Loading...
Final Supplemental EIRTEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL January 2008Prepared for: City of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL January 2008Prepared for: City of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2005031017 Temecula Regional Hospital i ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Project Background 1-1 1.2 Environmental Review 1-2 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document 1-3 1.4 Approach to this SEIR 1-4 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR 1-4 1.6 Public Involvement and Review 1-5 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives 2-1 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics 2-2 2.4 Project Characteristics 2-4 2.5 Discretionary Approvals 2-9 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1-1 3.2 Noise 3.2-1 3.3 Traffic 3.3-1 4. Project Alternatives 4-1 4.1 Approach to Analysis 4-1 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed 4-1 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Selection of Alternatives 4-2 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative 4-3 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative 4-9 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5-1 5.1 Acronyms 5-1 5.2 References 5-3 5.3 List of Preparers 5-4 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report A-1 B. Responses to Notice of Preparation B-1 Table of Contents Page Temecula Regional Hospital ii ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Appendices (Continued) C. Soil Vapor Survey C-1 • Analytical Data and Chain-of-Custody Documentation • H&P Mobile Geochemistry Standard Operating Procedures for Soil Vapor Sample Collection • DTSC’s Screening-Level Model for Groundwater Contamination Spreadsheets • Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline • User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings • Interim Final – Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air D. Traffic Impact Analysis Update D-1 • Memo: Alternative 7 Build-Out Segment Operations • Intersection & Segment Manual Count Sheets and Historical Traffic Volumes on Highway 79 • Riverside County Roadway Classification Table • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Existing • Cumulative Projects Data • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day Without Project • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Project Phase I • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project (Phases I & II) • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects • City of Temecula Year 2025 Segment Volumes and Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets – Build-out (Year 2025 with Eastern By-Pass) • DIF Information • CIP Project Summary Sheets • TUMF Information • Assessment District Information • Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Worksheets - Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects (Mitigated – With Implementation of CIP projects & No Eastern By-Pass) E. Noise Impact Analysis Update E-1 F. Scoping Session Speaker Slips F-1 G. Response to Comments G-1 H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program H-1 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-3 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-5 2-3 Proposed Site Plan 2-6 3.1-1 Reported Groundwater Gradient 3.1-3 3.1-2 Current and Previous Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1-5 Table of Contents Page Temecula Regional Hospital iii ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 List of Figures (Continued) 3.1-3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3.1-7 3.2-1 Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels 3.2-2 3.2-2 Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations 3.2-2 3.2-3 Site Plan 3.2-8 3.2-4 Noise Measurement Locations 3.2-10 3.3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3.3-2 3.3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-5 3.3-3 Opening Year without Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-13 3.3-4 Project Traffic Distribution AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-14 3.3-5 Proposed Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-15 3.3-6 Opening Year with Project Phase I Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-16 3.3-7 Proposed Project Phase II Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-17 3.3-8 Proposed Entire Project (Phase I + Phase II) Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-18 3.3-9 Opening Year with Entire Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-19 3.3-10 Cumulative Projects Locations 3.3-25 3.3-11 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-26 3.3-12 Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-27 3.3-13 Build-out (Year 2025) with Project Traffic Volumes AM/PM Peak Hours and ADT 3.3-37 3.3-14 TUMF Facilities 3.3-41 3.3-15 Riverside County Assessment Districts 3.3-43 4-1 Alternative Site 4-4 List of Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-14 3.1-1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 3.1-4 3.1-2 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Shell Service Station 3.1-8 3.1-3 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Arco Service Station #5695 3.1-10 3.1-4 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Project Site 3.1-11 3.1-5 Soil Vapor Sample Analytical Results 3.1-16 3.2-1 Summary of Siren Noise Measurements 3.2-3 3.2-2 City of Temecula Noise Standards 3.2-6 3.2-3 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurements 3.2-9 3.2-4 Summary of Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.2-11 3.2-5 Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels 3.2-12 3.2-6 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year, Project Phase I 3.2-14 3.2-7 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Entire Project, Phases I and II 3.2-14 3.2-8 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year + Cumulative Projects 3.2-15 3.2-9 Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Buildout 3.2-15 3.2-10 Estimated Ambulance Operations 3.2-16 3.2-11 Estimated CNEL due to Ambulance Operations 3.2-16 Table of Contents Page Temecula Regional Hospital iv ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 List of Tables (Continued) 3.2-12 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3.2-17 3.2-13 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 3.2-18 3.3-1 Existing Segment Volumes 3.3-4 3.3-2 LOS Definitions 3.3-7 3.3-3 Volume Capacity/Level of Service for Riverside County Roadway 3.3-8 3.3-4 Existing Intersection Operating Conditions 3.3-9 3.3-5 Existing Street Segment Operations 3.3-10 3.3-6 Projects Trip Generation – Total Trips 3.3-11 3.3-7 Cumulative Projects List 3.3-20 3.3-8 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation 3.3-22 3.3-9 Project Opening Day Intersection Operations 3.3-28 3.3-10 Project Opening Day Segment Operations 3.3-29 3.3-11 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Intersection Operations 3.3-30 3.3-12 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations 3.3-31 3.3-13 Build-Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3-36 3.3-14 Build-Out (Year 2025) Intersection Operations 3.3-37 3.3-15 Cumulative Traffic Improvement Mitigation Measure Summary 3.3-46 3.3-16 Existing + Project + Cumulative intersection Operations With the Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-52 3.3-17 Entire Project and Cumulative Projects Segment Operations – With Mitigation 3.3-53 4-1 Alternative 7 Build-out Segment Operations 4-8 4-2 Comparison of Impacts to Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project 4-10 Temecula Regional Hospital S-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for this project and certified by the City of Temecula (City). The project was approved by the City in January 2006. A legal challenge to the project on the ground that the EIR was inadequate in several respects was filed by two groups and resulted in a ruling that rejected many of the challenges, but found that the EIR did not adequately address the following areas: • Construction noise impacts; • Siren noise impacts; • Mitigation measures for traffic impacts; and • Potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. The court directed the City to vacate the project approvals and not to reconsider the project unless it first circulated, reviewed and considered a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) that addressed noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. This SEIR was prepared to address those issues. Other issues were adequately addressed in the prior EIR and will not be addressed in this SEIR. The prior EIR may be reviewed in the City’s planning department and copies may be obtained from the City Clerk’s office upon payment of the duplication cost. By necessity, this summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found in the document, but rather is intended to provide a quick understanding of the proposed project’s objectives, design features, impacts, proposed alternatives, and long-term implications. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences. Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map to allow the development of a proposed regional hospital to serve the City of Temecula and surrounding area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • A General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged; Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • A Zone Change application to change the zoning district applicable to the property from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital; • A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses; • A Development Plan application for the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square- foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site; and • A Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. Project Location and Surroundings The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road, and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. Currently the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they have since been demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single- family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately two miles to the west. Project Design Features The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility would consist of: • An approximately 408,160-square-foot, two-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be six stories/106 feet high, and the second five stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit; • Two medical office buildings, one four stories/73 feet high and the second three stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers; • A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building; • An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff; • A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. Helicopter flights associated with the hospital will be used to transport seriously ill patients to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading; • A truck loading area and facilities plant will be located at the eastern edge of the hospital, south of the helipad. This area provides infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area; • A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole- mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses; • Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area; and • Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. The project will include the following four access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location; • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted; • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west; and • Right-out access from Highway 79 South at the intersection of Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases, some of which may occur simultaneously. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building (medical office building #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-5 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the five-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four-story 80,000-square-foot medical office building (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. Environmental Impacts Evaluated in this SEIR The City of Temecula has prepared this SEIR to address noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes, in order to comply with the County of Riverside Superior Court’s writ of mandate. In addition, the SEIR identifies mitigation measures required to avoid or substantially reduce identified significant impacts. A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S-1 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the SEIR uses the words “significant” and “less than significant” in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this SEIR. As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), mitigation measures have been included in this SEIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impact. Certain significant impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below significance. Such impacts are identified as “unavoidable significant impacts.” Lawsuits Challenging the January 2006 Approval of the Project As noted above, the Court’s rulings in the challenge to the prior EIR found that the previous document did not adequately analyze noise impacts, did not adequately address mitigation for traffic impacts and did not address the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the project site, which were generated by leaks from three gas stations in the vicinity. The Court further ordered the City to set aside its approvals of the project and to not reconsider the project unless it first addressed these issues in an SEIR. This SEIR has been prepared to comply with that order and addresses noise impacts, traffic mitigation measures and the potential impacts of the MTBE plumes. Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-6 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Although the Court’s ruling required further consideration of mitigation measures for the traffic impacts identified in the prior EIR and did not fault the traffic analysis or identification of impacts, this SEIR contains an updated traffic study that all impacts are identified and ensure that all feasible mitigation measures are identified. If any significant adverse impacts remain after all feasible mitigation is required, the City could not approve the project unless it adopted a Statement of Overriding Concerns pursuant to CEQA §15093. Because the Court found no problem with the prior EIR other than the issues identified above, this SEIR does not address any impacts other than those the Court found should be addressed in an SEIR. Therefore, when reconsidering whether to approve the project, the City will rely on the sections of the prior EIR not invalidated by the Court as well as this SEIR. The prior EIR can be reviewed in the City Clerk’s office and copies can be obtained from the Clerk’s office upon payment of the cost of duplicating the report. The prior EIR found the following project impacts to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality, 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning; found the following impacts to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare; and found the following impacts to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 2) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Further, because an alternative site not available at the time the prior EIR was prepared has now become available, this SEIR analyzes that additional alternative (Alternative 7). Potential Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant In response to the Court’s decision, the following potential project impact has been analyzed and found to result in a less than significant impact: • MTBE Plume MTBE Contamination According to the Court’s review and analysis, the EIR failed to analyze the MTBE plume allegedly migrating towards the project site. The court found that the previous EIR did not address the site’s exposure to potential MTBE contamination despite evidence of contamination threatening the project site and despite requests from the public and other agencies to do so. The Court also found that the City was required to analyze any and all significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The Court did note that the City eventually responded to the comments to the prior EIR regarding the alleged contaminant plume relying on, among other things, an analysis by an expert taken on by UHS. It was found by the Court, however, that the City’s response was insufficient, as it was required to be considered in the Draft EIR report itself. Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-7 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 SEIR Objective This SEIR analyzes the extent and concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including MTBE in soil vapor and ground water at key locations of the site and significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development and people onto the project site. The SEIR assesses the likelihood of a significant human health risk in association with VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons as well as the possibility of the MTBE plume migrating towards project site. SEIR Conclusion As a result of further investigations and review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the site vicinity, MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed project site along the southern boundary fronting Highway 79 South. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, it has been interpreted that there is a less than significant risk of related human health risk at the proposed project site because of the possible presence MTBE-bearing groundwater beneath the site. Consequently, no detectable concentrations of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed site buildings footprints. Under the current existing conditions there is a less than significant risk of exposure to MTBE in soil vapor and thus a less than significant risk of related significant human health risk from soil vapor migration into the proposed buildings. As such, it has been concluded that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant human health risk; therefore the risk would be less than significant. The likelihood of exposure to MTBE-bearing groundwater is increased during construction activities, such as excavation. Depending on site development plans, a qualified environmental professional may be required during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. It is also recommended that final construction plans are reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. To the extent the site is developed, a developer may be required to manage or incur costs associated with the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). Section 3.1 and Table S-1 below include mitigation measures to address the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. Unavoidable Significant Impacts Upon reanalysis, the SEIR identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable: • Noise impacts associated with emergency vehicle sirens; • Noise impacts associated with project construction; • Direct project-related traffic impacts; and Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-8 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Cumulative traffic impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the Lead Agency determines these impacts are significant and the Lead Agency approves the project. As required by §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency where it is found that the benefits of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. Noise Impacts Siren Noise The Court’s review found that the City’s analysis of siren noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court did not agree that noise impacts from emergency vehicles associated with the proposed project would be less than significant to nearby noise-sensitive receptors simply because these impacts would be sporadic in nature and short-lived in duration. The Court also did not find substantial evidence in the prior EIR to adequately explain why ambulance noise would be reduced to insignificant levels as a result of decreased distances traveled during emergency trips. SEIR Objectives In response to the Court’s findings, this SEIR assesses in greater detail the noise levels and potential impacts associated with the sirens used by emergency vehicles transporting patients to the hospital. Should it be found that operational noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. However, the City of Temecula does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. The use of sirens is required by law under specific circumstances, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Ambulance routes are selected by the drivers based on traffic conditions and expediency, and cannot be regulated or controlled by the City of Temecula or the hospital administrators. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed project are significant and unavoidable. Construction Noise The Court’s review found the City’s analysis of construction noise in the prior EIR was inadequate. The Court found that the City failed to adequately explain how significant construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 SEIR Objectives In accordance with the Court’s decision, this SEIR provides a more detailed analysis to demonstrate how construction noise impacts would be rendered less than significant. Should it be found that construction noise level impacts remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted where it is found that the benefits of the project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse identified impacts. SEIR Conclusion The SEIR concludes that noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City’s ordinance limiting the hours of construction provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, provided in Section 3.2 and Table S-1, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Traffic Impacts The Court’s review and analysis of the prior EIR found that the City had not required or had not shown that it had required all feasible mitigation for traffic impacts. The court indicated that requiring payment of Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and City of Temecula fees, at least without more information concerning how and when the fees would be used to construct the improvements identified as necessary to mitigate project impacts, was inadequate. Accordingly, the Court did not validate the City’s finding that it adopted all feasible mitigation on this ground. SEIR Objectives The SEIR contains an updated traffic study, further analyzes and identifies all feasible mitigation and explains the reasons that additional mitigation is not feasible when that is the case. Specifically, this SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated October, 2007. This SEIR also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project-related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-10 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 SEIR Conclusion Based on the established significance criteria, specific significant impacts were calculated as detailed in Table S-1 below. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Please refer to Table S-1 for further details of the project-related traffic impacts. Direct Impacts Specified regional circulation system mitigation measures (see Table S-1 and Section 3.3) shall be complete prior to occupancy of any building in Phase IA.. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are complete, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Site Access and On-Site Circulation In addition, the project proposes three access driveways, two on Highway 79 South and one on De Portola Road. The improvements listed in Table S-1 shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15 in Section 3.3). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 of Section 3.3 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be feasibly acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed in Section 3.3, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-11 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • Highway 79 South Widening – Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Highway 79 South from two lanes to six lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding mechanisms to the hospital, if in fact the improvements are not completed before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in Table S-1 below and Section 3.3, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than-significant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively of Section 3.3. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 of Section 3.3, all of the Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-12 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Highway 79 South /I-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Highway 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Alternatives to the Proposed Project The City has considered alternative locations for the proposed regional hospital. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be “governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[a]). The following alternatives are examined in the SEIR. Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) The following project alternatives were examined in the original EIR: Alternative 1: No Project – No Build Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from DePortola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section15126.6 (2).) Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the 7th alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City of Temecula as an education complex, including Executive Summary Temecula Regional Hospital S-13 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 an education center, a research and development /conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1 in Section 4. The Temecula Education Center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City of Temecula and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include Open Space to the north, Murrieta Creek and Open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. All properties would need to be under the applicant’s control for the project to proceed, and a County General Plan amendment, zone change, and annexation would be required for the larger parcel. This alternative site has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts of this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Ex e c u t i v e S u m m a r y Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 4 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E S - 1 SU M M A R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T S A N D M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n 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 C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s Ha z a r d s a n d H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s MT B E P l u m e Im p a c t 3 . 1 - 1 : P o t e n t i a l t h a t e x i s t i n g a n d / o r p r e v i o u s l y un i d e n t i f i e d c o n t a m i n a t io n c o u l d b e e n c o u n t e r e d du r i n g p r o j e c t s i t e p r e p a ra t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 1 - 1 : Pe t r o l e u m a f f e c t e d s o i l s a t t h e p r o p o s e d h o s p i t a l s i t e i f an y , ( e . g . , w h e r e s t a i n e d o r o d i f e r o u s so i l s a r e e n c o u n t e r e d ) s h a l l b e s e g r e g a t e d , st o c k p i l e d o n - s i t e , a n d s a m p l e d p r i o r t o d i s p o s al a t a n a p p r o p r i a t e f a c i l i t y , a s r e q u i r e d by t h e r e s p e c t i v e d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t y . A l l c on t a m i n a t e d s o i l s s h a l l b e d i s p o s e d o f o f f - s i t e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a p p l i c a b l e l o c a l , s t a t e , a n d f e d e r a l l a w s r e g u l a t i n g t h e t r a n s p o r t an d d i s p o s a l o f h a z a r d o u s a n d no n - h a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s . Th e s e m a t e r i a l s s h a l l b e tr a n s p o r t e d t o a p e r m i t t e d d i s p o s a l fa c i l i t y b y a l i c e n s e d w a s t e h a u l e r . Le s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . Im p a c t 3 . 1 - 2 : P o t e n t i a l t h a t h a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s c o u l d be r e l e a s e d d u r i n g t h e s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n a n d co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 1 - 2 : P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n y e n c r o a c h m e n t p e r m i t f o r t h e pr o j e c t , a d e t a i l e d s o i l , g r o u n d w a t e r , a n d s o i l v a p o r s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m s h a l l b e co n d u c t e d f o r t h e p r o p o s e d h o s p i t a l s i t e . A n y i d e n t i f i e d M T B E - o r o t h e r V O C - im p a c t e d s o i l s h a l l b e r e m o v e d , h a n d l e d , a n d p r o p e r l y d i s p o s e d o f b y a p p r o p r i a t e l y lic e n s e d a n d q u a l i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s i n a c c o r da n c e w i t h a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s d u r i n g de m o l i t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e s . T h e p r o j e c t a p p li c a n t s h a l l p r o v i d e d o c u m e n t a t i o n ( f o r ex a m p l e , a l l r e q u i r e d w a s t e m a n i f e s t s , s a m p lin g , a n d s o i l m o n i t o r i n g t e s t r e s u l t s ) t o th e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a s h o w i n g t h a t a b a t e m e n t o f a n y M T B E - o r o t h e r V O C - c o n t a i n i n g so i l i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p r o j e c t s i t e h a s be e n c o m p l e t e d i n f u l l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a l l ap p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e ap p r o p r i a t e r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c y ( i e s ) ( 4 0 CF R , S u b c h a p t e r R , T S C A , P a r t s 7 9 0 , 7 9 2 , 7 9 7 , 7 9 8 , a n d 7 9 9 a n d C C R T i t l e 8 , Ar t i c l e 2 . 6 ) . Le s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t . Un a v o i d a b l e S i 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 e r r i di 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 1 26 [ b ] o f t h e S t a t e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s i f t h e a g e n c y d e t e r m i n e s t h e s e e f f e c t s a r e si g n i f i c a n t a n d a p p r o v e s t h e p r o j e c t . No i s e Co n s t r u c t i o n N o i s e Im p a c t 3 . 2 - 1 : D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t wo u l d r e s u l t i n t e m p o r a r y n o i s e i m p a c t s d u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 2 - 1 : Th e f o l l o w i n g m e a s u r e s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e pr o j e c t ’ s d e s i g n i n o r d e r t o m i tig a t e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t s : • M e c h a n i c a l v e n t i l a t i o n w i l l b e r e q u i r e d fo r h o s p i t a l f a c i l i t y b u i l d i n g s s i n c e th e i n t e r i o r s t a n d a r d o f 5 0 d B ( A ) i s t o b e m e t w i t h w i n d o w s a n d d o o r s cl o s e d . • D e m o l i t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s s h a l l b e l i m i t ed t o t h e h o u r s a n d d a y s Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Executive Summary Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 5 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n pe r m i t t e d b y t h e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a M u n i c i p a l C o d e . • A l l C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d d e m o l i t i o n e q u i p m e n t sh a l l b e f i t t e d w i t h p r o p e r l y s i z e d mu f f l e r s . • N o i s y c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t i t e m s s h a ll b e l o c a t e d a s f a r a s p r a c t i c a b l e fr o m t h e s u r r o u n d i n g r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s . • Th e p r o j e c t p r o p o n e n t w i l l h i r e a n o i s e m o n i t o r t o a c c e p t c o m p l a i n t s a n d co n f i r m c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a b o v e - me n t i o n e d m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s . Em e r g e n c y V e h i c l e S i r e n s Im p a c t 3 . 2 - 2 : De v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t wo u l d i n c r e a s e n o i s e l e v e l s a l o n g l o c a l r o a d w a y s , sp e c i f i c a l l y a m b u l a n c e s i r e n n o i s e . Mi t i g a t i o n : No n e R e q u i r e d . T h e C i t y ’ s o r d i n a n c e lim i t i n g , t h e h o u r s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , pr o v i d e s n o m i t i g a t i o n o f co n s t r u c t i o n n o i s e d u r i n g w e ek d a y s a n d S a t u r d a y s a n d i s re l e v a n t o n l y t o p r o t e c t n e a r b y r e s i d e n t s f r om c o n s t r u c t i o n n o i s e du r i n g t h e n i g h t t i m e ho u r s , S u n d a y s a n d h o l i d a y s . N o i s e s t a n d a r d s d o n o t a p p l y i n e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n s . Th u s , a l t h o u g h t h e n o i s e f r o m a m b u l a n c e s i re n s w o u l d b e s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e r e a r e n o mit i g a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s p l a c ed o n t h i s t y p e o f n o i s e . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Tr a f f i c Di r e c t I m p a c t s ( P h a s e I I o n l y ) Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 1 : S e g m e n t o f H i g h w a y 7 9 b e t w e e n Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y a n d M a r g a r i t a R o a d – T h i s i s a di r e c t i m p a c t s i n c e w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f P r o j e c t P h a s e I I tr a f f i c t h i s s e g m e n t d e t e r i o r a t e s f r o m L O S D t o L O S E . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 1 : Tr a f f i c S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n - SR 7 9 b e t w e e n P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y a n d M a r g a r i t a R o a d Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P e n t i t l e d “ S R 7 9 S o u t h / M a r g a r i t a R o a d T r a f f i c S i g n a l Co o r d i n a t i o n – O l d T o w n F r o n t S t r e e t t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d ” . