ti n g C o n d i t i o n s a n d P h a s e I EX I S T I N G EX I S T I N G WI T H P H A S E I BA C K G R O U N D T RA F F I C WI T H O U T P H A S E I BA C K G R O U N D T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 4 IN T E R S E C T I O N S CO N T R O L TY P E PE A K HO U R DE L A Y 1 L O S 2 DE L A Y L O S D E L A Y L O S D E L A Y L O S D E L A Y L O S Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I - 1 5 So u t h b o u n d R a m p s AM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 4 2 . 4 D SI G N A L PM 4 8 . 6 D 5 2 . 1 D > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 4 9 . 4 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I - 1 5 No r t h b o u n d R a m p s AM 8 6 . 0 F 9 0 . 1 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 2 0 . 5 C SI G N A L PM 9 5 . 9 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 3 0 . 3 C Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / L a P a z St r e e t AM 1 6 . 8 B 1 6 . 8 B 2 6 . 5 C 2 6 . 8 C 2 6 . 9 C SI G N A L PM 2 2 . 4 C 2 2 . 5 C 7 5 . 8 E 7 6 . 0 E 4 5 . 8 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y AM 1 4 . 6 B 1 4 . 9 B 4 0 . 6 D 4 1 . 4 D 2 8 . 2 C SI G N A L PM 4 4 . 5 D 4 7 . 6 D > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 1 . 8 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / A v e n i d a De M i s s i o n e s AM 3 . 4 A 3 . 6 A 3 . 8 A 3 . 9 A 3 . 9 A SI G N A L 3 PM 2 . 4 A 2 . 6 A 4 . 3 A 4 . 5 A 4 . 5 A Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P r o j e c t Dr i v e w a y / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y AM > 1 0 0 6 F 6 8 . 8 B > 1 0 0 . 0 F 1 0 . 2 B 1 0 . 2 B OW S C 7 PM > 1 0 0 6 F 6 1 3 . 2 B > 1 0 0 . 0 F 1 7 . 2 B 1 7 . 2 B Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P r o j e c t Dr i v e w a y AM D N E D N E 1 2 . 2 B D N E D N E 1 2 . 5 B N / A N / A TW S C PM D N E D N E 1 6 . 3 C D N E D N E 1 6 . 9 C N / A N / A Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / R e d h a w k Pa r k w a y / M a r g a r i t a R o a d AM 4 2 . 7 6 D 6 44 . 0 D 5 2 . 4 D 6 3 . 8 E 4 6 . 2 D SI G N A L PM 5 2 . 5 6 D 6 5 4 . 6 D > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 4 . 9 D Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A TE M E C U L A R E G I O N A L H O S P I T A L 4- 7 8 EX I S T I N G EX I S T I N G WI T H P H A S E I BA C K G R O U N D T RA F F I C WI T H O U T P H A S E I BA C K G R O U N D T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH PHASE I WITH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 4 Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / B u t t e r f i e l d St a g e R o a d AM 1 7 . 2 B 1 7 . 3 B 5 0 . 2 D 5 4 . 5 D 3 9 . 9 D SI G N A L PM 3 4 . 3 C 3 6 . 4 D 3 5 . 8 D 3 9 . 1 D 3 8 . 4 D Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / D e P o r t o l a Ro a d AM 2 3 . 2 6 C 6 22 . 9 C 2 4 . 1 C 2 5 . 3 C N / A N / A SI G N A L PM 2 6 . 8 6 C 6 29 . 7 C 2 9 . 3 C 3 0 . 1 C N / A N / A De P o r t o l a R o a d / P r o j e c t Dr i v e w a y OW S C 8 A M D N E D N E 1 2 . 2 B DN E D N E 1 2 . 5 B 12.5 B P M D N E D N E 1 6 . 3 C DN E D N E 1 6 . 9 C 16.9 C Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / D a r t o l o Ro a d 6 SI G N A L A M 1 8 . 0 B No t an a l y z e d No t an a l y z e d 20 . 0 B 1 7 . 9 B 1 7 . 9 B P M 1 2 . 6 B No t an a l y z e d No t an a l y z e d 13 . 3 B 1 2 . 6 B 1 2 . 6 B NO T E S : 1. A v e r a g e d e l a y e x p r e s s e d i n s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e . 2. D N E - D o e s n o t e x i s t . 3. A s s u m e d t o b e s i g n a l i z e d s i n c e i t i s a co n d i t i o n o f t h e R a n c h o C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h P r o j e c t 4. I n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e s h o w n o n F i g u r e 1 2 o f t r a f f i c s t u d y i n A p p e n d i x D a n d a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e r e c o m m e n d e d i n t h e " AP I S P L A Z A " Traffic Study (R K E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p , D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 ) . 5. T W S C – T w o - W a y S t o p C o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n . M a j o r s t r e e t l e f t - t u r n i n d e l a y i s r e p o r t e d . 6. A n a l y s i s f r o m T r a f f i c I m p a c t A n al y s i s A d d e n d u m ( A p p e n d i x D o f E I R ) 7. O S W C – O n e - W a y S t o p C o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n . M i n o r s t r e e t l e f t t u r n d e l a y i s r e p o r t e d . 8. O S W C – O n e - W a y S t o p C o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n . M a j o r s t r e e t l e f t t u r n d e l a y i s r e p o r t e d . N/ A - N o t a p p l i c a b l e s i n c e n o s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t i s c a l c u l a t e d . Ph a s e I i m p a c t s f o r M a r g a r i t a R o a d / D a r t o l o R o a d i n t e r s e c ti o n w e r e n o t a n a l y z e d w i t h i n t h e T r a f f i c S t u d y A d d e n d u m . Transportation CI TY O F T E M E CU L A EN V I R O N ME N T A L I M PA CT RE PO RT 4- 79 TE ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L Ta b l e 4 -20 Ex i s ti n g Co n d i t i o n s a n d P h as e I R o a d w a y L i n k An a l y s i s EX I S T I N G BA C K GR O U N D T R A F F I C WI T H O U T P H A S E I BAC K GROUN D TRAFFIC WITH PHASE I RO A D W A Y L I N K Ri v e r s i d e C o u n ty Ma xi m u m Tw o - W a y V o l u m e LO S " D " Te m e c u l a Ma x i m u m Tw o - W a y V o l u m e LO S " D " V O L U M E T H R E S H O L D V O L U M E T H R E S H O L D V O L U M E T H R E S H O L D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o ut h We s t o f I - 1 5 F w y 30 , 7 0 0 17 , 7 0 0 UN D E R 28 , 1 5 2 UN D E R 28,356 UNDER We s t o f P e c h a n ga P a r k w a y 73 , 8 0 0 57 , 3 0 0 UN D E R 94 , 7 0 4 OV E R 98,064 OVER We s t o f M a r g a r it a R o a d 55 , 2 0 0 38 , 7 0 0 UN D E R 66 , 9 6 0 OV E R 69,816 OVER We s t o f B u tt er f i el d S t a g e Ro a d 5 5 ,2 0 0 2 0 ,4 0 0 U N D E R 3 5 ,3 7 6 U N D E R 3 7 ,1 1 6 U N D E R Ea s t o f Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d 55 , 2 0 0 15 , 2 0 0 UN D E R 23 , 7 2 4 UN D E R 24,108 UNDER Pe c h a n g a P a r k wa y So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 66 , 6 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 UN D E R 53 , 3 2 8 UN D E R 54,084 UNDER Re d h a w k P a rk wa y So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 30 , 7 0 0 18 , 0 0 0 UN D E R 27 , 3 4 8 UN D E R 28,320 UNDER B u t t e rf i e ld S t ag e R o a d No r t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 43 , 2 0 0 12 , 4 0 0 UN D E R 18 , 9 8 4 UN D E R 19,584 UNDER So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 30 , 7 0 0 10 , 7 0 0 UN D E R 20 , 5 0 8 UN D E R 21,264 UNDER No t e : I n f o r m a t i o n f o r D e P o r t o a l R o a d a n d Ma r g a r i t a R o a d i s pr e s e n t e d i n su b s e q u e n t Ta b l e 4 -2 4 b . Transportation Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact The Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and the Riverside County CMP recognize LOS D as the minimum acceptable standard at signalized intersections. Caltrans typically uses the performance standard of LOS E for freeway ramps. Thus, operation of the proposed project will have a significant impact on the roadway network if it: ƒ Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F (peak-hour ICU greater than 0.90), or ƒ Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F (peak-hour V/C greater than 1.00). Environmental Impact The analysis presented in this subsection proceeds as follows: Site Access Describes access assumptions in all scenario analysis Phase I Trip Generation Details trip generation assumptions for Phase I traffic analysis Trip Distribution and Assignment Describes how trips are put onto the local road network Future Traffic from Cumulative Projects and Regional Growth Defines future background conditions absent the project Background Traffic without Project Phase I Identifies future LOS without Project Phase I traffic Project Phase I with Background Traffic and No Improvements Identifies future LOS with Phase I traffic, assuming no improvements The tables used and referenced throughout this section to summarize these scenarios also include right-hand columns that show LOS conditions with improvements. These scenarios are discussed below in the Mitigation Measures section. Site Access Primary access to the site will be from 2 proposed driveways on Highway 79 South. The western Highway 79 South driveway, to be located directly opposite Country Glen Way, is proposed to be signalized, and the east driveway will function as a right-turn in/right-turn out driveway. Secondary access will be via a single driveway to De Portola Road, with turning movement restrictions as described above. Reciprocal access to the property to the west is also proposed. Phase I Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were calculated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates (7th Ed.) for the medical office buildings and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (April 2002) for the hospital portion of the project. The SANDAG rate for hospitals was used instead of the ITE rate (about 12 ADT per bed) in order to provide a more conservative analysis. Table 4-21 shows the trip generation rates used. Based on these rates, Phase I of the project is estimated to generate a total of 6,290 ADT, with 350 inbound/124 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 214 inbound/415 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-80 Transportation outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. Trip generation associated with the project at build-out is discussed in the section titled Project at Build-out below. Table 4-21 Phase I Trip Generation Daily Trip Ends AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Volume Volume Land Use Size Rate ADT % of ADT In/Out Split In Out % of ADT In/Out Split In Out Hospital 170 Beds 20.0/Beda 3,400 8% 70:30 190 82 10% 40:60 136 204 Medical Office 80,000 sf 36.13/ksfb 2,890 7% 79:21 160 42 10% 27:73 78 211 Totals - 6,290 - - 350 124 - - 214 415 a. Source: SANDAG ‘Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates’, April 2002. b. ITE Trip Generation Rates (7th Ed.). Trip Distribution and Assignment The project Phase I traffic was distributed to the street system based on project access, the characteristics of the roadway system, the proximity to I-15, the locations of surrounding residential communities, the location of other hospitals, and existing traffic counts along Highway 79 South. Other factors considered in determining trip assignment were the location of the medical office buildings and parking space placement. Figures 4-11a and 4-11b present the estimated project traffic distribution in the site environs. As shown in Figure 4-11b, the majority of project trips, 70%, were assigned to the Highway 79 South driveways, with 28% assigned to the De Portola Road driveway and the remaining 2% assigned to the reciprocal access to the west and Country Glen Way. Future Traffic from Cumulative Projects and Regional Growth To assess opening year and build-out traffic conditions, two approaches were used. In the November, 2004 traffic study, a 4% growth factor was added to existing traffic volumes, and then a 17 cumulative projects were added. At the critical I-15/Highway 79 South intersection, background traffic assumptions, per the direction of City staff, were obtained from the Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis (RK Engineering, December, 2002). These assumptions are detailed in the traffic study contained in Appendix D of this EIR. Figure 4-12a shows the background traffic volumes without the project. In the traffic study Addendum dated September, 2005 which focuses on De Portola Road and the driveway access to this roadway, a similar approach was utilized. Figure 4-12b shows these existing plus general growth traffic volumes. