Loading...
Final Supplemental EIR AddendumAddendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005031017 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL December 2010Prepared for City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 207434 Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2005031017 TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL December 2010Prepared for City of Temecula Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital i ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Findings of this Addendum 1-1 1.2 Contact Information 1-4 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Previously Approved Project 2-1 2.2 Revisions to the Approved Project 2-4 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-1 3.2 Noise 3-3 3.3 Traffic 3-5 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4-1 4.1 Acronyms 4-1 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted 4-4 5. References 5-1 Appendices A. SCS Engineers Letter Report A-1 B. City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum B-1 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-3 2-2 Project Vicinity Map 2-4 2-3 Addendum Site Plan 2-6 2-4 2008 FSEIR Site Plan 2-7 List of Tables 2-1 Comparison of Previously Approved Phasing to this Addendum 2-8 3-1 Comparison of Existing Traffic Conditions 3-5 Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 1-1 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Findings of this Addendum Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed changes to the project will result in new impacts or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 1.1.1 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Certified EIR Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared “if some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent EIR. A proposed change in a project will require preparation of a subsequent EIR if: 1. The change in the project is substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revision of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred. 2. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken have substantially changed. Substantial changes in circumstances are those defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous EIR in order to describe and analyze new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 1. Introduction Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 1-2 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. If none of the above conditions is met, the City may require preparation of an Addendum, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary. This Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, as presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Based on this analysis and the information contained herein, the mitigation measures remain unchanged from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Comparison of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR with the revised project under Addendum, as described in Chapter 2 of this document, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project under this Addendum and mitigation, as described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. This Addendum relies on use of an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Checklist Form is used:  To evaluate whether there are any new or more severe significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the revised project under this Addendum and proposed amendments; and  To review whether there is new information or circumstances that would require preparation of additional environmental documentation in the form of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or if an Addendum is appropriate. Section 3.0 of this document contains the discussion summarizing the responses to the questions on the form covering required environmental issues. Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined in this section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the project. Any document incorporated by reference is available for review at City of Temecula Planning Department.  Temecula Regional Hospital EIR (Original EIR) - State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 24, 2006. 1. Introduction Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 1-3 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 – Technical reports and analyses are included therein.  Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2005031017, certified on January 22, 2008. – Technical reports and analyses are included therein. 1.2 Contact Information The Lead Agency for this Addendum for the revised project is the City of Temecula. Any questions about the preparation of this Addendum, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Stuart Fisk - Senior Planner City of Temecula - Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 2-1 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter provides a description of the previously approved hospital project as described in the 2008 FSEIR and the changes to the previously approved project under this Addendum. 2.1 Previously Approved Project As part of the previously approved project described in the 2008 FSEIR, the applicant, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), proposed to develop a 320-bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center on 35.31 acres of land in the City of Temecula. Situated on the north side of Highway 79 South, south of De Portola Road and approximately 700 feet west of Margarita Road, the previously approved project would be located near areas of existing commercial and low density residential development. Construction of the previously approved project would last approximately 12 months. The total parking provided was 1,278 spaces, which exceeded the City’s parking standards, which required 663 parking spaces. The City and Applicant Objectives have not changed under this Addendum from the previously approved City and Applicant Objectives under the 2008 FSEIR project. Please refer to Figure 2-1 for a map of the project’s regional location and Figure 2-2 for a project vicinity map, neither of which have changed as part of this Addendum. Addendum to the Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434.01 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2010 02 Miles Temecula City Boundary 7 9 7 9 M A R G A R I T A R D P r o j e c t S i t e D E P O R T O L A D R F i g u r e 2 - 2 P r o j e c t V i c i n i t y M a p SOURCE: ESA, 2010.0 300Feet A d d e n d u m t o t h e T e m e c u l a H o s p i t a l S u p p l e m e n t a l E I R . 2 0 7 4 3 4 . 0 1 2. Project Description Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 2-4 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 2.2 Revisions to the Previously Approved Project Figure 2-3 illustrates the newly revised site plan as part of this Addendum. For comparative purposes, Figure 2-4 displays the site plan from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. The proposed changes to the project include the following: Truck Loading Area/Service Yard/Infrastructure Support  Under the 2008 FSEIR, a truck loading area and facilities plant was to be located at the eastern edge of the hospital building, south of the helipad. As detailed in the 2008 FSEIR, this area was intended to provide infrastructure needed to support the hospital, such as a loading dock, cooling tower, generators, transformers, a fuel tank, and a bulk oxygen storage area. Under this Addendum, the hospital building footprint has changed. As a result, these components, along with the truck loading area, have moved towards the north end of the hospital building on the eastern side of the hospital, just west of the helipad (location of 91 parking spaces under 2008 FSEIR site plan). This area would include a service yard and a tank farm enclosed by a 12-foot-high wall. The previous loading area under the 2008 FSEIR site plan is now landscaping and future “B” building expansion area under this Addendum (see Figure 2-3).  