Loading...
Draft EIR Appendices Appendices Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and NOP Responses City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Preparation To: Distribution List (Attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consulting Firm: Planning Department P&D Consultants 43200 Business Park Drive 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Temecula, CA 92590 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (951) 694-6400 Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study ( x is is not) attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Emery Papp at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Temecula Regional Hospital Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: A proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (Planned Development Overlay District), Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to consider a Regional Hospital Facility consisting of a 320-bed hospital approximately 408,000 square feet in size, two medical office buildings approximately 140,000 square feet in size, a 10,000 square foot cancer center, and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center, all totaling approximately 566,160 square feet, located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. ________________________________________________ ___________________________ Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Date L:\env\8300s\8302_00\IS\NOP.doc 1 City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Temecula Regional Hospital DISTRIBUTION DATE: August 2, 2005 CASE PLANNER: Emery J. Papp CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety ...................................( x ) Fire Department.....................................( x ) Sheriff ....................................................( x ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD)...................( x ) Planning, Advance.................................( x ) Public Works..........................................( x ) STATE: Caltrans .................................................( ) Fish & Game..........................................( x ) Mines & Geology ...................................( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd........( x ) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)...........( x ) Water Resources...................................( x ) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers ......................( x ) Fish and Wildlife Service .......................( x ) Bureau of Land Management ................( x ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District ............( x ) Western Riverside COG ........................( x ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Airport Land Use Commission...............( x ) Engineer................................................( ) Flood Control.........................................( x ) Health Department ................................( x ) Parks and Recreation............................( ) Planning Department ............................( x ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)( x ) Riverside Transit Agency ......................( x ) Transportation.......................................( x ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ................................................( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ...........( x ) Inland Valley Cablevision ......................( x ) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ...( x ) Southern California Gas. . . . . . . ... . … ( x ) Southern California Edison....................( x ) Temecula Valley School District............( x ) Metropolitan Water District....................( x ) Verizon..................................................( x ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ...............( x ) Eastern Information Center ...................( x ) Local Agency Formation Commission...( x ) RCTC ...................................................( x ) Homeowners' Association .....................( x ) Los Ranchitos Santiago Estates County of San Diego, Planning Dept.....( ) L:\env\8300s\8302_00\IS\NOP.doc Notice of Preparation of a Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report (attachment) Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consulting Firm: Planning Department P&D Consultants 43200 Business Park Drive 800 East Colorado Blvd., Ste 270 Temecula, CA 92590 Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Emery J. Papp, Senior Planner Contact: Laura Stetson, AICP Phone Number: (951) 694-6400 Phone Number: (626) 304-0402 Issues to be analyzed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Hospital, as determined by a scoping session held on April 20, 2005 include the following: Aesthetics – Height, massing, and view impacts Air Quality – Construction and daily operations Hydrology and Groundwater – On-site drainage Land Use and Planning – General Plan and Zoning Amendments are required Noise Issues – Operations related to helipad and potential for increased traffic related noise Traffic/Circulation Issues – Potential neighborhood street impacts Project Alternatives 1 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Temecula Regional Hospital Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner (951) 694-6400 Project Location North of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road Project Sponsor’s Name and Address UHS of Delaware, Inc. 367 South Gulp Road. King of Prussia, PA 19406 General Plan Designation Professional Office (PO) Zoning Existing: Professional Office (PO) and Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8) Proposed: Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9) Description of Project The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and a Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468). The General Plan Amendment is a request to eliminate the Z-2 overlay designation from the General Plan. The Z-2 designation currently limits the height of buildings to two stories within the project area. The zone change is a request to change the zoning of the project site from Professional Office and Planned Development Overlay (PDO-8) to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9). The proposed PDO-8 allows a height up to 115 feet for 30% of roof areas for hospital and medical offices. The Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct approximately 566,160 square feet of hospital, medical office, cancer center and fitness rehabilitation center and a helipad space on 35.31 acres. The Tentative Parcel Map (Map 32468) is a request to consolidate eight (8) lots into one (1) parcel. This Initial Environmental Study (IES) has been prepared for the hospital and related medical office buildings. 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. As a result, to the extent required by law all references in the IES and draft Mitigation Monitoring Program with respect to building and occupancy permits are intended to apply only to the non-hospital facilities. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Surrounding land uses include Highway 79 South and single-family residences to the south, single-family residential to the north, professional office, commercial and educational to the west (currently under construction) and existing offices and commercial to the east. Temecula Creek is approximately 1000 feet to the south and Interstate 15 is located approximately 2 miles to the west. Other public agencies whose approval is required Other public agencies which may require approval and/or subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG.), U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS.), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Riverside County Flood Control, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), California State Division of Aeronautics, Riverside County Health Department. 2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Agriculture Resources X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation Geology and Soils X Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems X Hydrology and Water Quality X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Land Use and Planning None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Emery J. Papp, AICP, Senior Planner Printed name For 3 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Comments: 1. a.: No Impact: According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is not located on or near a defined scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. 1. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The residential areas to the north of the project site currently maintain views of mountain areas such as Palomar Mountain. The proposed project includes two hospital bed towers that are 5 and 6 stories high and medical office buildings up to 4 stories. It is anticipated that views of Palomar Mountain will be impacted as a result of the project. The current City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element indicates a Specific Plan Overlay exists on the site that requires all buildings constructed at the proposed location be limited to one or two stories. The tallest portion of one of the proposed hospital bed towers is at more than 100 feet high with the eave line of the top floor at approximately 85 feet. As a result, there is a General Plan Amendment as part of this project that would eliminate the Specific Plan Overlay for the site, leaving the underlying Professional Office zoning district to determine the maximum height requirement. The current Development Code calls out a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Professional Office zone. A Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) is also being proposed for this site only to allow the proposed height bed tower height. The current underlying zoning designation does allow buildings up to 75 feet in height. If the General Plan Land Use Element Specific Plan Overlay were eliminated on this site, the hospital could be constructed to a height of up to 75 feet under current zoning. Impacts to views in the area would not be additionally impacted by allowing the bed tower to exceed 75 feet. It is recommended that the proposed General Plan Amendment to remove the Specific Plan Overlay and the Planned Development Overlay Zone (Zoning Amendment) be evaluated in a Focused Environmental Impact Report to address the impacts to surrounding properties resulting from the proposed height of this project. 1. c: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located between a State Highway (79 South) to the south and very low density residential (2.5 acre minimum) to the north. The project site is currently vacant. The residential area immediately north of the project is an area with large-lot single family rural and equestrian homes. The current General Plan Land Use Specific Plan Overlay on the subject property was put in place to protect the residential area from large scale commercial development. Highway 79 South and Margarita Road in the vicinity of the subject project site are commercial corridors. This property is considered to be a suitable location for the proposed project, and there is a demonstrated need for the proposed project in the community. However, the impacts to views and other aesthetic impacts created by the mass of the proposed buildings must be analyzed in a focused EIR for this project as it will require a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment to obtain approvals for the proposed height. 4 1. d.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with a hospital and medical offices (up to 6 stories in height). The project will introduce outdoor lighting and is required to comply with the City of Temecula Design Guidelines, Development Code and Riverside County Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The Development Code and Design Guidelines require minimizing illumination levels onto adjacent property lines. A minimum of one- foot candle illumination is required in all parking, loading and circulation areas and a minimum of two-foot candle illumination is required for the main entries of each building. Lighting is required to be directed down and fully shielded to reduce the amount of glare into the night sky and onto adjacent parcels. The applicant has proposed low-pressure sodium outdoor lighting fixtures, which is consistent with Ordinance 655. In addition, the project includes conditions of approval requiring all outdoor lighting to be directed down and fully shielded. The two towers do have the potential of emit glare from the upper floors, however as a condition of approval, all windows above the second floor will require glazing and/or tinting in order to reduce the glare. Glazing and/or tinting will reduce the illumination and/or glare from the proposed project. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however decorative lighting is required to be shut-off by 11:00 P.M. By shutting off decorative lighting at 11:00 PM, the amount of light and/or glare will be reduced during late evening hours, thus preserving the visibility of the night sky for scientific research from the Mount Palomar Observatory. The following are Mitigation Measures and/or Conditions of Approval that are recommended as a part of the proposed project and will be imposed via condition or agreement, either of which will ensure the impact is mitigated to a less than significant level: a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be shut-off by 11:00 P.M. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the proposed light levels for the entire project site, onto adjacent project boundaries and vertical fugitive light including means to mitigate. Corresponding criteria for helicopter/heliport uses and ambulance light use and operations shall also be prepared and include means to mitigate. c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. d. All windows above the second floor of the hospital and/or medical office buildings shall maintain glazed windows and/or tinting (non-reflective glass/windows) to reduce the amount of glare that is emitted from the upper floors. e. The Applicant shall plant, irrigate as necessary and replace as necessary mature trees (24-inch or greater) and shrubs (15 gallon or greater) around the perimeter of the project site and include berming or a solid wall with acoustic attenuation along the northern property line and where the project site abuts residential parcels. The Planning Director shall approve the final design of any walls and/or berming and landscaping. Enhanced landscaping may be required along the northern property line and adjacent to residential parcels in order to screen aesthetic impacts. 5 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X Comments: 2. a. b.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production. In the recent past (at least 15- 20 years) the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The project site was historically used for agricultural uses as noted in the Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. During the mid 1800’s the project site was cultivated as an agricultural field. However, the project site has not been utilized for agricultural purposes for many years and is not considered a valuable agricultural resource. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 2. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project could, because of its regional significance, cause other agricultural farmland to be converted to a non-agricultural use. There are some remaining agricultural uses in the City’s sphere of influence (Corona Ranch) and surrounding areas that could be converted to uses other than agricultural, however the conversion of these lands to uses other than agricultural is not considered a result of the proposed project. The region of southwest Riverside County and northern portions of San Diego County have experienced a rapid period of growth that precluded the proposed project. Therefore, the growth of the surrounding area is a result of external economic forces rather than the proposed project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 6 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Comments: 3. a. - e.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is not able to meet the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for clean air standards in the region. The realization of the project will not obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan goals, but is likely to be in conflict with the policies established in the Regional Air Quality Plan. The City of Temecula has identified a need in the community for the proposed project and will carefully analyze the merits of the project and weigh them against the air quality goals and objectives for the region in a Focused EIR for the project. An Air Quality Study for the proposed project was prepared by Regulation Compliance inc., Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004. The study identified two primary areas of concern that may cause potentially significant impacts; construction emissions and operational emissions. The below table summarizes the daily construction emissions for the proposed project. Table 1 Daily Construction Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 Construction Emissions 42 266 353 363 Mitigated Construction Emissions 42 266 353 184 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 Exceed Thresholds? NO YES NO YES The NOx and PM10 emission levels exceed the SCAQMD threshold levels of significance. However, while the NOx and PM10 levels cannot be mitigated to a level that does not exceed the threshold, PM10 can be mitigated to a level much less than without mitigations. 7 The below table summarizes the daily operational emissions for the proposed project. Table 2 Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Vehicular Source Emissions 81.1 101.64 1071.46 115.4 Total Unmitigated Emissions 81.49 105.47 1073.97 115.41 Unmitigated Area Source Emissions 0.4 3.83 2.51 0.01 Mitigated Vehicular Source Emissions 76.46 95.13 1002.98 108.01 Total Mitigated Emissions 76.86 98.96 1005.49 108.02 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 Exceed Thresholds? YES YES YES NO Table 2 above identifies ROG, NOx and CO as exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds levels of significance. The primary generator of operational emissions is from vehicular source emissions. Area source emissions such as heaters, air condition units and other machines are not considered a significant generator of emissions. The study (Regulation Compliance, December 16, 2004) has concluded that the implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts as well as long-term impacts. The short term impacts are a result of the exceedance of SCAQMD’s thresholds for ROG and NOx during construction activities. The long term impacts are a result of exceedance of SCAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, CO and PM10. The proposed project is located in the southwest portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The Environmental Protection Agency designates areas of Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) as either “Does not meet the primary standards”, “Cannot be classified”, or “Better than national standards”. The primary air quality problems in the area are ozone and particular matter. The Basin has been designated as an “extreme” non-attainment area for ozone. The Basin exceeds both the state and federal standards for ozone and both the state and federal standards for particular matter PM10. The State standard for Ozone (O3) is 0.09 parts per million (PPM) for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.12 ppm for one hour. The state standard for oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is 0.225 ppm for one hour and the Federal standard is 0.53 ppm annual average. The State and Federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO) are 9 ppm and 9.5 ppm respectively averaged over eight (8) hours. The State standard for particular matter (PM10) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours and the Federal standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter over 24 hours. The Air Quality Management District no longer maintains a station for measuring air quality standards in the Temecula area. The closest station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore station, which was used as a reference station for the Air Quality Study (Temecula Regional Medical Center, Air Quality Study, December 16, 2004). The study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 16 2004) includes language indicating that due 8 to the geographical location and the wind pattern of the area (Elsinore Convergence Zone), Temecula generally maintains cleaner air quality that other parts of Riverside County. The most productive method for reducing vehicle emissions aim at reducing vehicle miles traveled. Alternative modes of transportation, sidewalks, trails, street and parking lot lighting using low-sodium vapor lights, mature trees, drought resistant vegetation, pedestrian signalization and signage at significant intersections adjacent to the project site assist in reducing the impacts from emissions. The above measures are designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will also be required, which includes incentives for employees utilizing alternative mode of transportation, including preferential parking for car and vanpools, offering flex schedules to employees and encouraging employees to utilize mass transit such as local buses. TDM practices are designed into the proposed project and/or will be required as conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. The applicant has proposed a Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus turn-out along Highway 79 South, which will provide alternative opportunities to employees. The applicant is required to cooperate with RTA and Caltrans to finalize the location and design of the bus stop. The proposed project may potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the project region is considered non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator in regard to the immediate surrounding area. However, the project site may be a significant pollutant generator for the South Coast Air Basin since the basin is currently a non-attainment area. The air quality study identifies the Temecula area as having significantly cleaner air than the other areas in the South Coast Air Basin. The cleaner air in the Temecula area is due to the geographical location and prevailing wind pattern. While the project site is located within a non-attainment area, the project as a stand along project is not considered to emit pollutants considered significant. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. The City of Temecula has adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Citywide General Plan Update. The EIR identified various significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution 05-43, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan” on April 12, 2005. The Final EIR includes a statement of overriding consideration for these impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Included as part of the statement of overriding consideration were air quality standards and compliance with SCAQMD air quality plan. The application includes a General Plan Amendment and zone change; however these applications request a change to the height of the building only. The applications do not request an intensification of the uses allowed, floor area ratio, or lot coverage of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation within the current General Plan, but is inconsistent with a current Specific Plan overlay for the site which limits development to one or two stories. As a result, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay designation from the General Plan for the project area. The project is, however, consistent with the development standards (lot coverage and floor area ratio) found in the Development Code. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 50% and the maximum Floor Area Ratio 50%. The project site is 35.31 acres (1,538,118.6 square feet). The project proposes a Lot Coverage of 15.7% (242,975 square feet) and a Floor Area Ratio of 36% (565,260 square feet). If the hospital project was not proposed, the maximum lot coverage of a commercial or other office project on the project site would be 769,059 square feet (50%). The maximum floor area ratio for the project site would also be 769,059 square feet (50%). The proposed project is well below the maximum permitted lot coverage and floor area ratio permitted in the Professional Office zone. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies within the General Plan. The proposed project is a hospital facility, which will house elderly, ill and others defined as sensitive receptors. The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Since the proposed project is a hospital facility, it will attract people of age and other ill persons, which may be sensitive to odors, 9 dust and/or other pollutants. The exceedance of thresholds of significance for short-term and long-term air quality impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed project will be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. The following Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures are recommended to be incorporated into the EIR and placed on the following entitlements as a part of the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map): a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommended mitigation measures set forth in the Air Quality Study prepared by Regulation Compliance Incorporated, dated December 16, 2004. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written proof of the satisfaction of each of the below mitigation measures to the Planning Department. b. The applicant shall properly maintain all waste related enclosures and facilities and comply with the state emission controls to ensure against project site related odors during construction and subsequent use. c. All hazardous materials, bio-hazardous waste, medical service waste and general wastes shall be discarded in compliance with county, state and/or federal regulations. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hospital facility, the Applicant shall submit an approved hazardous waste storage and removal plan from the State of California and/or Riverside County Health Department to the City of Temecula Planning Department. d. All refuse areas shall be completely enclosed and include a covered roof subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Refuse areas shall be maintained within an enclosed structure and covered at all times, except during pick-up times for off-site removal. e. The applicant shall provide a clear path of travel for pedestrians, including directional signs to/from the public streets (Dartolo Road, De Portola Road, and Highway 79 South), to promote alternative transportation. f. Prior to issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Caltrans for a final location, design and type of stage area (or turn-out) appropriate for the project site. Written authorization and final approved design plans shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. g. The applicant shall incorporate and encourage Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques for reducing vehicle trips during construction as well as during the daily operations of the hospital facility. TDM techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following: encouraging car and vanpooling, offering flex hours and/or flex schedules during the on-going operation of the facility. Written proof of such program shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for construction activities and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the operation of the medical offices and hospital. h. The applicant shall incorporate energy efficiency standards as defined by Title 24 into the project. The applicant shall comply with the latest Title 24 standards. i. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought- resistant vegetation and mature trees (15 gallon, 24-inch box and 36-inch box). If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion to be conducted at the Applicant’s sole expense. 10 j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during the duration of construction activities, the Applicant shall verify in writing (to the Planning Department) that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean- fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected and deployed considering the lowest emission factors and highest energy efficiency reasonably possible. k. Electrical powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible. l. During construction and all grading phases, the project site shall be watered down, to prevent fugitive dust and erosion, in the morning before grading and/or before construction begins and in the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. The applicant shall comply with Rule 403, Fugitive Dust from the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as well as industry accepted best management practices (BMP’s). A note with the above information shall be provided on all grading and construction plans and shall be subject to periodic monitoring by City personnel. m. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on-site and on adjacent access roadways. The City Engineer reserves the right to modify this requirement as necessary based upon the circumstances that present themselves during the project construction. n. All trucks exporting and/or importing fill to/from the project site shall use tarpaulins to fully cover the load in compliance with State Vehicle Code 23114. Material transported in trucks off-site (to and/or from the site) shall comply with State Vehicle Code 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b) (2) (F), (b) (F), (e) (2) and (e) (4) as amended. Material transported on-site shall be sufficiently watered or secured to prevent fugitive dust emissions. Lower portions of the trucks, including the wheels shall be sprayed with water, which shall be properly managed so as to prevent runoff, to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. o. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported by the contractor via incentives or other inducements. p. During the course of the project grading and construction, the applicant shall post signs on-site limiting construction related traffic and all general traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. q. The Applicant shall establish construction equipment and supply staging areas located at least 500 feet from the nearest property line of a residentially improved parcel (preferably the southeast corner of the project site). r. In addition to the foregoing, all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, but no less than 3 times per day, not including morning and evening watering. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Daily watering shall include complete coverage of the site. City personnel shall monitor on-site conditions and may from time to time, require additional treatment by the Applicant, at its sole cost. s. Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be monitored by the Applicant at least weekly to ensure continued dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods such as water and roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be periodically applied to 11 portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered to establish and maintain grass growth, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. City staff shall be advised of the election of treatment made by the Applicant. t. During the course of the project grading and construction, the Applicant shall sweep adjacent streets and roads so as to prevent the placement or accumulation of dirt in the roadway. Sweeping of adjacent streets and roads shall be done as necessary, but not less than once per day, at the end of each day of grading and/or construction. u. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to impact adjacent properties, generally wind speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour, averaged over an hour), the Applicant shall curtail all clearing, grading, earth moving and excavation operations as directed by the City Engineer, to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a nuisance or hazard, either off-site or on-site, or as determined by the City Engineer at his sole discretion. v. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the City of Temecula. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD prior to the commencement of grading and excavation operations. w. The area disturbed by clearing, grading earth moving, or excavation operations shall be no greater than is necessary for project development so as to prevent excessive or unnecessary amounts of dust. x. All the necessary above control techniques shall be clearly indicated on the project grading and construction plans. Compliance with these measures shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Comments: 4. a. b. c. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: A habitat assessment study was prepared for the project site (Habitat Assessment, Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc., September 14, 2004). The study identified a manmade flood control channel that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site, which contains riparian vegetation such as willows and Fremont Cottonwoods. Wetland vegetation, including cattails and bulrushes have also been identified within the manmade channel. The habitat within the channel is likely to be jurisdictional under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. The project will be required, as a condition of approval, to construct a vehicular access bridge across this channel connecting to Dartolo Road, which may require Section 404 permits, subject to the Clean Water Act and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and potentially clearances from the U.S Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The presence of the flood channel may also require the approval of Riverside County Flood Control. The study (Amec Earth & Environmental, Inc. September 2004) concludes that a bridge with supports outside the channel will avoid any streambed alteration, placement of fill into the channel and the encroachment into jurisdictional areas. However, impacts to the riparian vegetation cannot be completely avoided. In order to mitigate impacts to the habitat, a qualified biological monitor is required to be present during the pre-construction site preparation of the bridge. In addition, if activity within the channel (or for preparation for the construction of the bridge) is to occur between April 15 and July 15 of any year, focused surveys following standard protocols shall be provided to determine the presence/absence for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the project with Mitigation Measures. 4. e.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural riparian forests, coastal sage scrub, and nursery sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The project site has been 13 grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City’s weed abatement ordinance (Ord. 8.16). There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. No mature trees are present on the project site. 4. f.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is not located within a criteria cell of the MSHCP. The project site is not included in special survey areas for amphibians, mammals, or narrow endemic plants as stated the study by AMEC (September 14, 2004). However, the MSHCP guidelines recommended that a habitat assessment plan be prepared to assess the Burrowing Owl. The study prepared by Amec (September 14, 2004) concluded that the project site contains grasslands, which is potential habitat suitable for Burrowing Owls. The study recommended future studies prior to issuance of grading permits. The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project and enforceable pursuant to the respective entitlement to which each is conditioned: a. The Applicant shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the city Engineer, indicating the type of permits required to construct the vehicular bridge across the flood channel on the eastern portion of the project site. b. The applicant shall submit written verification from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determining if any further biological studies or clearances are required. c. Focused surveys for Burrowing Owls are required within one month of any ground disturbing activities. If Burrowing Owls occupy the site, the City of Temecula shall be notified and passive or active relocation of the Owls is required following state and federal protocols. d. The applicant shall construct a bridge using supports outside the channel. e. A qualified biologist is required to be on-site during all pre-construction site preparation of the bridge across the channel. f. In the event any site preparation for the bridge takes place from April 15 through July 15, the applicant shall submit focused studies following standard protocol for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and the Southwestern Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In the event either of these endangered birds are found on-site, the construction of the bridge (schedules) and associated activities shall be modified to avoid impacts and allow the birds to complete their reproductive cycles. g. In the event any further conditions, mitigation measures or other regulatory requirement is imposed by any other agency with jurisdiction over the project, the City may require further environmental review. 14 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Comments: 5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 5. b and c.: Less than Significant: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. The archaeology survey (CRM Tech, 2004) recognizes the fact that the surrounding area is known to contain historical and archaeological resources; the project site is not known to include any sensitive resources. However, given the known sensitive resources discovered within close proximity of the project site, conditions of approval are required. The project site is also a potential site for paleontological resources and conditions of approval are required. 5. d.: No Impact: The survey did not recognize the project site as a high potential for human remains. The project site was identified as an agricultural area. While there was significant historical activity around the project site, the project site itself is not anticipated to contain human remains. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project and shall be imposed as enforceable conditions under the entitlements issued for the project: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into a written pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition to the extent authorized by law. c. The applicant shall provide on-site professional archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities at the applicant’s sole cost. d. If culturally significant sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved consistent with this condition and the pre-excavation agreement referenced in the Mitigation Measure a above. e. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations in the Historical/Archaeological Resource Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by CRM Tech, dated September 17, 2004 and September 16, 2004 respectively, except as modified by these mitigation measures. 15 i. Monitoring by a professional qualified paleontological, archaeological and Pechanga Tribe monitor is required during all ground disturbing activities. The monitor(s) shall each have the authority to temporarily halt and/or divert grading equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments, which are likely to contain remains of fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. ii. Collected samples of sediment shall be washed to recover small invertebrates and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens should be prepared so they can be identified and permanently preserved. iii. All specimens shall be identified, curated, and placed into a repository with permanent retrievable storage unless the pre-excavation agreement requires alternative treatment. iv. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, should be prepared upon completion of the steps outlined above. The report should include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the Lead Agency (City of Temecula), would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to the palentologic and archaeological resources. v. If any vertebrate remains are discovered during grading, a paleontologist and the city of Temecula shall be notified immediately. In the event any Pleistocene-age or older sediments/resources are discovered, a program shall be prepared with recommended mitigations to avoid impact to the resources unearthed. 16 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X Comments: 6. a. i-iv and c:Less Than Significant Impact: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project (Geotechnical Exploration Report, Temecula Hospital Temecula, CA, PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004). The proposed project is located 1.6 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The proposed project will not rupture a known fault since there is not a fault located within the boundaries of the project site. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (PSI Inc., May 14, 2004). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The site, in its current condition includes subsurface strata that could experience excessive total and differential settlements under a combination of structural loads and seismically inducted soil liquefaction. Due to the presence of loose surficial soils, the study prepared by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, recommends over-excavation and recompaction for support of building slabs and pavements. Native soils may represent a negligible corrosive environment with respect to concrete and a moderately corrosive environment with respect to buried metals. The project site has a moderate risk for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Unless they are structurally supported, floor slabs should be designed to accommodate approximately 3-1/2 inches of settlement due to soil liquefaction and seismically induced consolidation of soil above the groundwater. The following Conditions of Approval will be required as a part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant and will be established as enforceable conditions on the entitlements: a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Geotechnical Exploration, prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 and as stated below without deviation. 17 i. All existing pavements, utilities, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from areas proposed for construction. Stripping operations should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the proposed building limits, where practical. ii. Existing near-surface soils shall be removed and replace as properly compacted fill. The depth of overexcavation should extend at least 12 inches below existing grade for slabs-on- grade and pavements, or 24 inches below existing grade if mat foundations are constructed. The exposed subgrade below the removal depth should be saturated, and densified using a heavy vibratory drum roller. The removed soils should be moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D157) until design finish grades are reached. This earthwork should extend at least four feet beyond building limits, wherever practical. iii. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed into the stripped and scarified (to at least 12 inches) subgrade soils. Fill materials, including import soils should be free of organic or other deleterious materials, have a maximum particle size of 3 inches or less and should possess an expansion index of less than 20 (UBC 18-2). Most of the on-site sols appear to be reusable as structural fill. During the course of grading operation, oversized material (particles greater than 3 inches) may be generated. These materials should not be placed within the compacted fill. iv. Fill should be placed in maximum loose lifts of 8 inches and should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content and be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacred-engineered fill should be tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The edges of compacted fill should extend 10 feet beyond the edges of buildings prior to sloping. v. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressure do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested by the geotechnical engineer with consideration for the lateral earth pressure used in the wall design. vi. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of finish subgrade should be removed/scarified; moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on Test Method D1557. The upper 12-inch densification should be performed immediately prior to the placement of base material and not during the initial grading operation. vii. As mentioned in the study by PSI, Inc., May 14, 2004, alluvial deposits underlie the site. As such, it is anticipated that shallow to moderate excavations can generally be achieved with conventional earthmoving equipment. viii. All grading operations should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), PSI’s Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix E), and City of Temecula standards. 6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is relatively flat and will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP’s). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of 18 Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. d.: No Impact: According to the geotechnical study prepared by PSI Inc., May 14, 2004, the project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. The geotechnical exploration prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004 also identifies the soils on the project site as “very low expansion potential” as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by PSI Inc., dated May 14, 2004. 6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals from the Department of Environmental Health and/or Eastern Municipal Water District for solid wastes and waste water will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. The project will be required to connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project as the current sewer system and waste treatment facilities are adequate to process the anticipated flow from the proposed facility. 19 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f. 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? X g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Comments: 7. a. b. c.: Less than Significant: The project could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project consists of medical uses and will include the storage, use and transportation of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing elementary school. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions (except those discussed in the Air Quality study dated, September 14, 2004), materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. As a standard condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit to staff an approved hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan), subject to the approval of the Riverside County Community Health Agency, Department of Environmental Health. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 20 7. e.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). There are no other Airports located near the project. 7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an existing private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The proposed project does include a private helipad, which will be used for emergency uses and the transportation of patients to other facilities. As a condition of approval, the flight path will be limited to commercial or highway areas to the extent practical and safe. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project, which is a regional hospital facility, will actually assist in local treatment for the injured, especially in the event of an emergency. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The following Mitigation Measures shall be required as part of the proposed project: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials storage and transportation plan (Hazardous Materials Management Plan) that verifies that the handling, storage and transportation of hazardous materials will comply with county, state, and/or federal regulations. 21 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP’s), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged materials within “waters of the United States” and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the appropriate permits required for the construction of an access road/bridge over/across the flood control channel located the eastern portion of the site. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 22 8. b.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. There is an existing water well, owned and operated by Rancho California Water District (RCWD), adjacent to the project site to the northeast. The City has instructed the applicant to contact the RCWD and request that a Water Supply Assessment be prepared for this project. RCWD has not provided any comments of immediate concern at this time. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. c.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP’s), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project site includes a flood channel, operated and maintained by Riverside County Flood Control. Riverside County Flood Control has been notified of the proposed project and has not submitted a letter of concern at this time. The City of Temecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on- site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. e.,f.: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project will add a significant amount of impermeable surface area on the project site. As a result, there will be an increased level of runoff during a rain event. The Hydrology and Drainage Analysis for this project indicates that the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP’s), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned to implement Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts caused by runoff and will be required to implement mitigation measures that are proposed by responsible and trustee agencies. The City recommends that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for this project and that impacts related to drainage and potential for polluted runoff be evaluated in a Focused EIR that will be prepared for this project. 8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. h. i.: No Impact: The proposed project was at one time located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan.. Recent improvements to Temecula Creek have resulted in a new 100-year and 500-year flood plain boundary delineation. Temecula Creek, which is the primary drainage course in the immediate area, was dredged as a result of Assessment District 159. The dredging of Temecula Creek took place subsequent to substantial flooding of the creek in 1992. Improvements and dredging was completed in 1996. As a result of the improvements and the dredging, updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps have been issued (FIRM, Community-Panel Number 060742-0010 B, revised November 20, 1996). The project site is now identified within the 500-year flood area. 23 The proposed project site was is located within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation area as shown in the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR (1993). The RCWD owns the Vail Lake Dam and has submitted to the City a Dam Inundation report, which includes language pertaining to the dredging of Temecula Creek. An additional study obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control, Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), November 20, 1996 further discusses the dredging of Temecula Creek. The FEMA study shows that the dredging of Temecula Creek now allows for additional carrying capacity in the event of a major flood or an event such as the failure of Vail Lake Dam. The proposed project will place structures within a 500-year flood hazard area, as identified in the revised FEMA map (November 20, 1996). The Applicant is required to comply with applicable FEMA standards. The proposed project is not anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow and drainage facilities and provide comments and/or recommendation concerning the failure of the Vail Lake Dam. While the current City of Temecula Final EIR identifies the project site as being within the Vail Lake Dam Inundation Area, the recent improvements to Temecula Creek have mitigated this potential impact. A revised Dam Inundation Area for the Vail lake Dam is anticipated to remove the project site from the Dam Inundation Area. A letter dated January 29, 1996 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency explains the adjusted floodplain boundaries. The letter and study verify that Temecula Creek maintains a 100-year discharge capacity of 36,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 500-year discharge capacity of 58,000 cfs. The study and letter also verify that the channel banks are higher than the 100-year flood energy grade lines and 100-year flood elevations everywhere along the creek. The Vail Lake Dam is a 51,000 acre feet facility. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Vail Lake is a 51,000 acre-feet facility. The dam is a concrete arch dam with gravity abutment sections. The dam is 4.5 feet thick at the top and 15 feet thick at the lowest point of the foundation. The top of the dam is a parapet wall at elevation of 1,482.5 feet. The dam is located to the south east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in partial flooding of the Temecula creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. The channelization of the Temecula Creek from Butterfield Stage Road to approximately 4,200 feet downstream of Margarita Road and the construction of additional bridges at both Butterfield Stage Road and Margarita Road have allowed the delineation of the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) to be revised as a result of the updated topographic information along Temecula Creek. This updated information affects the flood plain boundaries and the dam inundation area. With the updated improvements and channelization of Temecula Creek, it is determined that the maximum capacity of Temecula Creek has the capability to accommodate the flow of Vail lake Dam in the event of a dam failure. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 24 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Comments: 9. a. c.: No Impact: The proposed project will not divide an established community because the proposed use is compatible and permitted under the current zoning designation and is consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed project is currently zoned Professional Office (PO) and will not divide an established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is planned for office uses, which allows for hospitals and professional offices, to provide services to the community. The project is not subject to, or located within a criteria cell for the adopted habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, which would allow medical and office facilities to exceed the 2 story height limit. Medical and office facilities would be allowed up to six (6) stories if the General Plan Amendment is approved. 9. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project site currently maintains two separate zoning designations. There are three lots that abut De Portola Road, which are zoned De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay-8 (PDO-8). The remainder of the project site is zoned Professional Office (PO). The zone change will change the entire project site, including the three lots currently zoned as PDO-8, to Temecula Hospital Planned Development Overlay (PDO-X). The proposed project is not consistent with the existing General Plan because the project site is within the Specific Plan Overlay which restricts height on the subject property to one or two stories. A General Plan Amendment has been proposed to remove the Specific Plan Overlay on the property to allow for the proposed height increase. All the permitted uses within the current zoning designation (PO) will still be permitted in PDO-X; the primary change that would take place as a result of the PDO is the height standard. A maximum of 30% of the total roof area of hospital facilities are permitted to a maximum height of 115 feet. Roof area is defined within the PDO as the portion of the roof above occupied conditional spaces bound by the inside face of the parapet wall. The project is located along a state highway (Highway 79 South) and there are not any public views that will be impacted as a result of the project. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment will bring the project into compliance with land use policies and development criteria. Compatibility issues will be analyzed in a Focused EIR for this project. 25 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 26 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X Comments: 11. a.-c..:Potentially Significant Impact: The project site is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and west of Margarita Road. There are commercial and office uses between the project site and Margarita Road, and residences immediately to the north and across De Portola Road. The state highway forms a separation barrier between the project site and the residences to the south. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and codified Ordinance 04-11, which allows helipad facilities in Professional Office Districts with a Conditional Use Permit. The Ordinance states the following: Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures from structure to structure of an existing or designated public or private primary, secondary or high school. Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed public park (measured property line to property line). Heliports shall not be located within 1,000 feet (measures structure to structure) of an existing or future assembly facility having 500 persons or more seating capacity. Private heliports associates with hospitals shall be exempt from this requirement. The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall not be located within any required yard area and in no circumstance shall it be located within (10) feet from all property lines. In addition, a minimum one-hundred (100) foot setback shall be achieved from adjacent residentially properties. Ground heliports may be required to be surrounded by a fence or wall at least four feet high and constructed in such a manner as to deflect the horizontal wind velocities caused by rotation of the rotor blades, providing all FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces and the surface area remain obstruction free. 27 The Touchdown Liftoff Area shall be surfaced with material that will be free of dust, loose organic or inorganic material and particles that may be blown about by the helicopter. Any lighting used for nighttime operations shall be directed away from the adjacent residences. The nearest school is Sparkman Elementary (existing) and Rancho Community Church (under construction). Rancho Community Church is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. Sparkmen Elementary is approximately 1,250 feet from the hospital structure. The nearest park is Paloma Del Sol Park, which is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site. The nearest assembly facility to the project site is Rancho Community Church, which, as stated above is approximately 1,450 feet from the hospital structure. The helipad is not located within a yard area and the nearest residentially zoned parcel is approximately 460 feet away from the helipad. Conditions of Approval will be in place to ensure the materials and the surrounding lighting and landscaping of the helipad is consistent with Ordinance 04-11. The proposed project consists of a hospital, medical offices, a cancer center and a fitness center totaling approximately 565,260 square feet. The hospital includes two towers that are 5 and 6 stories respectively, the medical office buildings are 3 and 4 stories each, the cancer center and the fitness center are both single story. The proposed project also includes a helipad on the northeast portion of the site. The General Plan allows a maximum noise level in residential areas not to exceed 65 decibels for exterior areas and 45 decibels for interior areas. A maximum noise level shall not exceed 70 decibels for internal commercial and office areas. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this area to be up to 74 CNEL at build-out measured 100 feet from Highway 79 South. The setback of the nearest proposed structure is a medical office building setback 192 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The nearest point of the hospital is setback 310 feet from the property line abutting Highway 79 South. The project site is designed to include berming and landscaping along the frontage (Highway 79 South), which will buffer some of the noise. The noise analysis (Regulation Compliance Inc., December 2, 2004) states that the construction of the hospital, office buildings, cancer center and fitness center shall be required to install double-paned windows per title 24 requirements. Said noise analysis also states that structures, including residences with double paned windows will mitigate the majority of potentially significant noise impacts. Compliance with title 24 will mitigate the noise impacts associated with the day to day operation portion of the project. There will be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. This will be temporary in nature and are associated with typical commercial development. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City’s noise element in the General Plan will be enforced. The City Council of the City of Temecula adopted and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in 2005 when they approved Resolution 05-43 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan”. The General Plan EIR included a statement of overriding considerations, which recognized significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Those impacts related to air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. The information is contained within the current General Plan which was adopted in 2005. The City of Temecula has been consistent with land-use decisions in relation to the current General Plan and therefore the information is deemed reliable. The Mitigation Measures in this initial study shall be required upon the adoption of this initial study and the approval of the proposed project as conditions of approval. All Mitigation Measures shall be binding requirements of the project approval. There is a potential that the proposed use will have an influence on vehicular circulation patterns and that the potential exists for additional vehicular traffic to be experienced in the residential areas north of the project site. This potential for increased noise on residential streets will be addressed in a Focused EIR prepared for the project. 28 11.d:Potentially Significant Impact: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area that will exceed the maximum CNEL permitted at build-out. A maximum noise level of 65 CNEL is permitted for hospitals and residential uses and a maximum noise level of 70 for commercial and offices uses. The primary source of permanent noise will be generated from the Highway. The proposed project is required to construct berming with landscaping along the frontage of Highway 79 South to reduce the noise impacts on- site and onto the adjacent residential areas. Additional sources of noise are expected from generators and equipment within the mechanical yard. However the mechanical yard is not located near a residence and includes sound walls that mitigate the noise levels at the property to a less than significant level at adjacent property lines (Regulation Compliance, Inc., September 14, 2004). Temporary noise levels above the maximum permitted decibels can be expected during construction activities. The following conditions of approval will be required as a part of the proposed projects entitlements as stated in the Noise study (Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004) and the City of Temecula General Plan Final EIR: a. All construction equipment fixed and/or mobile, including, but not limited to water trucks, cranes, bull dozers, scrapers, and trucks shall be maintained and operated properly, including maintained mufflers. The Applicant and/or contractor shall provide verification of maintenance records prior to issuance of grading permit. b. During all grading and construction activities, the Applicant shall place and maintain a continuous barrier of 6 foot high (or a height as determined acceptable by the Planning Director) sound blankets along both the projects northern property lines and along all the residential properties abutting the project site. c. All stationary construction and permanent operational equipment shall be placed in a location such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors, subject to the approval of the Planning Director (Prior to issuance of grading permit and on-going). d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from noise sensitive receptors, including residences, as practical, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. e. Mechanical equipment including, but not limited to heaters, air-conditioners, air handling units, ventilators, trash compactors, generators, and loading bays shall be screened and/or muffled. In addition, the Applicant shall provide buffers, including enhanced landscaping, berming, and/or structures such as walls for acoustical shielding. f. Emergency generators shall only be used in the event of an emergency power outage and/or for service and maintenance. g. Loading docks shall be enclosed on three sides, include a roof or cover, and face away from residential parcels. Truck arrival and departure hours for loading and unloading shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM. h. Sirens from emergency vehicles shall be shut off when within ¼ mile of the hospital site unless required to allow for emergency access. i. The helicopter flight path shall be limited to commercial areas to the greatest extent possible unless required in emergency situations or if there are no other safe paths of travel. j. The Applicant shall comply with Section 21661.5 of the State Aeronautics Act and Federal Aviation Administration. The applicant shall submit written correspondence from the appropriate agencies detailing requirements and approvals from the appropriate agencies prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the helipad. 