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l pa y r e q u i r e d C i t y o f T e m e c u l a D I F f e e s p r io r t o i s s u a n c e o f a n y C i t y o f T e m e c u l a bu i l d i n g p e r m i t . S h o u l d t h e e n t i r e C I P f u n d i n g n o t b e i n p l a c e a t t h e t i m e o f i s s u a n c e of a c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d in g i n P h a s e I A , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l f u n d a n d im p l e m e n t t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n an d e s t a b l i s h a r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t wit h t h e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a t o b e r e i m b u r s e d f o r e x p e n d i t u r e s m a d e o n b e h a l f o f t h e ci t y . H o w e v e r , a t t h i s t i m e , t h e C I P c a l l s f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e Ye a r 2 0 0 8 . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d U n a v o i d a b l e Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 2 : H i g h w a y 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y (P r o j e c t D r i v e w a y ) – T h i s i s a d i r e c t i m p a c t s i n c e t h i s in t e r s e c t i o n i s t h e m a i n p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y a n d t h e pr o j e c t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v id i n g t h e n o r t h l e g o f t h i s in t e r s e c t i o n w h i c h d o e s n o t e x i s t c u r r e n t l y a n d w i l l se r v e a s t h e p r o j e c t a c c e s s . Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 2 : • Dr i v e w a y # 1 o n S R 7 9 : Dr i v e w a y # 1 o n S R 7 9 i s t h e f o u r t h ( n o r t h ) l e g o f t h e SR 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y . T h i s i n t e rs e c t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y a s i g n a l i z e d T - in t e r s e c t i o n . M o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n t s i g n a l h a s a l r e a d y b e e n c o m p l e t e d t o ac c o m m o d a t e t h e f o u r t h l e g s e r v i n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e a n d o t h e r r e l a t e d c h a n g e s to g e o m e t r y . T h e p r o j e c t s h a l l p r o v i de t h e f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r s e c t i o n ge o m e t r y : o A d e d i c a t e d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e o n S R 7 9 , Si g n i f i c a n t a n d U n a v o i d a b l e Ex e c u t i v e S u m m a r y Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 6 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n o D u a l e a s t b o u n d l e f t - t u r n l a n e s o n SR 7 9 , a n d d u a l l e f t - t u r n l a n e s an d a s h a r e d t h r o u g h / r i g h t - t u r n l a n e i n t h e s o u t h b o u n d d i r e c t i o n ex i t i n g t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . • Dr i v e w a y # 2 o n S R 7 9 : D r i v e w a y # 2 o n S R 7 9 s h a l l b e l o c a t e d a t t h e w e s t bo u n d a r y o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d w i l l p r o v i d e un s i g n a l i z e d r i g h t i n / r i g h t - o u t o n l y ac c e s s . T h i s 4 0 - f o o t w i d e d r i v e w a y s h a l l p r o v i d e o n e i n b o u n d a n d o n e ou t b o u n d l a n e . • Dr i v e w a y # 3 o n D e P o r t o l a R o a d : Dr i v e w a y # 3 o n D e P o r t o l a R o a d w i l l pr o v i d e u n s i g n a l i z e d r i g h t - i n / r i g h t - o u t a n d l e f t - i n o n l y a c c e s s . L e f t - t u r n s o u t of t h e h o s p i t a l s h a l l b e p r o h i b i t e d . T h i s 4 0 - f o o t w i d e d r i v e w a y s h a l l p r o v i d e on e i n b o u n d a n d o n e o u t b o u n d l a n e . • Th e h o s p i t a l a n d o t h e r r e l a t e d b u i l d i n g s a r e l o c a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y i n t h e ce n t e r o f t h e s i t e , s u r r o u n d e d b y p a r k i n g . A n a d e q u a t e i n t e r n a l r o a d w a y sy s t e m s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d t o a c c e s s e a c h f a c i l i t y a n d t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e pa r k i n g . Cu m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s In t e r s e c t i o n s Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 3 : SR 7 9 / I - 1 5 S B R a m p s Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 3 : SR 7 9 / I - 1 5 S o u t h b o u n d R a m p s Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d “ I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 / S t a t e R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h In t e r c h a n g e ” ( P u b l i c W o r k s A c c o u n t N o . 2 1 0 . 1 6 5 . 6 6 2 ) w h i c h w i l l a d d l a n e s t o t h e ra m p s a t t h e i n t e r c h a n g e s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e p r i o r t o t h e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a n y en c r o a c h m e n t p e r m i t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . No t e : F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F f e e s , T U M F f e e s , C F D s , S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l ma t c h i n g f u n d s a n d S B 6 2 1 f u n d s a n d c o n s tr u c t i o n i s e x p e c t e d i n 2 0 1 1 . Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s 3. 3 - 3 a n d 3. 3 - 4 , r e q u i r e c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t b e gu a r a n t e e d t o b e i n p l a c e p r i o r t o o c c u p a n c y o f t h e h o s p i t a l p r o j e c t , e v e n t h o u g h t h e in t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e f u l l y f u n d e d a n d e x p e c t e d t o b e i n c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e ye a r 2 0 1 1 . T h e r e f o r e , t h e m i t i g a t i o n i s d e e m ed i n f e a s i b l e , b e c a u s e o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t y as s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o j e c t b y a n o u t s i d e p u b l i c a g e n c y ( C a l t r a n s ) a n d n o t th e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a . B e c a u s e t h e im p a c t a t t h e i n t e r c h a n g e c a n n o t b e m i t i g a t e d wit h c e r t a i n t y , t h e i n t e r c h a n g e i m p a c t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d c u m u l a t i v e l y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d un m i t i g a b l e f o r w h i c h a S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r rid i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 4 : SR 7 9 / I - 1 5 N B R a m p s Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 4 : S R 7 9 / I - 1 5 N o r t h b o u n d R a m p s Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d “ I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 / S t a t e R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h In t e r c h a n g e ” ( P u b l i c W o r k s A c c o u n t N o . 2 1 0 . 1 6 5 . 6 6 2 ) w h i c h w i l l a d d l a n e s t o t h e ra m p s a t t h e i n t e r c h a n g e s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e p r i o r t o t h e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a n y en c r o a c h m e n t p e r m i t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . No t e : F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F f e e s , T U M F f e e s , C F D s , S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Executive Summary Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 7 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n ma t c h i n g f u n d s a n d S B 6 2 1 f u n d s , a n d c on s t r u c t i o n i s e x p e c t e d i n 2 0 1 1 . M i t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e s 3. 3 - 3 a n d 3. 3 - 4 , r e q u i r e c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t b e gu a r a n t e e d t o b e i n p l a c e p r i o r t o o c c u p a n c y o f t h e h o s p i t a l p r o j e c t , e v e n t h o u g h t h e in t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e f u l l y f u n d e d a n d e x p e c t e d t o b e i n c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e ye a r 2 0 1 1 . T h e r e f o r e , t h e m i t i g a t i o n i s d e e m ed i n f e a s i b l e , b e c a u s e o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t y as s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o j e c t b y a n o u t s i d e p u b l i c a g e n c y ( C a l t r a n s ) a n d n o t th e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a . B e c a u s e t h e im p a c t a t t h e i n t e r c h a n g e c a n n o t b e m i t i g a t e d wit h c e r t a i n t y , t h e i n t e r c h a n g e i m p a c t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d c u m u l a t i v e l y s i g n i f i c a n t a n d un m i t i g a b l e f o r w h i c h a S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r rid i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 5 : SR 7 9 / L a P a z S t Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 5 : S R 7 9 / L a P a z S t Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P e n t i t l e d “ R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h W i d e n i n g - I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y ” , w h i c h w i l l a d d a f o u r t h t h r o u g h l a n e i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n o n S R 7 9 t h r o u g h L a Pa z S t r e e t s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d p r i o r t o th e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A o f t h e p r o j e c t . I f n o t c o m p l e t e d b y o t h e r s , t h e Ap p l i c a n t s h a l l c o m p l e t e t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s p r io r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A , s u b j ec t t o p o t e n t i a l r e i m b u r s e m e n t f r o m t h e Cit y o r o t h e r p r o j e c t s . No t e : F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F f e e s a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e T U M F p r o g r a m , an d c o n s t r u c t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o o c c u r i n 2 0 0 8 . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 6 : SR 7 9 / P e c h a n g a P k w y Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 6 : I n t e r s e c t i o n o f S R 7 9 / P e c h a n g a P k w y Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P e n t i t l e d “ S t a t e R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h t o P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y – D u a l Rig h t - T u r n L a n e s ” , w h i c h w i l l a d d a s e c o n d e a s t b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e o n S R 7 9 a t Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d p r i o r t o t h e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A o f t h e p r o j e c t . I f n o t c o m p l e t e d b y o t h e r s , t h e Ap p l i c a n t s h a l l c o m p l e t e t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s p r io r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f oc c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A , s u b j ec t t o p o t e n t i a l r e i m b u r s e m e n t f r o m t h e Cit y o r o t h e r p r o j e c t s . No t e : F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F f e e s a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e T U M F p r o g r a m an d S B 6 2 1 F u n d s , a n d c o n s t r uc t i o n i s s c h e d u l e d f o r 2 0 0 8 . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 7 : SR 7 9 / J e d e d i a h S m i t h R d ; S R 7 9 / Av e n i d a D e M i s s i o n e s ; S R 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y ; SR 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / M a r g a r i t a R o a d Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 7 : S R 7 9 / J e d e d i a h S m i t h R d ; S R 7 9 / A v e n i d a D e Mis s i o n e s ; S R 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W a y ; S R 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / M a r g a r i t a R o a d Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P e n t i t l e d “ S R 7 9 S o u t h / M a r g a r i t a R o a d T r a f f i c S i g n a l Co o r d i n a t i o n – O l d T o w n F r o n t S t r e e t t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d ” s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e d pr i o r t o t h e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a c e r t i f i c a t e of o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A o f th e p r o j e c t . I f n o t c o m p l e t e d b y o t h e r s , t h e A p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o m p l e t e t h e im p r o v e m e n t s p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a c e rt i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n Ph a s e I A , s u b j e c t t o p o t e n t i a l r e i m b u r s e m en t f r o m t h e C i t y o r o t h e r p r o j e c t s . Th i s p r o j e c t w i l l i m p r o v e t h e s i g n a l c o o r d i na t i o n a l o n g S R 7 9 , i n c l u d i n g t h e S R 7 9 / Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Ex e c u t i v e S u m m a r y Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 8 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n Je d e d i a h S m i t h R o a d , S R 7 9 / A v e n i d a D e M i s s i o n e s a n d S R 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / Ma r g a r i t a R o a d i n t e r s e c t i o n s , w h i c h w i l l im p r o v e t r a f f i c f l o w t h r o u g h t h e s e in t e r s e c t i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n , t he p r o j e c t s h a l l c o n s t r u c t l a n e g e o m e t r y i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d mo d i f y t h e e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t t h e ma i n p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y , p r i o r t o p r o j e c t op e r a t i o n . No t e : F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F fe e s , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s c h e d u l e d f o r 2 0 0 8 . Se g m e n t s SR 7 9 W e s t o f I - 1 5 Th e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s l i s t e d f o r Im p a c t s 3 . 3 - 3 a n d 3 . 3 - 4 w i l l a l s o m i t i g a t e t h i s im p a c t . T h e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e i n t e r c h a n g e w il l g r e a t l y i m p r o v e t r a f f i c f l o w o n t h i s se g m e n t o f S R 7 9 . H o w e v e r , M i t i g a t i on M e a s u r e s 3 . 3 - 3 a n d 3 . 3 - 4 , r e q u i r e co o r d i n a t i o n w i t h C a l t r a n s a n d t h e r e f o r e c a n n ot b e g u a r a n t e e d t o b e i n p l a c e o r p r i o r to o c c u p a n c y o f t h e h o s p i t a l p r o j e c t , ev e n t h o u g h t h e i n t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e fu l l y f u n d e d a n d e x p e c t e d t o b e i n c o n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e y e a r 2 0 1 1 . T h e r e f o r e , t h e mit i g a t i o n i s d e e m e d i n f e a s i b l e , b e c a u s e o f t he u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n t r o l o f th e p r o j e c t b y a n o u t s i d e p u b l i c a g e n c y ( C a l t r an s ) a n d n o t t h e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a . Be c a u s e t h e i m p a c t a t t h e i n t e r c h a n g e c an n o t b e m i t i g a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y , t h e in t e r c h a n g e i m p a c t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d c u m u l a t i v e ly s i g n i f i c a n t a n d u n m i t i g a b l e f o r w h i c h a S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s id e r a t i o n s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . SR 7 9 b e t w e e n I - 1 5 a n d P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y Th e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s l i s t e d f o r Im p a c t s 3 . 3 - 5 a n d 3 . 3 - 6 w i l l a l s o m i t i g a t e t h i s im p a c t . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Hi g h w a y 7 9 b e t w e e n P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y a n d Ma r g a r i t a R o a d ; H i g h w a y 7 9 b e t w e e n M a r g a r i t a Ro a d a n d B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d Th e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s l i s t e d f o r Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 7 wi l l a l s o m i t i g a t e t h i s i m p a c t . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 8 : P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y S o u t h o f S R 7 9 Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 8 : Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y S o u t h o f S R 7 9 Cit y o f T e m e c u l a C I P f o r f i s c a l Y e a r s 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 1 e n t i t l e d “ P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y Im p r o v e m e n t s – P h a s e I I ” – P u b l i c W o r k s A c c o u n t N o . 2 1 0 . 1 6 5 . 6 6 8 , s h a l l b e co m p l e t e d p r i o r t o t h e C i t y ’ s i s s u a n c e o f a ce r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n Ph a s e I A o f t h e p r o j e c t . I f n o t c o m p l e t e d b y o t h e r s , t h e A p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o m p l e t e t h e im p r o v e m e n t s p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a c e rt i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y b u i l d i n g i n Ph a s e I A , s u b j e c t t o p o t e n t i a l r e i m b u r s e m en t f r o m t h e C i t y o r o t h e r p r o j e c t s . No t e : T h i s p r o j e c t w i l l a d d t h e t h i r d t h r o u g h l a n e o n P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y i n b o t h di r e c t i o n s . F u n d i n g i s s e c u r e d t h r o u g h D I F fe e s , C F D ( W o l f C r e e k ) , P u b l i c L a n d s a n d Hig h w a y P r o g r a m , P e c h a n g a T r i b e c o n t r i b u t i on s a n d R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a W a t e r D i s t r i c t fu n d i n g , a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n i s s c h e d u l e d b e t w e e n 2 0 0 7 a n d 2 0 1 1 . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 9 : Ma r g a r i t a R o a d f r o m D e P o r t o l a R o a d t o Hig h w a y 7 9 Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 9 : Ma r g a r i t a R o a d f r o m D e P o r t o l a R o a d t o H i g h w a y 7 9 No t e : N o a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i on m e a s u r e s a r e f e a s i b l e d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t u p o n co m p l e t i o n o f f a l l i d e n t i f i e d m i t i g a t i o n m e a s ur e s , n o a d d i t i o n a l r eg i o n a l c i r c u l a t i o n Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Executive Summary Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l S- 1 9 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Po t e n t i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s L e v e l o f I m p a c t a f t e r M i t i g a t i o n im p r o v e m e n t s c a n b e a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h i n t he e x i s t i n g r i g h t o f w a y . E x i s t i n g l a n d us e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t c o n d i t i o n s pr e c l u d e t h e a b i l i t y t o a c q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l r i g h t o f w a y fo r a d d i t i o n a l c i r c u l a t i o n s y s t em i m p r o v e m e n t s a l o n g t h i s s e g m e n t . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f th e E a s t e r n B y p a s s w i l l p r o v i d e f o r s i g n i f i c a n t c u m u l a t i v e t r a f f i c i m p a c t r e l i e f w i t h a l l pr o j e c t a f f e c t e d s e g m e n t s a n d i n t e r s e c t i o n s ex p e c t e d t o o p e r a t e a t a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s of s e r v i c e , h o w e v e r t h e E a s t e r n B y p a s s wa s n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e c u m u l a t i v e an a l y s i s a t t h i s t i m e b e c a u s e c o m p l e t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o b e t o o f a r i n t h e f u t u r e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 1 0 : Re d h a w k P a r k w a y S o u t h o f Hig h w a y 7 9 Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 1 0 : Re d h a w k P a r k w a y S o u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 Th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l p a y r e q u i r e d C i t y o f T e m e cu l a D I F f e e s p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f a n y Cit y o f T e m e c u l a e n c r o a c h m e n t p e r m i t . No t e : N o a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i on m e a s u r e s a r e f e a s i b l e d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t u p o n co m p l e t i o n o f f a l l i d e n t i f i e d m i t i g a t i o n m e a s ur e s , n o a d d i t i o n a l r eg i o n a l c i r c u l a t i o n im p r o v e m e n t s c a n b e a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h i n th e e x i s t i n g r i g h t o f w a y a l o n g t h i s se g m e n t . E x i s t i n g l a n d u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t c on d i t i o n s p r e c l u d e t h e a b i l i t y t o a c q u i r e ad d i t i o n a l r i g h t o f w a y f o r a d d i ti o n a l c i r c u l a t i o n s y s t e m im p r o v e m e n t s . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e E a s t e r n B y p a s s w i l l p r o v i d e f o r s i g n i f i c a n t c u m u l a t i v e t r a f f i c i m p a c t r e l i e f w i t h a l l pr o j e c t a f f e c t e d s e g m e n t s a n d i n t e r s e c t i o n s ex p e c t e d t o o p e r a t e a t a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s of s e r v i c e , h o w e v e r t h e E a s t e r n B y p a s s wa s n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e c u m u l a t i v e an a l y s i s a t t h i s t i m e b e c a u s e c o m p l e t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o b e t o o f a r i n t h e f u t u r e . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Im p a c t 3 . 3 - 1 1 : S R 7 9 W e s t o f I - 1 5 M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e 3 . 3 - 1 1 : To e n s u r e t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e c o m p l e t e d p r i o r t o oc c u p a n c y o f t h e h o s p i t a l b u i l d i n g , o c c u p a n c y o f a n y b u i l d i n g o u t s i d e o f P h a s e I A sh a l l n o t b e p e r m i t t e d u n t i l a f t e r t h e C i t y h a s i s s u e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y f o r a n y bu i l d i n g i n P h a s e I A . Si g n i f i c a n t a n d u n a v o i d a b l e . Temecula Regional Hospital 1-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This chapter describes the background of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital project, the purpose and legal authority for this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the relationship to the previously certified project EIR. 1.1 Project Background This SEIR has been prepared to augment the Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Original EIR - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017) certified on January 24, 2006 pursuant to a Judgment and Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued by the Riverside County Superior Court (Case Nos. RIC 445394 and RIC 445411). Following certification of the original EIR by the City of Temecula, two lawsuits were filed seeking to set aside the certification of the EIR (RIC 445411 and RIC 445394). On April 6, 2007, the Riverside County Superior Court ordered that the City of Temecula set aside its approval of the project, including, without limitation, its certification of an EIR and approvals of PA 04-0462, PA 04-0463, PA 04-0571, PA 05-0302 and all subsequent approvals and permits. The court concluded that the original EIR failed to adequately address the construction noise impacts, siren noise impacts and mitigation measures for traffic impacts, and did not address potential impacts from underground methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) plumes generated by three gas stations in the vicinity that might have the potential to migrate under the site, contaminate the soil on the site and generate unhealthful gas vapors. In addition, the court found that the City of Temecula failed to make valid findings that the City had adopted all feasible mitigation measures before adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As previously mentioned, several other areas of the original EIR, including aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, land use, air quality that were challenged by the petitioners were upheld by the superior court and do not require any additional analysis. This SEIR therefore evaluates the above outlined issues that the Court determined were not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts, traffic mitigation and the potential impact of the plumes. In addition to the court mandated EIR analysis, a new alternative site has recently become available for consideration and will be included in the SEIR. The Project Description is contained in Chapter 2 of this SEIR and has not changed from that contained in the Draft EIR. Potential impacts to the following environmental issue areas have not changed and are therefore not evaluated in the SEIR: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, and 3) land use 1. Introduction Temecula Regional Hospital 1-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 and planning. All other potential environmental factors were eliminated from consideration in the original Draft EIR by the original Initial Study. 1.2 Environmental Review The City has prepared this SEIR in order to comply with the Court’s writ of mandate, in light of the sections of the initial EIR that were found sufficient by the Court. The EIR has been revised pursuant to Public Resources code §21168.9, which addresses the remedies that can be required by the court when it finds an EIR, or a portion of an EIR, to be inadequate. Thus, this SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the order of the Court under §21168.9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21168.9 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: (a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: • A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. • If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. • A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division. (b) Any order pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with this division and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with this division. The order shall be made by the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate specifying what action by the public agency is necessary to comply with this division. However, the order shall be limited to that portion of a determination, finding, or decision or the specific project activity or activities found to be in noncompliance only if a court finds that (1) the portion or specific project activity or activities are severable, (2) severance will not prejudice complete and full compliance with this division, and (3) the court has not found the remainder of the project to be in noncompliance with this division. The trial court shall retain jurisdiction over the public agency's proceedings by way of a return to the peremptory writ until the court has determined that the public agency has complied with this division. 1. Introduction Temecula Regional Hospital 1-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 (c) Nothing in this section authorizes a court to direct any public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way. Except as expressly provided in this section, nothing in this Section is intended to limit the equitable powers of the court. 1.3 January 2006 Environmental Document Temecula Regional Hospital Environmental Impact Report The Temecula Regional Hospital EIR assessed impacts related to: 1) aesthetics, 2) air quality, 3) hydrology and groundwater, 4) land use and planning 5) noise, and 6) transportation. In addition to these topical areas, the EIR evaluated the following six (6) alternatives to the proposed project: 1) No project-No Build, 2) No Project – Development to Current General Plan, 3) Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties, 4) Access from Dartolo Road, 5) Access from De Portolo Road and Dartolo Road, and 6) Construction of Hospital Only. Alternative 6 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The original Draft EIR is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The original EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse significant impacts to: 1) short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts, 2) noise impacts associated with emergency helicopter flights, and 3) cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. The original EIR considered the following impacts to be less than significant without mitigation: 1) aesthetics – scenic highways and visual quality, 2) air quality – construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, 4) land use and planning, and 5) noise – non-helicopter. The following impacts were considered potentially significant but could be mitigated to less than significant levels: 1) aesthetics – light and glare, 2) noise – operational impacts, and 3) transportation – project impacts. The Initial Study determined that the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant or no impact to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/fire safety, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation and utilities and service systems. The City of Temecula circulated the original EIR (Temecula Regional Hospital EIR – SCH No. 2005031017) on September 28, 2005. In January 2006, the City certified the EIR. Subsequently, the Court held that the noise analysis was inadequate; that the analysis of traffic mitigation measures was inadequate and that the EIR should have, but did not, address the potential impacts of the underground MTBE plumes in the groundwater in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. The Court did not invalidate the original EIR’s remaining analysis of potential impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives. As such, this SEIR does not address the impacts and mitigation addressed in the original EIR that were not invalidated by the Court. In specific, these areas of the original EIR include the following: 1. Introduction Temecula Regional Hospital 1-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Project impacts found to be less than significant: 1) aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality), 2) air quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies, 3) hydrology and water quality, and 4) land use and planning. • Project impacts found to be less than significant after mitigation: 1) aesthetics - light and glare. • Project impacts found to be significant and unavoidable after all feasible mitigation: 1) air quality - short-term, long-term and cumulative impacts. 1.4 Approach to this SEIR CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR or, in this case, an SEIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR or SEIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the SEIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than- significant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” must be included in the record of project approval. 1.5 Organization of the Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR is organized to allow the reader to quickly and logically review a summary of the analysis, review recommended mitigation measures, and identify the residual environmental impacts after mitigation, if any. Those readers who wish to read the Draft SEIR in greater detail are directed to the main body of this document. The Draft SEIR begins with an Executive Summary, which describes the proposed project, its environmental effects, and alternatives to the project (including the No Project Alternative). The Executive Summary culminates with Table S-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This table lists each identified environmental impact, mitigation measures identified, and the level of significance following mitigation. The Executive Summary is then followed by this Introduction. Following the Executive Summary, the Project Description (Chapter 2) includes the project location, project proponent’s objectives, a description of the proposed project, and an outline of the required approvals. 1. Introduction Temecula Regional Hospital 1-5 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Chapter 3 contains a focused discussion of environmental topics required by the Court as they relate to this project, including the setting (existing conditions), and the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed project. Although the Court found no fault with the analysis of alternatives already considered in the original EIR, the SEIR identifies a new alternative to the proposed project in Chapter 4 that was not available when the original EIR was prepared. The alternative also includes the No Project Alternative (“build” and “no build”), required by CEQA for all EIRs. The report authors, agencies and persons contacted during the preparation of the Draft SEIR are listed in Chapter 5. The Appendices include the NOP, response to the NOP, as well as background and supporting documents and technical information for the impact analyses. 1.6 Public Involvement and Review A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on July 6, 2007 and requested those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project to describe that authority and to identify additional relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in this SEIR. NOP Comments were received form: 1) Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 3) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 4) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and 6) Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NOP and the responses to the NOP are attached to this SEIR as Appendices A and B, respectively. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 12, 2007 at 6 p.m. at the Temecula City Hall. Comments were received from: 1) Wayne Hall, 2) A. Evan Harbottle, 3) Pauline Nelson, and 4) Kenneth Ray. Temecula Regional Hospital 2-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital (proposed project). This chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site; entitlements; required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City and the applicant. 2.1 Introduction The applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposes to develop a 320-bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the proposed project would be also be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this SEIR, the proposed project was evaluated in the original EIR for the Temecula Regional Hospital, certified January 24, 2006. This SEIR evaluates the issues outlined in Chapter 1 that the Superior Court determined was not adequately addressed in the original EIR. The SEIR is focused on the following environmental issues/factors: noise impacts (sirens and construction noise); traffic impact mitigation and the potential impact of the MTBE plumes in the underground water in the vicinity of the site that were caused by leaking tanks at three closely located gas stations. In addition, because an alternative site not available when the prior EIR was prepared is now available, the City determined that this SEIR should evaluate use of that site as an alternative in addition to the alternatives that have already been analyzed in the prior EIR. 