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-81 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Transportation Background Traffic without Project Phase I Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes absent the proposed project and absent any improvements. Table 4-19 indicates that the majority of the study intersections will operate at LOS E or F with the addition of cumulative traffic from surrounding developments and ambient growth. Specifically, the following intersections will experience deficient operating conditions, per the City’s criteria, absent project traffic: ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – P.M. peak Roadway Links Previous Table 4-20 shows that the majority of the roadway links in the project area will continue to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the following two roadway links: ƒ Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road Background traffic volumes for Phase I absent the project were not calculated for Margarita Road between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South. Project Phase I with Background Traffic and No Improvements Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes future intersection operations based on projected traffic volumes with Phase I project traffic added to cumulative background traffic. In addition to the intersections cited immediately above that are expected to experience LOS E and F conditions absent the project, project traffic will cause the following additional intersection location to decline to LOS E or F: ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road – A.M. peak Absent mitigation, this impact is significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Also, Phase I project traffic will contribute to future deficient operating conditions at: ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-86 Transportation ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – P.M. peak Roadway Links Previous Table 4-20 shows that the addition of the majority of Phase I project traffic to background traffic will not result in any additional roadway segments operating over capacity. Phase I project traffic will contribute to cumulative impacts along the two roadway segments identified above: ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Cumulative Phase I traffic impacts on these two roadway segments are significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Phase I roadway link impacts were not calculated for Margarita Road between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South. Project at Build-out Trip Generation Summary Trip generation estimates for the project at build-out used the same assumptions described above for Phase I. Table 4-22 shows that at build-out, the project is expected to generate a total of 11,458 ADT, with 637 inbound/228 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour and 334 inbound/595 outbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. Table 4-22 Project at Build-out Trip Generation Daily Trip Ends AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Volume Volume Land Use Size Rate ADT % of ADT In/Out Split In Out % of ADT In/Out Split In Out Hospital 320 Beds 20.0/Beda 6,400 8% 70:30 358 154 10% 40:60 256 384 Medical Office 140,000 sf 36.13/ksfb 5,058 7% 79:21 279 74 10% 27:73 78 211 Totals - 11,458 - - 637 228 - - 334 595 a. Source: SANDAG ‘Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates’, April 2002. b. ITE Trip Generation Rates (7th Ed.). CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-87 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Transportation ENV TE IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA MECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-88 Impact will be significant at these roadway links. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Trip Distribution/Assignment Total project traffic was distributed and assigned to the street system based on the same distribution (see Figures 4-11a and 4-11b) and access assumptions as the Project Phase I traffic. Project at Build-out Conditions Table 4-23 shows that at build-out, project traffic, combined with cumulative background traffic, will result in the majority of the study intersections operating at LOS E or F. Traffic associated with long- term operation of the Temecula Regional Hospital will create new deficiencies at the following 7 locations: ƒ Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – LOS E at P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – LOS F at P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Margarita Road/Highway 79 South – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road – LOS E at A.M. and LOS F at P.M. peak hour Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. Roadway Analysis Tables 4-24a and 4-24b present information regarding roadway segment impacts in the project study area at build-out. Both tables are included because two approaches were used describe the impacts. Table 4-24a is from the November 4, 2004 Traffic Impact Study and uses an over/under threshold approach to describe the level of impact, while Table 4-24b from the Traffic Impact Study Addendum shows the resultant LOS for the project at build-out. Table 4-24a shows that except for the 2 roadway segments identified below, all roadway links in the project study area will operate at LOS D or better with the addition of project traffic: ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Table 4-24b shows that the 2 roadway segments identified below will operate at LOS E or F upon build-out of the proposed project: ƒ Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Transportation EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A TE M E C U L A R E G I O N A L H O S P I T A L 4- 8 9 Ta b l e 4 - 2 3 Pr o j e c t a t B u i l d - o u t I n t e r s e c t i o n O p e r a t i o n s BA C K G R O U N D TR A F F I C WI T H O U T T O T A L PR O J E C T BA C K G R O U N D T RA F F I C WI T H T O T A L P R O J E C T BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6 IN T E R S E C T I O N S CO N T R O L TY P E PE A K HO U R DE L A Y L O S D E L A Y L O S D E L A Y L O S Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I - 1 5 S o u t h b o u n d R a m p s A M > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 1 . 6 D SI G N A L PM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 3 . 6 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / I - 1 5 N o r t h b o u n d R a m p s A M > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 3 7 . 8 D SI G N A L PM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 3 6 . 9 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / L a P a z S t r e et A M 2 6 . 8 C 2 7 . 5 C 2 6 . 7 C SI G N A L PM 7 6 . 0 E 7 4 . 5 E 4 6 . 3 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P e c h a n g a P a r k wa y A M 4 1 . 4 D 4 0 . 9 D 2 8 . 8 C SI G N A L PM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 4 . 8 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / A v e n i d a D e M i s s i o n e s A M 3 . 8 A 4 . 3 A 4 . 3 A SI G N A L 3 PM 4 . 3 A 6 . 0 A 6 . 0 A Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / P r o j e c t D r i v e w a y / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y 7 AM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 2 9 . 8 C OS W C 5 PM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 4 8 . 7 D De P o r t o l a R o a d / P r o j e c t D r i v e w a y A M D N E D N E 1 4 . 1 B 1 4 . 1 B OW S C 5 PM D N E D N E 2 1 . 5 C 2 1 . 5 C Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / R e d h a w k P a r k w a y / M a r g a r i t a R o a d S I G N A L A M 6 3 . 8 E 6 4 . 0 E 4 6 . 6 D Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T C I T Y O F T E M E C U L A TE M E C U L A R E G I O N A L H O S P I T A L 4- 9 0 BA C K G R O U N D TR A F F I C WI T H O U T T O T A L PR O J E C T BA C K G R O U N D T RA F F I C WI T H T O T A L P R O J E C T BACKGROUND T RAFFIC WITH TOTAL PROJECT WTH INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6 PM > 1 0 0 . 0 F > 1 0 0 . 0 F 5 4 . 7 D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h / B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d A M 5 0 . 2 D 5 4 . 3 D 4 0 . 8 D SI G N A L PM 3 5 . 8 D 4 0 . 0 D 4 0 . 1 D Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / D e P o r t o l a R o a d 7 AM 2 3 . 7 C 2 5 . 0 C 2 3 . 2 C SI G N A L PM 4 3 . 6 D 4 5 . 3 D 1 3 . 5 B De P o r t o l a R o a d / P r o j e c t D r i v e w a y 7 OW S C 5 A M D N E D N E 9. 7 A 9 . 7 A P M DN E DN E 13 . 8 B 1 3 . 8 B Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / D a r t o l o R o a d 7 SI G N A L A M 20 . 0 B 2 3 . 2 C 2 3 . 2 C P M 13 . 3 B 1 3 . 5 B 1 3 . 5 B Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 7 SI G N A L A M >1 0 0 F > 1 0 0 F 5 3 . 8 D P M >1 0 0 F > 1 0 0 F 5 4 . 5 D NO T E S : 1. A v e r a g e d e l a y e x p r e s s e d i n s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e . 2. D N E - D o e s n o t e x i s t . 3. A s s u m e d t o b e s i g n a l i z e d s i n c e i t i s a c o nd i t i o n o f t h e R a n c h o C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h P r o j e c t . 4. T W S C – T w o - w a y s t o p c o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n . 5. O W S C – O n e - w a y s t o p c o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n . 6. I n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e s h o w n o n F i g u r e 1 2 i n t h e t r af f i c s t u d y ( A p p e n d i x D ) a n d a r e co n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e r e c o m m e n d e d i n t h e " APIS PLAZA " Traffic Study (R K E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p , D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 ) . 