29 k. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Federal/State Government Holidays 11. e.-f.:Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed is not located in an Airport Land Use Plan area and there is not an airport, public or private within 2 miles of the proposed project. However, the project proposes to construct a helipad used for transporting patients to trauma centers at other locations. There is no method available to quantify the number of helicopter trips related to the hospital operations as a result of trauma. Noise impacts on neighboring residents and equestrian uses should be analyzed in a Focused EIR prepared for the project to determine the effects of helicopter noise on the surrounding area. 30 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Comments: 12. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is a regional facility, which will add additional medical services to the region. As a result the proposed project could potentially cause additional growth in the surrounding area. However, the southwest Riverside County region has experienced a rapid rate of growth (residential and commercial) since the mid 1980’s without any such regional medical facility. The surrounding community is nearly built-out with residential dwellings. The proposed project therefore, is not anticipated to induce substantial population beyond the residential growth that has already occurred over the last 10-20 years. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 12. b.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site includes a hospital, medical offices, cancer center and a fitness rehabilitation center; residential uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or remove/replace existing housing. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 31 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: X Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Comments: 13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will provide additional public services available to the community and general public. The project will also provide better emergency medical response and allow for better transport of medical emergencies. The project will contribute fair share contributions through City Development Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities and infrastructure. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain “Will Serve” letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has provided some conceptual analysis concerning sewer flows form the hospital and the total flow is estimated to be approximately 94,100 gallons per day. Based on the estimated discharge volume, the hospital would not be required or conditioned to install additional sewer capacity assuming that all hospital flow is discharged to the existing 24” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer in Route 79 South and no hospital flow is discharged to the existing 15” VCP sewer in Margarita Road. As a condition of service the Applicant is responsible for payments of EMWD’s sewer connection fees and water supply development fee. Estimated connection fees at this time are approximately $1,540,000 assuming the current connection fees structure of $3,843 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU i.e. 235 gallons per day). The estimated water supply development fee is approximately $120,000. 32 14. RECREATION. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Comments: 14. a.: No Impact: The project is a hospital and medical office project in a professional office zone. The project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project. Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 33 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Comments: 15. a.-c: Potentially Significant Impact: A traffic analysis and supplemental trip generation information have been prepared for the proposed project; (Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Medical Center, Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers, November 4, 2004; letter from David E. Prusha to Bill Hughes, November 23, 2004). The proposed project is located north of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road. The proposed project consists of approximately 320 bed hospital facility, 407,260 square feet of hospital floor area, 140,000 square feet of medical office space, a 10,000 square foot cancer center and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center all totaling 565,560 square feet. The project will generally be constructed in two phases and will generate a total of 11,458 vehicle trips per day with 865 vehicle trips during the A.M. peak hour and 929 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project evaluated all the intersections on Highway 79 South between the I-15 Freeway Interchange and Butterfield Stage Road and the intersection of Margarita Road and De Portola Road. Phase one includes approximately 150 beds for the hospital and 80,000 square feet of medical office space. Phase one is anticipated to generate approximately 6,290 trips per day with 474 vehicle trips during the peak A.M. hour and 629 vehicle trips during the peak P.M. hour. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the total trips were assigned to Highway 79 South and 22% were assigned to De Portola Road. As part of the TIA, 17 other cumulative projects in the vicinity of Highway 79 South were included in the study. The cumulative impacts of all these projects when added to the Hospital project will result in a LOS of F in several intersections of the study area as identified in the TIA. The TIA has identified several roadway and intersection improvements, which when implemented could result in a LOS of D or better in the study area intersection. It is important to note that the TIA did not factor in a Dartolo Road connection, which could reduce the impacts to each road and intersection. The following Mitigation Measures are recommended as a part of the proposed project: 34 Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase I: 1. Modify the proposed traffic signal at the easterly project access (Country Glen) from a three way signal to a four way signal to accommodate access to the project from Highway 79 South. 2. Install sidewalk and street lights along the frontage of the project on Highway 79 South. 3. Improve the intersection of Highway 79 South at Margarita Road to provide an additional eastbound to north bound left-turn pocket (dual left) if this work has not already been completed. 4. Connect an access connection from the project site to De Portola Road. 5. Pay applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 6. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based on the phase I impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any building in Phase II: 1. Connect Dartolo Road from the project site to Margarita Road. 2. Pay fair share fees towards the improvements of all intersections and roadways in the study area based upon the phase II impacts of the project as identified in the TIA. 3. Pay all applicable Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). 4. It should be noted that if the project’s DIF and TUMF fees exceed the fair share impact fees of the project, the project will not be responsible for payment of any additional fair share fees for mitigation to off-site intersections, which are affected by the other 17 cumulative projects. The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned above upon final review of the final traffic analysis, subject to and as limited by the substitution requirements of the state CEQA Guidelines. Even with proposed mitigation, Level of Service on Highway 79 South and Margarita Road will be operating at a LOS of D or worse during peak periods as a result of the construction of this project. An analysis of cumulative impacts that considers recently approved projects and projects currently being processed along the Highway 79 South corridor must be analyzed in a Focused EIR. 15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to improve intersections and pay fees, however the improvements would not create unsafe public intersections, curves or traffic patterns. 15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project, as conditioned, includes four access points. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. 15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 663 parking spaces. A total of 1,278 parking spaces are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus stop facility. The applicant shall comply with the standards and written request as set forth by the RTA. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 35 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Comments: 16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. The project may require improvements to public facilities such as sewer line connections. The Applicant is required to consult with the sewer purveyor, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to determine what, if any, improvements are required. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a letter from EMWD indicating that current facilities are in place, or a letter stating what improvements are necessary to provide service to the proposed project. Since the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because the wastewater and treatment systems are already designed to handle this quantity of wastewater. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities will be required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control has reviewed the proposed plan and has not submitted any formal comments of concern in regards to District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has provided “water available” letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the 36 applicant signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. There is a domestic well near that project site, owned by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). RCWD have been notified of the project; RCWD has not notified the City of any significant issues or concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to permitted uses and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 37 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Comments: 17. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project because proposed Mitigation Measures are expected to reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant. The developer will be required to obtain all applicable State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer to identify and require traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17. b.: Potentially Significant Impact: The individual effects from the project are primarily less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The air quality impacts have been identified as potentially significant impacts. As discussed in the Air Quality section, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is designated “extreme” non- attainment area for ozone. The City Council of the City of Temecula has adopted Resolution 05-43, which includes a statement of overriding consideration for air quality, agricultural resources, biology, education, library, noise and transportation and circulation. Resolution 05-43 identifies these areas that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the build-out of the General Plan. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the standards required by the General Plan and Development Code, and accordingly the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17. c.: Potentially Significant Impact: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project will be designed and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level. 38 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Earlier Analysis: The proposed project was reviewed under the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan adopted by City Council on November 9, 1993. Sections 3.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.14, 4.17, and 6.0 of the Final EIR for the General Plan, together with the identified technical documents prepared by the Applicant, were relied upon to analyze the proposed project. As a result of the above mentioned sections and technical studies, the conclusion found within this initial study were made. The information relied upon as described above is available at the City of Temecula for review and inspection. 39 SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, November 4, 2004 4. Trip Generation for Spring Valley Hospital, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., November 15, 2004 5. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Temecula Hospital, CRM Tech, September 17, 2004. 6. Temecula Hospital Site Habitat Assessment, AMEC, Inc., September 14, 2004 7. Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Temecula Hospital, PSI Inc., May 14, 2004. 8. Hydrology & Drainage Analysis for Temecula Regional Medical Center, Hunter Associates, Ltd. (A TRC Company), November 2004. 10. Paleontological Resource Assessment Report, Temecula Hospital Project, CRM Tech., September 16, 2004. 11. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Regulation Compliance, Inc., December 2, 2004. 12. Flood Insurance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 20, 1996. 13. Letter to the Honorable Kay Ceniceros, Chairperson, Riverside County Board of Supervisors from John W. Eldridge, Jr. Acting Director of Mitigation Division of Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX, dated January 25, 1996 14. Inundation Study for Vail Dam, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc., July 1975. 15. Temecula Regional Medical Center Air Quality Study, Regulation Compliance Incorporated, Inc., December 16, 2004 16. City of Temecula Resolution 93-90, A Resolution of the City Council for the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan for the City of Temecula, Adopted November 5, 1993. 17. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH # 2003061041), March 2005. 18. City of Temecula Resolution 05-43, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Update of the General Plan,” Adopted April 12, 2005. 40 This page is intentionally left blank. Appendix B Air Quality Worksheets Pa g e : 1 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M U R B E M I S 2 0 0 2 F o r W i n d o w s 8 . 7 . 0 Fi l e N a m e : C : \ P r o g r a m F i l e s \ U R B E M I S 2 0 0 2 V e r s i o n 8 . 7 \ P r o j e c t s 2 k 2 \ T e m e c u l a H o s p i t a l . u r b Pr o j e c t N a m e : T e m e c u l a H o s p i t a l Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n : S o u t h C o a s t A i r B a s i n ( L o s A n g e l e s a r e a ) On - R o a d M o t o r V e h i c l e E m i s s i o n s B a s e d o n E M F A C 2 0 0 2 v e r s i o n 2 . 2 S U M M A R Y R E P O R T ( P o u n d s / D a y - S u m m e r ) CO N S T R U C T I O N E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 * * * 2 0 0 6 * * * R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 3 1 2 9 . 6 7 1 1 . 9 5 1 1 7 . 7 2 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , m i t i g a t e d ) 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 3 5 3 . 8 0 1 1 . 9 5 4 1 . 8 5 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 * * * 2 0 0 7 * * * R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 * * * 2 0 0 8 * * * R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 * * * 2 0 0 9 * * * R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , m i t i g a t e d ) 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 * * * 2 0 1 0 * * * R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , m i t i g a t e d ) 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 AR E A S O U R C E E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S R O G N O x C O S O 2 P M 1 0 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 8 . 3 9 3 . 7 9 4 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 OP E R A T I O N A L ( V E H I C L E ) E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S R O G N O x C O S O 2 P M 1 0 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 8 5 . 7 3 9 4 . 6 9 1 , 1 3 9 . 9 0 0 . 8 6 1 2 3 . 2 8 SU M O F A R E A A N D O P E R A T I O N A L E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S R O G N O x C O S O 2 P M 1 0 T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 9 4 . 1 1 9 8 . 4 8 1 , 1 4 4 . 3 3 0 . 8 6 1 2 3 . 2 9 Pa g e : 2 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M U R B E M I S 2 0 0 2 F o r W i n d o w s 8 . 7 . 0 Fi l e N a m e : C : \ P r o g r a m F i l e s \ U R B E M I S 2 0 0 2 V e r s i o n 8 . 7 \ P r o j e c t s 2 k 2 \ T e m e c u l a H o s p i t a l . u r b Pr o j e c t N a m e : T e m e c u l a H o s p i t a l Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n : S o u t h C o a s t A i r B a s i n ( L o s A n g e l e s a r e a ) On - R o a d M o t o r V e h i c l e E m i s s i o n s B a s e d o n E M F A C 2 0 0 2 v e r s i o n 2 . 2 D E T A I L R E P O R T ( P o u n d s / D a y - S u m m e r ) Co n s t r u c t i o n S t a r t M o n t h a n d Y e a r : J a n u a r y , 2 0 0 6 Co n s t r u c t i o n D u r a t i o n : 6 0 To t a l L a n d U s e A r e a t o b e D e v e l o p e d : 3 5 . 3 1 a c r e s Ma x i m u m A c r e a g e D i s t u r b e d P e r D a y : 1 1 . 7 7 a c r e s Si n g l e F a m i l y U n i t s : 0 M u l t i - F a m i l y U n i t s : 0 Re t a i l / O f f i c e / I n s t i t u t i o n a l / I n d u s t r i a l S q u a r e F o o t a g e : 5 6 6 1 6 0 CO N S T R U C T I O N E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S U N M I T I G A T E D ( l b s / d a y ) P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 S o u r c e R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T * * * 2 0 0 6 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 6 3 - 0 . 6 3 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 1 . 4 4 8 8 . 8 8 8 3 . 2 8 - 4 . 0 3 4 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 1 1 2 . 4 3 0 . 4 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 1 1 0 . 2 4 2 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 1 . 6 6 9 1 . 5 5 8 6 . 1 8 0 . 0 3 4 . 7 3 4 . 0 8 0 . 6 5 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 1 1 7 . 7 0 - 1 1 7 . 7 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 4 1 . 7 6 2 8 2 . 3 3 3 3 6 . 7 1 - 1 1 . 9 4 1 1 . 9 4 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 2 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 6 1 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 1 1 2 9 . 6 7 1 1 . 9 5 1 1 7 . 7 2 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 9 1 . 9 2 9 2 . 9 0 - 4 . 0 7 4 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 6 0 0 . 9 7 2 1 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 9 3 9 2 . 8 9 1 1 3 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 4 . 3 4 4 . 0 9 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 3 1 2 9 . 6 7 1 1 . 9 5 1 1 7 . 7 2 * * * 2 0 0 7 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 8 . 2 2 9 5 . 3 3 - 3 . 7 0 3 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 4 8 0 . 9 2 1 9 . 8 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 0 8 * * * Pa g e : 3 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 4 . 5 6 9 7 . 6 7 - 3 . 3 6 3 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 3 6 0 . 8 5 1 8 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 0 9 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 0 . 9 2 1 0 0 . 1 0 - 3 . 1 0 3 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 2 4 0 . 7 8 1 7 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 1 0 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 7 7 . 7 1 1 0 2 . 4 4 - 2 . 8 4 2 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 1 3 0 . 7 2 1 5 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 1 8 6 . 7 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 1 3 0 . 7 2 1 5 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 6 0 - - - - - - Pa g e : 4 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 2 1 . 8 4 1 3 5 . 4 8 1 8 2 . 1 7 - 4 . 7 3 4 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 1 0 1 . 7 8 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 5 1 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 1 : J a n ' 0 6 Ph a s e 1 D u r a t i o n : 3 m o n t h s Bu i l d i n g V o l u m e T o t a l ( c u b i c f e e t ) : 5 4 0 0 0 Bu i l d i n g V o l u m e D a i l y ( c u b i c f e e t ) : 1 5 0 0 On - R o a d T r u c k T r a v e l ( V M T ) : 8 4 Of f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 C r u s h i n g / P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p 1 5 4 0 . 7 8 0 8 . 0 2 R u b b e r T i r e d D o z e r s 3 5 2 0 . 5 9 0 8 . 0 1 R u b b e r T i r e d L o a d e r s 1 6 5 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 1 T r a c t o r / L o a d e r s / B a c k h o e s 7 9 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 2 : A p r ' 0 6 Ph a s e 2 D u r a t i o n : 6 m o n t h s On - R o a d T r u c k T r a v e l ( V M T ) : 1 8 Of f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 2 E x c a v a t o r s 1 8 0 0 . 5 8 0 8 . 0 1 G r a d e r s 1 7 4 0 . 5 7 5 8 . 0 2 O f f H i g h w a y T r a c t o r s 2 5 5 0 . 4 1 0 8 . 0 4 O f f H i g h w a y T r u c k s 4 1 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 2 O t h e r E q u i p m e n t 1 9 0 0 . 6 2 0 8 . 0 1 R u b b e r T i r e d L o a d e r s 1 6 5 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 2 S c r a p e r s 3 1 3 0 . 6 6 0 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 2 T r e n c h e r s 8 2 0 . 6 9 5 8 . 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 3 : O c t ' 0 6 Ph a s e 3 D u r a t i o n : 5 1 m o n t h s S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e B u i l d i n g : O c t ' 0 6 S u b P h a s e B u i l d i n g D u r a t i o n : 5 1 m o n t h s O f f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 C o n c r e t e / I n d u s t r i a l s a w s 8 4 0 . 7 3 0 8 . 0 2 C r a n e s 1 9 0 0 . 4 3 0 8 . 0 2 O t h e r E q u i p m e n t 1 9 0 0 . 6 2 0 8 . 0 1 R o u g h T e r r a i n F o r k l i f t s 9 4 0 . 4 7 5 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s : J u l ' 1 0 S u b P h a s e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s D u r a t i o n : 5 . 1 m o n t h s S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e A s p h a l t : O c t ' 1 0 S u b P h a s e A s p h a l t D u r a t i o n : 2 . 