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives The primary objectives of the proposed new development are as follows: City Objectives The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Applicant Objectives The objectives of UHS, the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the- art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 2.3 Project Location and Site Characteristics Project Location The project site is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, as shown in Figure 2-1. Project Site Characteristics The project site consists of 35.31 acres of largely vacant land covered with non-native grasses and weeds. Site topography is characterized by a gently sloping terrain, with a high point at the western third of the property. The high point represents a boundary between two watersheds, with the western one-third draining to the west and the balance sloping and draining to the east. A flood control channel parallels the eastern site boundary, containing dense riparian vegetation consisting of willows and cottonwoods. Currently, the project site is undeveloped. Until recently, three single-family homes were on the property facing De Portola Road, but they are in the process of being demolished. Surrounding land uses include commercial and single-family residences to the south (across Highway 79 South); single-family residences to the north (across De Portola Road); professional office, commercial and educational uses to the west (currently under construction); and offices and Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 02 Miles Temecula City Boundary 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 commercial uses to the east. Temecula Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site, and Interstate 15 is approximately 2 miles to the west. A regional location map is provided in Figure 2-1; a project vicinity map is provided as Figure 2-2. 2.4 Project Characteristics Project Description The proposed 566,160-square-foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility consists of: • An approximately 408,160-square-foot, 2-tower hospital complex to contain approximately 320 beds. One tower will be 6 stories/106 feet high, and the second five stories/83 feet high. The hospital will offer full in-patient and out-patient services, as well as emergency services. The facility will not contain a trauma unit. • Two medical office buildings, one four stories/73 feet high and the second three stories/60 feet high, providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space. Office space will be available for lease to all types of medical service providers. • A 10,000-square-foot cancer center housed in a one-story building. • An 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center in a one-story building. The center will be available only to patients and on-site staff. Project components are shown on Figure 2-3. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad is proposed near the northeast corner of the hospital. The project applicant indicates that on average, one helicopter flight per month will occur at the hospital. The permit to be obtained from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics for a Special Use Helipad will permit up to six landings per month because the helipad is defined as an Emergency Medical Services Landing Site. An Emergency Medical Services Landing Site is defined as a site used for the landing and taking off of Emergency Medical Services helicopters that is located at or as near as practical to a medical emergency or at or near a medical facility and is used, over any 12 month period, for no more than an average of six landings per month with a patient or patients on the helicopter, except to allow for adequate medical response to a mass casualty event, even if that response causes the site to be used beyond these limits. 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. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. 79 7 9 MARGARIT A RD Pr o j e c t S i t e D E P O R T O L A D R Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 2 -2 Pr o j e c t V i c i n i t y M a p SO U R C E : E S A 0 30 0 Fe e t Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 2 - 3 Pr o p o s e d S i t e P l a n SO U R C E : H K S 0 4 0 0 Fe e t 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-7 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 A jogging path and horse trail will be constructed north of the fitness center. The horse trail will connect existing horse trails in the vicinity of the proposed project. Lighting will be placed throughout the site for security. Light fixtures will be pole-mounted, 25 feet high, designed to face downward, and directed away from surrounding land uses. Lot coverage will consist of approximately 16 percent building area, 30 percent parking area, and 33 percent landscape area. Construction Construction of the proposed project will occur in five phases. Phase IA consists of site grading, demolition of existing buildings, construction of a three-story, 60,000-square-foot medical office building (MOB #2), and construction of adequate surface parking spaces to serve the building. Phase IA is anticipated to last approximately 10 months. Phase IB consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. Phase IB is anticipated to last approximately 14 months. Phase II will expand the hospital to its ultimate, maximum 320-bed configuration with the addition of the five-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet. Phase III will add a four-story 80,000 square foot medical office building (MOB #1) and the hospital connector. Phase IV consists of construction of a one-story, 10,000-square-foot cancer center and associated parking spaces. Phase V will be the construction of the 8,000-square-foot fitness center and the jogging trail. Construction of Phases II through V is anticipated occur concurrently and to last approximately 12 months. As shown on Figure 2-3, the total parking provided will be 1,278 spaces, which exceeds the City’s parking standards, which require 663 parking spaces for the proposed project. The greatest exceedance is associated with parking spaces calculated for the hospital portion of the project, for which the Development Code requires one space per three beds. The parking provided on the site exceeds the standards contained within the Development Code because the Code requirements do not adequately account for parking needs within the hospital associated with staff parking, outpatient services, and other needs within the facility. This is common within most jurisdictions, and hospital facilities often exceed minimum parking requirements for this reason. In summary, the proposed building heights and parking spaces that will be provided for the hospital facility are as follows: 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-8 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Hospital – one story/27 feet (644 parking spaces and 42 handicapped spaces hospital and bed towers); • Bed Tower 1 – six stories/106 feet; • Bed Tower 2 – five stories/83.5 feet; • MOB #1 – four stories/73 feet (280 parking spaces and 16 handicapped spaces); • MOB #2 – three stories/60 feet (233 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces); • Cancer Center – one story/27 feet (55 parking spaces and 4 handicapped spaces), and • Fitness Center – one story/27 feet (66 parking spaces and 10 handicapped spaces). Parking Approximately 1,278 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots. A total of 82 spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking. The site will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including pathways from the handicapped parking to hospital facilities. All of the buildings, except for the fitness center, will include passenger loading zones. Access to the Site As shown on Figure 2-3, the project includes the following three access points: • Access to Highway 79 South opposite Country Glen Way at a planned new driveway and signalized location. • Secondary access at De Portola Road at the northeast corner of the project site, with turning movements restricted to in and out right turns and in only left turns. Left turns from the site onto De Portola Road will not be permitted. • Access via a reciprocal easement across the property to the immediate west. • Right-in and right-out access from Highway 79 South at its intersection with Dona Lynora on the west end of the site. Primary project access will be from Highway 79 South at a signalized intersection. The secondary access point at De Portola Road will be unsignalized. Internal circulation throughout the site will also serve as fire lanes for the City of Temecula Fire Department. Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed development of a regional hospital to serve the Temecula area. The project site encompasses 35.31 acres. Project applications are as follows: • The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z2 overlay area from the General Plan, which currently limits the height of buildings along Highway 79 South to two stories. The Professional Office General Plan land use designation that applies to the property will remain unchanged. 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • The Zone Change application requests that the zoning district applicable to the property be changed from Professional Office and DePortola Road Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-9 would allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for 30 percent of the roof area of the hospital. • The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application requests permission to construct a 320 bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses. • The Development Plan application proposes the construction of a 408,160-square-foot hospital, a helipad, two medical offices totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, a 10,000-square-foot cancer center, and an 8,000-square-foot fitness rehabilitation center. Total building area proposed is approximately 566,160 square feet on the 35.31-acre site. • The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight lots into a single parcel. 2.5 Discretionary Approvals While the overall project must comply with the requirements of the City Planning Department, the building requirements for the hospital buildings are under the sole control of the State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in this Draft SEIR with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. The project is anticipated to require the following public actions and approvals. Agency Action City of Temecula City Council • Approval of General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Z2 overlay shown in the General Plan, an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning from Planned Development Overlay (PDO) 8 and Professional Office to PDO-9, and the incorporation of PDO-9 into the Temecula Municipal Code which will allow building height up to 115 feet for 30 percent of roof areas for hospitals • Approval of a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to provide for the development of the project site with the proposed uses, structures, parking, landscaping, and other components, and to establish development standards and conditions of use for the project • Approval of other actions related to the implementation of the above actions and mitigation of environmental effects • Medical Office Building and fitness center building and occupancy permits • Re-certification of the EIR and certification of this SEIR California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development • Hospital building and occupancy permits City of Temecula Fire Department • Review and approval of fire flow, fire lanes, and fire suppression systems 2. Project Description Temecula Regional Hospital 2-10 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Agency Action City of Temecula Police Department • Review of security plans and systems City of Temecula Public Works • 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 City of Temecula Departments and Divisions overseeing construction related development • Review and approval of building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and sign plans and permits • Review and approval of encroachment permits • Review and approval of street trees U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game • Approval of burrowing owl report/surveys California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division • Approval of special use helipad (Heliport Site Approval Permit) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission • Review of helipad Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians • Cultural report approval and pre-excavation agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board • Possible review and approval of stormwater permits Rancho California Water District • Possible review and approval water service permits Riverside County Flood Control • Possible review and approval of permits Riverside County Health Department • Possible review and approval of permits U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Possible review and approval of permits 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 3.1 Hazards 3.1.1 Introduction The presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards has the potential to affect residents, workers, and visitors within and adjacent to a project site. In this case, the court order in the litigation challenging the proposed project found that the original EIR failed to address the potential risk arising from plumes of MTBE in groundwater caused by leaking underground storage tanks at three nearby service stations. The service stations are under an order to clean up the plumes and remediation is ongoing. The issues to be evaluated in this EIR are what risks to patients, staff and visitors to the proposed hospital, if any, might occur if the MTBE plume were to migrate under the proposed hospital site. Because the groundwater will not be used for drinking or any other uses in the proposed hospital, the potential risk of adverse impacts on the patients, staff and visitors to the proposed buildings would arise from toxic vapors that might migrate upward if the MTBE plume migrated under the proposed hospital site. Other than MTBE, the main volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of concern near the proposed project site are total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA). TPHg is a broad term that describes any of a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that come from crude oil. Exposure to some TPHg compounds can cause various immediate and long-term health problems. Like MTBE, TAME is volatile, flammable, and highly water soluble. ETBE is a gasoline additive that has become more commonly used as MTBE has been taken out of use. It performs the same task as MTBE, reducing air pollution by helping gasoline burn cleaner, but without as many environmental and health ramifications. However, ETBE still has its setbacks. It is highly flammable and can seep into water systems if it leaks into soil. TBA in the groundwater is typically considered a breakdown product of MTBE. Laboratory tests have shown an increase in cancer and thyroid disease when TBA is mixed with drinking water. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Aboveground and Underground Storage Tanks The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the petroleum above-ground storage tank (AST) program. The program covers facilities that store petroleum in a single tank, or multiple tanks with an aggregate capacity in excess of 1,320 gallons, and requires that tank owners or operators file a storage statement, pay a facility fee, and prepare and implement a federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC Plan must include procedures, methods, and equipment in place at the facility to prevent discharges of petroleum from reaching navigable waters. The RWQCB also administers the UST program. State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, repairs, release reporting requirements, corrective actions, cleanup, and closure. The Riverside County 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Environmental Health Department enforces applicable regulations, which include permitting and inspection requirements. The Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB is the local enforcement agency for leaking underground storage tanks. For example, the San Diego RWQCB is currently overseeing the investigation and remediation of leaking USTs that resulted in releases near the site. Setting There are three existing or former gasoline service stations within 1,000 feet of the project site with USTs that warrant investigation for soil or groundwater contamination. Due to leaks from these tanks, all have undergone regular groundwater monitoring since 2001. The existing service station locations in relation to the project site are shown on Figure 3.1-1. Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast, Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast, and Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the project site.1 Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South Chevron Service Station #204029 is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. The station has six groundwater monitoring wells, and monitoring has been ongoing since at least August 2001. Monitoring and remediation of the Chevron site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE has been reported at all six wells at some point in the last seven years. MTBE has been reported at a maximum concentration of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and TBA has been reported at a maximum concentration of 420µg/L. On January 24, 2007, Holguin, Fahan & Associates sampled groundwater at the Chevron site. Figure 3.1-1 summarizes the recently reported concentrations of concern (CoCos) and depth to groundwater for each well at the service station. MTBE was detected at levels of 11 µg/L and 4 µg/L at two of the six wells, one 300 feet southeast from the project site and the other 255 feet. No other VOCs were detectable at this facility. Based on the project site’s gradient and the direction of groundwater flows and the low levels of MTBE detected, the likelihood that MTBE from this service station has migrated onto the project site is very low.2 This opinion, is corroborated by groundwater sampling conducted at the hospital site in 2006. MTBE was not detected in groundwater samples downgradiant from the Chevron release. A report prepared by Holguin, Fahan & Associates (October 2005), provided the following information in connection with the groundwater sampling: • The report concluded that “MTBE concentrations are consistent with the historical levels and show a general overall concentration downward trend.” 1 SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. 2 SCS Engineers, 2007. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 1 - 1 Re p o r t e d G r o u n d w a t e r G r a d i e n t SO U R C E : S C S E n g i n e e r s , 2 0 0 5 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.1-1 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY CHEVRON SERVICE STATION #204029 Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Project Depth to Goundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-1 300 ft southeast 26.08 <50 11 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-2 360 ft southeast 23.93 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-3 200 ft southeast 24.52 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-4 320 ft southeast 25.56 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-5 255 ft southeast 26.80 <50 4 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-6 250 ft southeast 25.78 <50 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Holguin, Fahan & Associates, October 2005. Based on a review of previous reports for the Chevron facility, the MTBE-bearing groundwater is interpreted to have migrated beyond the boundaries of this facility. Based on the reported gradient and the proposed hospital site’s proximity to the release, it is possible that the MTBE-impacted groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site. However, MTBE was not currently detected in any current groundwater samples collected from soil boring B9 (Figure 3.1-2) at the hospital site, downgradient from the release in January 2006. Samples were also collected in 2007 and are discussed below. Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway The Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east by southeast of the project site as shown on Figure 3.1-1. In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the facility to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. Monitoring and remediation of the Shell site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment at the Shell site. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 have resulted in the installation of an additional 32 groundwater monitoring wells at downgradient locations and the completion of thirty-five cone penetration test (CPT) locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells have had reported concentrations of MTBE, TBA, TAME, and ETBE. Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling has been conducted at the facility since 2001. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 1 - 2 Cu r r e n t a n d P r e v i o u s S o i l V a p o r Sa m p l i n g L o c a t i o n s w i t h A n a l y t i c a l R e s u l t s SO U R C E : S C S E n g i n e e r s , 2 0 0 5 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-6 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 containing dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the facility as a groundwater remediation system to minimize contaminant migration, and to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the facility from July 2004 to August 2006. In August 2006, the groundwater remediation system was taken offline due to the reduction of MTBE in the Shell Service Station's groundwater monitoring wells network. Evaluation of the possible “rebound” of the contaminants of concern in groundwater is on-going at the facility and reactivation of the remediation system in this area will resume should it be found that these contaminants of concern exceed regulatory limits. As of April 2007, there has been no reported rebound of contaminants of concern at the Shell Service Station. During the first quarter 2007 (January 2007) groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to range between 25 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs). The monitoring wells closest to the project site that screen what is reported as an upper groundwater zone3 are MW- 22A, MW-23A, MW-24A, and MW-25A. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime (westerly) and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is potentially migrating onto hospital project at very low concentrations. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1-3) at the hospital project site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site monitoring well. Table 3.1-2 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity. The samples taken from MW-22A and MW-23A were collected on July 27, 2006, and the samples taken from MW-24A and MW-25A were collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Additional Assessment of the Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks4 completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed hospital site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or diisopropyl ether (DIPE) were reported above the laboratory reporting (or “detection”) limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 μg/L to 1.1 μg/L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 μg/L to 2.22 μg/L. Fourteen of the 40 samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 μg/L to 77 μg/L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 μg/L) was reported in location CPT-50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side Highway 79 South. 3 Miller Brooks reported three groundwater regimes that were investigated: upper, intermediate, and deep. For the purposes of the fate and transport analysis, the analysis focused on the upper groundwater regime, due to its proximity to potential receptors and proposed hospital site buildings. 4 Summary of Additional Site Assessment Activities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California, Case Number R9-2002-0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 1 - 3 Gr o u n d w a t e r S a m p l i n g L o c a t i o n s w i t h An a l y t i c a l R e s u l t s SO U R C E : S C S E n g i n e e r s , 2 0 0 5 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-8 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.1-2 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Project Depth to Goundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-22A 140 ft southeast 22.72 <50 4.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-23A 130 ft southeast 22.46 <50 7.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-24A 10 ft southeast 24.00 <50 2.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-25A 90 ft southeast 24.56 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 NOTES: Samples from MW-22A and MW-23A collected on July 27, 2006, and samples from MW-24A and MW-25A collected on January 25, 2007 by Delta Environmental. Samples reportedly not collected for the last two sampling events from MW-22A and MW-23A because wells were inaccessible. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: Delta Environmental. The above-referenced Shell property site assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling: • There does not appear to be the discrete water-bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway. • Pore pressure dissipation tests from these four CPTs (CPT-46, CPT-47, CPT-49, and CPT-53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities. In other words, the geology varies around the proposed hospital site. Based on work done by other consultants, the groundwater at the proposed hospital site was reported to vary from 8 to 18 feet below grade. However, based on permanent groundwater monitoring wells located in the proposed hospital site vicinity and on the proposed hospital site itself, the depth to groundwater is approximately 24 to 30 feet bgs. Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from this report, MTBE impacted groundwater has migrated onto the southern edge of the proposed project site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the proposed hospital site. Delta Environmental collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Arco station. Monitoring and remediation of the Arco site is under the active jurisdiction and oversight of the San Diego RWQCB. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 mg/kg to 1,300 mg/kg), benzene (1.3 mg/kg), toluene (0.012 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 mg/kg to 47 mg/kg), total xylenes (0.029 mg/kg to 105 mg/kg), and MTBE (0.011 mg/kg to 43 mg/kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated installed three monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, and MW3) at the proposed hospital site. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT-1 though CPT-6) at the Arco facility, soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations, and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT-7 though CPT-17, CPT-18, and CPT-19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW14). Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells MW1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the proposed hospital site. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off-site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW-1, IW-2, and IW-3) were installed along Dartola Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the proposed hospital site. Since the third quarter 2003, groundwater pumped from the proposed hospital site remediation system has been treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells, which further minimizes contaminant migration to the proposed project site. As of the first quarter 2007, the Arco site has a monitoring well network consisting of thirteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10S-A, MW-10S-B, and MW-10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected at a maximum concentration of 1,900 micrograms per liter (µg/L). During the first quarter 2007 groundwater5 was reported to flow to the west- northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 25.83 and 27.83 feet bgs in the 5 Atlantic Richfield Company Quarterly Report First Quarter 2007, Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, CA, Secor International Incorportated, 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-10 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to be migrating towards the proposed hospital site as a result of this release. However, MTBE was not detected in any groundwater samples collected from soil boring B10 (Figure 3.1-3) at the site, downgradient from this release in January 2006, which is the nearest on-site monitoring well. Table 3.1-3 summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the project site, and depth to groundwater for all wells in the immediate vicinity of the Arco site. TABLE 3.1-3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO SERVICE STATION #5695 Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-1 305 ft east 27.17 <50 16 <2.0 <2.0 25 MW-2 325 ft east 26.02 <50 1.6 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-3 330 ft east 26.38 280 1.9 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-4 340 ft east 26.13 <50 3.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-5 350 ft east 27.70 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-6 315 ft east 27.83 <50 2.2 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-7 370 ft east 27.32 <50 19 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-8 270 ft east 27.75 <50 0.75J <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-9 225 ft east 26.90 <50 6.3 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-11 340 ft east 46.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-12 230 ft east 45.93 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-13 250 ft east 25.53 <50 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 <25 MW-14 200 ft east 26.91 <0.32 <1.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Holguin, Fahan & Associates on January 24, 2007. Goundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from project site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. SOURCE: SCS Engineers Previous Hospital Project Site Investigative Activities Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the proposed hospital site. Soil vapor samples were collected from seven locations within the footprint of the proposed site buildings (SV1 through SV6, and SV8). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-11 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Three additional sampling locations (SV7, SV9, and SV10) were located in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the proposed hospital site. The samples collected from locations SV1 through SV10 reported no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory detection limits. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 3.1-2. Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS Engineers bored ten groundwater sampling locations in the vicinity of the proposed hospital site, and in places most likely to intercept migrating MTBE contaminated building footprints (B1-B6, and B8), and the other three were drilled in the southwest corner of the proposed hospital site (B7, B9, and B10) with the goal of intercepting the possible MTBE groundwater plume from the nearby service stations (Figure 3.1-3). Groundwater samples were collected using a Hydropunch® sampler and analyzed at an on-site state-accredited mobile laboratory. The samples were analyzed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 at a concentration of 1.3 µg/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. MTBE was detected in groundwater at boring B5 (see Table 3.1-4) at a concentration of 1.3 µg/L, and was the only boring to have a VOC at a detectable concentration. TABLE 3.1-4 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY PROJECT SITE Sample Number Benzene (µg/L) Toluene (µg/L) Ethyl-Benzene (µg/L) Total Xylenes (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) B1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 1.3 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 NOTES: Samples collected by Environmental Business Solutions in July, 2006. µg/L = micrograms per liter <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit ND = Not reported at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene. And total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. SOURCE: SCS Engineers 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-12 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to hazards and hazardous materials, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Impact Assessment and Methodology In July 2007, SCS Engineers assessed the proposed hospital site to evaluate certain environmental conditions in the shallow subsurface soil vapor. The objectives of the scope of services described in their report were to: • Assess the extent and concentration of VOCs including MTBE in soil vapor in selected locations of the proposed hospital site. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-13 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Assess the likelihood of a (significant6) human health risk in association with detected VOCs and MTBE due to the upward migration of soil vapors containing elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons.7 SCS Engineers conducted a soil vapor survey at the proposed hospital site on July 16 and 18, 2007, to assess whether or not any VOCs, specifically MTBE, were present and, if so, in what concentrations. The soil vapor samples were collected from 14 locations (SG1 through SG14) within the proposed hospital site boundaries (see Figure 3.1-2). Additional soil vapor samples were collected on August 21 and 24, 2007. Sample locations SG12, SG13 and SG14 were located at in the southwest portion of the proposed hospital site in an attempt to intercept the off-site MTBE groundwater plume that may have migrated onto the propose hospital site. The locations of the soil vapor samples are shown on Figure 3.1-2. The soil vapor samples were collected in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substance Control DTSC guidelines. Prior to collecting a soil vapor sample, a one-inch diameter hole was drilled at each sampling location. Then, a soil vapor probe was inserted and a soil well constructed. Soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 5 and 15 ft bgs at each sampling site. They were then analyzed by a technician from H&P Mobile Geochemistry in a state-accredited on-site mobile laboratory. Soil vapor drilling equipment was either cleaned or changed out between each soil vapor probe to minimize the likelihood of cross-contamination. Below are the results of the SCS survey. No MTBE or any other analytes were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. Detection limits refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured above the instrument background noise. Reporting limits (quantitation limits) refer to a minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured within specified limits of precision and accuracy. Thus, when quantitation limits are used as reporting limits, the laboratory concludes that the analyte is not present in a sufficient amount to be reliably quantified. Therefore, a compound could be present below the reporting limit and above the method detection limit; however, it can not be measured with an accuracy or precision. Hypothetical Health Risk Scenarios In the order to better understand the hypothetical risk of MTBE-bearing groundwater migrating from off-site sources onto the proposed hospital site and under the proposed buildings, several scenarios were evaluated based on data collected from the groundwater monitoring well networks associated with the gas stations in the proposed hospital site’s vicinity. All scenarios were modeled using the DTSC Screening-Level Model for Groundwater Contamination, last modified January 21, 2005, which is based on the Johnson-Ettinger vapor intrusion model. The default values were used for most parameters to be conservative. The following assumptions were used to estimate health risk: 6 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E-6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as “significant.” For the purposes of this limited health risk assessment, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site’s current zoning, is assumed. 7 SCS Engineers, 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-14 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • The MTBE concentrations in groundwater were conservatively assumed to occur uniformly across the proposed hospital site. • A residential adult exposure scenario was used in which the adult worker weighs 70 kilograms, and works at the proposed hospital site for 350 days a year per year for 30 years. Please note, the DTSC model incorporates a 24-hour exposure period and thus the realistic exposure period is overestimated by at least a factor of two.8 • The calculations used in the health risk analysis use standard (DTSC defaults for soil type) physical parameters to describe soil conditions (37 percent total porosity and a dry bulk density of 1.66 grams per cubic centimeters).9 • The DTSC default soil gas advection rate (flow rate) of 5 liters per minute for every 100 square meters of floor area was used. The soil advection rate was estimated for the tower building (approximately 16,555 square meters) and the proposed cancer center building (approximately 743 square meters) to be approximately 827 liters per minute (L/m) for the tower building and 37 L/m for the cancer center building. The flow of soil gas (advection) in the subsurface may be caused by gas-pressure gradients or, in certain cases, gas density gradients. Pressure-driven advection is produced when differences in soil-gas pressure form, causing soil gas to flow and carrying any vapors present with it. Air pressure gradients in the subsurface of natural systems may result from several phenomena. As diurnal or weather-related atmospheric pressure cycles occur at land surface, pressure waves are transmitted into the unsaturated zone and air may flow in response; a process known as barometric pumping. • Both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks were estimated. Of the VOCs reported in the groundwater, only MTBE is considered a potential carcinogen.10 • The calculations used depth to groundwater of 26 feet bgs across the proposed hospital site, which SCE believes is reasonable based on a review of groundwater data in the proposed hospital site’s vicinity.11 Scenario 1 MTBE-bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the southeast. There are four monitoring wells along the southern edge of the proposed hospital property that screen the shallow groundwater (MW-24A, MW26A, MW-27A, and MW-28A). Monitoring well MW-28A is located along the southern border of the proposed hospital site, at the approximate mid-point of the southern proposed hospital site boundary, and has had the highest reported concentration of MTBE out of the four wells. The highest reported concentration of MTBE in this well has been 97 µg/L in July 2006, which subsequently decreased to 55 µg/L in April 2007. 8 The DTSC document references the "residential exposure duration" on page 56 of the attached document, when they reference: EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. EPA/540/R-96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 9 A discussion of each parameter and some of the likely inputs is provided in DTSC's "HERD_REP_JE_Users_Guide.pdf" 10 EPA 11 Groundwater depth chosen based on historical data that was representative and conservative for the property. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-15 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Using the maximum concentration reported in this well (97 µg/L) and assuming a conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30-year exposure scenario), the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.1E-07. These cancer risks are almost one order of magnitude below the typical risk threshold of 1E-06 (one in a million). The risk of non-cancer health effects is also less then significant based on a Hazard Index of 3.2E-04, well below the typical risk threshold of one. Scenario 2 MTBE-bearing groundwater has migrated onto the proposed hospital site from the east. Monitoring well MW-14 is upgradient from the hospital property, located approximately 470 feet east of the proposed cancer center in the eastern portion of the property along Dartolo Road. This is the closest well to the proposed hospital site associated with the Arco Service Station monitoring well network. In April 2007, the concentration of MTBE in MW-14 was reported to be 1.3 µg/L, which is the highest reported concentration since the installation of this well. Assuming the same conservative residential use risk scenario (350 days a year for 30-year exposure scenario) as Scenario 1, the DTSC model indicated less than significant cancer risks of 1.4E-09. These cancer risks are almost two orders of magnitude below the less than significant risk threshold of 1E-06 (one in a million). The risk of non-cancer health effects is also less than significant based on a Hazard Index of 4.2E-06, well below the typical risk threshold of one. The Excel spreadsheets for the risk calculations associated with MTBE (obtained from the DTSC website) are presented in Appendix C of this SEIR. Findings and Recommendations No detectable concentrations (collected from SG1 through SG14) of VOCs or MTBE were reported in soil vapor beneath the proposed hospital site building footprints (Table 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-2). Because none of the target analytes (VOCs or MTBE) were detected, SCS concluded that there is a less than significant risk of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a less than significant related human health risk. Based on the review of the ongoing groundwater assessment work being conducted by others in the proposed hospital site’s vicinity, SCS concluded in their recent analysis that MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, based on the previous and current soil vapor sampling, there is a less than significant related human health risk at the proposed hospital site because of the possible presence MTBE- bearing groundwater beneath the proposed hospital site. Additionally, MTBE has been phased- out as a fuel additive in the State of California. Since MTBE is no longer used in gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-16 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.1-5 2007 SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS Sample Number Sample Depth (feet below grade) Benzene (Fg/L) Toluene (Fg/L) Ethyl-Benzene (Fg/L) Total Xylenes (Fg/L) MTBE (Fg/L) Other VOCs 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG1 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG2 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG3 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG4 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG5 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG6 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG7 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG8 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG9 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG10 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG11 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG12 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG13 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND 5 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND SG14 15 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <3 <1.0 ND NOTES: Samples SG1 through SG11 collected by SCS Engineers on July 16 and 18, 2007. Samples SG12, SG13, and collected by SCS Engineers on August 21 and 24, 2007. Fg/L = micrograms per liter. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated reporting limit. ND = Not report at concentrations greater than the laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. SOURCE: SCS Engineers 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-17 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW-24A, MW-25A, MW26A, MW-27A, MW-28A, and MW-14). For illustration purposes, according to the EPA on non-occupational exposures, various studies that have collected personal breathing zone samples of MTBE during gasoline refueling suggest that such exposures, which typically amount to two to five minutes in duration, may range as high as 2 to 32 ppm MTBE; however, most of the data for exposure during refueling are below 10 ppm for 1 to 20 minute sampling periods.12 The MTBE concentrations used in the hypothetical scenarios above included maximum reported concentrations of 97 ug/L or 0.097 ppm. As mentioned above, MTBE-bearing groundwater may have migrated onto the proposed hospital site along southern boundary. However, to address the concern that MTBE in groundwater may pose a health risk via vapor intrusion into the hospital in the event that MTBE does migrate on- proposed hospital site from the east (Arco Service Station) or from the southeast (Chevron and Shell Service Stations) under the future hospital buildings several scenarios, based on highest reported actual MTBE concentrations near the proposed hospital site were modeled to better understand the hypothetical risk. Concentrations of MTBE in the monitoring wells MW-24A, MW-25A, MW26A, MW-27A, MW-28A, and MW-14 (closest monitoring wells to the proposed hospital site) have been decreasing or are below the MCLs for drinking water, making these scenarios even more conservative than current conditions at the property. Based on the modeling for these scenarios the concentrations of MTBE in groundwater would have to increase by one to two orders of magnitude before the model predicts there is even the potential for a significant health risk.13 The risk assessment standards for soil vapor and cleanup levels for groundwater, although both based on health risk studies, including potential carcinogenic affects, are different. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are a standard for drinking water set by the EPA in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and enforced in California by the Department of Health Services. The proposed project site’s primary contaminant of concern is MTBE, which has a primary MCL of 13 ug/L and a secondary MCL of 5 ug/L, meaning that a water purveyor can provide water to a customer with MTBE up to 13 ug/L without advisory for health concerns and 5 ug/L for taste and odor. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Although no detectable concentrations of MTBE or VOCs were found, Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 below shall be implemented if these constituents were detected in groundwater and vapor beneath the proposed hospital site buildings during construction. Again, the above- mentioned hypothetical scenarios showed that the necessary levels of MTBE to hypothetically percolate up into the buildings to cause a significant risk would need to be of orders of magnitude higher than has ever been seen in the adjacent site vicinity. Since MTBE is no longer used in 12 Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-4.pdf 13 Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons. If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-18 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 gasoline fuel distributed in California, it is unlikely that additional releases of MTBE will occur from the USTs in the proposed hospital site vicinity. With the reduction of the MTBE sources in the proposed hospital site vicinity, along with ongoing remediation activities at the three USTs sites in the vicinity, MTBE concentrations in groundwater will likely continue to decrease; this hypothesis is corroborated by the decreasing concentration trend exhibited in the monitoring wells adjacent to the proposed hospital site (MW-24A, MW-25A, MW26A, MW-27A, MW-28A, and MW-14). Impact 3.1-1: Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. As described above in the environmental setting section, the proposed hospital site is within 1,000 ft of three service stations. However, according to soil vapor samples taken on July 16 and 18, 2007 and again on August 21 and 24, 2007, there were no detectable concentrations of gasoline constituents such as volatile organic compounds VOCs or MTBE at the proposed hospital site. Sampling was done at two depths, 5 and 15 feet bgs in accordance with the DTSC guidance. It is possible but unlikely that, contaminated soil could be at further distances below ground surface. Encountering contaminated soil, surface water, and groundwater without taking proper precautions during project construction could result in the exposure of construction workers and consequently result in associated significant adverse human health and environmental impacts. Petroleum hydrocarbons appear to be present in subsurface soils in the area of the off-site USTs; however, considering lack of any evidence of contaminated soil on the proposed hospital site based on SCS Engineers investigations and, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off-site USTs, and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site, as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: Petroleum affected soils at the proposed hospital site if any, (e.g., where stained or odiferous soils are encountered) shall be segregated, stockpiled on-site, and sampled prior to disposal at an appropriate facility, as required by the respective disposal facility. All contaminated soils shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating the transport and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. These materials shall be transported to a permitted disposal facility by a licensed waste hauler. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. _________________________ Impact 3.1-2: Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Hazards Temecula Regional Hospital 3.1-19 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 The construction phase of the proposed project will include major excavation and grading. Disturbance of the proposed hospital site’s soil could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is considered to be unlikely. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling and disposal of these hazardous substances is considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, implementation of the following procedures requiring compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Conclusion: Less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit for the project, a detailed soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling program shall be conducted for the proposed hospital site. Any identified MTBE- or other VOC-impacted soil shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations during demolition of structures. The project applicant shall provide documentation (for example, all required waste manifests, sampling, and soil monitoring test results) to the City of Temecula showing that abatement of any MTBE- or other VOC-containing soil identified in the project site has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 790, 792, 797, 798, and 799 and CCR Title 8, Article 2.6). Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. _________________________ References EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. EPA/540/R-96/018. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. Potential Health Effects of Oxygenated Gasoline, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-4.pdf SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), September 2007. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Approach to Analysis The purpose of this section is to identify, describe, and evaluate noise sources and potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital and the sirens that will transport emergency patients to the hospital. This study also address traffic noise impacts based on the updated traffic study prepared for this SEIR by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. The project has not changed since the circulation of the original EIR and other noise issues arising from operation of the project, such as the use of helicopters, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, loading dock activities, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping maintenance were adequately covered in the original EIR and therefore are not addressed in this section. Noise Principles and Descriptors The original EIR provided a detailed background that describes how noise is measured, and how different types of noise measurements are used to reflect typical noise fluctuations over time. In general, the typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels. Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.2-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise As described in the original EIR, ,an individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.2-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time, however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3.2-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 2 - 1 & 3 . 2 - 2 Co m m o n N o i s e S o u r c e s a n d A - W e i g h t e d N o i s e L e v e l s a n d Co m m o n C N E L N o i s e E x p o s u r e Le v e l s a t V a r i o u s L o c a t i o n s Co m m o n N o i s e S o u r c e s a n d A - W e i g h t e d N o i s e L e v e l s a n d C o m m o n C N E L N o i s e E x p o s u r e L e v e l s a t V a r i o u s L o c a t i o n s SO U R C E : W i e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , 2 0 0 5 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Ambulance Siren Noise To better analyze impacts for the proposed project, ambulance siren noise is also addressed. Ambulance siren noise is different than other community noise as it is not experienced over a long amount of time. To measure ambulance siren noise, the single event noise exposure level (SENEL) needs to be calculated. SENEL quantifies the duration and magnitude of a single event. However, there are two main factors that can affect an ambulance siren’s SENEL. The speed of an ambulance can affect the duration as a faster ambulance passes by more quickly, and the angle at which the ambulance passes by can affect the magnitude. An ambulance that is directly behind a person is much louder than if the same ambulance was to the person’s side (i.e., a 0 angle versus a 90 angle). Ambulance sirens are a unique source of noise in that they are designed and intended to be “noisy”. Sirens signify a warning that an emergency vehicle is approaching and that human life is at stake. The rules of the road require that drivers respond to such sirens (e.g., by “pulling over”). In order to analyze the noise levels that will be experienced within the study area as a result of ambulance sirens, it was necessary to obtain measurements of typical operations. However, authorities would not permit the operating of ambulances with sirens on the local streets unless under emergency conditions, and it was not practical to wait for ambulances to pass by on the street segments considered in this study. Therefore, controlled tests were conducted with the assistance of the City and American Medical Response (AMR), an operator of ambulance services in Temecula. These tests were conducted at a sports park within the City on July 17, 2007, by Wieland Associates. During the tests, the ambulance remained stationary and the siren was operated continuously while noise measurements were obtained at various distances and at various orientations relative to the location of the sirens behind the front grille of the ambulance. At each distance and orientation, the maximum, minimum and average noise levels were noted. Two siren settings were measured during the testing: “wail” and “yelp.” The “wail” setting is the most typically used setting, and is used when maneuvering through traffic. The “yelp” setting is only used in extremely heavy traffic or at intersections when it is necessary to encourage drivers to make room for the ambulance to pass by. The results of the July 17th ambulance test are presented in the Table 3.2-1 below.1 TABLE 3.2-1 SUMMARY OF SIREN NOISE MEASUREMENTS MEASURED NOISE LEVEL AT 50’ FROM SIRENS, dBA “Wail” Setting “Yelp” Setting ORIENTATION Max. Min. Ave. Max. Min. Ave. 0° (front) 117.6 109.2 113.4 117.5 112.9 113.6 45° 110.2 99.8 104.7 106.7 102.1 103.5 90° (side) 93.9 85.8 91.9 93.7 91.3 92.2 135° 95.9 88.8 90.9 88.9 83.9 85.5 180° (rear) 95.4 89.4 92.3 94.2 90.9 92.5 NOTES: Tests were performed by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17, 2007. A sound level meter (Model 824) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL250) were used to obtain noise measurements. All instruments meet the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 1 Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Environmental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 19, 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no complete satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-5 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement.2 3.2.2 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting The original EIR provides a description of federal, state, and local regulations that apply to the Temecula Regional Hospital project and also apply to this SEIR. Federal Regulations As stated in the original EIR, under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 772), noise abatement must be considered for new highway construction and highway reconstruction projects when the noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. For hospital sites, these criteria indicate that the Leq during the noisiest one-hour period of the day should not exceed 67 dB(A) at exterior areas or 52 dB(A) within the interior of a hospital or medical building. State Regulations A summary of the California Code of Regulations is described in the original EIR. The state has established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dB in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. Local Regulations City of Temecula General Plan—Noise Element The primary purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and assess noise sources and then minimize their effect on the surrounding area. Noise has a direct impact on the quality of life and the well-being of residents of Temecula. Hospitals fall under the Public/Institutional designation. Table 3.2-2 below summarizes City of Temecula noise standards for various uses. The following are goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan—Noise Element. Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. 2 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-6 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.2-2 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70 High 45 701 Neighborhood Residential Community Highway Tourist --- 70 Service Commercial and Office Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Schools 50 65 Public/Institutional All Others 50 70 Vineyards/Agricultural --- 70 Open Space Open Space --- 70/652 NOTES: 1. Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for multiple-family housing. 2. Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, 1993. Policy 4.1: Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Implementation and Procedures N-2. Minimize noise in Temecula through the following measures: • Require all non-emergency construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code). • Amend the City Noise Control Ordinance to establish criteria for acceptable placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. • Require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet with City noise reduction requirements. • Review the City Noise Control Ordinance for adequacy and amend as needed to address community needs and development patterns. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-7 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 8.32.020 Construction Restricted: Notwithstanding any provision of the City Ordinance No. 90-04, and specifically subsection G(1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, during such time as this ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construction activities on Sundays and holidays but must comply with the hourly restrictions set forth for Saturday when working on Sundays and holidays. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 94-25 § 2) Existing Conditions Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences at approximately 305 feet away from the proposed hospital site and a church that is over 1,000 feet away. The project site is otherwise surrounded by non-sensitive receptors such as commercial and office uses (see Figure 3.2-3). Specifically, these land uses are as follows: • To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. • To the south beyond Highway 79 the land uses are commercial properties and single- family homes. • To the west the land is currently vacant but is under development for professional medical office use. • To the east the land uses include a flood control channel, and commercial and medical uses. There are also seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road. These parcels include three structures located on Margarita Road and two structures located on De Portola Road. One of the structures is currently used as a medical clinic, one is a vacant single-family residence, and three are occupied single-family residences. All seven parcels are designated for Professional Office (PO) use within the General Plan. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Figure 3.2-3 Site Plan SO U R C E : W i e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 This zoning district is intended primarily for single-tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business. As such, residential use of these parcels is an existing, non-conforming condition. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. To document the existing noise levels, Wieland Associates measured noise levels at five locations in the vicinity of the project site (see Figure 3.2-4). The five locations were as follows: • 30390 De Portola Road • 30955 De Portola Road • 31775 De Portola Road • On the project site, at the location of the proposed five-story bed tower. • 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79)3 The summary of their findings is in the following Table 3.2-3. TABLE 3.2-3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Location Number Location Description Measurement Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 30390 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2-59.3 59.8 2 30955 De Portola Road 24 hours 48.8-62.3 62.8 3 31775 De Portola Road 24 hours 45.2-59.2 57.8 4 On project site, at offset of proposed five-story bed tower 20 minutes 50.3 N/A 5 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to Highway 79) 24 hours 47.0-57.9 60.8 NOTES: Samples collected by Wieland Associates, Inc. on July 17 and 18, 2007. A 24-hour noise measurement was not obtained at location #4 due to the inability to provide adequate security for the equipment. Instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 712, 820, and 870) and an acoustical calibrator (Model CAL200). All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1971. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Figure 3.2-4 No i s e M e a s u r e m e n t L o c a t i o n s SO U R C E : W i e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-11 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise. Other noise producers include stationary noise like the noise produced by the HVAC systems from the nearby commercial uses. Table 3.2-4 summarizes the existing level of traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site. TABLE 3.2-4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour from Near Lane Centerline, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 68.5 dB 235 100 --- --- --- South of Highway 79 67.5 dB 200 83 --- --- --- De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 64.5 dB 120 --- --- --- --- Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- --- Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 68.5 dB 235 100 --- --- --- De Portola to Highway 79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- South of Highway 79 71.0 dB 340 155 62 --- --- Highway 79 West of I-15 Freeway 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 79.5 dB 1,000 560 278 120 --- West of Margarita Road 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- West of Butterfield Stage Road 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- NOTES: Noise levels calculated using the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic volume data was provided by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers, 2007. Speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits. The truck mix on Highway 79 was based on data published by Caltrans. The truck mix on the remaining streets was based on data provided by the County of Riverside. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans were used in the prediction model. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Previous Project Site Evaluation In September 2005, Wieland Associates, Inc. prepared a noise study for the project site to estimate the combined construction noise levels that would be generated during each phase of construction. This study was included as part of the noise analysis in the original EIR. The analysis in that study used equipment estimates based on the Palm Desert Hospital that is similar 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-12 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 enough in size and design to provide an adequate model for the project. In 2007, Wieland re- evaluated the site using new software now available (Urbemis 2007, 9.2) for use in analyzing noise impacts. Use of this new software generated substantially lower construction noise impacts. Therefore, to provide a conservative estimate of construction noise impacts of the project, this analysis uses the higher impact levels reported in the noise analysis for the original EIR, as reproduced in Table 3.2-5 in the Impact Assessment and Methodology section.4 TABLE 3.2-5 ANALYSIS OF ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Noise- Sensitive Location Construction Phase Estimated CNEL at 50 ft, dB Attenuation due to Distance, dBa Estimated CNEL at Sensitive Location, dBb Estimated Construction Noise + Ambient, dBc Estimated Increase due to Construction dBc Demolition 86 70 71 8 Grading 91 75 75 12 Construction 87 71 72 9 Nearest residences to the northwest Paving 90 -16 (305’) 74 74 12 Demolition 86 57 62 2 Grading 91 62 64 4 Construction 87 58 63 2 Nearest residences to the south Paving 90 -24 (760’) 61 64 3 Demolition 86 61 71 1 Grading 91 66 71 1 Construction 87 62 71 1 Nearest offices to the east Paving 90 -25 (880’) 65 71 1 Demolition 86 63 71 1 Grading 91 68 72 2 Construction 87 64 71 1 Nearest offices to the west Paving 90 -23 (745’) 67 72 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 Highway 79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 3.2-2. c. The estimated “construction + ambient” noise levels and estimated increases due to construction are based on the ambient noise levels measured for this supplemental study. Refer to Table 3.2-2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. Significance Criteria According to the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, a project would result in a significant noise impact if it would: 4 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-13 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • Create a substantially permanent increase (greater than 3 dBA) in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Be located within an airport land use plan or be located where such a plan has not been adopted and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. • Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impact Assessment and Methodology Construction As stated above, the 2007 study done by Wieland, using the Urbemis 2007 9.2 software yielded construction noise estimates that were lower than those yielded by the 2005 study. Therefore, in the interest of being as conservative as possible for this SEIR, Wieland decided to continue with their analysis using the 2005 estimates that are based on the Palm Desert Hospital. Traffic Using project site data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Wieland estimated the amount of traffic the proposed project would generate under four different scenarios. These scenarios are “Opening Year (Phase I),” “Opening Year + Entire Project (Phase I and II),” “Opening Year + Cumulative Projects,” and “Buildout.” The goal was to estimate traffic at all stages of development. The results for each case are presented in Tables 3.2-6 through 3.2-9 below. The tables give the estimated CNEL at the project site that would be attributed to traffic. Ambulance Siren Noise Based on stationary ambulance siren tests done in the City of Temecula, Wieland were able to estimate the noise impact from ambulances traveling to the proposed project (see Table 3.2-1 for stationary ambulance test results). Since Highway 79 has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph), and thus ambulances would pass by faster than on roads with lower limits, the estimated SENEL on Highway 79 is 112.