7. A n a l y s i s f r o m T r a f f i c I m p a c t A n al y s i s A d d e n d u m ( A p p e n d i x D o f E I R ) Transportation EN V I R O N ME N T A L I M PA CT RE PO RT CI TY O F T E M E CU L A ME CU L A R E GI O N A L HO S P I T A L 4- 91 Ta b l e 4 -24 a Pr o j e c t a t B u i l d - o u t R o a d w a y An a l ys i s (O r i g i n a l T r a f f i c St u d y ) BA C K G R O U N D T R A F F I C WI T H T O T A L P R O J E C T RO A D WA Y L I N K Ri v e r s id e C o u n ty Ma x i m u m Tw o - W a y V o l u me LO S D T em e c u l a M a x i m u m Tw o - W a y V o l u me LO S D V O L U M E T H R E S H O L D Hi g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h W e st o f I - 1 5 F r e e w a y 30 , 7 0 0 28 , 5 7 2 UN D E R W e st o f P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y 73 , 8 0 0 97 , 4 5 2 OVE R W e st o f M a r g a r i t a R o a d 5 5 ,2 0 0 7 2 ,1 8 0 OVE R W e st o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d 55 , 2 0 0 38 , 5 4 4 UN D E R Ea s t of B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d 55 , 2 0 0 24 , 4 3 2 UN D E R Pe c h a n g a P a r k wa y So u t h of H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 66 , 6 0 0 54 , 7 0 8 UN D E R Re d h a w k P a r k wa y So u t h of H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 30 , 7 0 0 29 , 1 3 6 UN D E R Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d No r t h of H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 4 3 ,2 0 0 2 0 ,1 0 0 U N D E R So u t h of H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h 30 , 7 0 0 21 , 8 7 6 UN D E R TE Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-92 Summary of Traffic Impacts The project will result in the following significant traffic impacts requiring mitigation: Phase I Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – both peak hours Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road Table 4-24b Project at Build-out Roadway Analysis (Traffic Study Addendum) Existing Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E) a ADTb LOSc ADT LOS ADT LOS De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 6,600 C 7,500 C 9,220 D East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 7,000 C 7,900 C 9,620 D Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 23,500 B 31,500 D 33,400 E Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 33,500 E NOTES: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service. Transportation CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-93 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Project at Build-out Intersections operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 southbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/Interstate 15 northbound ramps – both peak hours ƒ Highway 79 South/La Paz Street – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway – P.M. peak ƒ Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Margarita Road/Highway 79 South – LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ƒ Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita – both peak hours Roadway links operating at LOS E or F due to project-related or cumulative impacts: ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South: west of Margarita Road ƒ Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Mitigation Measures To mitigate the proposed project’s portion of the cumulative impacts at intersection locations and along roadway segments where impacts are expected to be significant, the project applicant will be required to contribute a fair share toward planned future improvements at these locations. The Traffic Study in Appendix D details the project’s share of total peak-hour traffic for both Phase I and build-out. The City has identified roadway improvements needed to meet LOS standards at the study area intersections due to the addition of both project and background traffic. The project applicant/permittee will be required to contribute fair-share payments for the following improvements: T-1. Signalize the main project site access from Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way with the following configuration: Westbound: 1 right-turn lane 3 t h r o u g h l a n e s 1 left-turn lane Eastbound: 2 left-turn lanes 2 t h r o u g h l a n e s 1 shared through/right lane Northbound: 1 left-turn lane 1 shared through/right lane Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-94 Southbound: 2 left-turn lanes 1 shared through/right lane (20 feet wide) T-2. The project applicant/permittee will pay Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) to mitigate cumulative impacts to the Highway 79 South intersection at I-15. T-3. The project applicant/permittee will contribute a fair share toward the provision of the following roadway improvements to address the project’s contribution toward cumulative impacts: Intersection Required Improvements Highway 79 South/I-15 Southbound Ramps Additional southbound left-turn lane Highway 79 South/I-15 Northbound Ramps Additional eastbound through lane, plus convert westbound right lane to free right turn Highway 79 South/La Paz Road Widen southbound movement to dual left turn lanes and one shared through/right lane Highway 79 South/Pechanga Parkway Additional northbound left-turn lane, plus eastbound and northbound free right-turn lanes Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way Signalize and provide dual eastbound left-turn lanes and dual southbound left-turn lanes with a shared through/right-turn lane. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane for westbound approach. Highway 79 South/Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road Provide southbound and eastbound dual left and right-turn traffic signal overlaps. T-4. Improvements on the project site shall include a driveway onto De Portola Road developed to the specifications of the Public Works Director. Level of Impact after Mitigation Phase I with Improvements For Phase I development, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed with lane configuration improvements outlined above. Intersections Previous Table 4-19 summarizes Phase I traffic conditions with improvements at the key intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, Phase I intersection impacts will be less than significant. Transportation CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4-95 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Roadway Links Previous Table 4-20 shows that with the exception of the following roadway links, all links will continue to operate under capacity: ƒ Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road Cumulative roadway link Phase I impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Project Build-out with Improvements For the project at build-out, the key study area intersections and roadway links were reanalyzed with lane configuration improvements outlined above. Intersections Previous Table 4-23 summarizes project build-out traffic conditions with improvements at the key intersections in the project area. With the improvements, all key intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. With mitigation, project build-out intersection impacts will be less than significant. Roadway Links Previous Tables 4-24a and 4-24b show that with the exception of the following roadway links, all links will continue to operate at LOS D or better: ƒ Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road ƒ Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative roadway link impacts at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 4-96 This page is left intentionally blank. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5.0 Alternatives to the Project The following discussion considers alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, “governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[f]). The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following: ƒ Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts ƒ Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights ƒ Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The following project alternatives are examined: Alternative 1: No Project – No Build Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only The degree of specificity used in the alternatives analysis parallels the approach used for the project, which is project level. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(d) states, “The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project … If an alternative would cause one or more significant environmental effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the proposed project (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles [1981] 124 Cal.App.3d I).” This section also explores variations of the proposed project considered during preparation of the EIR but rejected as potential alternatives. Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-2 Project Objectives Development of the project is proposed to achieve the following project objectives, as outlined in Section 3, Project Description of this EIR: City Objectives: The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: ƒ Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services ƒ Support development of biomedical, research and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base ƒ 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 ƒ Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula ƒ Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses ƒ Facilitate construction of a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that provides economic benefits to the City Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: ƒ Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities ƒ Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices ƒ 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 ƒ Provide medical offices adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures Alternative Considered but Rejected During the course of EIR preparation and project review, the City considered an alternative that involved reduced building heights of the hospital bed towers. This building height alternative was considered because it would meet the existing General Plan height requirement and eliminate the need to process a General Plan Amendment for the proposed height increase of the proposed project. In response to this consideration, the project architect provided a letter (contained in Appendix F of this EIR) describing functional reasons for the proposed tower heights. According to Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL the project architect, the hospital bed towers respond to several functional needs of the hospital that are required per the State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the California Building Code, Chapter 4A, Division III: ƒ To establish primary relationships between Emergency Departments and Imaging, Emergency Department and Surgery, and all three departments and patient rooms ƒ To respond to a required “vertical flow” for in-patient care and services ƒ To respond to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development requirements for relationships between nurse stations and patient rooms ƒ To allow for optimum patient transfer efficiencies ƒ To provide efficiencies in mechanical and electrical systems ƒ To anticipate future medical service needs in the area and build for them now, rather than later The City rejected the alternative of lower hospital towers from further consideration in light of project objectives and the applicant’s need to achieve functional and operational efficiencies in project design. Alternative 1: No Project – No Build CEQA requires evaluation of a no project alternative, which means “…the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be 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.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 [e][2]). The existing conditions on the project site are described in Section 3.0 (Project Description). The No Project Alternative assumes that site conditions would remain the same as existing conditions and no development would occur in the near future. Potential impacts associated with Alternative 1, No Project – No Build are described below. Alternative 1 would have no impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since the site would remain vacant. Aesthetics The No Project Alternative would maintain the undeveloped, open character of the site. There would be no change in views of the project site from residential locations, and no new sources of light would be added to the area. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse aesthetic impacts. Air Quality No significant air quality impacts associated with vehicle emissions and electric power and natural gas use would be generated on the project site since vacant land does not generate vehicle trips and does not result in use of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse air quality impacts. Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-4 Hydrology and Water Quality Alternative 1 would not result in development, increased impervious surfaces, or any modification to the site. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse impacts regarding hydrology and water quality. Noise Alternative 1 would not result in any construction on the project site, additional traffic on local roads, or changes in land uses on the site. No helipad would be constructed. Therefore, this alternative would not result in adverse short-term or long-term noise impacts. Transportation Alternative 1 would not generate any additional vehicle travel to or from the site and would not alter existing circulation patterns. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in adverse traffic and circulation impacts. Conclusion This alternative would avoid the significant air quality impacts associated with the project and would not generate any additional traffic. No new noise sources would be created. Overall impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be less than those resulting from the proposed project. While this alternative has fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, it meets none of the project objectives identified by the applicant and the City. Alternative 2: No Project - Development Pursuant to Current General Plan The No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan assumes that the project site ultimately would be developed pursuant to current General Plan land use policies, goals and policies, and zoning criteria. The site would be developed pursuant to the standards of the Professional Office (PO) General Plan designation and the applicable zoning of PO and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). This development scenario could yield approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development, based on current zoning regulations and an assumed floor-area ratio of 0.5. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project with a maximum height of 50 feet, and the analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Aesthetics As with the project, Alternative 2 could result in development on the entire project site. The maximum height limit of 50 feet would reduce the overall scale of development. There would be no need to amend the General Plan to accommodate increased building height. Lower buildings would conform to surrounding development patterns. This alternative would result in a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site and surrounding uses. Future development would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to streetlights, automobile headlights, and security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and to minimize impact on surrounding uses. The City has adopted Riverside County’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These policies and ordinance would be implemented on the project level and would be required for Alternative 2. Thus, this alternative would have aesthetic impacts similar to those of the proposed project. Air Quality Alternative 2 will not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts associated with the project. This alternative, as described below under Transportation, could potentially generate more than 50% more vehicle trips than the proposed hospital project. An increase in vehicle trips would cause a correspondingly increased air quality impact by increasing criteria pollutants in the proposed project area. Like the project, this increased volume would generate levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds. Impact would be significant. With this alternative, due to the scope of construction, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from construction vehicle exhaust would be expected to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; this would represent an unavoidable, significant construction-related air quality impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in increased urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under Alternative 2, construction of commercial and office uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RQWCB), which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Furthermore, all new commercial and office development projects encompassing 100,000 square feet or more of floor area would be subject to the Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Noise New development would generate additional traffic that would increase noise levels along the roadway network. As described below under Transportation, Alternative 2 could potentially generate more than 50% more trips than the proposed hospital project. Since decibels are logarithmic units, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic would potentially increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Therefore, these added trips would increase roadway traffic noise. Also, depending upon site design characteristics and the type of commercial and professional office land uses developed, additional on-site noise sources could result. Thus, Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-6 Alternative 2 could have potentially greater roadway and on-site noise impacts than the proposed project. Because Alternative 2 would not include a helipad, the potentially significant noise impact associated with this noise source would be avoided. Land Use and Planning Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed consistent with existing General Plan land use policy and zoning for the site. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation would continue to apply to the project site. The Professional Office designation allows primarily single- or multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Office developments are intended to include low-rise offices situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at appropriate locations. Surrounding uses include commercial and professional office development to the east and west (some currently under construction), and residential development across De Portola Road and Highway 79 South. Compatibility with surrounding uses would be achieved, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to land use and planning because no General Plan Amendment or Zone Change would be required. Transportation Assuming that under Alternative 2, approximately 769,000 square feet of commercial and office development would occur on the site, and assuming an average weekday trip generation rate of 42.92 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of development (ITE Trip Generation use code 820), Alternative 2 could generate up to approximately 33,000 daily trips, compared to 11,458 associated with the proposed hospital development. This represents a substantially greater number of vehicle trips that could potentially create a reduction in service levels at key intersections. Given the magnitude of difference in trip generation between Alternative 2 and the project, impacts of Alternative 2 are considered greater than those associated with the project. Conclusion Impacts of Alternative 2, No Project Alternative – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan could result in potentially greater air quality and traffic impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations would be avoided. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the proposed hospital project. This alternative would not attain the City’s objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the applicant’s objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3: Alternate Site – Corona Family Properties Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site. Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-7 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. Alternative sites include vacant sites of approximately 35 acres in the surrounding area, similar to the project site. The feasible alternative site considered for this project includes land now owned by Corona Family LTD Partnership located at the northeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 South, as shown in Figure 5-1. The site is comprised of three adjacent parcels totaling approximately 39.5 acres (APN 952150003, 9.61 acres; APN 952150001, 9.56 acres; and APN 952150002, 20.34 acres). The two smaller parcels are designated within the General Plan as Community Commercial and are zoned for Community Commercial use. The larger, 20+ acre parcel is not located within the City limits, but rather adjacent to the City within the County of Riverside. The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. All properties would need to be under the applicant’s control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Aesthetics This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of single-family subdivisions, with the County parcel developed as a corn maze in the agricultural zone. There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South across from this alternate site, on properties within the jurisdiction of Riverside County. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of 5 and 6 stories. Given the low-intensity development on surrounding properties in the City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments. The development could be considered intrusive at this location. Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655). Neither Highway 79 South nor any other roadway in the project vicinity is designated a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any State agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. However, given the visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could be considered to have aesthetic impacts. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-9 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Agricultural Resources The project site is within the City of Temecula General Plan planning area and is designated Vineyards/Agricultural, with County zoning of A-1-20. The parcels are identified in the City’s General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Development of this site would convert land designated and zoned as farmland and parcels identified as Farmland of Local Importance to a non- agricultural use. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality The proposed project will result in NOx, CO, and ROG emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds. Alternative 3 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would remain at 224 lbs/day, and NOx emissions would remain at 216 lbs/day (due largely to the application of architectural coatings). Construction vehicle exhaust would continue to exceed the SCAQMD emissions threshold; like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 3 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 lbs/day and a total of 1,144 lbs/day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. Biological Resources Any development planned at this alternate site would require a biological assessment for the purposes of providing a preliminary evaluation of the overall biological constraints on the site. As required by the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), a Burrowing Owl survey would be necessary to verify the presence/absence of Burrowing Owls and to determine if mitigation is required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. Until a biological assessment and focused surveys of the alternative site are completed for Burrowing Owls and other species, the impact of this alternative cannot be compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 3 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. Under Alternative 3, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines BMPs in the MS4 permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Under this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application would be required for the 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-10 to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the 20+ acre parcel (APN 952150002) for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change, as well as annexation to the City of Temecula, which would require Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval. This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of single-family subdivisions. There is some commercial development south of Highway 79 South across from this alternate site in the County and other agricultural parcels to the east of the site. As described above in Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given the urban/rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low-scale nature of surrounding residential development. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 3 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods, as seen on the aerial photographs, than the flight paths associated with the project. Therefore, this alternative would have a greater noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the preponderance of single-family homes in the surrounding area. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially greater than those associated with the project. Transportation Under Alternative 3, project trip generation would be the same as that associated with the proposed project, with 11,458 estimated average daily trips. The level of impact at specific intersections cannot be ascertained without a detailed traffic study. Given the location adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road, some trips could be expected to be diverted north along this route to other I-15 access points, perhaps reducing project trips on Highway 79 South. The applicant would be required to reduce impacts to the City LOS D standard at impacted intersections. Thus, traffic impacts could be considered comparable to those associated with the project. Conclusion Alternative 3 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic, agricultural resource, and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Also, Alternative 3 would require annexing a portion of the site into the City of Temecula. Noise impacts of this alternative could be greater due to slightly longer helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the eastern boundary of the City, which may require a flight path over more residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts are uncertain, as site-specific surveys would need to be performed to determine impacts. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-11 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road This alternative was conceived as a means of providing a secondary access from the east of the project site via Dartolo Road in lieu of the proposed driveway connection to De Portola Road. Alternative 4 would require the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. For Alternative 4, no access to De Portola Road would be provided, and those vehicles oriented to/from De Portola Road under the proposed project have instead been assumed to utilize Dartolo Road as an access point. As with the proposed project, the access points along Highway 79 South were assigned the majority of the project trips (63 percent), with a slightly lesser percentage of trips to Dartolo Road (33 percent) and the remaining (4 percent) project traffic assigned through the reciprocal access to the adjacent development to the west and to Country Glen Way. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so. This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D. Transportation Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 4. This analysis is based on the City’s goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-1 shows that during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, LOS D or better could be achieved at the key intersections affected by site access configuration. Table 5-2 shows that segments of De Portola Road surrounding the site will also achieve LOS D or better on a daily peak-hour basis, assuming the ultimate configuration of De Portola road as a 4-lane Modified Secondary Arterial, as provided for in the General Plan. The Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E on a daily basis with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. Providing access via Dartolo Road as opposed to De Portola Road would result in about 550 fewer average daily trips (ADT) on De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access alternative adds a maximum project ADT of 1,150 to De Portola Road, while the De Portola Road access restriction adds approximately 1,700 ADT to De Portola Road. The Dartolo Road access alternative scenario would not add traffic to Pio Pico Road. The opening of Dartolo Road as a through access from the project site to Margarita Road would degrade operations at the Dartolo/Margarita intersection, which currently experiences southbound and northbound traffic queues on Margarita Road of more than 300 feet. These queues commence at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and extend north past the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road signalized intersection, adding delay to both intersections. The spacing between these 2 intersections is approximately 300 feet, and 90-foot left-turn pockets are provided on Margarita Road. The minimum desired spacing between signalized intersections on a road such as Margarita Road is approximately 600 feet. Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-12 Table 5-1 Intersection Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative Existing Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS AM 23.2 C 23.7 C 25.1 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 26.8 C 43.6 D 45.1 D Margarita Road/Project Driveway OWSCd AM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A PM DNE N/A DNE N/A DNE N/A AM 18.0 B 20.0 B 26.1 C Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 B 13.3 B 25.3 C AM 42.7 D > 100.0 F 53.8 Dc Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL PM 52.5 D > 100.0 F 54.8 Dc AM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 27.4 Cc Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way OWSC PM > 100.0 F > 100.0 F 51.6 Dc Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. LOS with planned mitigation. d. OWSC – One Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major left-turn delay is reported. DNE – Intersection does not exist Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-13 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Dartolo Road is located too close (only about 300 feet) to Highway 79 South at its signalized intersection with Margarita Road. Under current conditions, queues on Margarita Road extend past Dartolo Road. Adding traffic to this intersection would create longer queues that would negatively impact operation of the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving the intersection, which would result in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection, thus forming long queues. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. In addition, there would be only a small positive benefit (550 fewer ADT) to De Portola Road if direct site access is not provided via De Portola Road. De Portola Road can accommodate the additional project generated traffic with the De Portola access scenario. Under Alternative 4, providing alternative site access via Dartolo Road rather than De Portola Road increases queuing on Highway 79 South and would result in increased delays to traffic on Margarita Road, while a small positive benefit is achieved for De Portola Road. Thus, adverse traffic and circulation impacts of this Alternative would be greater than those associated with the project. Biological Resources Under Alternative 4, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel Table 5-2 Segment Operations – Access from Dartolo Road Alternative Existing Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E) a ADTb LOSc ADT LOS ADT LOS De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 6,600 C 7,500 C 8,650 D East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 7,000 C 7,900 C 9,050 D Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 23,500 B 31,500 D 34,365 E Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 23,500 B 31,600 D 34,465 E Footnotes: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-14 is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows, cottonwoods, and wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the flood control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel, would avoid streambed alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel, and encroachment into the jurisdictional areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided. Because of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds’ reproductive cycle.1 Both the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected under the MSHCP. Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act, burrowing owl surveys were required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the burrowing owl focused survey report. The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional mitigation. Conclusion Traffic and biological resource impacts of Alternative 4, Access from Dartolo Road, could be greater than those associated with the proposed project. Queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection than are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal were removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South, as compared to the De Portola Road access scenario. Additionally, the biological impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than those of the proposed project, as the Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. 1 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-15 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 5 was conceived as a means of providing a third access to the site in conjunction with the construction of Phase II. The De Portola Road access, as described for the proposed project, would be provided with Phase I, with access limited to right-turns and inbound left-turns. Outbound left-turns would be prohibited. Upon construction of Phase II, this alternative would require a third access via an extension of Dartolo Road, as described above for Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 5 would involve the extension of Dartolo Road westward to the project site and the construction of a bridge across the existing flood channel immediately east of the project site. A detailed traffic analysis was conducted for Alternative 5 as part of the traffic study Addendum (Appendix D). As with the proposed project, the project driveway on Highway 79 South was assigned the majority of the project trips. Utilizing Dartolo Road as an access point in the later phases of the project would provide direct access to Margarita Road at a signalized intersection. According to City staff, there has been some discussion to remove the traffic signal at the Dartolo Road/Margarita Road intersection. However, currently there are no plans to do so. This analysis focuses only on the traffic and biological resource impacts associated with this alternative since otherwise, the project would remain the same as proposed. The discussion is drawn from the traffic study Addendum contained in Appendix D. Transportation Tables 5-3 and 5-4 show the intersection and roadway segment analysis results for Alternative 5. The analysis uses as a threshold the City’s goal for intersections and street segments to operate at LOS D during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 5-3 shows that LOS D or better would be achieved at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with mitigation. Table 5-4 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are calculated to operate at LOS E with the addition of cumulative project and project traffic. This impact would be significant. Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-16 Table 5-3 Alternative 5 Project Phase I Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road) Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Phase I Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delaya LOSb AM 22.0 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 38.2 D AM 9.7 A De Portola Road/Project Driveway OWSCc PM 13.2 B AM 17.9 B Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 12.6 B AM 53.8 Dd Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL PM 54.9 Dd AM 22.5 Cd Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen SIGNAL PM 46.6 Dd Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported. d. LOS with planned mitigation. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-17 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Tables 5-5 and 5-6 show the analysis results for the Alternative 5 at build-out, with both the De Portola Road and Dartolo Road accesses provided. Table 5-6 shows that operations are anticipated to be LOS D or better at the key intersections during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, with mitigation. Table 5-6 shows that the De Portola Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better on a daily basis. However, the Margarita Road street segments are projected to operate at LOS E with the addition of cumulative and project traffic. This impact would be significant. With the extension of Dartolo Road, the same queuing concerns on Margarita Road cited above for Alternative 5 would occur due to the current traffic signal at Dartolo Road/Margarita Road. This queuing would be the result of more vehicles arriving at a signalized intersection then are leaving this intersection, which results in longer wait times for vehicles wishing to go through the intersection; thus, long queues form. If the traffic signal was removed in the future at the Margarita Road/Dartolo Road intersection, only right turns could be allowed to/from Dartolo Road. This would improve operations along the Margarita Road corridor but would make this location much less beneficial in terms of removing traffic from Highway 79 South. Table 5-4 Project Alternative Project Phase I Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road) Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E) a ADTb LOSc De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 8,440 D East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 8,840 D Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 32,570 E Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 32,670 E Footnotes: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-18 Table 5-5 Alternative 5 Total Project Intersection Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road) Existing + Cumulative Projects + Total Project Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delaya LOSb AM 22.7 C De Portola Road/Margarita Road SIGNAL PM 43.4 D AM 9.6 A De Portola Road/Project Driveway OWSCc PM 13.4 B AM 24.0 C Margarita Road/Dartolo Road SIGNAL PM 25.7 C AM 53.0 Dd Margarita Road/Highway 79 South SIGNAL PM 54.6 Dd AM 35.4 Cd Highway 79 South/Project Driveway/Country Glen Way SIGNAL PM 52.1 Dd Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Major street left-turn in delay is reported. d. LOS with mitigation of a traffic signal and other conditioned intersection improvements. Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-19 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Biological Resources With Alternative 5, a vehicular bridge would need to be constructed across the flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. Although the flood control channel is a man-made structure, it contains riparian vegetation such as willows and cottonwoods, and wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes. Due to the type of habitat that is present in the flood control channel, the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. Construction of a bridge, with supports outside of the channel, would avoid streambed alteration, the placement of fill material in the channel, and encroachment into the jurisdictional areas. Impacts to riparian vegetation would not be completely avoided. Because of the type of habitat created by the channel and pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), focused surveys would need to be conducted to determine the presence/absence of the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. If either of these endangered birds is found, bridge construction schedules and activities would have to be modified to avoid impacts to the birds’ reproductive cycle.2 Both the Least Bell’s Vireo and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher are federally and state-listed endangered species and protected under the MSHCP. 2 AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. Table 5-6 Alternative 5 Total Project Segment Operations (Access to De Portola Road and Dartolo Road) Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Street Segment Existing Capacity (LOS E) a ADTb LOSc De Portola Road West of Pio Pico Road 14,000 9,220 D East of Pio Pico Road 14,000 9,620 D Margarita Road De Portola Road to Dartolo Road 36,000 34,400 E Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South 36,000 33,090 E Footnotes: a. City of Temecula LOS E capacity is shown, but LOS D is the City minimum LOS threshold (Appendix D). b. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. c. Level of Service Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-20 Pursuant to the MSHCP and the California Environmental Quality Act, burrowing owl surveys were required for the proposed project and would apply to this Alternative as well. Focused surveys were completed as part of the proposed project analysis. The study documenting the surveys concluded that no burrowing owls are present at the project site. Refer to Appendix E for the burrowing owl focused survey report. The impact to biological resources under this alternative would be greater than the proposed project because of potential impacts associated with construction of the bridge. A jurisdictional delineation would be required for the alternative, and consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be recommended. Additionally, the potential for impacts to 2 endangered bird species exists under this alternative, and impacts to riparian vegetation would require additional mitigation. Conclusion Alternative 5 would not avoid the significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The extension of Dartolo Road as part of Phase II would not substantially divert traffic from the proposed primary entrance on Highway 79 South nor the De Portola secondary entrance. Biological resource impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The Initial Study found that no biological impacts would result from the project. This alternative would not eliminate significant adverse air quality or noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The alternative would, however, attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant. Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, Construction of the Hospital Only, would result in a smaller development with no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center. This alternative is considered as a means to reduce the overall impact of the proposed project while still providing the community with a regional hospital. Alternative 6, similar to the proposed project, would have no significant impact with regard to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a project with a reduced building footprint and less building area, and the analysis in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not create significant impacts in these areas. Aesthetics As with the project, Alternative 6 would result in development of a 408,160-square-foot hospital structure, including towers of 5 and 6 stories. The overall mass of the development would be reduced by the development of a smaller portion of the project site, but a similar visual effect would result relative to the scale of the two hospital towers. As with the project, this Alternative would Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-21 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL involve placement of the towers in the center of the site and ensuring that any such hospital is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h s u r r o u n d i n g u s e s i n t e r m s o f building materials and landscaping, Extensive perimeter landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the buildings would be provided. Incorporation of these project features would minimize aesthetic impacts. Like the proposed project, Alternative 6 would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts due to streetlights, automobile headlights, and security and outdoor lighting. The General Plan includes policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and to minimize impact on surrounding uses. The City adopted Riverside Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655) that also minimize impacts to the Palomar Observatory. These policies and ordinance would be implemented on the project level and be required under Alternative 6. Thus, this alternative would result in aesthetic impacts similar to those of the proposed project. Air Quality Air quality impacts with this alternative would be reduced since no medical office buildings, cancer center, or fitness rehabilitation center would be built, and both stationary and mobile source emissions would be comparably reduced. A decrease in vehicle trips would result in reduced pollutant emissions and thus reduced air quality impacts. Also, because the scale of construction would be reduced, construction-related pollutant emissions would be comparably reduced. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 6 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to storm runoff. With Alternative 6, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which sets forth Best Management Practices in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. Compliance with existing regulations such as the RWQCB MS4 permit would reduce impact to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning With this Alternative, as with the proposed project, a General Plan Amendment would be required to eliminate the Z2 overlay area. Also, the applicant would need a Zone Change to facilitate the development and the hospital tower heights in particular. The reduced scale of the project could allow for greater setbacks, which could create increased buffer zones to minimize noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment, and which could allow for enhanced landscaping around the hospital.. While land use and planning impacts would be similar, the indirect result could be to reduce noise impacts. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total daily trips to and from the project site due to the absence of the medical office buildings. Therefore, this alternative would have a marginally reduced traffic noise impact relative to the proposed project because fewer trips would be generated. Alternatives to the Project ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 5-22 Outdoor noise sources would be reduced due to fewer on-site uses. The increased setbacks would provide the opportunity to locate mechanical equipment more toward the interior of the site and thus avoid potential impact on the nearest residential uses. However, because the helipad would remain as part of the project, helicopter noise impacts could be significant and unavoidable, like the proposed project. Transportation Alternative 6 would result in 2,890 fewer total daily trips to and from the project site due to the absence of the medical office buildings. Under Alternative 6, traffic generation and resulting levels of service (LOS) would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Conclusion Alternative 6 would result in reduced impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and transportation since there would be a reduction in the total footprint of development. Therefore, the visual impact, trips generated by the project and short- and long-term air quality impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed project. Noise impacts associated with mechanical equipment could be reduced. While Alternative 6 meets the City’s objectives to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, and ensure compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding uses, Alternative 5 fails to meet the City’s objective to support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s economic and employment base. Furthermore, Alternative 6 does not meet applicant’s objective to provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices since it would result only in construction of the hospital, and would not provide the same levels of rehabilitation or any of the medical office uses stated in the applicant’s objectives. Environmentally Superior Alternative Table 5-7 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. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Al t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e P r o j e c t CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5 -2 3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Ta b l e 5 - 7 Co m p a r i s o n o f I m p a c t s o f A l t e r n a t i v e s R e l a t i v e t o I m p a c t s o f t h e P r o j e c t Im p a c t C a t e g o r y Al t e r n a t i v e 1 : No P r o j e c t – No B u i l d Al t e r n a t i v e 2 : No P r o j e c t – De v e l o p m e n t Un d e r C u r r e n t Ge n e r a l P l a n Al t e r n a t i v e 3 : Al t e r n a t e S i t e Co r o n a F a m i l y Pr o p e r t i e s Al t e r n a t i v e 4 : Ac c e s s f r o m Da r t o l o R o a d Al t e r n a t i v e 5 : Ac c e s s f r o m De P o r t o l a Ro a d a n d Da r t o l o R o a d Alternative 6: Construction of the Hospital Only Ae s t h e t i c s A v o i d e d R e d u c e d G r e a t e r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Reduced Ag r i c u l t u r e R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d S i m i l a r G r e a t e r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Similar Ai r Q u a l i t y A v o i d e d Gr e a t e r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Reduced Bi o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d Si m i l a r U n d e t e r m i n e d Gr e a t e r Gr e a t e r Similar Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar Ge o l o g y a n d S o i l s A v o i d e d Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar Ha z a r d s a n d H a z a r d o u s Ma t e r i a l s Av o i d e d Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar Hy d r o l o g y a n d W a t e r Qu a l i t y Av o i d e d Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar La n d U s e a n d P l a n n i n g A v o i d e d Re d u c e d G r e a t e r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Reduced Mi n e r a l R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d Si m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Similar No i s e A v o i d e d Re d u c e d G r e a t e r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Similar Po p u l a t i o n a n d H o u s i n g A v o i d e d Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar Pu b l i c S e r v i c e s A v o i d e d Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r S i m i l a r Similar Re c r e a t i o n A v o i d e d Si m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Similar Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A v o i d e d Gr e a t e r S i m i l a r G r e a t e r S i m i l a r Reduced Ut i l i t i e s a n d S e r v i c e Sy s t e m s Av o i d e d Si m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r Similar Me e t s a l l o b j e c t i v e s o f th e p r o j e c t ? No N o Y e s Y e s Ye s No Alternatives to the Project CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5-24 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Alternative 1, No Project – No Build would avoid all impacts since no development would occur and the land would remain vacant; however, this alternative meets none of the project objectives. Alternative 2 would reduce land use and planning impacts but would not achieve the City’s objective to encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services, nor the applicant’s objective to provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities. Alternative 3 would achieve each of the project objectives, but aesthetic, land use and planning, and noise impacts would be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The biological impacts of Alternative 3 are also uncertain because a biological assessment would need to be performed. Alternatives 4 and 5 would meet the all of the project objectives but would result in greater impacts with regard to biological resources and transportation. Traffic impacts would be greater since queues on Margarita Road would negatively impact operations at the Highway 79 South/Margarita Road intersection and would add more delay to traffic on Margarita Road. Impacts to jurisdictional waterways and riparian vegetation communities would result from the construction of the vehicular bridge across the flood control channel. Although Alternative 6 fails to meet many critical project objectives, it is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative since it has the potential to reduce more environmental impacts compared to the rest of the Alternatives considered in this EIR. 6.0 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 et seq. require discussion of cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from a project. The following addresses each of these issues as they relate to the development and operation of the proposed regional hospital in Temecula. Cumulative Effects The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) define a cumulative impact as “…an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” The Guidelines further state that “…an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the evaluated project.” Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project “…when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” Cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c), “…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.” An adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts requires either “…a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the lead agency” or “…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 cumulative impact.” This cumulative impact analysis evaluates impacts based primarily on 21 related projects identified by the City of Temecula. Discussions with City of Temecula staff and the authors of the most recent traffic study conducted in the area indicated that The Apis Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group in December 2002 should be utilized as the source of other development project information in the area. Further information regarding these projects can be found in Appendix D, Traffic Impact Analysis. The 17 cumulative projects analyzed in the Apis Plaza study were supplemented with 4 additional projects for which applications have been submitted between December 2002 and August 2005. Aesthetics As summarized in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the proposed project will not result a significant impact on the viewshed of residential lots north of De Portola Road. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a cumulative viewshed impact. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Cumulative and Long-Term Effects The proposed project and cumulative projects will allow for new housing units and commercial, industrial, and institutional development within the southern portion of Temecula. Cumulatively, these projects have the potential to increase the amount of artificial light sources throughout the area, which could interfere with operations at Mount Palomar Observatory. However, all projects will be required to comply with the outdoor lighting restrictions of Ordinance No. 655 related to Mount Palomar Observatory. Compliance with this ordinance will reduce the impacts of skyglow on the Observatory to below a level of significance. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in cumulative lighting impacts on Mount Palomar Observatory operations. Air Quality The goal of the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other agencies involved in air quality protection is to reduce the amount of average daily vehicle trips, as well as the distance traveled by vehicles, within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin). This goal is aimed at reducing the primary sources of air pollutant emissions in the Basin: automobiles and trucks. The SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan encourages local jurisdictions to adopt and implement land use policies that balance employment opportunities and housing so that residents do not have to travel far for jobs, entertainment, and other needs. As discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation of this EIR, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, other known projects, and ambient growth will increase vehicles on area roadways. These trips will all contribute to increased pollutant loads locally and within the Basin as a whole. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the AQMP and air quality components within the Temecula General Plan. However, given that the proposed project itself will result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, the cumulative effect will be significant as well. Potential short- and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation described in Section 4.2, Air Quality and measures imposed on other projects as well. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity, and composition of runoff will be altered by large-scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious surfaces, including roads, driveways, parking lots, patios, and similar surfaces. Runoff entering storm water drainage systems is anticipated to contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby potentially impacting downstream water quality. Siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading, prior to establishment of landscaping, and construction of structures and hard surfaces also may affect downstream water quality. Impacts related to runoff and siltation will be controlled on a project-by-project basis by adherence to requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Typical measures to implement the NPDES program could include covering all outside storage facilities, vegetated swales, detention basins with filtration systems, and monitoring programs. The NPDES system has been put in place to address cumulative, regional impacts. Continued implementation of the NPDES permitting requirements will reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-2 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects Potential cumulative impacts related to flooding will be minimized through implementation of design standards required by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and by adherence to the to the Flood Control District’s Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to flooding will be less than significant. Land Use and Planning The proposed project and cumulative growth will result in changes to existing land uses. Vacant properties will be developed pursuant to the recently updated Temecula General Plan, leading to intensification of housing, commercial, and industrial development throughout southern Temecula. As concluded in Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project will not result in the introduction of incompatible uses in the area if the General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council, the Council has determined to be consistent with the General Plan. All other proposed projects must either be consistent with the General Plan, which has been formulated to achieve compatible land use patterns, or deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Commission and/or City Council in actions to approve projects. Each proposed development project will be subject to the City’s development review process and, if discretionary actions are needed, may undergo an environmental review process, as prescribed by CEQA. This review would address potential land use compatibility issues and planning policy conflicts. Therefore, cumulative land use and planning impacts are considered less than significant. Noise Increased development within the broader project area will increase traffic volumes and associated roadway noise levels. Significant noise levels already exist along many of the transportation corridors in the City and project area. As noted in Section 4.5, Noise, the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise will not be significant. With regard to stationary noise sources, at the individual project level, the City will continue to ensure that new buildings are constructed according to State acoustical standards. Furthermore, City implementation of General Plan Land Use and Noise Element policies aimed at avoiding land/use noise compatibility conflicts will reduce cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation New residential, commercial, industrial, and other development occurring throughout the project area will increase the number of vehicle trips to, through, and from the surrounding area. Future traffic volumes and levels of services are discussed in Section 4.6, Transportation. Vehicle trips from the project and related projects are anticipated to create or add to traffic congestion on Highway 79 South, especially near the I-15 ramps, and at selected roadway segments and intersections. The twenty-one (21) cumulative projects generate a total of 160,500 ADT with 5,560 trips in the AM peak hour and 6,130 trips in the PM peak hour (2,209 inbound and 1,489 outbound). Some vehicle trips would be confined to the area (short trips), while others would travel outside the project area to surrounding counties and urban centers and affect the regional transportation system. Adverse impacts to the circulation network would occur if CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Cumulative and Long-Term Effects roadway improvements and trip reduction measures and programs are not implemented. The mitigation discussion in Section 4.6, Transportation identifies some of the regional roadway improvements that will be pursued to accommodate anticipated future traffic volumes. Also, other roadway system enhancements will be pursued over the long term to implement the recently updated General Plan Circulation Element. In accordance with City of Temecula regulations, each development project will be assessed its fair share for identified roadway improvements. Payment of the City's traffic impact fees will allow the City to fund signalization, roadway widening, and other transportation programs and improvements necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at local intersections. Increases in traffic generated by new development are generally anticipated to be mitigated to less than significant levels through payment of fair share fees and citywide and project-level roadway improvements. As summarized Section 4.6, Transportation, the proposed project will not result in any cumulative impacts to intersections, but the following roadway links will continue to operate over capacity: ƒ Highway 79 South west of Pechanga Parkway ƒ Highway 79 South west of Margarita Road ƒ Margarita Road: De Portola Road to Dartolo Road ƒ Margarita Road: Dartolo Road to Highway 79 South Cumulative impacts to these roadway links at project build-out will be significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, some intersections near I-15 will continue to experience LOS E and F conditions into the future. Cumulative impacts, as noted in the General Plan EIR, will be significant and unavoidable.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts The CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of “...ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth... in the surrounding environment”, including the project’s potential to remove obstacles to population growth. For example, the provision of major infrastructure may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. The project site is located within an area of Temecula that is fully served by urban infrastructure systems. The proposed hospital/medical office complex represents an infill development that will provide no excess infrastructure capacity; water, sewer, and storm water systems are in place to support the level of development proposed. Thus, the project does not have any components or features that could induce further growth at the site or into previously undeveloped areas. The project is a regional hospital facility that will provide new jobs, and these new jobs could potentially induce support development (e.g., additional medical-related businesses) in the surrounding area. The surrounding community is nearly built out with or entitled for residential dwellings, and surrounding vacant land is zoned for commercial and professional office use. Medical-related businesses would be permitted in these existing zones. The proposed project, 1 Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Page 5.13-23. Certified April 12, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-4 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects therefore, is not anticipated to induce population or jobs growth beyond that which is already planned for and anticipated by adopted land use policies. Temporary construction work related to the project is expected to be accomplished by existing construction workers in the regional area; a permanent influx of new construction workers to the area will not be required. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Construction and day-to-day operations of the proposed project will use nonrenewable resources. During construction, the use of building materials (e.g., aggregate, sand, cement, steel, glass) and energy resources (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity) would be largely irreversible and irretrievable. Energy would be consumed in processing building materials and for transporting these materials and construction workers to the site. Institutional structures can be expected to have a life span of approximately 50 years. The resources consumed during project operation will be in quantities proportional to similar projects in Southern California. Title 24 (Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code) energy conservation standards are mandatory and will be applied to the project. Vehicles used by employees and visitors of the hospital will consume motor fuel; however, these activities are part of normal operations and are not considered a significant or wasteful use of resources. Water will be consumed by the project and in operation of the project’s buildings and irrigation. Mandatory water conservation standards, including ultra-low toilets, low-water shower heads and faucets, and other features, will be applied to the project. Considering the long life span of the project, the nonrenewable resources consumed for this project are insignificant compared to the total annual use of resources regionally. Therefore, no short-term or long-term significant adverse impacts on nonrenewable resources are expected to result from the project. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6-5 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Cumulative and Long-Term Effects This page is left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 6-6 7.0 Preparers of the EIR Lead Agency City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 Emery Papp, Senior Planner Planning Department Tel: (909) 694-6400 Fax: (909) 694-6477 Email: emery.papp@cityoftemecula.org Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. Universal Corporate Center 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Vice President: Donald Pyskacek, AIA, ASHE Tel: (610) 768-3300 Fax: (610) 992-4560 Consultants to the Lead Agency Environmental Consultant P&D Consultants. 800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Principal-in-charge: Laura Stetson, AICP Project Manager: Jeff Henderson, AICP Environmental Planner: Peter Choi Environmental Planner: Debra Leight Graphics: Paul Levinson CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Preparers of the EIR Tel: (626) 304-0102 Fax: (626) 304-0402 Traffic Consultant Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street San Diego, CA 92111 Principal: John Boarman Transportation Planner: Jose R Nunez Jr. Tel: (858) 300-8800 Fax: (858) 300-8810 Noise Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Principal: David Wieland Senior Associate: Jonathan Higginson Tel: (949) 829-6722 Fax: (949) 829-6670 Biological Consultant AMEC Earth & Environmental 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92507 Principal Investigator: Chet McGaugh Tel: (909) 369-8060 Fax: (909) 369-8035 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-2 Preparers of the EIR Water Supply Assessment RBF Consulting 3536 Concours, Suite 220 Ontario, CA 91764 Project Manager: Ron Craig Tel: (909) 581-0196 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7-3 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL Preparers of the EIR This page is intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 7-4 8.0 References AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment. September 14, 2004. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ Date accessed: August 11, 2005. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with updates through 2001. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Public Works Department. NPDES information. http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Date accessed: August 10, 2005. County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations – Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company). Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center. November 2004. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Parker, John. H. A Concise Dictionary of Architectural Terms. Dover Publications. June, 2004. Regulation Compliance Inc. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study. December 16, 2004. Riverside County Flood Control District. “About the District.” http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/districtsite/ Date Accessed: August 9, 2005. Riverside County Flood Control District. “Area Drainage Fees.” http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/Area_Drainage_Plain_Summary.pdf. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 8-1 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL References Riverside County Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program. Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita Region. September 17, 2004. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) “Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates.” April 2002. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/programs/basinplan.html. 1994. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL 8-2