6 m o n t h s A c r e s t o b e P a v e d : 1 3 O f f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 O f f H i g h w a y T r u c k s 4 1 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 3 P a v e r s 1 3 2 0 . 5 9 0 8 . 0 5 P a v i n g E q u i p m e n t 1 1 1 0 . 5 3 0 8 . 0 2 R o l l e r s 1 1 4 0 . 4 3 0 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 1 S u r f a c i n g E q u i p m e n t 4 3 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 CO N S T R U C T I O N E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S M I T I G A T E D ( l b s / d a y ) P M 1 0 P M 1 0 P M 1 0 S o u r c e R O G N O x C O S O 2 T O T A L E X H A U S T D U S T * * * 2 0 0 6 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 6 3 - 0 . 6 3 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 1 . 4 4 8 8 . 8 8 8 3 . 2 8 - 4 . 0 3 4 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 1 1 2 . 4 3 0 . 4 0 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 1 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 1 1 0 . 2 4 2 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 1 . 6 6 9 1 . 5 5 8 6 . 1 8 0 . 0 3 4 . 7 3 4 . 0 8 0 . 6 5 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 4 1 . 8 3 - 4 1 . 8 3 Pa g e : 5 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 4 1 . 7 6 2 8 2 . 3 3 3 3 6 . 7 1 - 1 1 . 9 4 1 1 . 9 4 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 2 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 1 3 0 . 0 6 1 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 1 5 3 . 8 0 1 1 . 9 5 4 1 . 8 5 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 9 1 . 9 2 9 2 . 9 0 - 4 . 0 7 4 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 6 0 0 . 9 7 2 1 . 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 9 3 9 2 . 8 9 1 1 3 . 9 8 0 . 0 0 4 . 3 4 4 . 0 9 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 4 1 . 9 1 2 8 2 . 8 1 3 3 8 . 5 1 0 . 0 3 5 3 . 8 0 1 1 . 9 5 4 1 . 8 5 * * * 2 0 0 7 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 8 . 2 2 9 5 . 3 3 - 3 . 7 0 3 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 4 8 0 . 9 2 1 9 . 8 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 8 2 8 9 . 1 4 1 1 5 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 9 7 3 . 7 2 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 0 8 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 4 . 5 6 9 7 . 6 7 - 3 . 3 6 3 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 3 6 0 . 8 5 1 8 . 4 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 7 0 8 5 . 4 1 1 1 6 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 3 3 . 3 8 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 0 9 * * * Pa g e : 6 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 8 0 . 9 2 1 0 0 . 1 0 - 3 . 1 0 3 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 2 4 0 . 7 8 1 7 . 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 0 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 1 3 . 5 8 8 1 . 7 0 1 1 7 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 3 7 3 . 1 2 0 . 2 5 * * * 2 0 1 0 * * * Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g E m i s s i o n s Fu g i t i v e D u s t - - - - 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 Of f - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 On - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Wo r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Bl d g C o n s t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 1 2 . 3 4 7 7 . 7 1 1 0 2 . 4 4 - 2 . 8 4 2 . 8 4 0 . 0 0 Bl d g C o n s t W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 1 3 0 . 7 2 1 5 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 Ar c h C o a t i n g s O f f - G a s 1 8 6 . 7 0 - - - - - - Ar c h C o a t i n g s W o r k e r T r i p s 1 . 1 3 0 . 7 2 1 5 . 6 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 2 7 0 . 0 2 0 . 2 5 As p h a l t O f f - G a s 0 . 6 0 - - - - - - As p h a l t O f f - R o a d D i e s e l 2 1 . 8 4 1 3 5 . 4 8 1 8 2 . 1 7 - 4 . 7 3 4 . 7 3 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t O n - R o a d D i e s e l 0 . 1 0 1 . 7 8 0 . 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 0 As p h a l t W o r k e r T r i p s 0 . 0 9 0 . 0 5 1 . 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 2 M a x i m u m l b s / d a y 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 M a x l b s / d a y a l l p h a s e s 2 2 3 . 9 1 2 1 6 . 4 6 3 1 7 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 1 7 7 . 6 5 0 . 5 2 Co n s t r u c t i o n - R e l a t e d M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s P h a s e 2 : S o i l D i s t u r b a n c e : R e p l a c e g r o u n d c o v e r i n d i s t u r b e d a r e a s q u i c k l y P e r c e n t R e d u c t i o n ( R O G 0 . 0 % N O x 0 . 0 % C O 0 . 0 % S O 2 0 . 0 % P M 1 0 1 5 . 0 % ) P h a s e 2 : S o i l D i s t u r b a n c e : W a t e r e x p o s e d s u r f a c e s - 2 x d a i l y P e r c e n t R e d u c t i o n ( R O G 0 . 0 % N O x 0 . 0 % C O 0 . 0 % S O 2 0 . 0 % P M 1 0 3 4 . 0 % ) P h a s e 2 : S t o c k p i l e s : C o v e r a l l s t o c k p i l e s w i t h t a r p s P e r c e n t R e d u c t i o n ( R O G 0 . 0 % N O x 0 . 0 % C O 0 . 0 % S O 2 0 . 0 % P M 1 0 9 . 5 % ) P h a s e 2 : U n p a v e d R o a d s : W a t e r a l l h a u l r o a d s 2 x d a i l y P e r c e n t R e d u c t i o n ( R O G 0 . 0 % N O x 0 . 0 % C O 0 . 0 % S O 2 0 . 0 % P M 1 0 3 0 . 0 % ) Ph a s e 1 - D e m o l i t i o n A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 1 : J a n ' 0 6 Ph a s e 1 D u r a t i o n : 3 m o n t h s Bu i l d i n g V o l u m e T o t a l ( c u b i c f e e t ) : 5 4 0 0 0 Bu i l d i n g V o l u m e D a i l y ( c u b i c f e e t ) : 1 5 0 0 On - R o a d T r u c k T r a v e l ( V M T ) : 8 4 Of f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 C r u s h i n g / P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p 1 5 4 0 . 7 8 0 8 . 0 2 R u b b e r T i r e d D o z e r s 3 5 2 0 . 5 9 0 8 . 0 Pa g e : 7 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M 1 R u b b e r T i r e d L o a d e r s 1 6 5 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 1 T r a c t o r / L o a d e r s / B a c k h o e s 7 9 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 Ph a s e 2 - S i t e G r a d i n g A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 2 : A p r ' 0 6 Ph a s e 2 D u r a t i o n : 6 m o n t h s On - R o a d T r u c k T r a v e l ( V M T ) : 1 8 Of f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 2 E x c a v a t o r s 1 8 0 0 . 5 8 0 8 . 0 1 G r a d e r s 1 7 4 0 . 5 7 5 8 . 0 2 O f f H i g h w a y T r a c t o r s 2 5 5 0 . 4 1 0 8 . 0 4 O f f H i g h w a y T r u c k s 4 1 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 2 O t h e r E q u i p m e n t 1 9 0 0 . 6 2 0 8 . 0 1 R u b b e r T i r e d L o a d e r s 1 6 5 0 . 4 6 5 8 . 0 2 S c r a p e r s 3 1 3 0 . 6 6 0 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 2 T r e n c h e r s 8 2 0 . 6 9 5 8 . 0 Ph a s e 3 - B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n A s s u m p t i o n s St a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r P h a s e 3 : O c t ' 0 6 Ph a s e 3 D u r a t i o n : 5 1 m o n t h s S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e B u i l d i n g : O c t ' 0 6 S u b P h a s e B u i l d i n g D u r a t i o n : 5 1 m o n t h s O f f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 C o n c r e t e / I n d u s t r i a l s a w s 8 4 0 . 7 3 0 8 . 0 2 C r a n e s 1 9 0 0 . 4 3 0 8 . 0 2 O t h e r E q u i p m e n t 1 9 0 0 . 6 2 0 8 . 0 1 R o u g h T e r r a i n F o r k l i f t s 9 4 0 . 4 7 5 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s : J u l ' 1 0 S u b P h a s e A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s D u r a t i o n : 5 . 1 m o n t h s S t a r t M o n t h / Y e a r f o r S u b P h a s e A s p h a l t : O c t ' 1 0 S u b P h a s e A s p h a l t D u r a t i o n : 2 . 6 m o n t h s A c r e s t o b e P a v e d : 1 3 O f f - R o a d E q u i p m e n t N o . T y p e H o r s e p o w e r L o a d F a c t o r H o u r s / D a y 1 O f f H i g h w a y T r u c k s 4 1 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 3 P a v e r s 1 3 2 0 . 5 9 0 8 . 0 5 P a v i n g E q u i p m e n t 1 1 1 0 . 5 3 0 8 . 0 2 R o l l e r s 1 1 4 0 . 4 3 0 8 . 0 2 S i g n a l B o a r d s 1 1 9 0 . 8 2 0 8 . 0 1 S u r f a c i n g E q u i p m e n t 4 3 7 0 . 4 9 0 8 . 0 Pa g e : 8 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M AR E A S O U R C E E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S ( S u m m e r P o u n d s p e r D a y , U n m i t i g a t e d ) S o u r c e R O G N O x C O S O 2 P M 1 0 N a t u r a l G a s 0 . 2 7 3 . 7 7 3 . 1 7 0 0 . 0 1 H e a r t h - N o s u m m e r e m i s s i o n s L a n d s c a p i n g 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 2 1 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 C o n s u m e r P r d c t s 0 . 0 0 - - - - A r c h i t e c t u r a l C o a t i n g s 7 . 9 3 - - - - T O T A L S ( l b s / d a y , u n m i t i g a t e d ) 8 . 3 9 3 . 7 9 4 . 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 Pa g e : 9 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M U N M I T I G A T E D O P E R A T I O N A L E M I S S I O N S R O G N O x C O S O 2 P M 1 0 Me d i c a l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g 3 4 . 2 3 3 9 . 1 5 4 6 5 . 6 2 0 . 3 5 5 0 . 4 8 Ho s p i t a l 5 1 . 5 0 5 5 . 5 4 6 7 4 . 2 8 0 . 5 1 7 2 . 8 0 TO T A L E M I S S I O N S ( l b s / d a y ) 8 5 . 7 3 9 4 . 6 9 1 , 1 3 9 . 9 0 0 . 8 6 1 2 3 . 2 8 Do e s n o t i n c l u d e c o r r e c t i o n f o r p a s s b y t r i p s . Do e s n o t i n c l u d e d o u b l e c o u n t i n g a d j u s t m e n t f o r i n t e r n a l t r i p s . OP E R A T I O N A L ( V e h i c l e ) E M I S S I O N E S T I M A T E S An a l y s i s Y e a r : 2 0 1 0 T e m p e r a t u r e ( F ) : 9 5 S e a s o n : S u m m e r EM F A C V e r s i o n : E M F A C 2 0 0 2 ( 9 / 2 0 0 2 ) Su m m a r y o f L a n d U s e s : N o . T o t a l Un i t T y p e A c r e a g e T r i p R a t e U n i t s T r i p s Me d i c a l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g 3 6 . 1 3 t r i p s / 1 0 0 0 s q . f t . 1 5 8 . 0 0 5 , 7 0 8 . 5 4 Ho s p i t a l 1 7 . 5 7 t r i p s / 1 0 0 0 s q . f t . 4 0 8 . 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 . 3 7 S u m o f T o t a l T r i p s 1 2 , 8 7 9 . 9 1 T o t a l V e h i c l e M i l e s T r a v e l e d 8 1 , 3 6 3 . 2 3 Ve h i c l e A s s u m p t i o n s : Fl e e t M i x : Ve h i c l e T y p e P e r c e n t T y p e N o n - C a t a l y s t C a t a l y s t D i e s e l Li g h t A u t o 5 4 . 7 0 1 . 1 0 9 8 . 7 0 0 . 2 0 Li g h t T r u c k < 3 , 7 5 0 l b s 1 5 . 2 0 2 . 0 0 9 6 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 Li g h t T r u c k 3 , 7 5 1 - 5 , 7 5 0 1 6 . 2 0 1 . 2 0 9 8 . 1 0 0 . 7 0 Me d T r u c k 5 , 7 5 1 - 8 , 5 0 0 7 . 3 0 1 . 4 0 9 5 . 9 0 2 . 7 0 Li t e - H e a v y 8 , 5 0 1 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 8 1 . 8 0 1 8 . 2 0 Li t e - H e a v y 1 0 , 0 0 1 - 1 4 , 0 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 7 0 3 3 . 3 0 Me d - H e a v y 1 4 , 0 0 1 - 3 3 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 He a v y - H e a v y 3 3 , 0 0 1 - 6 0 , 0 0 0 0 . 9 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 1 0 8 8 . 9 0 Li n e H a u l > 6 0 , 0 0 0 l b s 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 Ur b a n B u s 0 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 Mo t o r c y c l e 1 . 6 0 6 8 . 8 0 3 1 . 2 0 0 . 0 0 Sc h o o l B u s 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 Mo t o r H o m e 1 . 4 0 7 . 1 0 8 5 . 7 0 7 . 2 0 Tr a v e l C o n d i t i o n s R e s i d e n t i a l C o m m e r c i a l H o m e - H o m e - H o m e - W o r k S h o p O t h e r C o m m u t e N o n - W o r k C u s t o m e r Ur b a n T r i p L e n g t h ( m i l e s ) 1 1 . 5 4 . 9 6 . 0 1 0 . 3 5 . 5 5 . 5 Ru r a l T r i p L e n g t h ( m i l e s ) 1 1 . 5 4 . 9 6 . 0 1 0 . 3 5 . 5 5 . 5 Tr i p S p e e d s ( m p h ) 3 5 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 % o f T r i p s - R e s i d e n t i a l 2 0 . 0 3 7 . 0 4 3 . 0 % o f T r i p s - C o m m e r c i a l ( b y l a n d u s e ) Me d i c a l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g 7 . 0 3 . 5 8 9 . 5 Ho s p i t a l 2 5 . 0 1 2 . 5 6 2 . 5 Pa g e : 1 0 08 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 : 1 1 P M Ch a n g e s m a d e t o t h e d e f a u l t v a l u e s f o r L a n d U s e T r i p P e r c e n t a g e s Ch a n g e s m a d e t o t h e d e f a u l t v a l u e s f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n Ph a s e 2 m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e S o i l D i s t u r b a n c e : R e p l a c e g r o u n d c o v e r i n d i s t u r b e d a r e a s q u i c k l y h a s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m o f f t o o n . Ph a s e 2 m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e S o i l D i s t u r b a n c e : W a t e r e x p o s e d s u r f a c e s - 2 x d a i l y h a s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m o f f t o o n . Ph a s e 2 m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e S t o c k p i l e s : C o v e r a l l s t o c k p i l e s w i t h t a r p s h a s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m o f f t o o n . Ph a s e 2 m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e U n p a v e d R o a d s : W a t e r a l l h a u l r o a d s 2 x d a i l y h a s b e e n c h a n g e d f r o m o f f t o o n . Ch a n g e s m a d e t o t h e d e f a u l t v a l u e s f o r A r e a Th e h e a r t h o p t i o n s w i t c h c h a n g e d f r o m o n t o o f f . Th e l a n d s c a p e y e a r c h a n g e d f r o m 2 0 0 5 t o 2 0 1 0 . Ch a n g e s m a d e t o t h e d e f a u l t v a l u e s f o r O p e r a t i o n s Th e o p e r a t i o n a l e m i s s i o n y e a r c h a n g e d f r o m 2 0 0 5 t o 2 0 1 0 . Th e o p e r a t i o n a l w i n t e r t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e d f r o m 5 0 t o 3 0 . Th e o p e r a t i o n a l w i n t e r s e l e c t i o n i t e m c h a n g e d f r o m 3 t o 0 . Th e o p e r a t i o n a l s u m m e r t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e d f r o m 9 0 t o 9 5 . Appendix C Noise Study WA ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL FACILITY IN TEMECULA Project File 734-05 September 2005 Prepared for: P&D Consultants 800 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 Prepared by: Jonathan Higginson, Senior Associate Consultant David L. Wieland, Principal Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949/829-6722 Fax: 949/829-6670 www.wielandassoc.com F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants i Project File 734-05 September 2005 Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................ 1 2 INTRODUCTION / PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................... 2 3 NOISE DESCRIPTORS.............................................................................. 5 3.1 DECIBELS........................................................................................ 5 3.2 A-WEIGHTING................................................................................... 5 3.3 COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL)................................................. 7 4 NOISE CRITERIA ................................................................................... 7 4.1 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ............................................................. 7 4.2 CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ........................................................... 8 5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................ 8 6 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 8 6.1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS .......................................................................... 9 6.2 TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES.....................................................................10 7 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA................................11 7.1 CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................11 7.2 PROJECT OPERATION ..........................................................................14 7.2.1 Traffic.........................................................................14 7.2.2 Helicopter Flights ...........................................................16 7.2.3 Loading Dock Activities.....................................................19 7.2.4 Mechanical Equipment .....................................................19 7.2.5 Parking Lot Activities.......................................................20 7.2.6 Trash Pickups.................................................................21 7.2.7 Landscaping/Maintenance .................................................22 8 FUTURE NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT THE PROJECT SITE....................................22 8.1 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS .......................................................................22 8.2 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ........................................................................22 9 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT........................................................................23 10 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................23 11 ADDITIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT ...........................................................24 12 IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION ...............................................................24 F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants ii Project File 734-05 September 2005 13 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .....................................................................24 14 REFERENCES ...................................................................................25 List of Tables Table 6-1. Summary of Noise Measurements......................................................10 Table 6-2. Existing Traffic Noise Levels............................................................11 Table 7-1. Construction Equipment Noise Levels.................................................12 Table 7-2. Estimated Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase ..............13 Table 7-3. Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels....................................14 Table 7-4. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year Without Project ...................15 Table 7-5. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phase I ................................16 Table 7-6. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phases I through V ..................16 Table 7-7. Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels......................................................20 Table 7-8. Analysis of Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels ........................................21 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Project Study Area ....................................................................... 2 Figure 2-2. Site Plan ................................................................................... 4 Figure 3-1. Common Noise Sources and A-Weighted Noise Levels.............................. 6 Figure 3-2. Common CNEL Noise Exposure Levels at Various Locations ....................... 6 Figure 6-1. Noise Measurement Locations.......................................................... 9 Figure 7-1. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours .....................................................18 List of Appendices Appendix I. Noise Measurements Appendix II. Traffic Noise Analysis F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 1 Project File 734-05 September 2005 1 Executive Summary This report identifies and assesses the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Facility in the City of Temecula. The proposed hospital facility will be located on an approximately 35-acre property. One existing structure will be demolished to make way for the hospital facility; the remainder of the site is currently undeveloped. In order to identify the existing noise environment, measurements were taken at three locations throughout the study area. The introduction of new noise sources, such as construction activities, increased traffic, and hospital facility activities will result in a change to the noise environment at properties in the vicinity of the project. Using the criteria established in this study, it may be concluded that the project will create a potentially significant impact at the nearby properties. The impact at the project site itself is not significant. The following measures are recommended to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with the project: 1. Conduct continuous 24-hour noise monitoring prior to, and immediately after, the mechanical equipment becomes operational. Implement mitigation measures, if necessary, to ensure compliance with the significance thresholds established in this report. 2. Limit helicopter flights to emergency use only. 3. Inform helicopter pilots of a preferred approach and departure route to the southeast on a heading of 135°. 4. Limit the number of truck deliveries using the hospital loading docks four or less per day. 5. Limit loading dock activities to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 6. Require mechanical ventilation for hospital facility buildings. 7. Limit demolition and construction activities to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula municipal code. 8. Fit all construction and demolition equipment with properly sized mufflers. 9. Locate noisy construction equipment items as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. 10. If feasible and appropriate, place portable noise barriers around portions of the project site during construction. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, there will be no significant noise impacts associated with the project. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 2 Project File 734-05 September 2005 2 Introduction / Project Description The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Temecula Regional Hospital Facility in the City of Temecula. Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the project site. Referring to the figure the project site is located between State Route 79 and De Portola Road, west of Margarita Road. Figure 2-1. Project Study Area Based on information provided by P & D Consultants and a review of the study area, the land uses surrounding the project site are as follows: To the north and northwest the land uses are single family residences and undeveloped land. To the south beyond SR-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 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 F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 3 Project File 734-05 September 2005 within the General Plan. This zoning district is intended primarily for single-tenant and multi-tenant offices and may include supporting uses. Typical permitted uses include legal, design, engineering or medical offices, corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities. Limited supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial may be permitted to serve the needs of the on-site employees. Residential uses within the PO zone are allowed only by conditional use permit, and are limited to one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business. As such, residential use of these parcels is an existing, non-conforming condition. Future development and use of these parcels are anticipated to be as professional office uses. Therefore, the assessment of impact in this study will be based upon the assumption that the seven parcels between Dartola Road and De Portola Road will contain professional office uses and no residences. The proposed hospital facility will be located on an approximately 35-acre property. One existing structure will be demolished to make way for the facility; the remainder of the site is currently undeveloped. The proposed 566,160 square foot Temecula Regional Hospital Facility will be constructed in five phases, and will consist of an approximately 408,160 square foot, two tower hospital providing 320 beds; two medical buildings providing approximately 140,000 square feet of office space; a 10,000 square foot cancer center; and an 8,000 square foot fitness rehabilitation center. The proposed site plan is provided in Figure 2-2. A 60-foot by 60-foot helipad will also be located onsite near the northeast corner of the hospital. Approaches and takeoffs associated with the helipad will be oriented to the southeast. A hospital truck loading zone and mechanical yard will be located on the eastern edge of the hospital south of the helipad. The loading zone and mechanical yard will provide infrastructure to support the hospital 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 to the 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. F I N A L Wi e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l F a c i l i t y P& D C o n s u l t a n t s 4 Pr o j e c t F i l e 7 3 4 - 0 5 September 2005 Fi g u r e 2 - 2 . S i t e P l a n Ho s p i t a l Bu i l d i n g He l i p a d Lo a d i n g D o c k s Me c h a n i c a l Y a r d Re s i d e n c e s Re s i d e n c e s Re s i d e n c e s F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 5 Project File 734-05 September 2005 3 Noise Descriptors The following sections briefly describe the noise descriptors that will be used throughout this study: 3.1 Decibels Sound pressures can be measured in units called microPascals (µPa). However, expressing sound levels in terms of µPa would be very cumbersome since it would require a wide range of very large numbers. For this reason, sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of ratios of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called bels. In order to provide a finer resolution, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dB. This same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dB. Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dB. 3.2 A-Weighting Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency or pitch of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. While the intensity of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response depends on the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only to the range of audible frequencies, but also in the way it perceives the sound pressure level in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity. In order to approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound pressure level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments, or weighting network, are frequency dependent. The A-scale approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. A range of noise levels associated with common in- and outdoor activities is shown in Figure 3-1. The A-weighted sound level of traffic and other long-term noise-producing activities within and around a community varies considerably with time. Measurements of this varying noise level are accomplished by recording values of the A-weighted level during representative periods within a specified portion of the day. F I N A L Wi e l a n d A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . Te m e c u l a R e g i o n a l H o s p i t a l F a c i l i t y P& D C o n s u l t a n t s 6 Pr o j e c t F i l e 7 3 4 - 0 5 September 2005 Fi g u r e 3 - 1 . Co m m o n N o i s e S o u r c e s an d A- W e i g h t e d N o i s e L e v e l s Fi g u r e 3 - 2 . 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 F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 7 Project File 734-05 September 2005 3.3 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) It is recognized that a given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the duration of exposure experienced by an individual. There are numerous measures of noise exposure that consider not only the A-level variation of noise but also the duration of the disturbance. The State Department of Aeronautics and the California Commission on Housing and Community Development have adopted the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). This measure weights the average noise levels for the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), increasing them by 5 dB, and weights the late evening and morning hour noise levels (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) by 10 dB. The daytime noise levels are combined with these weighted levels and are averaged to obtain a CNEL value. Figure 3-2 indicates the outdoor CNEL at typical locations. 4 Noise Criteria The following sections discuss the various noise criteria that have been considered for this study. 4.1 City of Temecula General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Temecula’s General plan provides noise standards for various land uses. The following is a summary of the standards that apply to the land uses in the project vicinity: Residential – For all multi-family residential and high-density single-family residential land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For all other single-family residences a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Schools – For all schools, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Public/Institutional (including hospitals) – For all public/institutional land uses (except schools, which are addressed above), a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB and a maximum interior CNEL of up to 50 dB are permitted. Open Space – For open space land uses, including agricultural uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. An exception is for open space land uses where quiet is a basis for the land use, in which case a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 65 dB is permitted. Commercial and Office – For all commercial and office land uses, a maximum exterior CNEL of up to 70 dB is permitted. For professional offices there is also a maximum interior noise standard of 50 dB CNEL. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 8 Project File 734-05 September 2005 4.2 City of Temecula Municipal Code The City of Temecula’s municipal code provides restrictions on the times during which construction activity can take place. For construction sites within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, it limits construction to between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 5 Thresholds of Significance Based on the noise criteria discussed above, and the CEQA guidelines, a significant impact will be assessed if the project will result in: ” Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or municipal code, or applicable standards of other agencies. This impact will occur if: (1) the CNEL exceeds 70 dB at the exterior or 50 dB at the interior of the proposed hospital or medical buildings; or (2) the project increases the exterior CNEL above the maximum permitted by the City’s General Plan at existing land uses. ” Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. ” A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact will occur if the project traffic increases the CNEL at any existing noise-sensitive receptor by an audible amount of 3 dB or more. ” A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This condition will occur if construction activities occur outside the hours permitted by the City’s Municipal Code. ” Exposure of persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of activities at an airport. Since there are no airports in the vicinity of the study area, this issue will not be addressed in the report. 6 Existing Noise Environment Traffic on the local streets is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. The following sections discuss the noise measurements and analyses that were conducted to identify the existing traffic noise levels in the study area. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 9 Project File 734-05 September 2005 6.1 Noise Measurements In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained at three locations throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 6-1. The locations are identified as follows: #1 - In the rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road. #2 - On the project site, at the offset of the proposed 5-story bed tower. #3 - In the rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (this location is adjacent to SR-79). Figure 6-1. Noise Measurement Locations F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 10 Project File 734-05 September 2005 At locations #1 and #3, the measurement was obtained over a continuous 24-hour period. A 20- minute measurement was obtained at location #2. To obtain the measurements, the microphone was positioned at a height of 5 feet above the ground. The results of the noise measurements, provided in Appendix I, are summarized in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Summary of Noise Measurements Location # Location Description Measurement Period Measured Average Noise Level, dB(A) CNEL, dB 1 Rear yard of 31775 De Portola Road. 24 hours 44 - 55 57 2 On project site, at offset of proposed 5-story bed tower. 20 minutes 56 N/A 3 Rear yard of 31602 Calle Los Padres (adjacent to SR-79). 24 hours 52 - 63 65 The instrumentation used to obtain the noise measurements consisted of integrating sound level meters (Models 820 and 870) and acoustical calibrators (Models CAL200 and CAL250) manufactured by Larson Davis Laboratories. The accuracy of the calibrators is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer, and is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. All instrumentation meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4- 1971. 6.2 Traffic Noise Exposures The results of the noise measurements were used to calibrate a proprietary version of the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHWA-RD-77-108). The model was used to estimate existing traffic noise levels adjacent to various reaches of street in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the receptor. Traffic volume data was provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers; speeds were based on the observed posted speed limits; the truck mix on SR-79 was based on data published by Caltrans; and 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. The results of the modeling effort, provided in Appendix II, are summarized in Table 6-2. The table provides the estimated traffic noise levels without mitigation. It is noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from the traffic noise by walls of various heights that reduce the noise levels identified in Table 6-2 by about 5 to 10 dB. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 11 Project File 734-05 September 2005 Table 6-2. 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 RD. North of SR-79 68.0 dB 215 90 --- --- --- South of SR-79 67.5 dB 200 83 --- --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 69.5 dB 278 120 --- --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 78.0 dB 860 460 215 90 --- West of Margarita Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 73.5 dB 490 235 100 --- --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- --- 7 Future Noise Environment within the Study Area For ease of presentation, the discussion of future conditions in the study area with the project has been divided into two sections: construction and operation. Each is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. 7.1 Construction In compliance with the City’s ordinance requirements, construction of the project will occur only between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. There will be no construction activities on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment, as well as the distance at which construction activities are taking place. Table 7-1 shows typical noise levels associated with various types of construction-related machinery. Based on information provided by P&D Consultants, an analysis was conducted to estimate the combined construction noise levels that will be generated during each phase of construction. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7-2. Based on the estimated combined construction noise levels identified in Table 7-2, an analysis was conducted to estimate the noise levels that will be experienced at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. This analysis is provided in Table 7-3. Referring to the table, the CNEL due to the construction activities is expected to exceed the 65 dB threshold and increase the ambient noise level by more than 3 dB at the residences to the northwest. At the residences to the south, construction is expected to increase the CNEL above the City’s 65 dB threshold. However, the impact at these residential F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 12 Project File 734-05 September 2005 locations is not considered to be significant since construction noise is exempted by the City’s municipal code. Table 7-1. Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Average Equipment Noise Level at 50 ft. in dB(A)a Backhoe 80 Crane 88 Crusher/processor 88 Dozer 85 Excavator 80 Forklift 76 Grader 85 Loader 85 Paver 89 Paving equipment 85 Roller 74 Saw (concrete) 90 Scraper 89 Signal board 81 Surfacing equipment 80 Tractor 80 Trencher 80 Trucks 88 Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from References 5 and 11. Groundborne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations. As with noise, a logarithmic decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity. When groundborne vibration exceeds 75 to 80 VdB, it is usually perceived as annoying to building occupants. The degree of annoyance is dependent upon type of land use, individual sensitivity to vibration, and the frequency of the vibration events. Typically, vibration levels must exceed 100 VdB before building damage occurs. The primary vibratory source during the construction of the project will be large bulldozers. Based on published data (Reference 11), typical bulldozer activities generate an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. At the average distance of the nearest residences to the construction site (about 305 feet) the estimated vibration level will be 65 VdB. This is below the threshold at which building damage occurs, and below the perception threshold of 75 to 80 VdB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. However, as the bulldozer moves within about 100 feet of a residence, it is possible that vibration will be perceived by the homeowners. The impact will not be significant, though, because the vibration, if it is perceived, will be short in duration (on the order of a few days) and will not be sufficient to cause building damage. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 13 Project File 734-05 September 2005 Table 7-2. Estimated Combined Noise Level During Each Construction Phase Construction Phase & Equipment Avg. Equipment Noise Level @ 50’a Load Factorb Avg. Equipment CNEL @ 50’ with Load Factorc Phase 1 - Demolition 1 crusher/processor 88 dBA 0.780 82 dBA 2 dozers 88 dBA 0.590 81 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 1 tractor/loader/backhoe 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA Combined 86 dBA Phase 2 - Site Grading 2 excavators 83 dBA 0.580 76 dBA 1 grader 85 dBA 0.575 78 dBA 2 tractors 83 dBA 0.410 74 dBA 5 trucks 95 dBA 0.490 87 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 loader 85 dBA 0.465 77 dBA 2 scrapers 92 dBA 0.660 85 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 2 trenchers 83 dBA 0.695 76 dBA Combined 91 dBA Phase 3a – Building Construction 1 concrete saw 90 dBA 0.730 84 dBA 2 cranes 91 dBA 0.430 82 dBA 2 other equipment 83 dBA 0.620 76 dBA 1 forklift 76 dBA 0.475 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA Combined 87 dBA Phase 3b – Paving 1 truck 88 dBA 0.490 80 dBA 3 pavers 94 dBA 0.590 87 dBA 5 paving equipment 92 dBA 0.530 84 dBA 2 rollers 77 dBA 0.430 68 dBA 2 signal boards 84 dBA 0.820 78 dBA 1 surfacing equipment 80 dBA 0.490 72 dBA Combined 90 dBA Notes: a. Obtained or estimated from References 5 and 11. b. Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site. c. CNEL assumes all equipment operates simultaneously during an 8-hour workday. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 14 Project File 734-05 September 2005 Table 7-3. Analysis of Estimated Construction Noise Levels Noise-Sensitive Location Construction Phase Estimated CNEL @ 50’, dB Attenuation Due to Distance, dBa Estimated CNEL @ Sensitive Location, dBb Estimated Construction Noise + Ambient, dB Estimated Increase due to Construction, dB Nearest residences to the northwest Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -16 (305’) 70 75 71 74 70 75 71 74 13 18 14 17 Nearest residences to the south Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -24 (760’) 57 62 58 61 66 67 66 66 1 2 1 1 Nearest offices to the east Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -25 (880’) 61 66 62 65 71 71 71 71 1 1 1 1 Nearest offices to the west Demolition Grading Construction Paving 86 91 87 90 -23 (745’) 63 68 64 67 71 72 71 72 1 2 1 2 Notes: a. Attenuation is based on a reduction of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source. Distance is calculated from the center of the project site. b. At nearest residences to the south, 5 dB of attenuation is assumed for the wall adjacent to SR-79. At office properties to the east and west, an existing CNEL of 70 dB is assumed based on Table 6-2. 7.2 Project Operation The proposed project will introduce a number of new noise sources into the study area. These noise sources include: increased traffic (including emergency vehicles), helicopter flights, loading dock activities, mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, trash pickups and landscaping/maintenance. Each of these sources is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. The traffic analysis assesses the impacts of both Phase I traffic and Phase I through V traffic. The worst-case future operational noise levels will occur when the entire project is operational (i.e., Phases I through V are complete); therefore the remaining analyses assume the entire project is complete and operational. Operation of the project will be passive and will not generate ground-borne noise or vibration. 7.2.1 Traffic Using data from the sources described previously in Section 6.2, analyses were conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur in the study area, both with and without the project. The analyses were conducted using a proprietary version of the highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (as described in report FHWA-RD-77-108). The model was used to estimate traffic noise levels adjacent to various reaches of street in the study area based on traffic volumes, speeds, truck mix, site conditions, and distance from the roadway to the receptor. The California reference energy mean emission (Calveno) levels developed by Caltrans F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 15 Project File 734-05 September 2005 were used in the prediction model. The results of the analyses are provided in Table 7-4 for the “Opening Year Without Project” case, in Table 7-5 for the “With Project Phase I” case, and in Table 7-6 for the “With Project Phases I through V” case. Each table identifies the estimated CNEL generated by the traffic. It is noted that many of the residences in the study area are buffered from traffic noise by walls of various heights that are estimated to provide between 5 dB and 10 dB of noise reduction. Appendix II provides the complete analysis, including the traffic data used. Referring to Tables 7-4 through 7-6, it may be concluded that: ” 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 increase the CNEL from below the threshold of significance to above the threshold of significance at existing medical, residential, school, agricultural, or commercial/office land uses in the study area. Therefore, the impact is not significant. Another noise source that will be related to traffic at the hospital is emergency vehicles and their associated sirens. Based on previously conducted measurements of ambulance sirens, maximum noise levels may be as high as 105 dB(A) at 25 feet. Although these levels may cause some annoyance at nearby noise sensitive receptors, noise from emergency vehicles is considered to have a less than significant impact because it will only occur sporadically and for short periods of time, and because sirens are necessary for safety during an emergency. Table 7-4. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels, Opening Year Without Project Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 80.0 dB 1,050 600 300 130 50 West of Margarita Rd. 78.5 dB 905 490 235 100 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 16 Project File 734-05 September 2005 Table 7-5. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phase I Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 71.5 dB 368 170 69 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- Table 7-6. Traffic Noise Exposure Levels With Project Phases I through V Distance to CNEL Contour, ft. Arterial / Reach Unmitigated CNEL @ 50’ 60 dB 65 dB 70 dB 75 dB 80 dB BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. North of SR-79 70.0 dB 300 130 50 --- --- South of SR-79 70.5 dB 320 143 56 --- --- PECHANGA PKWY. (PALA RD.) South of SR-79 72.5 dB 428 200 83 --- --- REDHAWK PKWY. South of SR-79 72.0 dB 395 185 75 --- --- SR-79 West of I-15 Freeway 75.5 dB 640 320 143 56 --- West of Pechanga Pkwy. (Pala Rd.) 80.5 dB 1,100 640 320 143 56 West of Margarita Rd. 79.0 dB 950 520 255 110 --- West of Butterfield Stage Rd. 76.0 dB 680 340 155 62 --- East of Butterfield Stage Rd. 74.0 dB 520 255 110 --- --- 7.2.2 Helicopter Flights Based on information received from P&D Consultants, a maximum of one flight per month will occur at the hospital. This flight will be used to transport a seriously ill patient to another location for further care. During each flight, the helicopter will approach the helipad from the southeast, land, pick up the patient, take off, and leave the area on a southeast heading (i.e., back the same way it came). In order to analyze the potential noise impacts of helicopter flights the Helicopter Noise Model (HNM) version 2.2, developed by the Federal Aviation Administration, was utilized. The exact model of helicopter to be used at the hospital has not been confirmed, but the Bell 222 has been identified as a model that could potentially be used. Specific information regarding the flight profile was unavailable. Therefore, the following assumptions were made in order to conduct the analysis: ” The helicopter was assumed to be a Bell 222. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 17 Project File 734-05 September 2005 ” The helicopter takeoff and approach profiles were assumed to be the default profiles provided by HNM for a Bell 222 helicopter. ” The helicopter heading for both takeoff and approach was assumed to be exactly southeast on a heading of 135° for at least several thousand feet from the helipad. ” To identify the worst-case noise levels, the analysis assumed that the entire flight would occur during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Figure 7-1 shows the results of the analysis and identifies the 60, 65 and 70 dB CNEL contours. Referring to the figure, the 65 dB CNEL contour is located entirely within the project site and neighboring flood control channel, and does not extend to any of the neighboring properties. The 60 dB contour does not extend as far as the homes to the north and northwest, so helicopter flights are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is not significant. The noise level generated by a helicopter depends on a number of factors, including the activity (e.g., hovering, climbing, approaching, etc.), airspeed, power setting, altitude, and ground conditions. Based on published data (Reference 14), the highest average noise levels that will occur during a hover at the helipad range from 76 to 82 dB(A) at a distance of 500 feet, depending on the orientation of the helicopter relative to the receptor. At the distance of the nearest homes to the helipad (about 610 feet), the average noise level will be about 74 to 80 dB(A). Assuming that standard building construction provides 20 dB of noise reduction with windows closed, the interior noise level is expected to be about 54 to 60 dB(A). A study (Reference 15) was conducted to gauge community reactions to helicopter noise based not only on the level of noise but on the number of helicopter events per day. This study identifies the following formula for predicting the annoyance of helicopter noise: ()NBLBBANLOlog**++= where, A = annoyance (rated on a scale from 0 = “not at all annoyed” to 10 = “extremely annoyed”), BO = -16.5, BL = 0.20, L = sound exposure level (SEL), BN = 1.64, and N = number of events. Assuming one flight on a “worst case” day, and that the flight hovers for one minute prior to landing or climbing, the sound exposure level (SEL) for this activity would be 94 to 100 dB(A). Using this formula, the estimated annoyance level at the nearest residences ranges from 3 to 4 (on a scale from 0 to 10). F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 18 Project File 734-05 September 2005 Figure 7-1. Helicopter Flight Noise Contours F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 19 Project File 734-05 September 2005 7.2.3 Loading Dock Activities The proposed hospital has three loading docks for truck deliveries. These docks are located on the east side of the project site, south of the helipad. Once operational, the hospital will receive approximately 3 to 4 truck deliveries per day during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There will be no nighttime deliveries. In order to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the loading docks, data obtained as part of a previous study (Reference 12) was utilized. The highest noise levels measured at the loading docks were associated with large refrigerated trucks idling as they were unloaded; the measurements indicated a noise level of approximately 75 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet. Assuming the worst-case average noise level at the proposed loading docks will be the same, and allowing for the noise reduction provided by the distance to the worst-case residential property (approximately 845 feet) the estimated average noise level at the home due to loading dock activities is 50 dB(A). With four deliveries over a 24-hour period, this equates to a CNEL of 42 dB. This level is below the City’s standard of 65 dB. Measurements indicate that the existing CNEL at the home is about 57 dB, so loading dock activities will not increase the noise level by 3 dB or more. Therefore, the impact is not significant. At the office property to the east (a distance of about 285 feet), the CNEL is expected to be about 51 dB. This is below the City’s standard of 70 dB, and will not increase the existing CNEL by 3 dB or more; therefore, the impact is not significant. 7.2.4 Mechanical Equipment There are four primary sources of mechanical equipment noise associated with the hospital: (1) the duty equipment located in the mechanical yard; (2) the emergency generators located in the mechanical yard; (3) the mechanical equipment room; and (4) rooftop mechanical equipment. Each of these noise sources is addressed below: Mechanical yard duty equipment – The mechanical yard is to be located on the east side of the project site, between the helipad to the north and the loading docks to the south. The duty equipment consists of three cooling towers and two transformers. Based on noise data for the cooling towers provided by the manufacturer, and on prediction algorithms for transformer noise (the transformers are assumed to be 1,000 kVA each based on discussions with the project’s consulting engineers) it is estimated that the combined noise level for all the equipment is 74 dB(A) at 50 feet. The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 710 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 51 dB(A). Over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be about 58 dB. This level complies with the City’s standard of 65 dB. However, the equipment will increase the existing CNEL at the residence by 4 dB. Therefore, the impact is significant. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 160 feet), the CNEL generated by the duty equipment is estimated to be 71 dB. This exceeds the City’s standard of 70 dB; therefore, the impact is significant. Mechanical yard emergency generators – Also located in the mechanical yard are two emergency generators. Each of these generators will be tested for approximately 5 minutes each month, but may run for an indefinite period in the event of an emergency. Based on noise data provided by the F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 20 Project File 734-05 September 2005 generator manufacturer it is estimated that the noise level for each generator is 86 dB(A) at 52 feet. (Note that this level does not include the contribution from the engine exhaust stack, which may increase the noise level by several decibels depending on the quality of the muffler.) The worst-case noise-sensitive location is the residential property approximately 750 feet to the north. At this distance the estimated noise level is 63 dB(A) without the contribution of the engine exhaust. On a maintenance test day, this equates to a CNEL of at least 41 dB, which complies with the City’s standard. However, if the generators run continuously over a 24-hour period, the CNEL will be at least 70 dB. This exceeds the City’s 65 dB standard. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant (depending on how long the generators run during a 24-hour period, and during which hours of the day they run). At the distance of the nearest office property to the east (about 185 feet), the CNEL will be about 53 on a maintenance test day, which complies with the City’s standard of 70 dB. However, if the generators run continuously for 24 hours, the CNEL will be at least 82 dB, which exceeds the City’s standard. Therefore the impact is potentially significant at this location as well. The mechanical equipment room – The mechanical equipment room is to be located inside the Phase IB hospital building, adjacent to the mechanical yard. An analysis of the mechanical equipment room noise levels is not currently possible as the construction of the room/building is not known and the details for all the equipment are not available. However, based on the fact that the room will contain various mechanical equipment including pumps, chillers, and boilers it is anticipated that it could produce significant impacts at the residential properties unless mitigation is incorporated into the design. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. Rooftop mechanical equipment – Rooftop mechanical equipment such as air conditioning and refrigeration units and their associated inlet and exhaust systems are potential noise sources. However, structural designs and acoustical baffling are easily implemented in new construction, and it is anticipated that such measures will be included during the final design of the project to ensure that rooftop mechanical equipment noise does not create significant impacts. 7.2.5 Parking Lot Activities The predominant noise sources associated with parking lot activities include car doors slamming; cars starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; and people talking, shouting and laughing. Measurements taken as part of a previous study (Reference 13) have been used to characterize the parking lot noise sources. The results are summarized in Table 7-7, below: Table 7-7. Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels @ 50’ from Source People shouting/laughing 64.5 dB(A) Car door slamming 62.5 dB(A) Car idling 61.0 dB(A) Car starting 59.5 dB(A) Car accelerating 54.5 dB(A) F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 21 Project File 734-05 September 2005 The noise generated by people talking at a normal conversational level was too low to be measured over the existing ambient. Therefore, using published data it has been assumed for this study that the average noise level of a conversation (with raised voices) is 65 dB(A) at a distance of 3 feet. This corresponds to an average level of 41 dB(A) at 50 feet. Parking lot activities at the proposed hospital will be sporadic in nature, generally occurring throughout the day as patients and visitors arrive and leave, with potential peaks in activity when staff arrive and depart at the beginning and end of their shifts. To estimate the average noise level that will be generated by these activities, an analysis was conducted using the measured and published data identified above, together with traffic data provided by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. The traffic data indicates that the busiest hour will be in the afternoon when 334 vehicles arrive and 595 vehicles leave the hospital site. The results of the analysis, provided in Table 7-8, indicate that the unmitigated average noise level (Leq) generated by the parking lot activities will be about 44.5 dB(A) at the nearest neighboring properties. Assuming this level of activity occurs throughout the day, the CNEL will be about 51.5 dB. This is below the City’s standard of 65 dB. Adding the parking lot activity noise level to the existing CNEL of 57 dB yields a total of 58 dB, for an increase of 1 dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. In addition, this type of noise would be expected from any development occurring on the site. At the nearest office property to the east (a distance of about 310 feet), the CNEL will be about 61.5 dB. This is below the City’s standard of 70 dB; therefore, the impact is not significant. Table 7-8. Analysis of Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels Activity Estimated Number of Events in 1 Hour Estimated Duration of 1 Event, sec. Estimated Total Duration, sec. Correction for Duration re. 1 Hour, dB Maximum Noise Level @ 50', dB(A) Correction for Distance re. 990', dB Estimated Contribution to 1-Hour Leq, dB(A) People Shouting 93 5 465 -8.9 64.5 -25.9 29.7 Car Door Slamming 1394 0.1 139.4 -14.1 62.5 -25.9 22.4 Car Idling 929 30 27870 8.9 61.0 -25.9 44.0 Car Starting 595 2 1190 -4.8 59.5 -25.9 28.8 Car Accelerating 929 5 4645 1.1 54.5 -25.9 29.7 People Talking 465 60 27870 8.9 41.0 -25.9 24.0 Estimated Overall Leq:44.5 7.2.6 Trash Pickups Trash pickup and compacting vehicles are also a source of noise that will be associated with the project. These vehicles use hydraulic equipment to raise and lower the metal trash bins and to compact their contents. Typical noise levels range from 80 to 85 dB(A) at 50 feet during the raising, lowering and compacting operations. A typical trash pickup takes approximately three minutes. The F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 22 Project File 734-05 September 2005 higher noise levels occur during about one-half of the operation. Trash enclosures at the hospital are located throughout the project site. Assuming there are two trash bins at each enclosure, the pickup will take approximately six minutes. Some trash enclosures are as close as approximately 260 feet from the property lines. Allowing for this distance, and the time taken for the pickup, the estimated CNEL at the nearest property due to trash pick-ups is approximately 53 dB(A). Adding this to the existing CNEL of 57 dB at the nearest homes yields 58.5 dB, for an increase of 1.5 dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. At the office properties to the east the estimated CNEL due to trash pickups will be much less than the City’s standard of 70 dB. Therefore, the impact is not significant. 7.2.7 Landscaping/Maintenance Landscaping/maintenance activities will utilize noise-producing equipment such as lawnmowers, lawn edgers, leaf blowers, and sweepers. However, these types of equipment are only utilized occasionally and for limited time periods. Such activities will typically be shielded from some of the noise-sensitive receivers by the hospital buildings themselves, further reducing noise levels. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. 8 Future Noise Environment at the Project Site For ease of presentation, the discussion of future noise impacts at the hospital site has been divided into two sections: exterior and interior noise levels. 8.1 Exterior Noise Levels Using data from the sources described previously in Section 6.2, an analysis was conducted to identify the future traffic noise exposures that will occur at the hospital facility site. The results of our analysis are provided in Appendix II and are summarized in Table 7-6. Referring to Table 7-6, the City’s standard of 70 dB CNEL for a hospital site is exceeded at all exterior locations within 255 feet of the centerline of the nearest lane of SR-79. However, this is not considered a significant impact because there are no exterior useable/habitable spaces within this envelope. 8.2 Interior Noise Levels Referring to Table 7-6, the CNEL is expected to be up to 71 dB at the medical office building closest to SR-79 (approximately 225 feet from the center of the nearest lane), and up to 68.5 dB at the hospital bed tower closest to SR-79 (approximately 340 feet from the center of the nearest lane). Based on a review of preliminary façade construction details for the medical office and hospital buildings, it is estimated that the buildings will provide at least 21 dB of noise reduction. Therefore, the noise levels inside the buildings will comply with the City’s interior CNEL standard of 50 dB (at locations further from the street the estimated CNEL will be lower than 50). Therefore, there is no significant impact. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 23 Project File 734-05 September 2005 9 Assessment of Impact Using the criteria established in this study, the following may be concluded regarding the impact of the proposed project: ” The project may expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Temecula’s Noise Element. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. Although the helicopter operations are not expected to exceed the City’s standards, the single event noise levels may be annoying to nearby residents. ” The project will not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, ground-borne vibration may be perceptible during the demolition, site clearing and grading phase of the construction when activity occurs very near the property lines. This is not considered to be a significant impact due to the short duration of the activity. ” The project may produce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project as a result of activities at the site. Therefore, the impact is potentially significant. ” With the exception of construction noise, which is exempt from City’s noise standards, the project will not produce a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, there will be no significant impact. 10 Mitigation Measures The following measures should be considered in the project’s design in order to mitigate the significant impacts: 1. Continuous 24-hour noise monitoring shall be conducted prior to, and immediately after, the mechanical equipment has been installed and is operational. If the CNEL exceeds 65 dB at the nearby residential properties or 70 dB at the nearby office properties as a result of the mechanical equipment at the hospital facility, or if the operation of the equipment increases the CNEL by 3 dB or more at either location, the hospital will implement appropriate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the significance thresholds established in this report. 2. Helicopter flights shall be limited only to emergency circumstances. 3. Helicopter pilots shall be informed of a preferred approach and departure heading of 135° southeast. 4. The number of truck deliveries using the hospital loading docks shall not exceed four per day. 5. Loading dock activities shall be permitted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 24 Project File 734-05 September 2005 6. 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. 7. Demolition and construction activities shall be limited to the hours and days permitted by the City of Temecula municipal code. 8. All construction and demolition equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers. 9. Noisy construction equipment items shall be located as far as practicable from the surrounding residential properties. 10. If feasible and appropriate, portable noise barriers shall be used around portions of the project site during construction. 11 Additional Noise Abatement For noise sources where no significant impact has been assessed, the following measures may be used to further reduce noise levels and reduce the potential for annoyance at residential properties: 1. Trash pickups at the hospital facility should be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 2. Landscaping and maintenance activities at the hospital facility should be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 12 Impacts after Mitigation Using the criteria established in this study, the impact of noise generated by activities at the hospital facility will not be significant at residential locations after the recommended mitigation measures have been applied. 13 Project Alternative Only the “No Project” alternative has been considered in this study. Under this alternative, the status quo would be maintained and the proposed hospital facility would not be built. However, development in the area would continue in accordance with the City’s General Plan and zoning map. Traffic volumes on the arterials, and hence traffic noise levels, would increase as the area grows. This is illustrated in Table 7-6 for “Opening Year Without Project” conditions. New noise sources associated with the hospital facility would not be introduced into the study area. F I N A L Wieland Associates, Inc. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility P&D Consultants 25 Project File 734-05 September 2005 14 References 1. Temecula Hospital Site Phasing Plan. HKS Architects, Inc. September 9, 2005. 2. Environmental Impact Report, Temecula Regional Hospital (Draft). Chapter 3.0 - Project Description. Provided by P&D Consultants on July 15, 2005. 3. Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula Medical Center, Temecula California. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers. November 4, 2004. 4. Noise Analysis, Temecula Regional Medical Center, Temecula CA. Regulation Compliance, Inc. December 2, 2004. 5. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 31, 1971. 6. Federal Highway Administration Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 772. (i.e., 23 CFR Part 772). 7. California Code of Regulations, Title 22: Social Security. 8. Requirements for Determining and Mitigating Non-Transportation Noise Source Impacts to Residential Properties. Riverside County Department of Public Health, Office of Industrial Hygiene. January 15, 2004. 9. Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. 10. Industrial Noise Control and Acoustics. Randall F. Barron. 2003. 11. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. April 1995. 