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. De Portola Road has a speed limit of 35 mph, so its SENEL is higher at 114.5 dB(A). Margarita Road has a speed limit of 45 mph and an estimated SENEL of 113.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-14 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.2-6 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, PROJECT PHASE I Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ Arterial / Reach Without Project With Phase I Without Project With Phase I Change Due to Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 13,950 14,450 68.5 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB South of Highway 79 14,500 15,130 68.0 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 8,720 9,350 64.5 dB 65 dB 0.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 46,760 47,070 72.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 19,290 20,230 69.0 dB 69.5 dB 0.5 dB De Portola to Highway 79 28,560 29,500 71.0 dB 71.0 dB 0.0 dB South of Highway 79 27,470 28,100 71.5 dB 71.5 dB 0.0 dB Highway 79 West of I-15 Freeway 21,470 21,660 74.5 dB 74.5 dB 0.0 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala 84,580 86,470 79.0 dB 80.0 dB 0.5 dB West of Margarita Road 42,510 45,780 76.5 dB 77.0 dB 0.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 37,280 38,480 76.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-7 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR, ENTIRE PROJECT PHASES I AND II Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ Arterial / Reach Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Change Due to Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 13,950 14,920 68.5 dB 69.0 dB 0.5 dB South of Highway 79 14,500 15,710 68.0 dB 68.0 dB 0.0 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 8,720 9,930 64.5 dB 65.0 dB 0.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 46,760 47,360 72.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB Margarita Road / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 19,290 21,100 69.0 dB 69.5 dB 0.5 dB De Portola to Highway 79 28,560 30,070 71.0 dB 71.0 dB 0.0 dB South of Highway 79 27,470 28,680 71.5 dB 72.0 dB 0.5 dB Highway 79 West of I-15 Freeway 21,470 21,830 74.5 dB 74.5 dB 0.0 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 84,580 88,220 79.5 dB 80.0 dB 0.5 dB West of Margarita Road 42,510 48,810 76.5 dB 77.0 dB 0.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 37,280 39,590 76.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-15 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.2-8 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, OPENING YEAR + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ Arterial / Reach Without Project With Ph. I & II Without Project With Ph. I & II Change Due to Project Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 22,130 23,100 70.5 dB 71.0 dB 0.5 dB South of Highway 79 24,750 25,960 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 10,450 11,660 65.5 dB 66.0 dB 0.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 69,410 70,010 74.0 dB 74.0 dB 0.0 dB Margarita Road. / Redhawk Pkwy. Jedidiah Smith to De Portola 24,250 26,060 70.0 dB 70.5 dB 0.5 dB De Portola to Highway 79 35,880 37,690 72.0 dB 72.0 dB 0.0 dB South of Highway 79 37,330 38,540 73.0 dB 73.0 dB 0.0 dB Highway 79 West of I-15 Freeway 32,130 32,490 76.0 dB 76.0 dB 0.0 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 119,700 123,490 81.5 dB 81.5 dB 0.0 dB West of Margarita Road 76,180 82,480 79.0 dB 79.5 dB 0.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 57,570 59,880 78.0 dB 78.0 dB 0.0 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-9 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS, BUILDOUT Arterial/Reach Avg. Daily Traffic Unmitigated CNEL at 50’ Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 19,000 70.0 dB South of Highway 79 20,000 69.0 dB De Portola Road West of Margarita Road 11,000 64.5 dB Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) South of Highway 79 29,000 70.0 dB Highway 79 West of I-15 Freeway 9,000 70.5 dB West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 59,000 78.0 dB West of Margarita Road 51,000 77.5 dB West of Butterfield Stage Road 50,000 77.5 dB NOTES: Traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, 2007. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-16 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 To arrive at a CNEL that accounts for ambulance sirens, it must first be estimated how many trips per day an ambulance with its sirens on would use a particular road. To do this, Wieland Associates, Inc. used data from the period of January 1, 2007 to July 18, 2007 (see Table 3.2-10).5 It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate, because it assumes that all regional ambulance trips will be going to or from the project site, even though there are other existing medical facilities currently serving the region. Of the total number of ambulance trips, only 10-12 percent are considered Code 3 (sirens on). The others would not require ambulance sirens. Using the SENEL estimates from Table 3.2-11 and 12 percent of the ambulance trip estimates from Table 3.2-10, Wieland was able to estimate a CNEL for the project site that incorporates ambulance sirens. These estimates are summarized in the following table. It should be noted that sirens are never used on hospital property. TABLE 3.2-10 ESTIMATED AMBULANCE OPERATIONS PER DAY EXISTINGa With Proposed Hospitalb Street Segment 7am-7pmc 7pm-10pmc 10pm-7amc 7am-7pmc 7pm-10amc 10pm-7amc Highway 79, Margarita to Pala 0.21 0.07 0.01 14.65 5.00 0.36 Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.71 0.00 De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 0.36 De Portola, Pio Pica to Jedidiah Smith 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.71 NOTES: a Based on operations from 1/1/2007 through 7/18/2007. b Based on estimated annual emergency room transports of 8,609 provided by AMR. The distribution of ambulance runs on the four street segments and over the three times periods was assumed using the distribution for the existing runs. c Number indicates average number of ambulance operations during the 12 hour period from 7am to 7pm, or the three-hour period from 7pm to 10pm, or the nine-hour period from 10pm to 7am. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. TABLE 3.2-11 ESTIMATED CNEL DUE TO AMBULANCE OPERATIONS Estimated CNEL at 50 ft. Street Segment Existing Ambulance Sirens Future Ambulance Sirens Estimated Ambulance Sirens +Ambient CNELb Estimated Increase in Ambient CNEL due to Ambulance Sirens Highway 79, Margarita to Pala 60.0 dB 64.0 dBa 66.0 dB 5.0 dB Margarita, Highway 79 to De Portola 49.5 dB 59.0 dB 61.5 dB 3.5 dB De Portola, Pio Pico to Margarita 54.0 dB 63.5 dB 64.5 dB 6.5 dB De Portola, Pio Pico to Jedidiah Smith 55.5 dB 65.0 dB 67.0 dB 4.0 dB NOTES: a Estimated CNEL assumes 5 dB of reduction for the existing residential walls along Highway 79. b Ambient CNEL at 50’ taken from measurement results of Table 3.2-2. SOURCE: Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 5 Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-17 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Summary of Impacts For the purposes of this SEIR, only the significance criteria regarding construction noise and traffic noise need be discussed, as the temporary noise from construction and the permanent noise from emergency sirens have the potential to disturb nearby residences (sensitive receptors). As discussed below, the proposed project would adhere to mitigation measures prescribed for this significant impact. However, even with mitigation incorporated, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from noise. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.2-1: Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Table 3.2-12 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.2-13 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Noise generated by construction activities would result in a substantial increase in noise at the nearest residences and would be significant without mitigation. The City’s ordinance limiting, the hours of construction, provides no mitigation of construction noise during weekdays and Saturdays and is relevant only to protect nearby residents from construction noise during the nighttime hours, Sundays and holidays. In the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south, construction activities are expected to exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-5). This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the project site. With implementation of mitigation measures, the construction noise levels would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south, which are as close as 305 feet from the proposed project site. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. TABLE 3.2-12 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (Leq) a Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 NOTES: a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-18 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.2-13 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (Leq at 50 feet ) Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Pile Driver Backhoe 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 101 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: The following measures should be considered in the project’s design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: • Mechanical ventilation will be required for hospital facility buildings since the interior standard of 50 dB(A) is to be met with windows and doors closed. • Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula Municipal Code. • All Construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • The project proponent will hire a noise monitor to accept complaints and confirm compliance with above-mentioned mitigation measures. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. To minimize construction noise levels at the nearby properties, the contractor shall comply with the above-mentioned recommendations provided in Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. In addition, to the extent practical, the contractor shall consider the following noise abatement measures: • Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. • In order to minimize the time during which any single noise-sensitive receptor is exposed to construction noise, construction shall be completed as rapidly as possible. • The quietest construction equipment owned by the contractor shall be used. The use of electric powered equipment is typically quieter than diesel, and hydraulic powered equipment is quieter than pneumatic power. If compressors powered by diesel or gasoline engines are to be used, they shall be contained or have baffles to help abate noise levels. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-19 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. Poor maintenance of equipment typically causes excessive noise levels. • Noisy equipment shall be operated only when necessary, and shall be switched off when not in use. • Storage areas shall be located away from sensitive receptors. Where this is not possible, the storage of waste materials, earth, and other supplies shall be positioned in a manner that will function as a noise barrier to the closest sensitive receivers. • Public notice shall be given prior to construction identifying the location and dates of construction, the name and phone number of the contractor’s contact person in case of complaints, and the name and phone number of a contact person at the City of Temecula in case of complaints. The public notice shall encourage the residents to call the contractor’s contact person and/or the City’s contact person rather than the police in case of complaint. Residents shall also be kept informed of any changes to the schedule. The contractor’s designated contact person shall be on site throughout project construction with a mobile phone. If a complaint is received, the contractor’s contact person and/or the City’s contact person shall take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to resolve the complaint. If possible, a member of the contractor’s team shall also travel to the complainant’s location to understand the nature of the disturbance. ________________________ Impact 3.2-2: Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The project will increase the traffic-generated CNEL by at most 0.5 dB. This is less than the 3 dB threshold of significance; therefore the impact is not significant. Project traffic will not cause the 65 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded at existing residential or school land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Project traffic will cause the 70 dB CNEL threshold of significance to be exceeded by 0.5 dB at existing public/institutional (except school), open space, commercial, and office land uses adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road south of Highway 79 and Margarita Road between Jedidiah Smith Road and De Portola Road. This will be the case only for the “Opening Year + Cumulative Projects” traffic volume. The threshold will not be exceeded under any other traffic scenario addressed in this study. As a result, it may be concluded that there is no direct project impact, but there is a cumulative impact. However, as indicated in Figure 3.2-1 an increase of 0.5 dB is imperceptible; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Without accounting for ambulance siren noise, traffic noise impacts generated by the proposed project would be less than significant. When ambulance siren noise is added to the equation, traffic noise generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB (see Table 3.2-11). Also, residents along emergency routes would be exposed to unmitigated maximum noise levels of about 94 to 117.5 dB(A) from ambulance sirens. However, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Noise Temecula Regional Hospital 3.2-20 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. Conclusion: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation: None required, because noise standards do not apply to emergency situations. No mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. References City of Temecula, City of Temecula General Plan – Noise Element, April 2005. County of Riverside, County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. P.F. Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, August 2, 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 3.3 Traffic 3.3.1 Approach to Analysis Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital, based upon the traffic impact analysis completed by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed in October, 2007. The complete traffic study is included in Appendix D in the Draft EIR. This section also documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies and differentiates between direct project-related traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential direct project and cumulative impacts to insignificant levels, and identifies specific mitigation measure implementation requirements, funding source and party responsible for completion of individual mitigation measures. This section uses the terms SR-79 and Highway 79 interchangeably. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The following describes the existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the project site (Figure 3.3-1). It includes an analysis of the traffic circulation characteristics of the 10 study intersections. The 10 study intersections are as follows: • SR 79/I-15 SB Ramps; • SR 79/I-15 NB Ramps; • SR 79/La Paz Street; • SR 79/ Pechanga Parkway; • SR 79/Jedediah Smith Road; • SR 79/ Avenida De Missiones; • SR 79/ Country Glen Way; • SR 79/ Redhawk Parkway/Margarita Road; • SR 79/Butterfield Stage Road; and • De Portola Road/Margarita Road. Existing Street Network Highway 79 is classified as a Six-Lane Prime Arterial in the project area and is built as a six-lane roadway in the project vicinity. Curbside parking is generally prohibited along Highway 79, and the posted speed limit is 55 mph. La Paz Street is a two-lane undivided roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, and curbside parking is generally permitted. La Paz Street is signalized at Highway 79. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s D i a g r a m SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Pechanga Parkway is currently a four-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is prohibited at the approach to Highway 79, but is otherwise permitted. The posted speed limit on Pechanga Parkway is 50 mph. Pechanga Parkway is signalized at Highway 79. Avenida de Missiones is a four-lane undivided roadway in the project area. Curbside parking is generally permitted, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area. Margarita Road is currently a four-lane divided roadway with curbside parking generally prohibited. Redhawk Parkway is also currently a four-lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway is currently signalized at its intersection with Highway 79. Butterfield Stage Road is classified as a four-lane Major roadway in the project area. Butterfield Stage Road is currently a four-lane divided roadway in the project area with curbside parking generally prohibited. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. Butterfield Stage Road is signalized at Highway 79. De Portola Road is a four-lane road east of Margarita Road and a two-lane undivided roadway west of Margarita Road. Eastern By-Pass is a planned future facility between I-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road in the northeastern section of the City. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern By-Pass is planned to be a six-lane divided Principal Arterial from I-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four-lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern By-Pass is planned to be a Four-Lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a Two-Lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. With the completion of the Eastern By-Pass, the current traffic volumes on Highway 79 and at the I-15 / Highway 79 South interchange are expected to reduce substantially. Currently, the implementation schedule for this improvement is not known and therefore, these improvements are not assumed in the near-term. However, the City of Temecula General Plan includes the Eastern Bypass in the Year 2025. Therefore, the Year 2025 analysis included in this report assumes the same. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes Peak Hour Intersection Volume Counts Available AM and PM peak hour volumes were obtained from the City and new manual counts were conducted by LLG at the four locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 / I-15 SB Ramps • Highway 79 / I-15 NB Ramps • Highway 79 / La Paz St • Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing peak hour intersection turning movement volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the manual count sheets. Segment Counts Available daily segment volumes were obtained from the City and new counts were conducted by LLG at the three locations listed below, in the second week of July, 2007. • Highway 79 West of I-15 • Butterfield Stage Road North of SR-79 • Butterfield Stage Road South of SR-79 Table 3.3-1 summarizes the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the major area roadways. Figure 3.3-2 depicts the existing 24-hour segment volumes. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the segment count sheets. TABLE 3.3-1 EXISTING SEGMENT VOLUMES Street Segment Source ADT a Date Highway 79 West of I-15 LLG Engineers 19,700 07/11/07 I-15 to Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula 77,600 2006 Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd City of Temecula 39,000 2006 Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd City of Temecula 34,200 2006 Pechanga Parkway South of SR-79 City of Temecula 42,900 Feb-06 Butterfield Stage Road North of SR-79 LLG Engineers 12,800 07/11/07 South of SR-79 LLG Engineers 13,300 07/11/07 De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd City of Temecula 8,000 2006 Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road City of Temecula 17,700 2006 De Portola Road to Highway 79 City of Temecula 26,200 2006 South of Highway 79 City of Temecula 25,200 2006 Footnotes: a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study contains the segment count sheets) SOURCE: City of Temecula Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 2 Ex i s t i n g T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s & A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-6 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 3.3.3 Approach and Methodology This section of the SEIR analyzes the key intersections and street segments in the project area. All of these facilities are analyzed under existing and several future analysis timeframes to determine the project impacts on the prevailing street network during each timeframe. Peak hour intersection and daily segments have been analyzed under the following scenarios. Segment analysis is only conducted for the Build-out (Year 2025) Scenario: • Existing • Opening Year Without Project (Existing + 3 percent growth in existing traffic for three years) • Opening Year With Project Phase I • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) • Opening Year With Entire Project (Phases I and II) and Cumulative Projects • Build-out (Year 2025) Traffic Operations There are different methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, street segments, freeways, and Congestion Management Program (CMP) arterials. The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is Level of Service (LOS). In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The level of service analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, levels of service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 3.3-2 below summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections. LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-7 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.3-2 LOS DEFINITIONS LOS Interpretation Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) A Excellent operation – free flow 0.0 < 10.0 B Very good operation – stable flow, little or no delays 10.1 to 20.0 C Good operation – slight delays 21.1 to 35.0 D Fair operation – noticeable delays, queuing observed 35.1 to 55.0 E Poor operation – long delays, near or at capacity 55.1 to 80.0 F Forced flow – congestion > 80.0 SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are more frequent. LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Street Segments The street segments were analyzed on a daily basis without and with project conditions by comparing the ADT volume to the Riverside County Capacity Standards. This table is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix B of the October 2007 LLG study) and provides LOS estimates based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. Table 3.3-3 below provides a summary of the volume capacity / level of service for Riverside County roadways. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-8 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.3-3 VOLUME CAPACITY / LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROADWAYS (1) Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volume (ADT)(2) Roadway Classification Number of Lanes Service Level A Service Level B Service Level C Service Level D Service Level E Collector 2 7,800 9,100 10,400 11,700 13,000 Major 4 20,460 23,870 27,300 30,700 34,100 Urban 4 21,540 25,130 28,700 32,300 35,900 Urban 6 32,340 37,730 43,100 48,500 53,900 Footnotes: 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Maximum two-way ADT values are based on the 1999 Modified Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Tables as defined in the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.4 Significance Criteria Based on City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element policy, a significant impact is determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the addition of project traffic if: • The increase in the v/c ratio on roadway segments is greater than 2 percent; or • The increase in the delay at intersections is greater than 2 seconds The impact is direct if the project causes a reduction in the LOS to below “D” and the impact is cumulative if the level of service is below LOS “D” prior to the addition of project. 3.3.5 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 3.3-4 summarizes the existing intersection conditions. As shown, all intersections are currently calculated to operate at an LOS D or better except the SR 79/Pechanga Parkway intersection (LOS F during PM peak hour). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix C of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the existing peak hour intersections analysis worksheets. 3.3.6 Daily Street Segment Level of Service Table 3.3-5 shows the existing street segment operations. As shown, all street segments are currently calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I-15 to Pechanga Parkway (LOS F) • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 (LOS F) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.3-4 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATING CONDITIONS Existing Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delaya LOSb AM 32.2 C 1. Highway 79 / I-15 SB Ramps Signal PM 37.5 D AM 12.0 B 2. Highway 79 / I-15 NB Ramps Signal PM 34.0 C AM 13.3 B 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal PM 27.4 C AM 23.3 C 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal PM 73.9 E AM 10.5 B 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal PM 15.6 B AM 6.4 A 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal PM 7.6 A AM 5.0 A 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal PM 10.1 B AM 28.4 C 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal PM 32.1 C AM 18.8 B 9. Highway 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd Signal PM 20.2 C AM 13.9 B 10. De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Signal PM 18.4 B Footnotes: a. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle b. Level of Service. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3.3.7 Trip Generation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation rates are generally used to determine trip generation for projects in the City of Temecula. Hospital trip generation rates published in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region are higher than ITE rates and hence were used to calculate worst-case total trip generation for the hospital portion of the project. The trip generation rates in (ITE) Trip Generation were used for the Medical Office building. There are no standard trip generation rates available for the Cancer Rehabilitation Center and the Physical Rehabilitation Center. Hence, the rates for the Medical Office in ITE were used to estimate the trip generation for all non-hospital land uses. Project Phase I Trip Generation The Project Phase I development (170 bed hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office) is calculated to generate 6,290 ADT with 474 trips during the AM peak hour (350 inbound / 124 outbound) and 629 trips during the PM peak hour (214 inbound / 415 outbound trips). SIGNALIZED DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-10 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.3-5 EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Existing Roadway Class a Capacity (LOS E) b ADT c V/C d LOS e Highway 79 West of I-15 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 19,700 0.578 A I-15 to Pechanga Pkwy 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 77,600 1.440 F Pechanga Pkwy to Margarita Rd 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 39,000 0.724 C Margarita Rd to Butterfield Stage Rd 6-Ln Urban Rd 53,900 34,200 0.635 B Pechanga Parkway South of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 42,900 1.258 F Butterfield Stage Road North of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 12,800 0.375 A South of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 13,300 0.390 A De Portola Road West of Margarita Rd 2-Ln Collector 13,000 8,000 0.615 B Margarita Road / Redhawk Parkway Jedediah Smith Road to De Portola Road 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 17,700 0.493 A De Portola Road to Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 26,200 0.730 C South of Highway 79 4-Ln Major Rd 34,100 25,200 0.702 C Footnotes: a. Roadway classification determined based on existing cross-sections. b. Roadway Capacities based on Riverside County Roadway Classification Table (see Appendix B of October 2007 LLG study). c. Average Daily Traffic Volumes. d. Volume / Capacity ratio e. Level of Service. SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Therefore, the project traffic generation was defined in two phases. Table 3.3-6 tabulates the Phase I and total project traffic generation. Project Phase II Trip Generation The Project Phase II development (Ultimate build-out – 320-bed hospital, 140,000 square-foot of medical office, a 10,000 square-foot cancer rehabilitation center and an 8,000 square-foot rehabilitation and physical therapy center) and is calculated to generate 5,820 ADT with 437 trips during the AM peak hour (324 inbound / 113 outbound) and 582 trips during the PM peak hour (197 inbound / 385 outbound trips). 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 1 1 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 6 PR O J E C T T R I P G E N E R A T I O N - T O T A L T R I P S AM P e a k H o u r P M P e a k H o u r Da i l y T r i p E n d s ( A D T ) a Vo l u m e V o l u m e La n d U s e Q u a n t i t y Ra t e V o l u m e % o f AD T In : O u t S p l i t In O u t T o t a l % o f AD T In : O u t Sp l i t In Out Total Ph a s e I Ho s p i t a l 1 7 0 B e d s 2 0 / B e d b 3 , 4 0 0 8 % 7 0 : 3 0 1 9 0 8 2 2 7 2 1 0 % 4 0 : 6 0 1 3 6 2 0 4 3 4 0 Me d i c a l O f f i c e 8 0 , 0 0 0 S F 3 6 . 1 3 / K S F c 2 , 8 9 0 7 % 7 9 : 2 1 1 6 0 4 2 2 0 2 1 0 % 2 7 : 7 3 7 8 2 1 1 2 8 9 Su b t o t a l P h a s e I 6, 2 9 0 3 5 0 1 2 4 4 7 4 2 1 4 4 1 5 6 2 9 Ph a s e I I Ho s p i t a l 1 5 0 B e d s 2 0 / B e d 3 , 0 0 0 8 % 7 0 : 3 0 1 6 8 7 2 2 4 0 1 0 % 4 0 : 6 0 1 2 0 1 8 0 3 0 0 Me d i c a l O f f i c e 6 0 , 0 0 0 S F 3 6 . 1 3 / K S F 2 , 1 7 0 7 % 7 9 : 2 1 1 2 0 3 2 1 5 2 1 0 % 2 7 : 7 3 5 9 1 5 8 2 1 7 Ca n c e r R e h a b C e n t e r d 10 , 0 0 0 S F 3 6 . 1 3 / K S F 3 6 0 7 % 7 9 : 2 1 2 0 5 2 5 1 0 % 2 7 : 7 3 1 0 2 6 3 6 Re h a b a n d P h y s T h e r a p y d 8, 0 0 0 S F 3 6 . 1 3 / K S F 2 9 0 7 % 7 9 : 2 1 1 6 4 2 0 1 0 % 2 7 : 7 3 8 2 1 2 9 Su b t o t a l P h a s e I I 5, 8 2 0 3 2 4 1 1 3 4 3 7 1 9 7 3 8 5 5 8 2 To t a l P r o j e c t 12 , 1 1 0 6 7 4 2 3 7 9 1 1 4 1 1 8 0 0 1 , 2 1 1 Fo o t n o t e s : Tr i p E n d s a r e o n e - w a y t r a f f i c m o v e m e n t , e i t h e r e n t e r i n g o r l e a v i n g . Br i e f G u i d e o f V e h i c u l a r T r a f f i c G e n e r a t i o n R a t e s f o r t h e S a n D i e g o R e g i o n , A p r i l 2 0 0 2 , S A N D A G IT E T r i p G e n e r a t i o n M a n u a l , 7 th E d i t i o n . Th e r a t e s f o r M e d i c a l O f f i c e i n t h e I T E T r i p G e n e r a t i o n M a n u a l , 7 th E d i t i o n w e r e u s e d s i n c e n o s e p a r a t e r a t e s a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s l an d u s e . T h i s r a t e i s v e r y c on s e r v a t i v e s i n c e t h e s e u s e s a r e expected to ge n e r a t e m u c h l o w e r t r a f f i c v o l u m e s . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-12 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Total Trip Generation The entire project at build-out (Phase I and Phase II) is calculated to generate 12,110 ADT with 911 trips during the AM peak hour (674 inbound / 237 outbound) and 1,211 trips during the PM peak hour (411 inbound / 800 outbound trips). The project proposes a total of three access driveways two onto Highway 79 and one onto De Portola Road, as shown in Figure 2-3. In addition, an onsite circulation system consisting of private drive lanes and parking areas are proposed. Trip Distribution/Assignment The project trip distribution was estimated based on the location of residential neighborhoods, the location of other area hospitals, the site access and the roadway network. A growth rate of 3 percent per year for three years was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate Opening Year traffic conditions. This constitutes the baseline background traffic. The growth rate was utilized to account for area wide traffic growth. This growth rate of 3 percent per year is estimated, based on the average historical annual growth of traffic along Highway 79 (Appendix D of this SEIR, Appendix A of the October 2007 LLG study). Figure 3.3-3 depicts the Opening Year without project traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-4 depicts the project trip distribution. Figure 3.3-5 depicts the Project Phase I traffic volumes, while Figure 3.3-6 depicts the Opening Year with Project Phase I traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-7 depicts the Project Phase II traffic volumes and Figure 3.3-8 depicts the Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-9 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project (Phases I & II) traffic volumes. 3.3.8 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Based on discussions with City of Temecula and Riverside County staff, it was determined that 30 area projects have the potential to add cumulative traffic to the study area. Table 3.3-7 provides a brief description of each project that has cumulative considerations. Appendix D of this SEIR and Appendix D of the October 2007 LLG study contains Cumulative Projects Data. Summary of Cumulative Projects Trips Table 3.3-8 summarizes the individual cumulative project trip generation. As shown in Table 3.3-8, the cumulative projects are calculated to generate a total of 117,834 daily trips, with 7,576 trips in the AM peak hour (3,463 inbound and 4,113 outbound) and 11,452 trips in the PM peak hour (6,012 inbound and 5,441 outbound). Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 3 Op e n i n g Y e a r w i t h o u t P r o j e c t T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 4 Pr o j e c t T r a f f i c D i s t r i b u t i o n A M / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 5 Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t P h a s e I T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 6 Op e n i n g Y e a r w i t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I Tr a f f i c V o l u m e s A M / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 7 Pr o p o s e d P r o j e c t P h a s e I I T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 8 Pr o p o s e d E n t i r e P r o j e c t ( P h a s e I + P h a s e I I ) Tr a f f i c V o l u m e s A M / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 9 Op e n i n g Y e a r w i t h E n t i r e P r o j e c t T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-20 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 TABLE 3.3-7 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Name/Location Type of Development Description 1. Summerhouse—SW corner of Maragrita Rd. and De Portola Rd. Mixed-use The Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement community, congregate care and a medical office. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,214 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (90 inbound and 38 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 126 outbound.) 2. Temecula Creek Inn—W of I-15 Residential Temecula Creek Inn is a 500 single-family home Subdivision adjacent to the Temecula Creek golf course. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,785 daily trips, with 128 trips in the AM peak hour (94 inbound and 281 outbound) and 205 trips in the PM peak hour (318 inbound and 187 outbound). 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 30180— SE corner of SR 79 and Pechanga Parkway Mixed-use Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commercial/retail uses located within the Creekside Plaza development. The proposed project is estimated to generate 4,894 daily trips, with 114 trips in the AM peak hour (70 inbound and 44 outbound) and 450 trips in the PM peak hour (216 inbound and 234 outbound). 4. Temecula Creek—W of I-15 Commercial Temecula Creek includes a hotel and convention center. The proposed project is estimated to generate 515 daily trips, with 29 trips in the AM peak hour (17 inbound and 44 outbound) and 46 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 21 outbound). 5. Vail Ranch Town Center—SE corner of SR 78 and Redhawk Pkwy Commercial The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 6,036 daily trips, with 426 trips in the AM peak hour (266 inbound and 166 outbound) and 488 trips in the PM peak hour (193 inbound and 295 outbound). 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,326 daily trips, with 182 trips in the AM peak hour (46 inbound and 136 outbound) and 245 tirps in the PM peak hour (158 inbound and 87 outbound). 7. Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,225 daily trips, with 96 trips in the AM peak hour (24 inbound and 72 outbound) and 129 trips in the PM peak hour (83 inbound and 46 outbound). 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 – includes single-family detached residential units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,168 daily trips, with 91 trips in the AM peak hour (23 inbound and 69 outbound) and 123 trips in the PM peak hour (79 inbound and 44 outbound). 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion—SW of SR 79/ Pechanga Pkwy intersection Commercial Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an expansion of the existing casino. The proposed project is estimated to generate 18,000 daily trips. 10. Margarita Canyon Mixed-use Margarita Canyon includes commercial/retail land uses. The proposed project is estimated to generate 7,909 daily trips, with 184 trips in the AM peak hour (112 inbound and 72 outbound) and 733 trips in the PM peak hour (352 inbound and 381 outbound). 11. Rancho Community Church— W of project site Institutional Rancho Community Church includes a variety of land uses other than the church including a private kindergarten– 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of general retail/office (retail) uses. The total project is estimated to generate 5,136 daily trips, with 706 trips in the AM peak hour (462 inbound and 244 outbound) and 410 trips in the PM peak hour (161 inbound and 249 outbound). 12. Wolf Creek Residential Wolf Creek proposes single-family detached residential units. The proposed project (assumed to be 1,000 dwelling units) is estimated to generate 9,570 daily trips, with 675 trips in the AM peak hour (169 inbound and 506 outbound) and 909 trips in the PM peak hour (572 inbound and 337 outbound). 13. Morgan Hill Mixed-use Morgan Hill includes single-family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,430 daily trips, with 621 trips in the AM peak hour (253 inbound and 368 outbound) and 564 trips in the PM peak hour (338 inbound and 226 outbound). 14. Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 Residential Tentative Tract Map 24188 - includes 291 apartments. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,507 daily trips, with 2,507 trips in the 196 AM peak hour (49 inbound and 147 outbound) and 265 trips in the PM peak hour (170 inbound and 95 outbound). 15. Apis Plaza Commercial Apis Plaza includes commercial/retail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit-down restaurant. The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,345 daily trips, with 230 trips in the AM peak hour (127 inbound and 103 outbound) and 462 trips in the PM peak hour (230 inbound and 232 outbound). 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Building Professional Paloma Del Sol Office Building - includes 75,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project is estimated to generate 958 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 147 trips in the PM peak hour (25 inbound and 122 outbound). 17. Park and Ride—SR and La Paz Rd. Public A 209 space Park & Ride facility is planned at the northeast corner of the SR 79 / La Paz intersection. This facility is estimated to generate approximately 543 daily trips, with 272 trips 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-21 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Name/Location Type of Development Description in the AM peak hour (190 inbound and 82 outbound) and 272 trips in the PM peak hour (82 inbound and 190 outbound). 18. Temecula Lane I—SW of project site Residential Temecula Lane I is a residential development with 96 single-family dwelling units and 332 multi-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,780 daily trips, with 212 trips in the AM peak hour (42 inbound and 170 outbound) and 263 trips in the PM peak hour (172 inbound and 91 outbound). 19. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA) Mixed-use The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly constructed. 1,800 single-family dwelling units remain to be constructed in this project. These remaining units are estimated to generate approximately 14,850 daily trips, with 1,269 trips in the AM peak hour (317 inbound and 952 outbound) and 1,445 trips in the PM peak hour (910 inbound and 535 outbound). 20. De Portola Meadows— E of Redhawk Pkwy Residential De Portola Meadows is a residential development with 147 single-family dwelling units and 156 multi-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 2,420 daily trips, with 186 trips in the AM peak hour (41 inbound and 145 outbound) and 236 trips in the PM peak hour (153 inbound and 83 outbound). 21. St. Thomas of Canterbury—SE of SR 79 and Avenida de Missione Institutional St Thomas of Canterbury is a church / preschool. This project includes a 30,473 square-foot building. This project is estimated to generate approximately 682 daily trips, with 111 trips in the AM peak hour (59 inbound and 52 outbound) and 116 trips in the PM peak hour (55 inbound and 61 outbound). 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk—SE of project site on Redhawk Pkwy Residential Hemmingway at Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single-family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,100 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 64 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). 23. Temecula Professional Building II (PA06-0329)—NE corner of Margarita Pkwy and De Portola Rd. Professional Temecula Professional Building II (PA06-0329) is an 11,595 square-foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 254 daily trips, with 33 trips in the AM peak hour (29 inbound and 4 outbound) and 92 trips in the PM peak hour (16 inbound and 76 outbound). 24. Gateway Plaza—SE corner of SR 79 and Avenida De Missione Commercial Gateway Plaza is a two-storied, 30,573 square-foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 536 daily trips, with 24 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 3 outbound) and 113 trips in the PM peak hour (19 inbound and 94 outbound). 25. Redhawk Condos—SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy Residential Redhawk Condos is a residential development with 97 multi-family dwelling units located at the Peach Tree Street / Deer Hollow Way intersection. This project is estimated to generate approximately 625 daily trips, with 50 trips in the AM peak hour (9 inbound and 41 outbound) and 59 trips in the PM peak hour (40 inbound and 19 outbound). 26. Stratford at Redhawk—SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy Residential Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with 106 single family dwelling units. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,120 daily trips, with 84 trips in the AM peak hour (21 inbound and 63 outbound) and 115 trips in the PM peak hour (72 inbound and 43 outbound). 27. Butterfield Station—SW corner of SR 79 and Butterfield Stage Rd. Retail Butterfield Station is a 7,300 square-foot retail development located off of SR 79 between Mahlon Vail and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is estimated to generate approximately 5,535 daily trips, with 130 trips in the AM peak hour (79 inbound and 51 outbound) and 510 trips in the PM peak hour (291 inbound and 219 outbound). 28. De Portola Professional Offices— SW corner of Maragrita Rd and De Portola Rd. Professional De Portola Professional Offices is a 38,501 square-foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 640 daily trips, with 87 trips in the AM peak hour (77 inbound and 10 outbound) and 120 trips in the PM peak hour (20 inbound and 100 outbound). 29. Heritage Hotel—NW corner of SR 79 and La Paz St. Commercial Heritage Hotel is a 142-room hotel development with a 5,500 square-foot restaurant. This project is estimated to generate approximately 1,760 daily trips, with 85 trips in the AM peak hour (51 inbound and 34 outbound) and 122 trips in the PM peak hour (68 inbound and 54 outbound). 30. Halcon de Rojo—NE corner of SR 79 and Jedediah Smith Rd. Professional Halcon de Rojo is a 65,880 square-foot office development. This project is estimated to generate approximately 967 daily trips, with 134 trips in the AM peak hour (118 inbound and 16 outbound) and 153 trips in the PM peak hour (26 inbound and 127 outbound). SOURCE: City of Temecula 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3. 3 T r a f f i c Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 2 2 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 8 CU M U L A T I V E P R O J E C T S T R I P G E N E R A T I O N AM P e a k H o u r P M P e a k H o u r Da i l y T r i p E n d s ( A D T ) Vo l u m e V o l u m e La n d U s e Q u a n t i t y Ra t e V o l u m e % o f AD T In O u t T o t a l % o f AD T In Out Total 1. S u m m e r h o u s e 2 , 2 1 4 9 0 3 8 1 2 8 7 9 1 2 6 2 0 5 2. T e m e c u l a C r e e k I n n 4 , 7 8 5 9 4 2 8 1 3 7 5 3 1 8 1 8 7 5 0 5 3. T e n t a t i v e M a p 3 0 1 8 0 ( N o t B u i l t ) EZ L u b e 4 P o s i t i o n s 4 0 / P o s i t i o n 1 6 0 5 . 1 9 1 2 9 2 1 4 . 6 0 1 0 8 1 8 Ba n k 4 , 0 0 0 S F T = 1 8 2 . 3 4 X + 2 5 6 . 8 7 9 8 6 1 2 . 3 4 2 7 2 2 4 9 4 5 . 7 4 9 2 9 1 1 8 3 4. T e m e c u l a C r e e k 5 1 5 1 7 1 2 2 9 2 5 2 1 4 6 5. V a i l R a n c h T o w n e C e n t e r 6 , 0 3 6 2 6 6 1 6 6 4 3 2 1 9 3 2 9 5 4 8 8 6. T e n t a t i v e T r a c t M a p N o . 2 9 4 7 3 2 , 3 2 6 4 6 1 3 6 1 8 2 1 5 8 8 7 2 4 5 7. T e n t a t i v e T r a c t M a p N o . 2 9 0 3 1 1 , 2 2 5 2 4 7 2 9 6 8 3 4 6 1 2 9 8. T e n t a t i v e T r a c t M a p N o . 3 0 0 5 2 1 , 1 6 8 2 3 6 9 9 2 7 9 4 4 1 2 3 9. P e c h a n g a C a s i n o E x p a n s i o n 1 0 , 2 3 4 2 8 8 1 6 4 4 5 2 2 5 2 2 2 5 4 7 7 10 . M a r g a r i t a C a n y o n 7 , 9 0 9 1 1 2 7 2 1 8 4 3 5 2 3 8 1 7 3 3 11 . R a n c h o C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h (N o t B u i l t ) Mi d d l e S c h o o l 4 0 8 S t u d e n t s 1 . 6 2 / S t u d e n t 6 6 0 5 2 4 2 9 4 0 . 1 5 3 2 2 9 6 1 Hi g h S c h o o l 4 5 6 S t u d e n t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 8 1 L N ( X ) + 1 . 8 6 9 1 5 1 5 3 6 9 2 2 2 0 . 1 4 3 0 3 4 6 4 12 . W o l f C r e e k Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 5 2 0 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L N ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 4 , 7 3 9 9 3 2 8 0 3 7 3 2 9 8 1 7 5 4 7 3 Co m m u n i t y C o m m e r c i a l 1 2 A c r e s 7 0 0 / A c r e 8 , 4 0 0 4 % 2 0 2 1 3 4 3 3 6 1 0 % 4 2 0 4 2 0 8 4 0 Ne i g h b o r h o o d C o m m e r c i a l 8 A c r e s 1 2 0 0 / A c r e 9 , 6 0 0 4 % 2 3 0 1 5 4 3 8 4 1 0 % 4 8 0 4 8 0 9 6 0 13 . M o r g a n H i l l 5 , 4 3 0 2 5 3 3 6 8 6 2 1 3 3 8 2 2 6 5 6 4 14 . T e n t a t i v e T r a c t M a p N o . 2 4 1 8 8 2 , 5 0 7 4 9 1 4 7 1 9 6 1 7 0 9 5 2 6 5 15 . A p i s P l a z a 5 , 3 4 5 1 2 7 1 0 3 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 3 2 4 6 2 16 . P a l o m a D e l S o l O f f i c e B u i l d i n g 9 5 8 1 1 8 1 6 1 3 4 2 5 1 2 2 1 4 7 17 . P a r k & R i d e a t H i g h w a y 7 9 / L a P a z 2 0 9 S p a c e s 2 . 6 / S p a c e 5 4 3 1 9 0 8 2 2 7 2 8 2 1 9 0 2 7 2 18 . T e m e c u l a L a n e I 7 , 9 0 9 1 1 2 7 2 1 8 4 3 5 2 3 8 1 7 3 3 Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 9 6 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L n ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 1 , 0 0 0 1 9 5 8 7 7 6 5 3 8 1 0 3 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 2 3 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 8 ( C O N T . ) CU M U L A T I V E P R O J E C T S T R I P G E N E R A T I O N AM P e a k H o u r A M P e a k H o u r Da i l y T r i p E n d s ( A D T ) Vo l u m e Volume La n d U s e Q u a n t i t y Ra t e V o l u m e % o f AD T In O u t T o t a l % o f AD T In Out Total Mu l t i - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 3 3 2 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 8 5 L n ( X ) + 2 . 5 5 1 , 7 8 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 5 1 0 7 5 3 1 6 0 19 . R o r i p a u g h R a n c h S P A 1 , 8 0 0 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L N ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 1 4 , 8 5 0 3 1 7 9 5 2 1 2 6 9 9 1 0 5 3 5 1 , 4 4 5 20 . D e P o r t o l a M e a d o w s Si n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 1 4 7 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L N ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 1 , 4 8 0 2 8 8 4 1 1 2 9 5 5 5 1 5 0 Mu l t i - F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l 1 5 6 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 8 5 L n ( X ) + 2 . 5 5 9 4 0 1 3 6 1 7 4 5 8 2 8 8 6 21 . S t T h o m a s o f C a n t e r b u r y 6 8 2 5 9 5 2 1 1 1 5 5 6 1 1 1 6 22 . H e m m i n g w a y a t R e d h a w k 1 0 8 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L N ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 1 , 1 0 0 2 1 6 4 8 5 7 2 4 3 1 1 5 23 . T e m e c u l a P r o f e s s i o n a l B u i l d i n g I I (P A 0 6 - 0 3 2 9 ) 11 , 5 9 5 S F L n ( T ) = 0 . 7 7 L n ( X ) + 3 . 6 5 2 5 4 2 9 4 3 3 1 6 7 6 9 2 24 . G a t e w a y P l a z a 3 0 , 5 7 3 S F L n ( T ) = 0 . 7 7 L n ( X ) + 3 . 6 5 5 3 6 2 1 3 2 4 1 9 9 4 1 1 3 25 . R e d h a w k C o n d o s 9 7 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 8 5 L n ( X ) + 2 . 5 5 6 2 5 9 4 1 5 0 4 0 1 9 5 9 26 . S t r a t f o r d a t R e d h a w k 1 0 6 U n i t s L n ( T ) = 0 . 9 2 L N ( X ) + 2 . 7 1 1 , 1 2 0 2 1 6 3 8 4 7 2 4 3 1 1 5 27 . B u t t e r f i e l d S t a t i o n ( R e t a i l ) 7 3 , 0 0 0 S F L n ( T ) = 0 . 6 5 L n ( X ) + 5 . 8 3 5 , 5 3 5 7 9 5 1 1 3 0 2 9 1 2 1 9 5 1 0 28 . D e P o r t o l a P r o f e s s i o n a l O f f i c e s 3 8 , 5 0 1 S F L n ( T ) = 0 . 7 7 L n ( X ) + 3 . 6 5 6 4 0 7 7 1 0 8 7 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 29 . H e r i t a g e H o t e l Ho t e l 1 4 2 R o o m s 8 . 9 2 / R o o m 1 , 2 7 0 4 7 3 4 8 1 7 . 4 9 4 0 4 1 8 1 Re s t a u r a n t 5 , 5 0 0 S F 8 9 . 9 5 / K S F c 4 9 0 0 . 8 1 4 0 4 7 . 4 9 2 8 1 3 4 1 30 . H a l c o n d e R o j o 6 5 , 8 8 0 S F L n ( T ) = 0 . 7 7 L n ( X ) + 3 . 6 5 9 6 7 1 1 8 1 6 1 3 4 2 6 1 2 7 1 5 3 To t a l P r o j e c t 1 1 7 , 8 3 4 3 , 4 6 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 , 5 7 6 6 , 0 1 2 5 , 4 4 1 1 1 , 4 5 2 Fo o t n o t e : On l y t h e p o r t i o n s o f p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e y e t t o b e b u i l t t h a t w e r e u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e t i m e t h e t r a f f i c c o u n t s w e r e c o n d u c t ed a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e a b o v e l i s t . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-24 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Figure 3.3-10 depicts the cumulative projects locations, while Figure 3.3-11 depicts total Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. Figure 3.3-12 depicts the Opening Year with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects traffic volumes. 3.3.9 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios Project Opening Day without Project Project Opening day traffic conditions, without project, represents existing traffic volumes with a growth of 3 percent per year for three years added. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-9 summarizes the Opening Day intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 at I-15 SB Ramps • SR 79 at I-15 NB Ramps • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix E of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year without Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-10 summarizes the Opening Year traffic conditions for the street segment operations, without project. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Project Phase I Project opening day with Project Phase I represents Project Opening Day traffic volumes with the addition of Project Phase I traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-9 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-9, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of Project Phase I traffic except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 at I-15 SB Ramps • SR 79 at I-15 NB Ramps • SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway Intersection • SR 79 at La Paz Street Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 0 Cu m u l a t i v e P r o j e c t s L o c a t i o n s SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 1 Cu m u l a t i v e P r o j e c t s T r a f f i c V o l u m e s A M / P M Pe a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 2 Op e n i n g Y e a r w i t h E n t i r e P r o j e c t a n d C u m u l a t i v e P r o j e c t s Tr a f f i c V o l u m e s A M / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3. 3 T r a f f i c Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 2 8 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E TA B L E 3 . 3 - 9 PR O J E C T O P E N I N G D A Y I N TE R S E C T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Ex i s t i n g Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h o u t P r o j e c t Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r De l a y a L O S b D e l a y a L O S b D e l a y a L O S b ∆ Delay c Impact Type AM 3 2 . 2 C 4 0 . 6 D 4 6 . 1 D 5 . 5 N o n e 1. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 S B R a m p s S i g n a l PM 3 7 . 5 D 5 6 . 9 E 5 8 . 2 E 1 . 3 C u m u l a t i v e AM 1 2 . 0 B 1 3 . 3 B 1 4 . 4 B 1 . 1 N o n e 2. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 N B R a m p s S i g n a l PM 3 4 . 0 C 5 6 . 7 E 5 9 . 1 E 2 . 4 C u m u l a t i v e AM 1 3 . 3 B 1 6 . 3 B 1 6 . 6 B 0 . 3 N o n e 3. H i g h w a y 7 9 / L a P a z S t S i g n a l PM 2 7 . 4 C 5 8 . 5 E 6 1 . 2 D 2 . 7 C u m u l a t i v e AM 2 3 . 3 C 2 6 . 6 C 2 7 . 8 C 1 . 2 N o n e 4. H i g h w a y 7 9 / P e c h a n g a P k w y S i g n a l PM 7 3 . 9 E 1 0 9 . 7 F 1 1 4 . 3 F 4 . 6 C u m u l a t i v e AM 1 0 . 5 B 1 1 . 0 B 1 1 . 2 B 0 . 2 N o n e 5. H i g h w a y 7 9 / J e d e d i a h S m i t h R d S i g n a l PM 1 5 . 6 B 1 7 . 2 B 1 7 . 3 B 0 . 1 N o n e AM 6 . 4 A 6 . 7 A 8 . 2 A 1 . 5 N o n e 6. H i g h w a y 7 9 / A v e n i da D e M i s s i o n e s S i g n a l PM 7 . 6 A 8 . 7 A 9 . 9 A 1 . 2 N o n e AM 5 . 0 A 5 . 2 A 2 6 . 6 C 2 1 . 4 N o n e 7. H i g h w a y 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W y S i g n a l PM 1 0 . 1 B 1 1 . 1 B 2 4 . 0 C 1 2 . 9 N o n e AM 2 8 . 4 C 3 0 . 8 C 3 3 . 8 C 3 . 0 N o n e 8. H i g h w a y 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / M a r g a r i t a R d S i g n a l PM 3 2 . 1 C 3 4 . 9 C 3 7 . 1 D 2 . 2 N o n e AM 1 8 . 8 B 2 0 . 0 B 2 0 . 4 C N o n e 9. H i g h w a y 7 9 / B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d S i g n a l PM 2 0 . 2 C 2 2 . 8 C 2 4 . 1 C N o n e AM 1 3 . 9 B 1 4 . 0 B 1 4 . 3 B N o n e 10 . D e P o r t o l a R d / M a r g a r i t a R d S i g n a l PM 1 8 . 4 B 2 1 . 4 C 2 2 . 1 C N o n e Fo o t n o t e s : a. H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l a v e r a g e d e l a y i n s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e b. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e . c. Δ d e n o t e s a n i n c r e a s e i n d e l a y d u e t o p r o j e c t . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 2 9 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 0 PR O J E C T O P E N I N G D A Y SE G M E N T O P E R A T I O N S Ex i s t i n g Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h o u t P r o j e c t Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I St r e e t S e g m e n t Ex i s t i n g R o a d w a y Cl a s s a Ca p a c i t y (L O S E ) b AD T c V / C d LO S e AD T c V / C d LO S e AD T c V / C d LOS e ∆ V/C f Impact Type Hi g h w a y 7 9 We s t o f I - 1 5 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 9 , 7 0 0 0 . 5 7 8 A 2 1 , 4 7 0 0 . 6 3 0 B 2 1 , 6 6 0 0 . 6 3 5 B 0 . 0 0 6 N o n e I- 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a P k w y 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 7 7 , 6 0 0 1 . 4 4 0 F 8 4 , 5 8 0 1 . 5 6 9 F 8 6 , 4 7 0 1 . 6 0 4 F 0 . 0 3 5 C u m u l a t i v e Pe c h a n g a P k w y t o M a r g a r i t a R d 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 3 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 7 2 4 C 4 2 , 5 1 0 0 . 7 8 9 C 4 5 , 7 8 0 0 . 8 4 9 D 0 . 0 6 1 N o n e Ma r g a r i t a R d t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 3 4 , 2 0 0 0 . 6 3 5 B 3 7 , 2 8 0 0 . 6 9 2 B 3 8 , 4 8 0 0 . 7 1 4 C 0 . 0 2 2 N o n e Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 4 2 , 9 0 0 1 . 2 5 8 F 4 6 , 7 6 0 1 . 3 7 1 F 4 7 , 0 7 0 1 . 3 8 0 F 0 . 0 0 9 C u m u l a t i v e Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d No r t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 2 , 8 0 0 0 . 3 7 5 A 1 3 , 9 5 0 0 . 4 0 9 A 1 4 , 4 5 0 0 . 4 2 4 A 0 . 0 1 5 N o n e So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 3 , 3 0 0 0 . 3 9 0 A 1 4 , 5 0 0 0 . 4 2 5 A 1 5 , 1 3 0 0 . 4 4 4 A 0 . 0 1 8 N o n e De P o r t o l a R o a d We s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d 2 - L n C o l 1 3 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 0 . 6 1 5 B 8 , 7 2 0 0 . 6 7 1 B 9 , 3 5 0 0 . 7 1 9 C 0 . 0 4 8 N o n e Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / R e d h a w k P a r k w a y Je d e d i a h S m i t h R d t o D e P o r t o l a R d 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 7 , 7 0 0 0 . 4 9 3 A 1 9 , 2 9 0 0 . 5 3 7 A 2 0 , 2 3 0 0 . 5 6 4 A 0 . 0 2 6 N o n e De P o r t o l a R d t o H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 . 7 3 0 C 2 8 , 5 6 0 0 . 7 9 6 C 2 9 , 5 0 0 0 . 8 2 2 D 0 . 0 2 6 N o n e So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 . 7 0 2 C 2 7 , 4 7 0 0 . 7 6 5 C 2 8 , 1 0 0 0 . 7 8 3 C 0 . 0 1 8 N o n e Fo o t n o t e s : a. R o a d w a y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d b a s e d o n e x i s t i n g c r o s s - s e c t i o n s . b. R o a d w a y C a p a c i t i e s b a s e d o n R i v e r s i d e Co u n t y R o a d w a y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n T a b l e ( s e e Ap p e n d i x B o f t h e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 L L G s t u d y ). c. A v e r a g e D a i l y T r a f f i c V o l u m e s . d. V o l u m e / C a p a c i t y r a t i o e. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e . f. I n c r e a s e i n V / C r a t i o . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3. 3 T r a f f i c Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 3 0 ESA / D207434 Fi n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.1 F TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 1 EN T I R E P R O J E C T A N D C U M U L A T I V E P R OJ E C T S I N T E R S E C T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h E n t i r e P r o j e c t Project Opening Day With Entire Project & Cumulative Projects In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l Ty p e Pe a k Ho u r De l a y a L O S b D e l a y a L O S b ∆ De l a y c Im p a c t T y p e Delay a LOS b AM 4 6 . 1 D 4 9 . 1 D 3 . 0 N o n e 1 2 1 . 9 F 1. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 S B R a m p s S i g n a l PM 5 8 . 2 E 6 2 . 7 E 4 . 5 C u m u l a t i v e 2 2 4 . 3 F AM 1 4 . 4 B 1 4 . 6 B 0 . 2 N o n e 8 0 . 9 F 2. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 N B R a m p s S i g n a l PM 5 9 . 1 E 6 3 . 1 E 4 . 0 C u m u l a t i v e 2 9 8 . 2 F AM 1 6 . 6 B 1 6 . 9 B 0 . 3 N o n e 1 6 3 . 6 F 3. H i g h w a y 7 9 / L a P a z S t S i g n a l PM 6 1 . 2 D 6 5 . 0 E 3 . 8 C u m u l a t i v e 3 1 8 . 5 F AM 2 7 . 8 C 2 9 . 3 C 1 . 5 N o n e 1 2 5 . 0 F 4. H i g h w a y 7 9 / P e c h a n g a P k w y S i g n a l PM 1 1 4 . 3 F 1 1 5 . 2 F 0 . 9 C u m u l a t i v e 5 1 7 . 2 F AM 1 1 . 2 B 1 2 . 3 B 1 . 1 N o n e 3 0 . 7 C 5. H i g h w a y 7 9 / J e d e d i a h S m i t h R d S i g n a l PM 1 7 . 3 B 1 7 . 7 B 0 . 4 N o n e 1 2 3 . 5 F AM 8 . 2 A 8 . 3 A 0 . 1 N o n e 1 2 . 9 B 6. H i g h w a y 7 9 / A v e n i da D e M i s s i o n e s S i g n a l PM 9 . 9 A 1 1 . 5 B 1 . 6 N o n e 9 5 . 3 F AM 2 1 . 5 C 2 2 . 9 C 1 . 4 N o n e 7 7 . 3 E 7. H i g h w a y 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W y S i g n a l PM 2 4 . 0 C 3 4 . 1 C 1 0 . 1 N o n e 2 4 4 . 6 F AM 3 3 . 8 C 3 6 . 6 D 2 . 8 N o n e 1 7 8 . 7 F 8. H i g h w a y 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / M a r g a r i t a R d S i g n a l PM 3 7 . 1 D 3 9 . 6 D 2 . 5 N o n e 2 6 4 . 0 F 9. H i g h w a y 7 9 / B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d S i g n a l A M 2 0 . 4 C 2 0 . 9 C 0 . 5 N o n e 3 2 . 7 C P M 2 4 . 1 C 2 4 . 3 C 0 . 2 N o n e 3 7 . 9 D 10 . D e P o r t o l a R d / M a r g a r i t a R d S i g n a l A M 1 4 . 3 B 1 4 . 9 B 0 . 6 N o n e 2 3 . 6 C P M 2 2 . 1 C 2 3 . 3 C 1 . 2 N o n e 4 9 . 3 D Fo o t n o t e s : a. H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l a v e r a g e d e l a y i n s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e b. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e . c. Δ d e n o t e s a n i n c r e a s e i n d e l a y d u e t o p r o j e c t . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 3 1 ESA / D207434 Su p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t October 2007 Pr e l i m i n a r y − S u b j e c t t o R e v i s i o n TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 2 EN T I R E P R O J E C T A N D C U M U L A T I V E PR O J E C T S S E G M E N T O P E R A T I O N S Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I Pr o j e c t O p e n i n g D a y Wi t h E n t i r e P r o j e c t Project Opening Day With Entire Project and Cumulative Projects St r e e t S e g m e n t Ex i s t i n g Ro a d w a y Cl a s s a Ca p a c i t y (L O S E ) b AD T c V / C d LO S e AD T c V / C d LO S e ∆ V/ C f Im p a c t Ty p e ADT c V/C d LOS e Impact Type Hi g hw a y 7 9 We s t o f I - 1 5 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 1 , 6 6 0 0 . 6 3 5 B 2 1 , 8 3 0 0 . 6 4 0 B 0 . 0 0 5 N o n e 3 2 , 4 9 0 0 . 9 5 3 E C u m u l a t i v e I- 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a P k w y 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 8 6 , 4 7 0 1 . 6 0 4 F 8 8 , 2 2 0 1 . 6 3 7 F 0 . 0 3 2 C u m u l a t i v e 1 2 3 , 3 4 0 2 . 2 8 8 F C u m u l a t i v e Pe c h a n g a P k w y t o M a r g a r i t a R d 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 4 5 , 7 8 0 0 . 8 4 9 D 4 8 , 8 1 0 0 . 9 0 6 E 0 . 0 5 6 D i r e c t 8 2 , 4 8 0 1 . 5 3 0 F C u m u l a t i v e Ma r g a r i t a R d t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d 6 - L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 3 8 , 4 8 0 0 . 7 1 4 C 3 9 , 5 9 0 0 . 7 3 5 C 0 . 0 2 1 N o n e 5 9 , 8 8 0 1 . 1 1 1 F C u m u l a t i v e Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 4 7 , 0 7 0 1 . 3 8 0 F 4 7 , 3 6 0 1 . 3 8 9 F 0 . 0 0 9 N o n e 7 0 , 0 1 0 2 . 0 5 3 F C u m u l a t i v e Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d No r t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 4 , 4 5 0 0 . 4 2 4 A 1 4 , 9 2 0 0 . 4 3 8 A 0 . 0 1 4 N o n e 2 3 , 1 0 0 0 . 6 7 7 B N o n e So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 5 , 1 3 0 0 . 4 4 4 A 1 5 , 7 1 0 0 . 4 6 1 A 0 . 0 1 7 N o n e 2 5 , 9 6 0 0 . 7 6 1 C N o n e De P o r t o l a R o a d We s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d 2 - L n C o l 1 3 , 0 0 0 9 , 3 5 0 0 . 7 1 9 C 9 , 9 3 0 0 . 7 6 4 C 0 . 0 4 5 N o n e 1 1 , 6 6 0 0 . 8 9 7 D N o n e Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / R e d h a w k P a r k w a y Je d e d i a h S m i t h R d t o D e P o r t o l a R d 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 2 0 , 2 3 0 0 . 5 6 4 A 2 1 , 1 0 0 0 . 5 8 8 A 0 . 0 2 4 N o n e 2 6 , 0 6 0 0 . 7 2 6 C N o n e De P o r t o l a R d t o H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 2 9 , 5 0 0 0 . 8 2 2 D 3 0 , 3 7 0 0 . 8 4 6 D 0 . 0 2 4 N o n e 3 7 , 6 9 0 1 . 0 5 0 F C u m u l a t i v e So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 2 8 , 1 0 0 0 . 7 8 3 C 2 8 , 6 8 0 0 . 7 9 9 C 0 . 0 1 6 N o n e 3 8 , 5 4 0 1 . 0 7 4 F C u m u l a t i v e Fo o t n o t e s : a. R o a d w a y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s s u m e d b a se d o n e x i s t i n g c r o s s - s e c t i o n s . b. R o a d w a y C a p a c i t i e s b a s e d o n R i v e r s i d e C ou n t y R o a d w a y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n T a b l e ( s e e A p p e n d i x B o f t h e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 L L G s t u d y ) . c. A v e r a g e D a i l y T r a f f i c V o l u m e s . d. V o l u m e / C a p a c i t y r a t i o e. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e . f. I n c r e a s e i n V / C r a t i o SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-32 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix F of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with Project Phase I peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-10 summarizes the opening day with Project Phase I street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-10, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Project Opening Day with Entire Project (Phases I & II) Project opening day traffic condition, with the entire project, represents opening day with the addition of traffic volumes generated by the entire project. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Opening Day with the Entire Project intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 / I-15 SB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR 79 / I-15 NB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR 79 / La Paz Street (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • SR 79 / Pechanga Parkway (LOS F during the PM peak hour) Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix G of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year with the Entire Project peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the street segment operations for the Opening Day with the Entire Project. As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except the following: • SR 79 from I-15 to Pechanga Parkway • SR 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road • Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-33 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Project Opening Day with Entire Project & Cumulative Projects Project Opening day traffic conditions, with the entire project and cumulative projects, represents opening day with entire project traffic volumes as well as cumulative project traffic volumes. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-11 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-11, all study area intersections continue to operate at poor LOS conditions except the following: Cumulative Impact • SR 79 / Butterfield Stage Rd • De Portola Rd / Margarita Rd Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix H of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Opening Year With the Entire Project and Cumulative Projects peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-12 summarizes the Project Opening day with Entire Project and Cumulative Projects street segment operations. As seen in Table 3.3-12, all study area street segments are calculated to operate at a poor LOS except the following: Cumulative Impact • Butterfield Stage north of SR 79 • Butterfield Stage south of SR 79 • De Portola Road west of Margarita Road • Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 • Redhawk Parkway from south of Highway 79 3.3.10 Analysis of Long-Term Scenarios Build-out (Year 2025) Traffic Volumes The City of Temecula build-out volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. It may be noted that the Build- out (Year 2025) network assumes a new traffic interchange at I-15, south of Highway 79 and a new road termed the Eastern Bypass, which will extend from I-15 to Borel Road. This new circulation option will significantly reduce traffic volumes on the parallel portion of Highway 79. This facility was not included in the cumulative impact analysis because it would not be constructed for many years, and thus is not reasonably foreseeable within the horizon studied for cumulative impacts. A copy of the Build-out (Year 2025) volumes is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-34 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 The following methodology was utilized to estimate peak hour intersection volumes. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were estimated using a template in EXCEL developed by LLG. Future peak hour traffic volumes at an intersection are determined based on the relationship between existing peak hour turn movement and ADT volumes and the future ADT volumes. This same relationship can be assumed to generally continue in the future without the Eastern Bypass. This relationship will likely change once the Eastern Bypass is built. The traffic study included analysis of build-out peak hour intersection volumes both with and without the Eastern Bypass. Figure 3.3-13 depicts the forecasted Build-out peak hour segment ADT volumes. Build-out (Year 2025) Intersection Geometry All funded CIP improvements are assumed as the base geometry for the Year 2025 analysis as follows. The full list of funded CIP projects are included in Table 3.3-15. • I-15 / Highway 79 (South) interchange - Route 79 South at Interstate 15 Ultimate Interchange Improvements • Route 79 South Re-striping from 6 to 8 lanes - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway • Route 79 South at Pechanga Parkway – Intersection Improvements – Dual Right Turn Lanes - Route 79 east to Pechanga Parkway south • Route 79 South/Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination – Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road Build-out (Year 2025) Analysis The intersection and segment operations at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass) are compared to the existing + entire project + cumulative projects (with the existing network, and Eastern Bypass), in order to determine the improvement in intersection and segment operations with the Eastern Bypass. Intersection Analysis Table 3.3-13 summarizes the build-out (Year 2025) peak hour intersection operations. As seen in Table 3.3-13, at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass), all study area intersections are calculated to operate at better levels of service and much lower delays than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass) (Figure 3.3-13). Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix I of the October 2007 LLG study) contains the Build-out (Year 2025 with Eastern By-Pass) peak hour intersection analysis worksheets. Segment Operations Table 3.3-14 summarizes the build-out street segment operations. It may be noted that the build- out segment analysis assumes the City of Temecula Circulation Element network. As seen in Table 3.3-14, all study area street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better conditions except the following: 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-35 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) It may be noted that at build-out (with the Eastern Bypass), all Study Area segments are calculated to operate at better levels of service than for the existing + project + cumulative projects (without the Eastern Bypass scenario). It may be noted that the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element assumes a two-lane facility (one lane in each direction) for the Eastern Bypass. The volumes used in this analysis assume this two-lane cross-section. However, the Riverside County TUMF Program is planning to build the Eastern Bypass as a four-lane facility (two lanes in each direction). Therefore, if the Eastern Bypass were to be built as a four-lane facility, it would attract more traffic and the segment volumes and consequently, the intersection volumes along Highway 79 are expected to be lower than that used in this analysis. Thus, with a four-lane Eastern Bypass facility, the intersections and segments are expected to operate better than with a two-lane Eastern Bypass facility. 3.3.11 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Based on the established significance criteria, the following significant impacts were calculated. Two direct impacts were calculated since project traffic caused the LOS to decrease from an acceptable LOS D to LOS E. Cumulative impacts were calculated at locations that already operate at LOS E or F without project traffic or locations where unacceptable levels of service occur only with the addition of cumulative projects traffic. Direct Impact (Phase II only) Impact 3.3-1: Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road – This is a direct impact since with the addition of Project Phase II traffic this segment deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E. Impact 3.3-2: Highway 79 / Country Glen Way (Project Driveway) – This is a direct impact since this intersection is the main project driveway and the project is responsible for providing the north leg of this intersection which does not exist currently and will serve as the project access. 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3. 3 T r a f f i c Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 3 6 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 Signalized Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 3 BU I L D - O U T ( Y E A R 2 0 2 5 ) I N T E R S E C T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Ex i s t i n g + E n t i r e P r o j e c t + Cu m u l a t i v e P r o j e c t s (N o E a s t e r n B y - P a s s ) Ye a r 2 0 2 5 (W i t h E a s t e r n B y - P a s s ) In t e r s e c t i o n Co n t r o l T y p e P e a k H o u r De l a y a L O S b D e l a y a L O S b Δ Delay In Seconds AM 12 1 . 9 F 19 . 7 B (-) 102.2 1. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 S B R a m p s S i g n a l PM 2 2 4 . 3 F 2 1 . 3 C (-) 203.0 AM 8 0 . 9 F 4 . 5 A (-) 76.4 2. H i g h w a y 7 9 / I - 1 5 N B R a m p s Si g n a l PM 2 9 8 . 2 F 3 3 . 3 C (-) 264.9 AM 1 6 3 . 6 F 8 . 7 A (-) 154.9 3. H i g h w a y 7 9 / L a P a z S t Si g n a l PM 3 1 8 . 5 F 2 2 . 7 C (-) 295.8 AM 1 2 5 . 0 F 2 0 . 0 B (-) 105.0 4. H i g h w a y 7 9 / P e c h a n g a P k w y Si g n a l PM 5 1 7 . 2 F 3 9 . 3 D (-) 477.9 AM 3 0 . 7 C 6 . 5 A (-) 24.2 5. H i g h w a y 7 9 / J e d e d i a h S m i t h R d Si g n a l PM 1 2 3 . 5 F 1 5 . 4 B (-) 108.1 AM 1 2 . 9 B 3 . 6 A (-) 9.3 6. H i g h w a y 7 9 / A v e n i d a D e M i s s i o n e s Si g n a l PM 9 5 . 3 F 6 . 4 A (-) 88.9 AM 7 7 . 3 E 3 5 . 4 D (-) 41.9 7. H i g h w a y 7 9 / C o u n t r y G l e n W y Si g n a l PM 2 4 4 . 6 F 3 1 . 4 C (-) 213.2 AM 1 7 8 . 7 F 2 2 . 4 C (-) 156.3 8. H i g h w a y 7 9 / R e d h a w k P k w y / M a r g a r i t a R d Si g n a l PM 2 6 4 . 0 F 7 9 . 5 E (-) 184.5 AM 3 2 . 7 C 2 5 . 4 C (-) 7.3 9. H i g h w a y 7 9 / B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d Si g n a l PM 3 7 . 9 D 4 4 . 2 D (-)6.3 AM 2 3 . 6 C 1 4 . 4 B ( - ) 9 . 2 10 . D e P o r t o l a R d / M a r g a r i t a R d Si g n a l PM 4 9 . 3 D 2 1 . 5 C ( - ) 2 7 . 8 Fo o t n o t e s : a. H i g h w a y C a p a c i t y M a n u a l a v e r a g e d e l a y i n s e c o n d s p e r v e h i c l e b. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e . c. Δ d e n o t e s a n i n c r e a s e i n d e l a y d u e t o p r o j e c t . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 3 7 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 4 BU I L D - O U T ( Y E A R 2 0 2 5 ) S E G M E N T O P E R A T I O N S Ex i s t i n g + E n t i r e P r o j e c t + C u m u l a t i v e P r o j e c t s (N o E a s t e r n B y - P a s s ) Ye a r 2 0 2 5 (W i t h E a s t e r n B y - P a s s ) Se g m e n t Ro a d w a y Cl a s s a LO S E Ca p a c i t y b Vo l u m e c V / C d L O S e R o a d w a y C l a s s a LO S E Ca p a c i t y b Volume c V/C d LOS e SR - 7 9 We s t o f I - 1 5 4- L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 3 2 , 4 9 0 0 . 9 5 3 E 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 2 6 4 A I- 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a P k w y 6- L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 1 0 8 , 5 2 0 2 . 0 1 3 F 8 - L n U r b a n A r t 7 1 , 8 0 0 5 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 8 2 2 D Pe c h a n g a P k w y t o M a r g a r i t a R d 6- L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 8 2 , 2 6 0 1 . 5 2 6 F 6 - L n P r i n c i p a l A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 5 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 9 4 6 E Ma r g a r i t a R d t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d 6- L n P r i n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 5 0 , 0 7 0 0 . 9 2 9 E 6 - L n P r i n c i p a l A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 5 0 , 0 0 0 0 . 9 2 8 E Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y So u t h o f S R - 7 9 4- L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 6 8 , 7 0 0 2 . 0 1 5 F 6 - L n P r i n c i p a l A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 2 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 3 8 A Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d No r t h o f S R - 7 9 4- L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 3 , 1 0 0 0 . 6 7 7 B 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 5 7 A So u t h o f S R - 7 9 4- L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 5 , 9 6 0 0 . 7 6 1 C 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 8 7 A De P o r t o l a R o a d We s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d 2- L n C o l 1 3 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 8 9 0 0 . 8 3 8 D 4 - L n C o l 2 5 , 9 0 0 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 4 2 5 A Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / R e d h a w k P a r k w a y Je d e d i a h S m i t h R d t o D e P o r t o l a R d 4- L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 2 6 , 0 6 0 0 . 7 2 6 C 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 0 6 A De P o r t o l a R d t o H i g h w a y 7 9 4- L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 6 , 1 6 0 1 . 0 0 7 F 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 3 , 0 0 0 0 . 6 4 1 B So u t h o f H i g h w a y 7 9 4- L n M a j A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 8 , 5 4 0 1 . 0 7 4 F 4 - L n M a j A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 7 , 0 0 0 0 . 7 5 2 C Fo o t n o t e s : a. C i t y o f T e m e c u l a R o a d w a y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n b. R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R o a d w a y C a p a c i t y c. V o l u m e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a G e n e r a l P l a n Up d a t e , C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t T r a f f i c S t u d y . d. V o l u m e / C a p a c i t y r a t i o SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Figure 3.3-13 Bu i l d - o u t ( Y e a r 2 0 2 5 ) w i t h P r o j e c t T r a f f i c V o l u m e s AM / P M P e a k H o u r s a n d A D T SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-39 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Cumulative Impacts Intersections Impact 3.3-3: SR 79 / I-15 SB Ramps Impact 3.3-4: SR 79 / I-15 NB Ramps Impact 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St Impact 3.3-6: SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Impact 3.3-7: SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road Impact 3.3-8: SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones Impact 3.3-9: SR 79 / Country Glen Way Impact 3.3-10: SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Segments Impact 3.3-11: SR 79 West of I-15 Impact 3.3-12: SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway Impact 3.3-13: SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road Impact 3.3-14: SR 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road Impact 3.3-15: Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79 Impact 3.3-16: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Impact 3.3-17: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 City of Temecula – Regional Transportation Facility Mitigation Program The City of Temecula requires that identified direct project-related traffic impacts are mitigated and funded directly by the project applicant. Direct project-related mitigation measures required to mitigate project impacts will be implemented with construction of the Phase 1 improvements. In addition, the City of Temecula implements a comprehensive transportation system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) designed to address cumulative regional traffic impacts. The CIP has been designed to ensure that the regional circulation system as depicted in the Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is constructed to provide an acceptable level of service as development occurs. Funding for the regional circulation improvements identified in the CIP is derived from a variety of sources including City of Temecula Development Impact Fees (DIF), Assessment Districts (AD), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), Community Facilities Districts (CFD), federal and state matching funds (SAFETEA-LU) and special legislative improvement districts (SB 621). The CIP prioritizes the funding, design and construction of individual transportation improvement projects to coincide with the commensurate level of service of roadway segments and intersections to adequately serve existing and future development. All of the CIP projects that provide for mitigation of regional cumulative traffic impacts have identified 100 percent of the funding required to construct the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-40 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 proposed improvement. Many of the CIP projects are currently 100 percent funded and the transportation portion of the DIF fee for this project have the effect of reimbursing the improvement fund for funds advanced for the impacted facilities, and thus will be applied to other regional CIP projects. All of the above referenced documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. The following sections describe the transportation facility improvement funding programs. The CIP sheets are documented in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix J of the October 2007 LLG study). City of Temecula Development Impact Fee (DIF) Development Impact Fees (DIF) are collected to fund a portion of the new infrastructure that is needed to provide services to new development. Transportation improvements are the largest portion of the DIF fees. DIF fees are charged when: • Construction permits are issued in a fee area or, in the case of water and wastewater, when the development ties into City services; • A new use, such as a new structure or expanded structure, is requested; • A change to a more intense use is requested; • A property adds new water or sewer service; • Additional Drainage Fixture Units are added to an existing structure; • Impact fees are based on the type of land use being developed, the building area, gross site area, water meter sizes and the drainage fixture characteristics of the proposed development. • The amount charged for impact fees is based on the estimated demand the development will place on City services and the estimated taxes the new development will generate pay for new infrastructure. The current DIF for the proposed project is $4.75/square-foot for office land uses and $5.66/square-foot for service commercial land uses. The proposed project will pay $3,077,065 in current DIF fees. DIF fees are adjusted on a regular basis to keep pace with construction costs and inflation and are payable at building permit, so the amount actually paid could be more than under the current rates. Documentation regarding the adoption and implementation of the DIF program are included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix K of the October 2007 LLG study). Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program The County of Riverside and the Cities of Western Riverside County enacted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The purpose of the TUMF program is to provide a supplemental revenue stream to support the shortfall from traditional funding sources for regional transportation facilities (Figure 3.3-14). The TUMF program funds the mitigation of traffic impacts from new development on the regional system of Highways and arterials. Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 4 TU M F F a c i l i t i e s SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-42 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 The TUMF program also ensures that new developments pay their fair share towards providing the needed regional infrastructure improvements. TUMF fees can only be used to mitigate the impacts of new development on the network of roads, bridges, interchanges and intersection that are identified under the TUMF program. The TUMF program involves development of policies, identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates and fee scenarios. However, it should be noted that the mitigation fees collected through the TUMF program can be utilized only towards the capital costs of facilities and not for operation or maintenance costs. The fee calculations are based on the proportional allocation of the costs of proposed transportation improvements based on the cumulative transportation system impacts of different types of new developments. Fees are directly related to the forecast rate of growth and trip generation characteristics of different categories of new development. The TUMF program collects fees by the following land use categories: • Single family residential • Multi-family residential • Industrial • Retail • Service commercial The current TUMF Fee for the proposed project is $5.71/square-foot for office land uses and $5.71/square-foot for service commercial land uses. Under the current TUMF fee structure, the proposed project would have to contribute $3,232,774 in current TUMF fees. TUMF fees are adjusted on a semi-annual basis, and are payable at building permit, thus the amount actually paid could be more than the current fees. Figure 3.3-14 depicts the TUMF facilities in the County. Documentation regarding the TUMF program is attached as Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix L of the October 2007 LLG study). Assessment Districts / Community Facilities Districts Assessment Districts (AD) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD) are special districts formed by a local government agency (County, City, Water District, etc.) that include property that would receive direct benefit from the construction of new public improvements or from the maintenance of existing public improvements. The proposed project is located with Assessment District 159 (AD 159), which encumbers a large area east of I-15 and north and south of Route 79 south (Figure 3.3-15). The applicant has been paying assessment district fees for many years and will continue to do so until the assessment district is retired. The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from two lanes to six lanes, between I-15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the Te m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 Fi g u r e 3 . 3 - 1 5 Ri v e r s i d e C o u n t y A s s e s s m e n t D i s t r i c t s SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t , L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-44 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, regional transportation improvements in the vicinity of the proposed project are included in Crown Hill CFD and the Morgan Hill CFD. The local agency that forms the assessment district sells bonds to raise the money to build or acquire the public improvement. The agency then levies a special assessment against each parcel of land within the district, in proportion to its share of benefit from the improvement. Factors that determine the amount of benefit received may include the size of the lot or the proximity to the improvement being financed. The special assessment is payable through annual installments over the life of the bond issue, which is typically 15 to 20 years, but may be as many as 40 years depending on the terms of the bond issue. The owners of the assessed land repay the bonds through annual assessments, which are included on the County's general property tax bill. Documentation regarding the AD is included in Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix M of the LLG study). Federal, State and Special Legislative Funding Mechanisms In addition to DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs and ADs, Federal and State matching funds (SAFETEA-LU and SB 621 – Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund) are available for use in funding regional circulation system improvements. Planned Regional Circulation System Improvements In addition to the regional circulation facilities currently programmed into the City of Temecula CIP, TUMF, assessment districts and/or community facilities districts, there are several regional transportation facilities that are in the planning stages that have not yet been incorporated into any of the transportation planning/funding documents to date. The Eastern Bypass is a planned future regional transportation facility connecting I-15, south of Highway 79 South and Borel Road/Washington Street in the northeastern section of the City. This regional transportation facility will provide for significant traffic relief along Route 79, southern Pechanga Parkway and the entire circulation system within the vicinity of the project. This facility will be called Deer Hollow Way, between I-15 and midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. To the east of the previous section, this facility will be called Anza Road up to its terminus with Borel Road. This facility will include a new interchange at I-15, to be located south of Highway 79 South, which is approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) at a preliminary cost of $47,840,000. The Deer Hollow Way section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a six-lane divided principal arterial from I-15 to Rainbow Canyon Road and a four-lane major arterial from Rainbow Canyon Road to midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This roadway section is also approved by RCTC. The Anza Road Section of the Eastern Bypass is planned to be a four-lane Undivided Secondary Arterial from Midway between Pechanga Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road to Butterfield Stage Road and a two-lane Undivided Rural Highway between Butterfield Stage Road and Borel Road. Since the Eastern Bypass (a regional transportation facility) has not been funded or programmed into the City of Temecula CIP or the TUMF program, it has not been 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-45 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 incorporated into the ultimate circulation system expected to be in place at build-out of the proposed project. Analysis of the year 2025 traffic conditions, including the Eastern Bypass, and discussed in Section 3.3.10, and show that all area intersections and segments will operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025, with the exception of the following: • Highway 79 from Pechanga Parkway to Margarita Road (LOS E) • Highway 79 from Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road (LOS E) Based upon this analysis, cumulative traffic impacts can be considered temporary until such time as the Eastern Bypass is built and operational. Once the Eastern Bypass project is constructed, levels of service along all project impacted roadway segments and intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exception of the above outlined segments, which are slightly over the significance threshold. The projects / improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are already planned separate from the proposed project. If these projects / improvements listed in Table 3.3-15 are completed by others, the project’s fee payments will addresses its own impacts. If, however, the improvements are not completed by others, the hospital must complete those improvements before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, and could get reimbursed for a portion of the costs, thus ensuring that the improvements will be in place prior to the hospital opening up. It may be noted that: • As compared to the existing transportation system, the proposed project will have the impacts identified above. • There are a series of planned improvements that will be completed by others in the next few years (Table 3.3-15). • With completion of all of these improvements (and the project specific improvements as discussed for access points to the hospital site – i.e. the project specific impact mitigations), the project’s impacts will be less than significant, the project is still obligated to pay its DIF and TUMF fees in order to pay its fair share of the improvement costs (which are in effect being fronted by DIF and TUMF). In the event these improvements are not completed before the hospital opens (except for the interchange, which must be substantially underway), there is a potentially significant impact. That residual impact is mitigated by requiring the hospital to complete the improvements before receiving a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City. Direct Impacts The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be substantially under construction prior to issuance of any encroachment permit for project access to Highway 79 South or De Portola Road. Encroachment permits shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3. 3 T r a f f i c Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 4 6 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 5 CU M U L A T I V E T R A F F I C I M P R O V E M E N T M I T I G A T I O N M E A S U R E S U M M A R Y Tr a f f i c I m p r o v e m e n t C u r r e n t S t a t u s F u n d i n g S o u r c e / S t a t u s C I P R e f e r e n c e P r i o r i t y 1. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h W i d e n i n g - I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e Ro a d a Co m p l e t e d A s s e s s m e n t D i s t r i c t 1 5 9 D I F N o t a P a r t o f C I P C o m p l e t e d 2. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h R e - s t r i p i n g f r o m 6 t o 8 l a n e s - I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 t o Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y De s i g n A p p r o v e d C o n s t r u c t 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 DI F - $ 1 6 1 , 2 5 0 2 1 0 - 1 6 5 - 6 7 6 C I P - I 3. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h M e d i a n C o n s t r u c t i o n – I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 t o Bu t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d In D e s i g n C o n s t r u c t 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 DI F - $ 1 9 0 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 - 1 6 5 - 6 2 2 C I P - I I 4. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h a t B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d – I n t e r s e c t i o n Mo d i f i c a t i o n a Co m p l e t e d b y P r i v a t e De v e l o p m e n t Pr i v a t e D e v e l o p e r N o t a P a r t o f C I P C o m p l e t e d 5. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h a t I n t e r s t a t e 1 5 U l t i m a t e I n t e r c h a n g e Im p r o v e m e n t s In D e s i g n C o n s t r u c t i n 2 0 1 1 C D F ( C r o w n H i l l ) - $ 5 0 2 , 2 1 0 C F D ( M o r g a n H i l l ) - $ 1 , 1 9 0 , 5 8 2 S B 6 2 1 F u n d i n g - $ $ 1 4 , 9 6 0 . 9 2 5 S A F T E A - L U - $ 1 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 T U M F – 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 T o t a l C o s t - $ 2 2 , 5 6 0 , 9 2 5 21 0 - 1 6 5 - 6 6 2 C I P - I 6. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h a t P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y – I n t e r s e c t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t s – D u a l R i g h t T u r n L a n e s - R o u t e 7 9 e a s t t o Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y s o u t h In D e s i g n C o n s t r u c t i n 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 S B 6 1 2 F u n d i n g - $ 4 2 5 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 - 1 6 5 - 6 3 7 C I P - I 7. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h / M a r g a r i t a R o a d T r a f f i c S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n – Old T o w n F r o n t S t r e e t t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d In D e s i g n C o n s t r u c t 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 D I F – T r a f f i c S i g n a l s P o r t i o n o f $ 2 , 5 7 5 , 0 0 0 21 0 - 1 6 5 - 7 1 2 C I P – I 8. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h / M a r g a r i t a R o a d T r a f f i c S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n – Old T o w n F r o n t S t r e e t t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R o a d – F i b e r o p t i c s In D e s i g n C o n s t r u c t 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 8 D I F – T r a f f i c S i g n a l s - $ 3 4 5 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 - 1 6 5 - 7 1 2 C I P - I 9. R o u t e 7 9 S o u t h C C T V T r a f f i c M o n i t o r i n g S y s t e m I n D e s i g n , C o n s t r u c t i n 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 1 S B 6 2 1 - $ 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 2 1 0 - 1 6 5 - 6 3 5 C I P - I 10 . P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y I m p r o v e m e n t s B e t w e e n P e c h a n g a Pa r k w a y B r i d g e a n d V i a E d u a r d o In D e s i g n – C o n s t r u c t 20 0 7 - 2 0 0 1 DI F F e e s , C F D – W o l f C r e e k Pu b l i c L a n d s a n d H i g h w a y s P r o g r a m Pe c h a n g a T r i b e C o n t r i b u t i o n Ra n c h o C a l i f o r n i a W a t e r D i s t r i c t 21 0 - 1 6 5 0 6 6 8 C I P - I 11 . E a s t e r n B y - P a s s ( F u t u r e ) I n P l a n n i n g $ 4 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 – P r e li m i n a r y E s t i m a t e N / A W i l l r e d u c e c u m u l a t i v e t r a f f i c impacts when constructed Fo o t n o t e s : a. T h e s e i m p r o v e m e n t s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d a r e as s u m e d a s t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s a n d a r e no t p a r t o f t h e r e c o m m e n d e d m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s . SO U R C E : C i t y o f T e m e c u l a 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-47 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Traffic Signal Coordination - SR 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled “SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination – Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road”. The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula building permit. Should the entire CIP funding not be in place at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA, the applicant shall fund the traffic signal coordination and establish a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula to be reimbursed for expenditures made on behalf of the city. However, at this time, the CIP calls for completion of the improvement in the Year 2008. Site Access and On-Site Circulation In addition to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project proposes three access driveways, two on SR 79 and one on De Portola Road. The following improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA from the City of Temecula in order to mitigate impacts of the new access driveways, to existing facilities: Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: • Driveway #1 on SR 79: Driveway #1 on SR 79 is the fourth (north) leg of the SR 79 / Country Glen Way. This intersection is currently a signalized T-intersection. Modification of the current signal has already been completed to accommodate the fourth leg serving the project site and other related changes to geometry. The project shall provide the following additional intersection geometry: o A dedicated westbound right-turn lane on SR 79, o Dual eastbound left-turn lanes on SR 79, and dual left-turn lanes and a shared through/ right-turn lane in the southbound direction exiting the project site. • Driveway #2 on SR 79: Driveway #2 on SR 79 shall be located at the west boundary of the property and will provide unsignalized right in/right-out only access. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • Driveway #3 on De Portola Road: Driveway #3 on De Portola Road will provide unsignalized right-in / right-out and left-in only access. Left-turns out of the hospital shall be prohibited. This 40-foot wide driveway shall provide one inbound and one outbound lane. • The hospital and other related buildings are located approximately in the center of the site, surrounded by parking. An adequate internal roadway system shall be provided to access each facility and to provide adequate parking. Cumulative Impacts The project shall participate in the funding and implementation of regional circulation system improvements through payment of established City of Temecula DIF fees, participation in the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) Program and continued 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-48 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 participation in Assessment District (AD 159) financing. These fees are collected as part of funding mechanisms aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected development and population increases. The regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Additional funding sources have been identified for several of the regional transportation facilities (see Table 3.3-15). All available mitigation measures required to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-15 and documented following the table. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated due to the fact that the area is built out and that the necessary right of way cannot be acquired.. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. As discussed above, implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Intersections The following regional circulation system mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA. Certificates of occupancy for buildings in Phase IA shall not be issued until the improvements are completed or substantially underway, as determined by the Director of Public Works. The following improvement has been completed since the traffic counts were assessed for this study and is not considered a measure to mitigate the impacts of this project: • State Route 79 South Widening – Interstate 15 to Butterfield Stage Road: The primary improvement funded by AD 159 is the widening of Route 79 south from 2 lanes to 6 lanes, between Interstate 15 and Butterfield Stage Road. This major regional circulation system improvement has been completed and provides for a significant increase in circulation system capacity in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, completion of the planned improvements through the federal, state and special legislative funding mechanisms as mitigation for the identified project impacts shall be concluded upon certification of occupancy for Phase IB, which consists of construction of the one-story main hospital structure comprising approximately 162,650 square feet and a six-story bed tower of approximately 122,755 square feet, as well as parking associated with the structure and tower. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures 3.3-3, and 3.3-4, the obligation to complete these planned improvements will transfer from the previously stated funding 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-49 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 mechanisms to the hospital if in fact the improvements are not completed by before an issuance of a certification of occupancy for Phase IA. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: SR 79 / I-15 Southbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled “Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange” (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City’s issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: SR 79 / I-15 Northbound Ramps City of Temecula CIP project entitled “Interstate 15 / State Route 79 South Interchange” (Public Works Account No. 210.165.662) which will add lanes to the ramps at the interchange shall be substantially underway through the design review process prior to the City’s issuance of any encroachment permit for the project. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, TUMF fees, CFDs, State and Federal matching funds and SB 621 funds, and construction is expected in 2011. Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, require coordination with Caltrans and are found to be infeasible because ultimately they are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the City of Temecula. Because the impact at the interchange cannot be mitigated with certainty, it is considered significant and unmitigable for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: SR 79 / La Paz St City of Temecula CIP entitled “Route 79 South Widening - Interstate 15 to Pechanga Parkway”, which will add a fourth through lane in each direction on SR 79 through La Paz Street shall be constructed prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program, and construction is expected to occur in 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Intersection of SR 79 / Pechanga Pkwy City of Temecula CIP entitled “State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway – Dual Right- Turn Lanes”, which will add a second eastbound right-turn lane on SR 79 at Pechanga Parkway shall be constructed prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-50 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees and participation in the TUMF program and SB 621 Funds, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones; SR 79 / Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road City of Temecula CIP entitled “SR 79 South / Margarita Road Traffic Signal Coordination – Old Town Front Street to Butterfield Stage Road” shall be completed prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. This project will improve the signal coordination along SR 79, including the SR 79 / Jedediah Smith Road, SR 79 / Avenida De Missiones and SR 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Road intersections, which will improve traffic flow through these intersections. In addition, the project shall construct lane geometry improvements and modify the existing traffic signal at the main project driveway, prior to project operation. Note: Funding is secured through DIF fees, and construction is scheduled for 2008. Segments SR 79 West of I-15 The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 will also mitigate this impact. The improvements to the interchange will greatly improve traffic flow on this segment of SR 79. SR 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway The mitigation measures listed for Impacts 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 will also mitigate this impact. Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road; Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road The mitigation measures listed for Impact 3.3-7 will also mitigate this impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 City of Temecula CIP for fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled “Pechanga Parkway Improvements – Phase II” – Public Works Account No. 210.165.668, shall be completed prior to the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building in Phase IA of the project. If not completed by others, the Applicant shall complete the improvements, subject to potential reimbursement from the City or other projects. Note: This project will add the third through lane on Pechanga Parkway in both directions. Funding is secured through DIF fees, CFD (Wolf Creek), Public Lands and Highway Program, Pechanga Tribe contributions and Rancho California Water District funding, and construction is scheduled between 2007 and 2011. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-51 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79 Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements along this segment. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 The applicant shall pay required City of Temecula DIF fees prior to issuance of any City of Temecula encroachment permit. Note: No additional mitigation measures are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the right of way along this segment. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. Implementation of the Eastern Bypass will provide for significant cumulative traffic impact relief with all project affected segments and intersections expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, however the Eastern Bypass was not considered in the cumulative analysis at this time because completion is expected to be too far in the future. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in this section, are feasible due to the fact that upon completion off all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right of way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right of way for additional circulation system improvements. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than-significant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” must be included in the record of project approval. Resulting Levels of Service following implementation of all available mitigation measures for all project area intersection and roadway segments are shown in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 respectively. As seen in Tables 3.3-16 and 3.3-17, all of the identified segments and intersections, with the exception of Route 79 South /I-15 Northbound ramps (AM) and the Route 79 South /Country Glenn Way (AM) intersection will continue to operate at unacceptable levels of service, following completion of all feasible mitigation measures, although the mitigation will in most cases substantially decrease the amount of delay that would otherwise be experienced. These cumulative traffic impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts, until 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Traffic Temecula Regional Hospital 3.3-52 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 such time as the Eastern Bypass is constructed, which would provide substantial relief to the regional circulation system. Appendix D of this SEIR (Appendix N of the LLG study) contains the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects analysis with the implementation of all mitigation measures. TABLE 3.3-16 EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Without Mitigation With Mitigation a Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delayb LOSc Delayb LOSc AM 121.9 F 84.5 F 1. Highway 79 / I-15 SB Ramps Signal PM 224.3 F 160.9 F AM 80.9 F 19.0 B 2. Highway 79 / I-15 NB Ramps Signal PM 298.2 F 70.4 E AM 163.6 F 40.7 D 3. Highway 79 / La Paz St Signal PM 318.5 F 86.9 F AM 125.0 F 112.5 F 4. Highway 79 / Pechanga Pkwy Signal PM 517.2 F 365.6 F 5. Highway 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd Signal PM 123.5 F 75.3 E 6. Highway 79 / Avenida De Missiones Signal PM 95.0 F 60.6 E AM 77.3 E 15.7 B 7. Highway 79 / Country Glen Wy Signal PM 244.6 F 131.5 F AM 178.0 F 142.5 F 8. Highway 79 / Redhawk Pkwy / Margarita Rd Signal PM 264.0 F 212.5 F Footnotes: a. Mitigation does not include the planned Eastern By-Pass. b. Highway Capacity Manual average delay in seconds per vehicle c. Level of service SOURCE: Linscott Law and Greenspan, Temecula Regional Hospital Traffic Impact Report, 2007. 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g , I m p a c t s , a n d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s 3.3 Traffic Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 3. 3 - 5 3 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 3 . 3 - 1 7 EN T I R E P R O J E C T A N D C U M U L A T I V E P R O J E C T S SE G M E N T O P E R A T I O N S - W I T H M I T I G A T I O N Wi t h o u t M i t i g a t i o n W i t h M i t i g a t i o n Se g m e n t Ex i s t i n g Ro a d w a y C l a s s a LO S E Ca p a c i t y b Vo l c V / C d L O S e Mi t i g a t e d Ro a d w a y C l a s s a LO S E Ca p a c i t y b Vol c V/C d LOS e Hi g h w a y 7 9 f We s t o f I - 1 5 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 3 2 , 4 9 0 0 . 9 5 3 E 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 3 2 , 4 9 0 0 . 9 5 3 E I- 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a P k w y 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 1 2 3 , 3 4 0 2 . 2 8 8 F 8 - L n U r b a n A r t 7 1 , 8 0 0 1 2 3 , 3 4 0 1 . 7 1 8 F Pe c h a n g a P k w y t o M a r g a r i t a R d 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 8 2 , 4 8 0 1 . 5 3 0 F 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 8 2 , 4 8 0 1 . 5 3 0 F Ma r g a r i t a R d t o B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 5 9 , 8 8 0 1 . 1 1 1 F 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 5 9 , 8 8 0 1 . 1 1 1 F Pe c h a n g a P a r k w a y So u t h o f H w y 7 9 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 4 , 1 0 0 7 0 , 0 1 0 2 . 0 5 3 F 6 - L n U r b a n A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 7 0 , 0 1 0 1 . 2 9 9 F Ma r g a r i t a R o a d / R e d h a w k P a r k w a y De P o r t o l a R d t o H w y 7 9 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 7 , 6 9 0 1 . 0 5 0 F 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 7 , 6 9 0 1 . 0 5 0 F So u t h o f H w y 7 9 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 8 , 5 4 0 1 . 0 7 4 F 4 - L n M a j o r A r t 3 5 , 9 0 0 3 8 , 5 4 0 1 . 0 7 4 F Fo o t n o t e s : a. R o a d w a y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s s u m e d b a se d o n e x i s t i n g c r o s s - s e c t i o n s . b. R o a d w a y C a p a c i t i e s b a s e d o n R i v e r s i d e Co u n t y R o a d w a y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n T a b l e ( s e e Ap p e n d i x B o f t h e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7 L L G s t u d y ). c. A v e r a g e D a i l y T r a f f i c V o l u m e s . d. V o l u m e / C a p a c i t y r a t i o e. L e v e l ; o f S e r v i c e . f. O n e C I P p r o j e c t p l a n s t o r e - s t r i p e t h e se g m e n t f r o m I - 1 5 t o P e c h a n g a P a r k w a y f r o m t h e c u r r e n t S i x - L a n e P r i n c i p a l A r t e r i a l t o a n E i g h t - L a n e U r b a n A r t e r i a l . H o w e v e r , a s e c o n d C I P p r o j e c t in c l u d e s t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f e q u i p m e n t t o p r o v i d e s i g n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n f r o m W e s t o f I - 1 5 t o M a r g a r i t a R o a d . W h i l e i t i s n o t p o s si b l e t o q u a n t i f y t h e b e n e f i t t o t h e se g m e n t o p e r a t i o n s , a l l i n t e r s e c t i o n s in t h i s c o r r i d o r a r e c a l c u l a t e d t o o p e r a t e a l o w e r d e l a y s t h a n p r i o r t o c o o r d i n a t i o n . T h e r o a d w a y c a p a c i t y i s a C i t y s t a n d a r d . SO U R C E : L i n s c o t t L a w a n d G r e e n s p a n , T e m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l T r a f f i c I m p a c t R e p o r t , 2 0 0 7 . Temecula Regional Hospital 4-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 CHAPTER 4 Project Alternatives This chapter summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR and evaluates a newly identified alternative site. 4.1 Approach to Analysis Additional alternatives or alternative site analysis was not mandated by the Superior Court judgment or Writ of Mandate, however, between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Denoy Parkway could accommodate the proposed project land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The project site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City of Temecula, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. 4.2 Previous Alternatives Analyzed The following discussion summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that were evaluated in the original EIR. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, “governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (Section 15126.6[f]). The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving most of the major project objectives. The analysis presented in the prior sections of this EIR indicates that development of the Temecula Regional Hospital will result in significant, unavoidable impacts for the following: • Short-term, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts; • Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopter flights; sirens and construction; and • Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. All other impacts will be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 The following project alternatives were examined in the Original Draft EIR: Alternative 1: No Project – No Build Alternative 2: No Project – Development Pursuant to Current General Plan Alternative 3: Alternative Site – Corona Family Properties Alternative 4: Access from Dartolo Road Alternative 5: Access from De Portola Road and Dartolo Road Alternative 6: Construction of Hospital Only Alternative 6, the Construction of Hospital Only Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative in the Original EIR. 4.3 Selection and Rationale for Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on the following project objectives: City Objectives: The City’s objectives for the proposed project and the project area are to: • Provide for superior, easily accessible emergency medical services within the City of Temecula; • Provide for a regional hospital campus including a hospital facility, medical offices, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center designed to be an operationally efficient state-of-the-art facility; • Encourage future development of a regional hospital and related services; • Support development of biomedical, research, and office facilities to diversify Temecula’s employment base; • Ensure the compatibility of development on the subject site with surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions; and • Incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity, and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Objectives of the Applicant: The objectives of Universal Health Services (UHS), the project applicant, for the proposed project are to: • Provide high-quality health services to the residents of Temecula and surrounding communities; • Provide a regional hospital facility that includes standard hospital services, with outpatient care, rehabilitation, and medical offices; 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 • Provide a regional hospital facility designed to be an operationally efficient, state-of-the-art facility that meets the needs of the region and hospital doctors; and • Provide medical offices, a cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center adjacent to the hospital facility to meet the needs of doctors and patients who need ready access to the hospital for medical procedures. 4.4 Former Temecula Education Center Alternative (New Alternative No. 7) Between the time that the original EIR was certified and the scoping meeting for the SEIR, a new alternative site has become available for evaluation that was not previously available for development. Where consideration of alternate sites is warranted for a proposed project, CEQA requires that the analysis first consider if any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened if the project were located at another site (Guidelines Section 15126.6 (2)). Only the locations that avoid or substantially lessen significant effects need to be considered. If no alternative sites are feasible, reasons for this conclusion must be included in the EIR. The EIR need not discuss sites that are obviously infeasible, remote, or speculative. The former Temecula Education Center site, located southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway, and immediately west of Murrieta Creek could accommodate the proposed land uses and is now being evaluated as the seventh alternative to the proposed project. The site is approximately 40 acres in size, and is located within the City, immediately adjacent to the City of Murrieta to the northwest. The former Temecula Education Center site was previously submitted to the City as an education complex, including an education center, a research and development/conference center, a day care facility, retail facilities, apartment units and associated parking. The alternative site location is shown in Figure 4-1. The Temecula Education center project has been withdrawn from further consideration by the City and is available for consideration and evaluation as an alternative site for the proposed project. Access to the project site is via Diaz Road, via either Rancho California Road or Winchester Road. Surrounding land uses include open space to the north, Murrieta Creek and open space to the east, business park /warehouse uses to the south and a mining operation, open space and the Santa Rosa Plateau to the west. The potential impacts of this alternative site are described below. This alternative site, similar to the proposed project site, would not have significant impact with regard to cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems since this alternative could lead to a similar project, and all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434 Figure 4.1 Alternative Site SOURCE: RBF Consulting North Not to Scale Alternative Site 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-5 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Aesthetics This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park development, surface mining and the Santa Rosa estate residential and agricultural area to the west. There is commercial development to the east along Jefferson Avenue within the jurisdiction of the City and wastewater effluent ponds to the north within the City of Murrieta. As with the proposed project, Alternative 7 would result in development of the entire site with the uses proposed, and with hospital bed towers of five and six stories. Given the low-intensity development on surrounding properties in the City and the more rural character on County lands, the project at this location could result in a development inconsistent in scale and character with the surrounding built and rural environments. The development could be considered intrusive at this location. Future development would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect Palomar Observatory operations and the City’s Outdoor Lighting Regulations (Ordinance 655). There are no scenic highways in the project vicinity and there are none designated as a Scenic Highway in the Temecula General Plan or by any state agency. The General Plan does not identify any view corridors or areas of special visual significance in the project vicinity. Views of the Santa Rosa Plateau, a prominent regional visual feature throughout the region could be obstructed by the proposed project from proximal vantage points. Given the visual setting of this alternative site, the proposed project at this location could have the potential to result in significant aesthetic impacts. Agricultural Resources The project site is not located within any identified agricultural general plan designation or zoning and the site is not identified in the City’s General Plan as Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, Alternative 7 would not result in a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources. Air Quality The proposed project will result in emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx ), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 7 involves the same level of development and thus would not avoid significant and unavoidable adverse operational air quality impacts. Under this alternative, ROG emissions would remain at 224 lbs/day, and 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 7 would have an unavoidable significant adverse construction impact related to air quality. Like the proposed project, at operation, Alternative 7 would result in pollutant emissions in excess of the SCAQMD emissions thresholds for ROG, with a total of 94 lbs/day and a total of 1,144 lbs/day of CO emissions during operations. Therefore, like the proposed project, Alternative 7 would have an unavoidable, significant operational air quality impact. 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-6 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Biological Resources The project site has been previously graded as part of the surrounding business park and the site is devoid of any vegetation and/or habitat value. As required by the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), a burrowing owl survey would be necessary to verify the presence/absence of burrowing owls and to determine if mitigation is required per the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. The Riverside County MSHCP des not identify the project site as being included within any criteria cells. Implementation of this alternative would result in similar insignificant impacts to biological resources as the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed project, development of the site under Alternative 7 would result in an increase in urban pollutants released into downstream areas due to stormwater runoff. The sites location adjacent to Murrieta Creek could subject the area to flooding during 100-year storm events. Under Alternative 7, construction of commercial uses would require a permit from the RQWCB, which outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to reduce stormwater pollution. With compliance of the existing regulations, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, similar to the proposed project. Hazards This alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Unlike the proposed site, there are no existing gasoline service stations located in the immediate vicinity. As such, the potential impacts to soil or groundwater from USTs is not likely to occur at this alternative location. Therefore, the opportunity for VOCs or MTBE to leak into the environment at this alternative site from gasoline service stations or USTs would likely not exist. Impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed project Land Use and Planning The existing General Plan Land Use designation for Alternative 7 is Public Institutional Facility and surrounding areas within the City of Temecula are designated Industrial Park. Existing site zoning is Planned Development Overlay–PDO -10. Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, a CUP would be required for the 320-bed hospital facility and helipad; City zoning regulations require CUPs for such uses in the Community Commercial zone. A height variance would also be required to allow a maximum building height of 115 feet for the hospital towers. Additionally, use of the site for a hospital would require a General Plan Amendment and zone change. As previously mentioned, this alternative site is located at the edge of a developing urban/rural interface, as evidenced on County of Riverside aerial photographs. Surrounding development in Temecula primarily consists of business park and open space land uses. As described above in 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-7 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Aesthetics, the use at this location could be considered out of character given the urban/rural interface, existing agricultural uses in the County, and the low-scale nature of surrounding residential development. Therefore, Alternative 7 has the potential to result in increased adverse land use compatibility impacts. Noise Noise impacts are closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 7 would result in comparable development, and the total traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would be similar. This alternative may necessitate slightly shorter helicopter trips due to the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, and could result in a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods than the flight paths associated with the project. Estate residential land uses to the west in the Santa Rosa Plateau area would be impacted by flight operations. Therefore, this alternative could have a reduced noise impact relative to the project. The helicopter noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the uncertainty of number of flights per month, the uncertainty of the flight path, and the location of single-family homes in the surrounding area to the west. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be potentially less than those associated with the project. Transportation Under Alternative 7, project trip generation would be greater as that associated with the proposed project. LLG Engineers conducted a Build-out (Year 2025) segment analysis of roadways potentially impacted by Alternative 7 (refer to Appendix D). The build-out segment volumes were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study dated December 2004. All planned network (CIP) improvements are assumed to be implemented and the City street network is assumed to be built to the planned Circulation Element Classification. The proposed Alternative 7 was added to these segments and the build-out plus project traffic volumes were determined. Table 4-1 summarizes the without and with project Build-out segment volumes. As seen in Table 4-1, the segment of Winchester Road from Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue is calculated to operate at LOS F with Alternative 7. The segment of Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Avenue and Overland Drive is calculated to operate at LOS F, both without and with Alternative 7 traffic. These would represent significant impacts requiring mitigation. Conclusion Alternative 7 has the potential to result in adverse aesthetic and land use compatibility impacts, whereas the proposed project does not. Noise impacts associated with this alternative could be less than the proposed project due to slightly shorter helicopter trips and the location of the project site on the western boundary of the City, which would require a flight path over fewer residential neighborhoods. Biological resource impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Traffic impacts would be slightly worse. All other impacts would be comparable to those associated with the project. The alternative would attain each of the project objectives set forth by the City of Temecula and the project applicant outside of using the actual site as currently proposed. 4. Project Alternatives 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 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 4 - 1 AL T E R N A T I V E 7 B U I L D - O U T S E G M E N T O P E R A T I O N S Bu i l d - o u t W i t h o u t P r o j e c t B u i l d - o u t W i t h P r o j e c t Se g m e n t Ex i s t i n g R o a d w a y Cl a s s a LO S E Ca p a c i t y b Vo l u m e c V / C d L O S e V o l u m e c V/C d LOS e V/C Δ Wi n c h e s t e r R o a d Di a z R d t o J e f f e r s o n A v e 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 8 5 0 D 4 0 , 1 4 0 1 . 1 7 7 F 0 . 3 2 7 Je f f e r s o n A v e t o I - 1 5 8 - L n U r b a n A r t 7 1 , 8 0 0 4 5 , 0 0 0 0 . 6 2 7 B 5 5 , 5 4 0 0 . 7 7 4 C 0 . 1 4 7 Ra n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R o a d Di a z R d t o J e f f e r s o n A v e 6 - L n U r b a n R d 5 3 , 9 0 0 1 8 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 3 4 A 1 8 , 3 6 0 0 . 3 4 1 A 0 . 0 0 7 Je f f e r s o n A v e t o I - 1 5 8 - L n U r b a n A r t 7 1 , 8 0 0 3 9 , 0 0 0 0 . 5 4 3 A 3 9 , 9 7 0 0 . 5 5 7 A 0 . 0 1 4 Je f f e r s o n A v e No r t h o f W i n c h e s t e r R d 6 - L n P r i n c i p a l A r t 5 3 , 9 0 0 2 6 , 0 0 0 0 . 4 8 2 A 2 6 , 6 1 0 0 . 4 9 4 A 0 . 0 1 1 Wi n c h e s t e r R d t o O v e r l a n d D r 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 3 8 , 0 0 0 1 . 1 1 4 F 3 8 , 6 1 0 1 . 1 3 2 F 0 . 0 1 8 Ov e r l a n d D r t o R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R d 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 8 , 0 0 0 0 . 8 2 1 D 2 8 , 6 1 0 0 . 8 3 9 D 0 . 0 1 8 Di a z R o a d No r t h o f W i n c h e s t e r R d 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 5 , 0 0 0 0 . 4 4 0 A 2 6 , 5 0 0 0 . 7 7 7 C 0 . 3 3 7 Wi n c h e s t e r R d t o O v e r l a n d D r 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 2 3 , 0 0 0 0 . 6 7 4 B 2 3 , 3 6 0 0 . 6 8 5 B 0 . 0 1 1 Ov e r l a n d D r t o R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R d 4 - L n M a j o r R d 3 4 , 1 0 0 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 2 3 A 1 1 , 3 6 0 0 . 3 3 3 A 0 . 0 1 1 NO T E S : a. C i t y o f T e m e c u l a R o a d w a y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n b. R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R o a d w a y C a p a c i t y c. C i t y o f T e m e c u l a G e n e r a l P l a n U p d a t e , C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t T r a f f i c S t u d y d. V o l u m e / C a p a c i t y r a t i o e. L e v e l o f S e r v i c e SO U R C E : L L G , 2 0 0 7 . 4. Project Alternatives Temecula Regional Hospital 4-9 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Table 4-2 summarizes the impacts of each of the alternatives relative to the project. 4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 15126.6(e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Based on the above analysis, Alternative 6, Construction of Hospital Only, remains identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 4. Project Alternatives Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l 4- 1 0 ESA / D207434 Fin a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t January 2008 TA B L E 4 - 2 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 RE 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 Al t e r n a t i v e 1 : A l t e r n a t i v e 2 : A l t e r n a t i v e 3 : A l t e r n a t i v e 4 : A l t e r n a t i v e 5 : A l t e r n a t i v e 6 : A l t e r n a t i v e 7 : Im p a c t C a t e g o r y N o P r o j e c t – No B u i l d No P r o j e c t – De v e l o p m e n t U n d e r Cu r r e n t G e n e r a l P l a n 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 Ac c e s s f r o m Da r t o l o R o a d Ac c e s s f r o m De P o r t o l a R o a d an d D a r t o l o R o a d Co n s t r u c t i o n o f th e H o s p i t a l O n l y Alternative Site Temecula Education Center 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 S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Re d u c e d G r e a t e r 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 mi l a r G r e a t e r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r R e d u c e d Ai r Q u a l i t y A v o i d e d G r 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 Re d u c e d S i m i l a r 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 S i m i l a r U n d e t e r m i n e d G r e a t e r G r e a t e r Sim i l a r S i m i l a r Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d S i 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 Sim i l a r S i m i l a r Ge o l o g y a n d S o i l s A v o i d e d S i m il a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Sim i l a r S i m i l a r 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 S i 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 Sim 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 S i 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 Sim 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 R e d u c e d Gr e a t e r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Re d u c e d G r e a t e r Mi n e r a l R e s o u r c e s A v o i d e d S i m il a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Sim i l a r S i m i l a r No i s e A v o i d e d R e d u c e d G r e a t e r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Si m i l a r R e d u c e d 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 S i m il a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r S i m i l a r Sim i l a r S i m i l a r Pu b l i c S e r v i c e s A v o i d e d S i 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 Sim i l a r S i m i l a r Re c r e a t i o n A v o i d e d S i 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 Sim i l a r S i m i l a r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A v o i d e d G r 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 Re d u c e d G r e a t e r 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 S i 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 Sim i l a r Similar Me e t s a l l o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e pr o j e c t ? No N o Y e s Y e s Y e s N o Y e s SO U R C E : E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t e s , 2 0 0 7 . Temecula Regional Hospital 5-1 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 CHAPTER 5 Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers 5.1 Acronyms µg/L micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above-ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Temecula Regional Hospital 5-2 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 dBA A-weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day/Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leq energy-equivalent noise level Ldn day-night average noise level LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA’s National Priorities List RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Temecula Regional Hospital 5-3 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank v/c volume-to-capacity VOC volatile organic compounds 5.2 References California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Temecula Regional Hospital 5-4 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. – Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. 5.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency – City of Temecula Shawn Nelson, City Manager Aaron Adams, Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Bill Hughes, Public Works Director Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner Steve Brown, Principal Planner Emery Papp, Senior Planner Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly 5. Acronyms, References, and List of Preparers Temecula Regional Hospital 5-5 ESA / D207434 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report January 2008 Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface/Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional/Geologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Rebecca Skaggs, Associate Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Lisa Bautista, Document Manager Melissa Gross, Document Manager Eugene Williams, Word Processor Appendix A Notice of Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Appendix B Responses to Notice of Preparation Appendix C Soil Vapor Survey Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis Update Appendix E Noise Impact Analysis Update Appendix F Scoping Session Speaker Slips Appendix G Response to Comments Appendix H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program