12. Noise Measurements of Existing Truck Facility and Assessment of Noise Impacts for Proposed New Facility in the City of Vernon. Wieland Associates, Inc. October 15, 2003. 13. Acoustical Study for the Proposed Facility (Karaoke) Music Center in Buena Park. Wieland Associates, Inc. September 3, 1998. 14. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter. Federal Aviation Administration. February 1984. 15. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. James M. Fields and Clemans A. Powell. April 15, 1987. APPENDIX I Noise Measurements Table I-1. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project:Temecula Hospital Location:Rear yard, 31775 De Portola Rd. Date:July 28/29, 2005 Measurement Period Hourly Noise Level, dB(A)Measurement Period Hourly Noise Level, dB(A) 12:00 am - 1:00 am 46.2 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 52.0 1:00 am - 2:00 am 45.3 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 52.5 2:00 am - 3:00 am 44.3 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 53.9 3:00 am - 4:00 am 45.3 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 53.5 4:00 am - 5:00 am 48.5 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 54.0 5:00 am - 6:00 am 51.5 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 54.9 6:00 am - 7:00 am 53.6 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 53.5 7:00 am - 8:00 am 49.4 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 54.9 8:00 am - 9:00 am 49.4 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 54.7 9:00 am - 10:00 am 52.0 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 50.9 10:00 am -11:00 am 49.6 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 48.5 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 51.2 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 47.3 CNEL:56.8 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 7512:0 0 a .m .2 :0 0 a .m .4 :0 0 a .m .6 :0 0 a .m .8 :0 0 a .m .1 0 :0 0 a .m .1 2 :0 0 p .m .2 :0 0 p .m .4 :0 0 p .m .6 :0 0 p .m .8 :0 0 p .m .1 0 :0 0 p .m . Time of Day H o u r l y N o i s e L e v e l , d B (A ) WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Table I-2. Noise Survey Project:Temecula Regional Hospital Facility Measurement Period 1:14 PM Position:On project site to to to 1:34 PM n*Ln Ln Ln Date:July 29, 2005 Time:Noted 2 60.5 Noise Source:Traffic on SR-79 8 58.6 Distance:Approximately 317' from edge of SR-79 curb 25 56.6 SLM Height:5' LD 820 S/N:0996 50 55.0 LD CAL200 Calibrator S/N:2916 Operator:Cynthia M. Bordash 90 50.7 99 48.0 Leq 55.7 Lmax 64.4 Lmin 46.4 * Leq is the average sound level during the measurement period. Ln is the sound level exceeded n% of the time during the measurement period. Lmax and Lmin are the maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Time Noise Level is Exceeded N o i s e L e v e l , d B (A ) WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Table I-3. Measured Hourly Noise Levels and Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project:Temecula Hospital Location:Rear yard, 31602 Calle Los Padres, adjacent to Rt. 79 Date:July 28/29, 2005 Measurement Period Hourly Noise Level, dB(A)Measurement Period Hourly Noise Level, dB(A) 12:00 am - 1:00 am 53.8 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 60.7 1:00 am - 2:00 am 52.6 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 60.8 2:00 am - 3:00 am 51.5 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 60.7 3:00 am - 4:00 am 52.1 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm 61.1 4:00 am - 5:00 am 56.6 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 61.5 5:00 am - 6:00 am 59.8 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 62.7 6:00 am - 7:00 am 61.6 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 61.8 7:00 am - 8:00 am 61.7 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 60.6 8:00 am - 9:00 am 61.2 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 59.8 9:00 am - 10:00 am 60.9 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 59.2 10:00 am -11:00 am 60.9 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 57.3 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 60.4 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 55.4 CNEL:64.6 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 7512:0 0 a .m .2 :0 0 a .m .4 :0 0 a .m .6 :0 0 a .m .8 :0 0 a .m .1 0 :0 0 a .m .1 2 :0 0 p .m .2 :0 0 p .m .4 :0 0 p .m .6 :0 0 p .m .8 :0 0 p .m .1 0 :0 0 p .m . Time of Day H o u r l y N o i s e L e v e l , d B (A ) WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. ? ')) % *' .% % T a b l e I I -1 . D i s t a n c e t o C N E L C o n t o u r L i n e s , E x i s t i n g (Y e a r 2 0 0 4 ) C o n d i t i o n s A v g . C N E L @ 5 0 ' S p e e d D a i l y F r o m N e a r D i s t a n c e t o W i t h P r o j e c t C o n t o u r s A r t e r i a l L i m i t , % T r u c k s T r a f f i c L a n e C /L F r o m N e a r L a n e C e n t e r l i n e , f e e t A r t e r i a l / R e a c h T y p e * m p h E l e v . M e d . H v y 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 6 0 d B 6 5 d B 7 0 d B 7 5 d B 8 0 d B B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D . N o r t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 1 2 ,4 0 0 6 8 .0 2 1 5 9 0 --------- S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 1 0 ,7 0 0 6 7 .5 2 0 0 8 3 --------- P E C H A N G A P K W Y . (P A L A R D .) S o u t h o f S R -7 9 5 4 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 3 4 ,0 0 0 7 0 .5 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 ------ R E D H A W K P K W Y . S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 1 8 ,0 0 0 6 9 .5 2 7 8 1 2 0 --------- S R -7 9 W e s t o f I -1 5 F r e e w a y 6 5 5 A T 6 .9 0 % 6 .9 0 % 1 7 ,7 0 0 7 3 .5 4 9 0 2 3 5 1 0 0 ------ W e s t o f P e c h a n g a P k w y . (P a l a R d .) 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 5 7 ,3 0 0 7 8 .0 8 6 0 4 6 0 2 1 5 9 0 --- W e s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 3 8 ,7 0 0 7 6 .0 6 8 0 3 4 0 1 5 5 6 2 --- W e s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 2 0 ,4 0 0 7 3 .5 4 9 0 2 3 5 1 0 0 ------ E a s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 1 5 ,2 0 0 7 2 .0 3 9 5 1 8 5 7 5 ------ * A r t e r i a l T y p e s : 1 ) 2 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 2 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 3 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 4 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 5 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 6 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 7 ) 4 -6 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 8 ) 8 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e . N o t e s : 'A T ', 'A B O V E ', a n d 'B E L O W ' r e f e r t o t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e a r t e r i a l r e l a t i v e t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a . W I E L A N D A S S O C I A T E S T a b l e I I -2 . D i s t a n c e t o C N E L C o n t o u r L i n e s , O p e n i n g Y e a r W i t h o u t P r o j e c t A v g . C N E L @ 5 0 ' S p e e d D a i l y F r o m N e a r D i s t a n c e t o W i t h P r o j e c t C o n t o u r s A r t e r i a l L i m i t , % T r u c k s T r a f f i c L a n e C /L F r o m N e a r L a n e C e n t e r l i n e , f e e t A r t e r i a l / R e a c h T y p e * m p h E l e v . M e d . H v y N o P r o j . N o P r o j . 6 0 d B 6 5 d B 7 0 d B 7 5 d B 8 0 d B B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D . N o r t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 1 8 ,9 8 4 7 0 .0 3 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 ------ S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 0 ,5 0 8 7 0 .5 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 ------ P E C H A N G A P K W Y . (P A L A R D .) S o u t h o f S R -7 9 5 4 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 5 3 ,3 2 8 7 2 .5 4 2 8 2 0 0 8 3 ------ R E D H A W K P K W Y . S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 7 ,3 4 8 7 1 .5 3 6 8 1 7 0 6 9 ------ S R -7 9 W e s t o f I -1 5 F r e e w a y 6 5 5 A T 6 .9 0 % 6 .9 0 % 2 8 ,1 5 2 7 5 .5 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 --- W e s t o f P e c h a n g a P k w y . (P a l a R d .) 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 9 4 ,7 0 4 8 0 .0 1 ,0 5 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 W e s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 6 6 ,9 6 0 7 8 .5 9 0 5 4 9 0 2 3 5 1 0 0 --- W e s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 3 5 ,3 7 6 7 5 .5 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 --- E a s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 2 3 ,7 2 4 7 4 .0 5 2 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 ------ * A r t e r i a l T y p e s : 1 ) 2 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 2 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 3 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 4 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 5 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 6 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 7 ) 4 -6 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 8 ) 8 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e . N o t e s : 'A T ', 'A B O V E ', a n d 'B E L O W ' r e f e r t o t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e a r t e r i a l r e l a t i v e t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a . W I E L A N D A S S O C I A T E S T a b l e I I -3 . D i s t a n c e t o C N E L C o n t o u r L i n e s , W i t h P r o j e c t P h a s e I A v g . C N E L @ 5 0 ' S p e e d D a i l y F r o m N e a r D i s t a n c e t o W i t h P r o j e c t C o n t o u r s A r t e r i a l L i m i t , % T r u c k s T r a f f i c L a n e C /L F r o m N e a r L a n e C e n t e r l i n e , f e e t A r t e r i a l / R e a c h T y p e * m p h E l e v . M e d . H v y P h . I P h . I 6 0 d B 6 5 d B 7 0 d B 7 5 d B 8 0 d B B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D . N o r t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 1 9 ,5 8 4 7 0 .0 3 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 ------ S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 1 ,2 6 4 7 0 .5 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 ------ P E C H A N G A P K W Y . (P A L A R D .) S o u t h o f S R -7 9 5 4 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 5 4 ,0 8 4 7 2 .5 4 2 8 2 0 0 8 3 ------ R E D H A W K P K W Y . S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 8 ,3 2 0 7 1 .5 3 6 8 1 7 0 6 9 ------ S R -7 9 W e s t o f I -1 5 F r e e w a y 6 5 5 A T 6 .9 0 % 6 .9 0 % 2 8 ,3 5 6 7 5 .5 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 --- W e s t o f P e c h a n g a P k w y . (P a l a R d .) 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 9 8 ,0 6 4 8 0 .5 1 ,1 0 0 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 W e s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 6 9 ,8 1 6 7 9 .0 9 5 0 5 2 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 --- W e s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 3 7 ,1 1 6 7 6 .0 6 8 0 3 4 0 1 5 5 6 2 --- E a s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 2 4 ,1 0 8 7 4 .0 5 2 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 ------ * A r t e r i a l T y p e s : 1 ) 2 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 2 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 3 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 4 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 5 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 6 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 7 ) 4 -6 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 8 ) 8 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e . N o t e s : 'A T ', 'A B O V E ', a n d 'B E L O W ' r e f e r t o t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e a r t e r i a l r e l a t i v e t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a . W I E L A N D A S S O C I A T E S T a b l e I I -4 . D i s t a n c e t o C N E L C o n t o u r L i n e s , W i t h P r o j e c t P h a s e s I t h r o u g h V A v g . C N E L @ 5 0 ' S p e e d D a i l y F r o m N e a r D i s t a n c e t o W i t h P r o j e c t C o n t o u r s A r t e r i a l L i m i t , % T r u c k s T r a f f i c L a n e C /L F r o m N e a r L a n e C e n t e r l i n e , f e e t A r t e r i a l / R e a c h T y p e * m p h E l e v . M e d . H v y P h . I -V P h . I -V 6 0 d B 6 5 d B 7 0 d B 7 5 d B 8 0 d B B U T T E R F I E L D S T A G E R D . N o r t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 0 ,1 0 0 7 0 .0 3 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 ------ S o u t h o f S R -8 0 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 1 ,8 7 6 7 0 .5 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 ------ P E C H A N G A P K W Y . (P A L A R D .) S o u t h o f S R -7 9 5 4 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 5 4 ,7 0 8 7 2 .5 4 2 8 2 0 0 8 3 ------ R E D H A W K P K W Y . S o u t h o f S R -7 9 6 5 0 A T 1 .8 4 % 0 .7 4 % 2 9 ,1 3 6 7 2 .0 3 9 5 1 8 5 7 5 ------ S R -7 9 W e s t o f I -1 5 F r e e w a y 6 5 5 A T 6 .9 0 % 6 .9 0 % 2 8 ,5 7 2 7 5 .5 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 --- W e s t o f P e c h a n g a P k w y . (P a l a R d .) 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 9 7 ,4 5 2 8 0 .5 1 ,1 0 0 6 4 0 3 2 0 1 4 3 5 6 W e s t o f M a r g a r i t a R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 7 2 ,1 8 0 7 9 .0 9 5 0 5 2 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 --- W e s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 3 8 ,5 4 4 7 6 .0 6 8 0 3 4 0 1 5 5 6 2 --- E a s t o f B u t t e r f i e l d S t a g e R d . 6 5 5 A T 6 .8 0 % 4 .3 0 % 2 4 ,4 3 2 7 4 .0 5 2 0 2 5 5 1 1 0 ------ * A r t e r i a l T y p e s : 1 ) 2 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 2 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 3 ) 2 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 4 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 3 5 m p h o r l e s s ; 5 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 0 m p h ; 6 ) 4 -6 l a n e s , 4 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 7 ) 4 -6 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e ; 8 ) 8 l a n e f r e e w a y , 5 5 m p h o r m o r e . N o t e s : 'A T ', 'A B O V E ', a n d 'B E L O W ' r e f e r t o t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e a r t e r i a l r e l a t i v e t o t h e s u r r o u n d i n g a r e a . W I E L A N D A S S O C I A T E S Appendix D Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix E Burrowing Owl Survey Report TEMECULA HOSPITAL SITE [City of Temecula, northwest of the S.H. 79 / Margarita Street intersection, in (projected) Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, U.S.G.S. 7.5’ Pechanga, Calif. quadrangle] Focused Surveys for the Burrowing Owl Prepared for: Universal Health Services 367 South Gulph Road King of Prussia PA 19406-0958 (610) 768-3300 fax (610) 992-4560 Contact: Mr. Don Pyskacek Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 3120 Chicago Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507 (909) 369-8060 FAX (909) 369-8035 Principal Investigator: Chet McGaugh AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. chet.mcgaugh@amec.com Surveys conducted on: August 1, 2, 5, & 9, 2005 Report date: August 9, 2005 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2 1.1 Background Information ........................................................................................4 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................4 3.0 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................5 4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Temecula Hospital Site Burrowing Owl Surveys.........................................................4 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Temecula Hospital Site (view west; State Highway 79 is upper left)..............................3 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Temecula Hospital Site: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys……………………………..3 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Bird List for the Temecula Hospital Site……………………………………………..6 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site Temecula Hospital Site Focused Surveys for the Burrowing Owl 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Universal Health Services, focused surveys for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) were conducted by AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. (AMEC) at the Temecula Hospital Site. The thirty-six (36) acre project site is located in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County, northwest of the intersection of State Highway 79 and Margarita Street, in (projected) Section 17, Township 8 South, Range 2 West of the U.S.G.S. Pechanga, Calif. quadrangle (Map 1). The topography of the site is essentially flat; elevations are +1,050 feet. Surrounding land use is residential, commercial, and undeveloped open space. Most of the site is vegetated with nonnative grasses, weedy mustards and ragweeds, and nonnative tamarisk trees (Photo 1). Photo 1. Temecula Hospital Site (view west; State Highway 79 is upper left). Temecula Hospital BUOW 2 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site 1.1 Background Information The Burrowing Owl is a small, ground-dwelling owl that lives, as its name implies, in burrows. It typically occupies the burrows of small mammals, and only rarely excavates its own. It also may use pipes, culverts, and other enclosed spaces. It is active both day and night, and may perch conspicuously on fenceposts, or stand at the burrow entrance. Due to the uniquely fossorial habits of Burrowing Owls, nest burrows are the critical component of their habitat. In southern California, Burrowing Owls are found in relatively arid, open areas, including fallow agricultural lands and the edges of actively farmed lands, airports, vacant lots, grasslands, and desert scrub. In spite of tolerance of human activity “California’s Burrowing Owl population is clearly declining and, if declines continue, the species may qualify for listing” (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1995). The declines in Burrowing Owl populations are atrributed to loss and degradation of habitat, to ongoing residential and commercial development, and to rodent control programs. The Burrowing Owl has been designated a Species of Special Concern by CDFG, and is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG Code. 2.0 METHODS All focused Burrowing Owl surveys at the Temecula Hospital Site were performed by AMEC ornithologist Chet McGaugh in August 2005. (see Table 1). Table 1. Temecula Hospital Site Burrowing Owl Surveys. Date Observer Time Weather Burrowing Owls/Sign? August 1 C. McGaugh 0450-0830 Clear, calm No August 2 C. McGaugh 0510-0800 100% cloud cover, calm No August 5 C. McGaugh O520-0810 Clear, calm No August 9 C. McGaugh 0510-0820 Clear, calm No In accordance with survey protocol established by CDFG, the site was surveyed four times. During each of the surveys, transects were walked back and forth across the site as the surveyor searched for Burrowing Owl sign (burrows, pellets, scat, feathers, prey remains, eggshell fragments) and watched and listened for Burrowing Owls and other birds. Temecula Hospital BUOW 4 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site 3.0 RESULTS Burrowing Owls were not seen on any of the four focused surveys. Neither burrows or any other sign of Burrowing Owl presence was found. Although thirty-three (33) species of birds were observed during the focused surveys, most were associated with the residential areas and the riparian and riparian/scrub habitats on the east side of the site. Avian use of the nonnative grassland on the site is very limited. The ongoing presence of Red-tailed Hawks and American Kestrels indicate suitable foraging habitat is present, but only Common Ravens and Rock Pigeons were seen feeding in the grassland. 4.0 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, D.C. California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl mitigation. CDFG, Sacramento, CA. Haug, E.A, B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. Temecula Hospital BUOW 5 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site APPENDIX 1 BIRD LIST for the TEMECULA HOSPITAL SITE Ardeidae - Bitterns and Herons Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Accipitridae - Kites, Hawks, and Eagles White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Falconidae - Falcons American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) Charadriidae - Plovers and Lapwings Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Columbidae - Pigeons and Doves Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) (nonnative species) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Picidae - Woodpeckers Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) Tyrannidae - Tyrant Flycatchers Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya) Cassin’s Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferus) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) Corvidae - Jays and Crows American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Common Raven (Corvus corax) Aegithalidae - Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) Troglodytidae - Wrens Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) Temecula Hospital BUOW 6 Universal Health Services Burrowing Owl Surveys Temecula Hospital Site Turdidae - Thrushes Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) Mimidae - Mockingbirds and Thrashers Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Sturnidae - Starlings European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) [nonnative species] Parulidae - Wood-warblers Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) Emberizidae - Towhees and Sparrows Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis) Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Cardinalidae - Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Buntings Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) Icteridae - Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Grackles, and Orioles Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) Fringillidae - Finches and Goldfinches House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) Temecula Hospital BUOW 7 Appendix F Letter from Project Architect Regarding Project Configuration Appendix G Water Supply Assessment prepared by Rancho California Water District