The cooling towers have been removed from the project and replaced with rooftop package units. Underground fuel/oil storage has been relocated along with the generators and electrical transformer area to the northwest edge of the hospital building (see Figure 2-3). Hospital Building  The one-story hospital building footprint of the 2008 FSEIR has been reconfigured under this Addendum. The revised one-story hospital building extends development along a portion of the northwest corner of the institutional occupancy building footprint in comparison to the original design. The extended area is narrower than the previous design and includes areas for expansion. In addition, the revised design reduces the development footprint of the business occupancy building along the east edge adjacent to the Cancer Center and leaves another occupancy expansion area. A five-story bed tower rises from the single-story ancillary hospital building as compared to a six-story bed tower under the 2008 FSEIR (see Figure 2-3). The previously approved hospital building was a maximum of 106 feet in height at the rotunda and approximately 91 to 97 feet in height at the main body of the hospital towers. The proposed rotunda is reduced to 90 feet in height, and the main body of the hospital towers are reduced to 82.5 to 84 feet. Architectural changes to the hospital towers are also proposed as a result of these changes, including the elimination of some tiled roof areas and their replacement with vertical metal panels that incorporate spandrel glass “windows” and a secondary cornice line to create the appearance of an additional floor. The approximate total square footage build-out remains unchanged. 2. Project Description Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 2-5 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010  The ambulance drop-off area, previously located at the northwest edge of the hospital building footprint, has shifted just north of the passenger loading zone along the southwest edge of the hospital building under this Addendum (see Figure 2-3). Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434Figure 2-3Addendum Site Plan SOURCE: URS, 2010. 0 400 Feet Temecula Hospital Supplemental EIR . 207434Figure 2-42008 Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact ReportSite Plan SOURCE: HKS, 2007. 0 400 Feet 2. Project Description Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 2-8 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Landscaping  The landscaped area adjacent to the northwest edge of the institutional occupancy building has been removed to allow for the new location of the generators, and electrical transformer (see Figure 2-3).  A landscaped area has replaced the 16 parking spaces located immediately south of the Cancer Center (see Figure 2-3). Construction/Phasing  Construction of the project under this Addendum would occur in six phases as opposed to five phases under the previously approved project. However, the order in which various project components would develop has been changed under this Addendum in comparison to the 2008 FSEIR as described below in Table 2-1. TABLE 2-1 COMPARISON OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PHASNG TO THIS ADDENDUM Phase Previously Approved Phasing The Proposed Phasing Phase IA  Site Grading  Medical Office Building 2 (MOB 2)  MOB Parking (Approximately 300 spaces)  Main Entry Drive  Now referred to as Phase I  Site Grading  Main Entry Drive  Off-site Improvements  Hospital (140 Beds) 5-Story Tower  Hospital Parking (434 Spaces)  Horse Trail  Temporary Water Retention Basin at Southeast Corner of Site, Removed in Phase III Phase IB  Hospital/Six-Story Bed Tower  Hospital Parking  Now referred to as Phase II  MOB 1  MOB 1 Parking (326 spaces)  Final Underground WQMP BMP Chambers at Southeast Corner of Site Phase II  Hospital Five-Story Bed Tower  Now referred to as Phase III  MOB 2  MOB 2 Parking (300 Spaces) Phase III  Medical Office Building 1 (MOB 1)  MOB/Hospital Connector  Now referred to as Phase IV  Hospital (180 Beds) 5-Story Tower  Hospital Parking (128 Spaces) Phase IV  Cancer Center  Cancer Center Parking  Now referred to as Phase V  Cancer Center  Cancer Center Parking (50 Spaces) Phase V  Fitness Center  Jogging Trail  Now referred to as Phase VI  Fitness Center  Fitness Center Parking (40 Spaces)  Jogging Trail SOURCE: Universal Health Services, Inc., 2010 Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-1 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision CHAPTER 3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures In many instances, there has been no change in the existing setting since 2008 when the FSEIR was prepared and certified. Further, changes have been minimal since the preparation and approval of 2008 FSEIR. In these instances, appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference into this Addendum. This discussion will be followed by evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed changes. Where there is insignificant or no change in potential impacts between this Addendum and the adopted 2008 FSEIR, the appropriate discussions from the 2008 FSEIR will be incorporated by reference. 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.1.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazardous conditions remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified. Refer to pages 3.1-1 through 3.1-11 of the FSEIR, which provides information and data related to the presence of hazardous materials and other safety hazards within and adjacent to the project site. In addition, please refer to the recent technical letter memo from SCS Engineers that further describes existing conditions on the site, dated November 19, 2010. A copy of this technical letter memo can be found in Appendix A of this Addendum document. Based on a review of the previous reports and assessment activities associated with the 2008 FSEIR, SCS Engineers conclude that:  The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent leaking underground storage tank (LUST) facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the proposed project site from the off-site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the 2008 FSEIR. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary. 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-2 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the proposed project site. Because no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS Engineer’s opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk.  There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the proposed project site, caused by an off-site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the proposed project site (i.e., the proposed project site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater).  In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital FSEIR, dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. As concluded, there has been no change in circumstances that would indicate an increase in the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. In addition, there is no new information concerning mitigation measures for these previously identified potential impacts. 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding hazards and hazardous materials have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: MTBE Plume  Potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the potential that existing and/or previously unidentified contamination could be encountered during project site preparation and construction activities. There would be no new impacts as a result of the changes to the project as discussed in this Addendum. As described in the 2008 FSEIR, and confirmed by the technical letter memo submitted by SCS Engineers on November 19, 2010, the potential for contamination is likely to be localized around the off-site USTs and is unlikely to be present at the proposed hospital site (as evident by groundwater samples with no detectable concentrations of gasoline or its constituent components). 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-3 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision  Potential that hazardous materials could be released during the site preparation and construction activities. The changes to construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the likelihood that construction excavation and grading could expose construction workers, the public, or the physical environment to adverse health conditions due to the presence of hazardous materials such as gasoline constituents including MTBE and other VOCs. The potential for encountering these contaminants existing at the project site is still considered to be unlikely with the proposed changes. There will be no significant change in MTBE plume impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better mitigation is available to address the previously identified impacts. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the project as described in this Addendum. They will be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No new mitigation is required. 3.1.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation The impact of the proposed changes to the previously approved project, as described in this Addendum, are not considered significant due to the continued implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Implementation of these mitigation measures ensures that project-specific and cumulative impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. 3.2 Noise 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The information and data in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 regarding the existing ambient noise setting and environment remain unchanged since the FSEIR was certified (refer to pages 3.2-1 through 3.2-11 of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). There is no new substantial information indicating that the severity of the impacts might have changed. The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic noise; as such, refer to Section 3.3 (Traffic) of this Addendum and the City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum dated October 4, 2010. 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding noise have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-4 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Construction Noise  Development of the proposed project would result in temporary noise impacts during construction. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not substantially change or increase temporary construction activity noise level impacts at and/or near the construction areas or increase construction-related material haul trips that would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes to a more severe level than those described in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. There will be no significant change in construction noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Emergency Vehicle Sirens  Development of the proposed project would increase noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise. The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as detailed in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not increase the severity of noise levels along roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise that would cause additional significant environmental effects. Ambulance siren noise would increase CNEL by more than 3 dB under both this Addendum and the previously approved FSEIR. None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to noise levels along local roadways, specifically ambulance siren noise, would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. There will be no significant change in siren noise impacts as a result of this Addendum. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better noise mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to noise. Although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant under this Addendum (similar to the previously approved FSEIR), there are no mitigation measures that can be placed on this type of noise. 3.2.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project under this Addendum would still result in construction activities that would exceed the accepted ambient noise level of 65 dB by more than 3 dB in the nearest residences to the northwest of the project site and in some of the residences to the south. This would be a short-term significant impact on residents adjacent to the site. With implementation of mitigation measures in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-5 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008, the construction noise levels under this Addendum would be reduced, but even with these mitigation measures the noise impact would be significant and unavoidable for the nearest homes to the northwest and south (similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR). As with the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, ambulance siren noise added to traffic noise generated by the project under this Addendum would be considered a significant impact. As noted in the 2008 FSEIR, the City does not regulate noise from ambulance sirens. Noise standards do not apply in emergency situations. Thus, although the noise from ambulance sirens would be significant, no mitigation measures can be placed on this type of noise. Impacts from noise for the proposed projects are significant and unavoidable. 3.3 Traffic The impact conclusions of the previously approved 2008 FSEIR regarding traffic have been compared with the impacts of the previously described reconfigurations to the plan and changes to project phasing (see Chapter 2 of this Addendum) as detailed below: 3.3.1 Existing Conditions There has been no significant change in the existing traffic counts and there is no new substantial information that would worsen the severity of the previously identified impacts since the data in the 2008 FSEIR. The City Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the traffic count data, collected in September 2005, and shown in the 2008 FSEIR (City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum, November 12, 2010 – Appendix B). The September 2005 count data was compared with traffic count data collected for the City’s Annual Traffic Count Program, July 2010, at the same study locations on Temecula Parkway, Margarita Road, and De Portola Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) are shown in Table 3-1: TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Location Year 2005 Year 2010 Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road 38,700 (LOS “C”) 38,200 (LOS “C”) Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway 23,500 (LOS “B”) 24,000 (LOS “B”) De Portola Road west of Margarita Road 7,000 (LOS “A”) 7,500 (LOS “A”) Source: City of Temecula, 2010 Although the data indicates there was a slight increase in traffic volumes (500 ADT) on Margarita Road and De Portola Road over a five (5) year period, it is not a significant increase since the capacity of the roadway remains unaffected. As shown, the LOS is maintained at LOS “C” or better, at all locations and the locations with the increases still perform at LOS “B” or better. 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-6 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision Since the approval of the 2008 FSEIR, Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: SR 79/Pechanga Parkway – (dual right-turn lanes) and Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: Pechanga Parkway South of SR 79 have been completed (identified as mitigation measures 3.3-6 and 3.3-8, respectively, in the FSEIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). The completion of these mitigation measures reduced the severity of the traffic impacts identified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. Outside of the implementation of these mitigation measures, there has been no significant change to the existing traffic information since the 2008 FSEIR was approved (refer to pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-11 of the 2008 FSEIR). 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts Direct Impacts The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant direct traffic impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below):  Segment of Highway 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road  Highway 79/Country Glen Way None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to direct traffic impacts would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The proposed changes would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project’s potential direct traffic impacts have been adequately addressed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Intersections) The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative intersection impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below):  State Route 79 / I-15 Southbound Ramps  State Route 79 / I-15 Northbound Ramps  State Route 79 / La Paz Street  State Route 79 / Pechanga Parkway  State Route 79 / Jedediah Smith Rd; State Route 79 / Avenida De Missiones; State Route 79 /Country Glen Way; SR 79 / Redhawk Parkway / Margarita Road  State Route 79 / Avenida De Missiones  State Route 79 / Country Glen Way  State Route 79 / Redhawk Parkway/ Margarita Road 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-7 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative intersections would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project’s potential cumulative traffic impacts to intersections have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects entitled, “State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway – Dual Right-Turn Lanes” has added a second eastbound right-turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersection located at State Route 79 / Pechanga Parkway. In addition, since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Projects for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 entitled, “Pechanga Parkway Improvements – Phase II” has been completed. This improvement provides direct mitigation to the cumulative impact intersections located at Pechanga Parkway south of State Route 79. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. Cumulative Impacts (Segments) The changes to the truck loading area/service yard/infrastructure support; hospital building; landscaping; and construction/phasing, as described in Chapter 2 of this Addendum, would not create additional significant cumulative segment impacts outside those indentified in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR (noted below):  State Route 79 West of I-15  State Route 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway  State Route 79 between Pechanga Parkway and Margarita Road  State Route 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road  Pechanga Parkway south of SR 79  Margarita Road from De Portola Road to Highway 79  Redhawk Parkway South of Highway 79 None of the effects referenced in the 2008 FSEIR related to cumulative segments would be substantially more severe as a result of changes to the previously approved project identified in this Addendum. The project, as revised under this Addendum, would not be increasing in square footage nor would there be any change to the approved land use; as such, the revised project’s potential cumulative traffic impacts to segments have been adequately addressed in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR. It should be noted that since the time of the approved 2008 FSEIR, the City Capital Improvements Project entitled, “State Route 79 South to Pechanga Parkway – Dual Right-Turn Lanes” has added a second eastbound right-turn lane on State Route 79 at Pechanga Parkway. This improvement also provides mitigation to the cumulative impact segment located at State Route 79 between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway. Information and data from the previously approved 2008 FSEIR are incorporated by reference into this Addendum. Further discussions are not necessary. 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 3-8 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Preliminary  Subject to Revision 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures There has been no new information or change in circumstances that would indicate new and better traffic mitigation is available. The mitigation measures contained in the previously approved 2008 FSEIR and mitigation monitoring program adopted in 2008 remain applicable to the proposed project as described in this Addendum. They shall be implemented to minimize the previously described potential impacts related to traffic. 3.3.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, development of the project with the proposed changes would still result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts as identified in the previously approved document. Similar to the previously approved 2008 FSEIR, no additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified in the previously approved document, are feasible for the traffic-related impacts that would result from this Addendum due to the fact that upon completion of all identified mitigation measures, no additional regional circulation improvements can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Existing land use and development conditions preclude the ability to acquire additional right-of-way for additional circulation system improvements. Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 4-1 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 CHAPTER 4 Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted 4.1 Acronyms µg/L micrograms per liter ADT average daily trips ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board AST above-ground storage tank bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTEX benzene, toulene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game City City of Temecula CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CoCo Constituents of Concern CH4 methane CIP Capital Improvement Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 4-2 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2 equivalents CPT Cone Penetration Test CUP Conditional Use Permit dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibels DIPE diisopropyl ether EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DNL Day/Night Average Noise Level DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substance Control EIR Environmental Impact Report ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether FHWA Federal Highway Administration FSEIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz Hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Leq energy-equivalent noise level Ldn day-night average noise level LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design LLG Linscott, Law, and Greenspan Engineers Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service MOB medical office building MOU Memorandum of Understanding 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 4-3 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether N2O nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL USEPA’s National Priorities List OPR Office of Planning and Research PFCs perfluorocarbons RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Board SB south bound SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SENEL Single Event Noise Exposure Level SF6 sulfur hexaflouride SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TBA tertiary butyl alcohol TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UHS Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. UST underground storage tank v/c volume-to-capacity VMT vehicle miles traveled 4. Acronyms, Organizations and Persons Consulted Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 4-4 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 VOC volatile organic compounds 4.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency – City of Temecula Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer-Traffic Project Applicant Universal Health Services, Inc. (Applicant) Linda Bradley Scott Crane Tim Rielly Consultants to the Lead Agency SCS Engineers (Subsurface/Groundwater Investigations) Tom Wright, Project Professional/Geologist LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS (Traffic Engineers) John Boarman, Principal Narasimha Prasad, Senior Transportation Engineer Wieland Associates (Noise Consultant) David Wieland, Vice President, Principal Consultant Jonathan Higginson, Senior Consultant Environmental Science Associates (SEIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Jason Nielsen, Graphic Artist Gus JaFolla, Word Processor Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 5-1 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 CHAPTER 5 References California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, August 29, 2007b. Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation at Cal/EPA Headquarters. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework for change. California Air Resources Board, October 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board, September 2007a. Draft List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. California Code of Regulations, Title 21 Section 3527, Airport and Heliport Definitions. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways, August 11, 2005. City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum – Temecula Regional Hospital Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, November 12, 2010 City of Temecula General Plan, adopted April 2005. City of Temecula, Municipal Code. County of Riverside General Plan, October, 2003. Cunniff, P.F., Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Federal Aviation Administration. Noise Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses, Bell 222 Twin Jet Helicopter, February 1984. Fields, James M. and Powell, Clemans A. Community Reactions to Helicopter Noise: Results from an Experimental Study. April 15, 1987. Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update (SCH #2003061041), Certified April 12, 2005. 7. References Addendum to the Temecula Regional Hospital 5-2 ESA / D207434.01 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2010 Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. April 1995. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. 2003. Linscott Law & Greenspan, Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula Hospital, October 2007. Personal Communication, David Prusha, HKS Inc. – Project Architects and Engineers. September 22, 2005. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, April 2002. SCS Engineers, Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey (Survey) and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment (Assessment), October 2007. SCS Engineers, Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center APNs 959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California, November 19, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm, March 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wieland Associates, Inc., Supplemental Noise Study for the Temecula Regional Hospital in Temecula, October 2007. Appendix A SCS Engineers Letter Report Limited Regulatory File Review Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959- 080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, - 009, and -010 Temecula, California Presented to: CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 290 San Diego, California 92123 (858) 571-5500 December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com City of Temecula Limited Regulatory i File Review December 1, 2010 Project No. 01207522.00 Mr. Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Limited Regulatory File Review (Review) Hospital Site: Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 959959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010 Temecula, California Dear Mr. Fisk: SCS Engineers (SCS) is pleased to present this Review of three leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the Hospital Site vicinity. This report summarizes the results of the Review that was conducted to evaluate specific environmental conditions at the Hospital Site. The work described in the Review was performed by SCS in general accordance with Exhibit 01 to the consulting Agreement (Contract) between SCS and the City of Temecula (Client). City of Temecula Limited Regulatory iii File Review Table of Contents Section Page 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1  2 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 1  3 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................. 1  4 Regulatory File Review ......................................................................................................................... 1  Known, Reported, or Suspected Releases within the Hospital Site Vicinity ................................. 1  Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California . 1  Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California .......................... 3  Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station ..................................................... 4  Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California .......... 5  Previous SCS Environmental Investigations ......................................................................................... 7  Soil Vapor Survey........................................................................................................................ 7  Groundwater Sampling .............................................................................................................. 8  5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 9  6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 10  7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 11  8 Report Usage And Future Conditions ............................................................................................... 12  9 Likelihood Statements ......................................................................................................................... 13  List of Figures 1 4-Way Site Location 2 Soil Vapor Sampling Locations with Analytical Results 3 Groundwater Sampling Locations with Analytical Results City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 1 File Review 1 BACKGROUND Based on our conversations and a review of Client-provided documents, we understand that the Hospital Site consists of approximately 35.31 acres of land in Temecula, California (Figure 1). The Hospital Site is currently undeveloped land (APNs 959-080-001, -002, -003, -004, -007, -008, -009, and -010) and is proposed to be developed into facilities for the Inland Valley Medical Center. We understand that the Hospital Site improvements will consist of slab-on- grade medical offices and support buildings, as well as a two-tower 320-bed hospital and related physical plant, parking and hardscape/landscape improvements. It is our understanding that below grade improvements are not currently planned. We also understand that potable water will be supplied by others and that no on-site groundwater production wells are planned. 2 OBJECTIVE The objective of the proposed scope of services is to assess the current status, conditions, and progress of the investigation, migration, and remediation of constituents of concern (CoCs) from leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases in the site vicinity. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services designed and conducted to meet the objective was as follows:  Regulatory File Review for the adjacent LUST cases  Data Evaluation and Report Preparation 4 REGULATORY FILE REVIEW KNOWN, REPORTED, OR SUSPECTED RELEASES WITHIN THE HOSPITAL SITE VICINITY Chevron Service Station #204029, 31669 Highway 79 South, Temecula, California The above-referenced Chevron Service Station is located approximately 200 feet southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). The first quarter 2009 quarterly groundwater monitoring report and historical Chevron assessment report were reviewed and included both groundwater gradient and analytical data. The Chevron Service Station has six groundwater monitoring wells that are all located on the property. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since at least August 2001 and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been reported in all the wells at some point between August 2001 and January 2007. MTBE and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) have been reported at maximum concentrations of 1,400 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 420 µg/L, respectively. The latest report available for the Chevron Service Station was for the first quarter 2009. Based upon this report, the groundwater gradient was reported to be to the west to northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 21.88 and 24.660 feet below ground surface (bgs). City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 2 File Review Based on the historical data and reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater likely migrated towards the Hospital Site. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target CoCs and depth to groundwater for each well at the Chevron Service Station. MTBE concentrations have not been reported above the maximum contaminant limits (MCLs)1 in the Chevron Service Station monitoring wells since April 2006 (MW-5). Please note that based on the data we have reviewed, benzene has not been detected in the wells this facility during remedial sampling activities. Table 1 Groundwater Analytical Results Summary Chevron Service Station #204029 Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital SIte Sampling Date Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-1 300 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.87 <50 4 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.09 <50 2 <2 <2 <10 MW-2 360 feet southeast Oct 2008 23.79 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 21.88 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW-3 200 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.27 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.37 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW-4 320 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.31 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.39 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW-5 255 feet southeast Oct 2008 26.53 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 24.66 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 MW-6 250 feet southeast Oct 2008 25.57 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 Jan 2009 23.72 <50 <2 <2 <2 <10 TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di-isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Chevron Service Station. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. In a letter dated December 3, 2009, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a no further action (NFA) letter for the Chevron service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions are planned to mitigate the previous release from the USTs. 1 Maximum contaminant levels taken from Title 22 California Code of Regulations California Safe Drinking Water Act & Related Laws and Regulations, September 2009. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 3 File Review Shell Service Station, 44260 Temecula Parkway, Temecula, California The above-referenced Shell Service Station is located approximately 840 feet east-southeast of the Hospital Site (Figures 2 and 3). In September 2001, five groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the Shell Service Station to investigate possible impacts to soil and groundwater by on-site USTs. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected during the September 2001 assessment. Additional assessment activities in 2002, 2003, and 2004 resulted in the installation of an additional thirty-two groundwater monitoring wells and the completion of thirty-five cone penetration test (CPT) locations at downgradient locations. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE, TBA, tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME), and ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). Quarterly groundwater monitoring and sampling was conducted at the Shell Service Station between 2001 and 2008. MTBE and TBA had been reported at maximum concentrations of 17,000 µg/L and 3,000 µg/L, respectively, from groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells (MW-7A) located at the Shell Service Station. Remedial action in the form of groundwater extraction was conducted between May 2002 and June 2003 using a vacuum truck, which extracted a reported 1.6 million gallons of groundwater containing dissolved-phase petroleum hydrocarbons from the facility. Between May 2003 and November 2004, three groundwater extraction wells and two groundwater injection wells were installed west of the Shell Service Station as a groundwater remediation system to capture and treat petroleum hydrocarbons migrating in the groundwater from the facility. The groundwater remediation system was in use at the Shell Service Station from July 2004 to August 2006. As of April 2007, the groundwater remediation system is offline pending evaluation of the rebound of the CoCs. The last quarterly groundwater sampling event conducted at the Shell Service Station was during first quarter 2008 (January 2008). Groundwater was reported to flow to the west and groundwater depth was reported to be approximately 22 feet bgs. The following table summarizes the recently reported concentration of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 4 File Review Table 2 FIRST QUARTER 2009 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SHELL SERVICE STATION Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-22A 140 feet southeast 22.55 <50 <1 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-23A 130 feet south 22.31 <50 3.7 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-24A 10 feet south 22.09 <50 1.3 <2.0 <2.0 <10 MW-25A 90 feet southeast 22.78 <50 <1.0 <2.0 <2.0 <10 Notes: TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di-isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. Wells located downgradient from Shell Service Station. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. Based on the reported groundwater gradient in the shallow groundwater regime and groundwater sample analytical results from the Shell service station, SCS considered there to be a likelihood2 that MTBE impacted groundwater had potentially migrated onto the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected in January 2006 from soil boring B10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Shell Service Station. In a letter dated May 30, 2008, the RWQCB issued a NFA letter for the Shell service station. Groundwater monitoring has ceased and no further remedial actions on- or off-Site are being directed by the regulatory agency due to the previous release from the USTs. Additional Site Assessment- Shell Service Station In January and February 2005, Miller Brooks3 completed eleven CPT borings on the proposed Hospital Site. Forty groundwater samples were collected and reportedly analyzed for TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), MTBE, and other fuel oxygenates. No concentrations of TPHg, benzene, ethylbenzene, TBA, TAME, ETBE, or DIPE were reported above the laboratory reporting limits. Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.53 2 Letter Report of Soil Vapor Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, Proposed Inland Valley Medical Center, SCS Engineers, October 27, 2007. 3 Summary of Additional Site Assessment Activities, Shell Service Station (Formerly Texaco Branded), 44620 Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California, Case Number R9-2002-0340, Miller Brooks Environmental 2005. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 5 File Review μg/L to 1.1 μg/L. Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from 1.1 μg/L to 2.22 μg/L. Fourteen of the forty samples collected were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limits and concentrations ranged from 1.1 μg/L to 77 μg/L. The highest reported concentration of MTBE (77 μg/L) in groundwater was reported in location CPT- 50, at a depth of 33 feet bgs, which is located along the north side of Highway 79 South. The above-referenced assessment report, prepared by Miller Brooks (August 2005), concluded the following information in connection with the CPT sampling:  “there does not appear to be the discrete water-bearing zones (upper [20 feet to 26 feet bgs], intermediate [30 feet to 75 feet bgs], and deeper [deeper than 75 feet bgs]) as previously observed in CPT profiling conducted on the Vail Ranch Shopping Center and Redhawk Parkway.  “PPD (pore pressure dissipation) tests from these four CPTs (CPT-46, CPT-47, CPT-49, and CPT-53) indicated that the depth to groundwater ranged from approximately 8 to 18 feet bgs, however, no groundwater was encountered at these depths during groundwater sampling activities.” Based on the reported groundwater sample analytical data and gradient from the above referenced report, SCS interprets that MTBE impacted groundwater may have migrated onto the southern edge of the Hospital Site. Arco Service Station #5695, 44239 Margarita Parkway, Temecula, California Arco Service Station #5695 is located approximately 240 feet east of the Hospital Site (Figure 2 and 3). Delta Environmental (Delta) collected 28 soil samples in June 2000 during a dispenser upgrade at the Arco Service Station. The soil samples were reported to contain concentrations of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and MTBE. The soil samples were reported to contain concentration ranges as follows: TPHg (1.1 to 1,300 mg/kg), benzene (1.3 mg/kg), toluene (0.012 to 20 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.014 to 47 mg/kg), total xylenes (0.029 to 105 mg/kg), and MTBE (0.011 to 43 mg/kg). In January 2001, Secor International Incorporated (Secor) installed three monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, and MW3) at the Arco Service Station. Soil samples collected during the installation of the wells were reported to contain concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit. Groundwater samples collected from three wells all were reported to contain MTBE concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits. In February 2001, Secor advanced six CPT borings (CPT-1 though CPT-6) at the Arco Service Station, and soil and groundwater samples were collected and tested for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE, ETBE, TAME, TBA, and DIPE. MTBE was reported to be above the laboratory reporting limit in soil samples collected from two of the six CPT locations and was reported in groundwater samples collected from all CPT locations. TBA was also reported in one groundwater sample collected from the CPT locations. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 6 File Review Between April 2001 through February 2003, Secor completed thirteen additional CPT borings (CPT-7 though CPT-17, CPT-18, and CPT-19) and installed eleven groundwater monitoring wells (MW4 through MW14). Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW1, MW2, MW3, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8, and MW9 have been reported to have concentrations of MTBE above the laboratory reporting limit at some period since quarterly monitoring began at the Arco Service Station. In November 2002, a remediation system was installed which consisted of groundwater extraction pumps. Groundwater collected from the remediation system was stored in Baker tanks though June 2003, and the groundwater was disposed of off-site. In June 2003, three groundwater injection wells (IW-1, IW-2, and IW-3) were installed along Dartolo Road, which abuts the eastern edge of the Hospital Site. The groundwater remediation via extraction was conducted from 2003 through September 2007. Groundwater pumped from the Arco Service Station remediation system was treated and then reinjected into the subsurface using the three groundwater injection wells. The groundwater extraction system was shut down in September 2007 due to low hydrocarbons levels. As of the second quarter 2010, the Arco Service Station has a monitoring well network consisting of fourteen groundwater monitoring wells. Three groundwater monitoring wells (MW-10S-A, MW-10S-B, and MW-10D) were destroyed in December 2006 to accommodate construction on the property to the north. MW-10S-A and MW-10S-B were reinstalled in March 2008. Groundwater monitoring has been on-going since February 2001, and MTBE has been detected up to concentrations of 1,900 µg/L (MW-6). During the second quarter 2010 groundwater was reported to flow to the west-northwest and groundwater was reported to range between 22.51 and 24.39 feet bgs in the shallow aquifer zone. Based on the reported groundwater flow direction and groundwater sample analytical results, MTBE impacted groundwater is likely to have migrated towards the Hospital Site. However, MTBE was not detected in a groundwater sample collected from in January 2006 soil boring B10 (Figure 3) at the Hospital Site, downgradient from the Arco Service Station. The following table summarizes the most recently reported concentrations of the target constituents, approximate distance and direction to the Hospital Site, and depth to groundwater for each monitoring well in the immediate vicinity of the Hospital Site. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 7 File Review Table 3 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ARCO #5695 SERVICE STATION Monitoring Well Number Distance and Direction from Hospital Site Depth to Groundwater (feet) TPHg (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) TAME (µg/L) ETBE (µg/L) TBA (µg/L) MW-1 305 feet east <50 9.6 <2 <2 14 MW-2 325 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-3 330 feet east <50 0.63 <5 <5 <25 MW-4 340 feet east <50 0.45 <5 <5 <25 MW-5 350 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-6 315 feet east <50 2.9 <5 <5 <25 MW-7 370 feet east <50 0.32 <5 <5 <25 MW-8 270 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-9 225 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-11 340 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-12 230 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-13 250 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 MW-14 200 feet east <50 <1 <5 <5 <25 Notes: TPHg =Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline. MTBE = methyl tertiary butyl ether. DIPE = di-isopropyl ether. TAME = tertiary amyl methyl ether. ETBE = ethyl tertiary butyl ether. TBA = tertiary butyl alcohol. Samples collected by Delta Environmental on January 31, 2007. Groundwater samples analyzed via EPA Method 8260B. Approximate distance and direction from Hospital Site. µg/L = micrograms per liter. < = Indicates that the reported concentration was below the method reporting limit for the relevant analyte for the relevant analytical method. PREVIOUS SCS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS Soil Vapor Survey In January 2006, a soil vapor survey was performed at the Hospital Site in order to assess the possible presence and concentration of BTEX and MTBE in the shallow subsurface soil vapor in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings. Soil vapor samples were collected from 7 locations within the footprint of the proposed buildings (SV1 through SV6, and SV8). Three additional locations (SV7, SV9, and SV10) were located in the southwest portion of the Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that was thought to have been intruding onto the Site. Samples collected from SV1 through SV10 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits. The locations and sample results of the soil vapor samples are shown in Figure 2. In July 2007 and August 2008, soil vapor samples (SG1 through SG14) were collected at the Hospital Site in locations of the footprint of the proposed Hospital Site buildings and locations to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may have been migrating onto the Hospital City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 8 File Review Site. Soil vapor samples collected from SG1 through SG14 were reported to have no detectable concentrations of BTEX or MTBE above laboratory reporting limits (Figure 2). Groundwater Sampling In July 2006, SCS personnel mobilized to the Hospital Site and advanced ten groundwater sampling locations at the proposed Hospital Site buildings. The locations of the soil borings were co-located with the soil vapor sampling locations in the vicinity of the footprint of the proposed buildings at the Hospital Site (B1 through B6, and B8). Locations B7, B9, and B10 were drilled in locations in the southwest portion of the Hospital Site in an attempt to intercept the offsite MTBE groundwater plume that may be intruding onto the Hospital Site. The groundwater samples from each boring were collected using a Hydropunch7 sampler. The sampler was driven into the first encountered water-bearing zone and an in-situ groundwater sample was collected and placed in a laboratory-supplied container provided by the laboratory. Groundwater samples collected were submitted to a on-site state-accredited mobile laboratory, and were analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B for BTEX and MTBE. The locations of the groundwater samples are shown in Figure 3 and the analytical results are summarized in the following table. Table 4 Hydropunch® Groundwater Sample Analytical Results Sample Number Benzene (µg/L) Toluene (µg/L) Ethyl- Benzene (µg/L) Total Xylenes (µg/L) MTBE (µg/L) B1 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B7 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B8 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 B10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <1.5 <1.0 Notes: Samples collected by SCS on January 3, 2005. <1 = Not reported at concentrations greater than the indicated laboratory reporting limit. BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes. MTBE = Methyl tertiary butyl ether. BTEX and MTBE analyzed in general accordance with EPA Method 8260B. µg/L = micrograms per liter. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 9 File Review 5 DISCUSSION MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells in the Hospital Site vicinity have decreased steadily since the previous environmental Site assessments conducted on the Hospital Site and adjacent LUST facilities. Two of the LUST facilities (Shell and Arco) have been issued NFA letters from the RWQCB. The issuance of NFA letters does not, precluded there from being off-site impacts that could potentially impact the Hospital Site. Based upon the soil vapor and groundwater sampling previously conducted by SCS at the Hospital Site detailed in Survey and Limited Human Health Risk Assessment, dated October 25, 2007, SCS concluded:  Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) were not reported to be present at detectable concentrations in the eleven multi-depth soil vapor sampling probes beneath the footprint of the proposed Site buildings across three sampling events.  Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected, it is our opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux and a very low likelihood of related significant4 human health risk. Coupled with the multi-event soil vapor sampling and on-Site groundwater sampling and the reported reduction in MTBE concentrations in the monitoring wells adjacent to the Hospital Site, it is SCS’ opinion that there is a low likelihood that dissolved phase MTBE that has historically migrated onto the Hospital Site would pose a Significant human health risk. In SCS’s experience, there is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off-Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater). Based on these factors and SCS’s experience, it is unlikely that the Site would be named a “responsible party” or be required to assume responsibility for the remediation of the source of these releases. However, as the Hospital Site is developed, the developer may incur costs associated with management of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or groundwater beneath the Hospital Site (e.g., if deep foundation or footings penetrate impacted soil or groundwater, or if dewatering is required). 4 The criterion used in this analysis is one in a million (1.0 E-6) excess lifetime cancer risk (ECR). A high likelihood of risk above this threshold is defined as significant. For the purposes of this limited HRA, a commercial land use, consistent with the Site’s current zoning, is assumed. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 10 File Review Depending on Hospital Site development plans, you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons and assist with management of petroleum hydrocarbons bearing soil and/ groundwater. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of further involvement and oversight. 6 CONCLUSIONS Based on the above review of previous reports and assessment activities conducted by SCS, it is SCS’s professional opinion that:  The most recent groundwater monitoring data from the adjacent LUST facilities does not indicate any change in impacts to the Hospital Site from the off-site release from the time that impacts previously were analyzed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January 2008. The conclusion that there is no further change in impacts, and no increased risk of migration, is further supported by the fact that on May 30, 2008 the RWQCB issued a NFA letter to the Shell service station, and on December 3, 2009 issued a NFA letter to the Chevron service station. Thus, the responsible governmental entity has determined that no further groundwater monitoring is required and no further remedial actions are necessary.  There is a low likelihood of a significant health risk on the Hospital Site. Because no VOCs or MTBE were detected in soil vapor sampling at the Hospital Site, it is SCS’s opinion that there is a low likelihood of exposure to benzene or MTBE resulting from soil vapor migration and flux, and a low likelihood of related Significant human health risk.  There is a low likelihood that soil and groundwater impacts at the Site, caused by an off- Site source, would lead to an enforced remediation. The rationale for this judgment is based on the fact (assessed through a review of regulatory and historical resources) that known and reported releases and features of concern are not known to be present at the Site (i.e., the Site did not cause, contribute to, or exacerbate the impacted soil or groundwater).  In regards to hazards as listed in Section 3.1 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), dated January 2008, the conclusions for the project are unchanged. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 11 File Review 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data obtained during this Assessment and our conclusions, SCS recommends:  That depending on Hospital Site development plans you may need to retain a qualified environmental professional during grading and foundation work to conduct field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons. We recommend that when construction plans are finalized that they be reviewed by an environmental professional to assess the necessity of oversight and management activities during construction consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.1.2 of the Temecula Regional Hospital Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated January, 2008. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 12 File Review 8 REPORT USAGE AND FUTURE CONDITIONS This Report is intended for the sole usage of the Client and other parties designated by the Client. The methodology used during this Review was in general conformance with the requirements of the Client and the specifications and limitations presented in the Agreement between the Client and SCS. This Report contains information from a variety of public and other sources, and SCS makes no representation or warranty about the accuracy, reliability, suitability, or completeness of the information. Any use of this Report, whether by the Client or by a third party, shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement between the Client and SCS. Any misuse of or reliance upon the Report shall be without risk or liability to SCS. Reviews are qualitative, not comprehensive, in nature and may not identify all environmental problems or eliminate all risk. For every property, but especially for properties in older downtown or urban areas, it is possible for there to be unknown, unreported recognized environmental conditions, underground storage tanks, or other features of concern that might become apparent through demolition, construction, or excavation activities, etc. In addition, the scope of work for this project was limited to those items specifically named in the scope of work for this Report. Environmental issues not specifically addressed in the Scope of Work for this project are not included in this Report. Land use, condition of the properties within the Site, and other factors may change over time. The information and conclusions of this Report are judged to be relevant at the time the work described in this Report was conducted and was based upon information obtained from public agencies, which SCS believes to be accurate. This Report should not be relied upon to represent future Site conditions unless a qualified consultant familiar with the practice of Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments in Riverside County is consulted to assess the necessity of updating this Report. The property owners at the Site are solely responsible for notifying all governmental agencies and the public of the existence, release, or disposal of any hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products at the Site, whether before, during, or after the performance of SCS services. SCS assumes no responsibility nor liability for any claim, loss of property value, damage, or injury which results from hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products being present or encountered within the Site. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory 13 File Review 9 LIKELIHOOD STATEMENTS Statements of “likelihood” have been made in this report. Likelihood statements are based on professional judgments of SCS. The term “likelihood,” as used herein, pertains to the probability of a match between the prediction for an event and its actual occurrence. The likelihood statement assigns a measure for a “degree of belief” for the match between the prediction for the event and the actual occurrence of the event. The likelihood statements in this Report are made qualitatively (expressed in words). The qualitative terms can be approximately related to quantitative percentages. The term “low likelihood” is used by SCS to approximate a percentage range of 10 to 20 percent; the term “moderate likelihood” refers to an approximate percentage range of 40 to 60 percent; and the term “high likelihood” refers to an approximate percentage range of 80 to 90 percent. City of Temecula Limited Regulatory File Review FIGURES Di s c l a i m e r : T h i s f i g u r e i s b a s e d o n a v a i l a b l e d a t a . A c t u a l co n d i t i o n s m a y d i f f e r . A l l l o c a t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s a r e a p p r o x i m a t e . 4-WAY SITE LOCATION MAP City of Temcula State Highway Route 79 South Temecula, California Re f e r e n c e : U. S . G . S . 7 . 5 M i n u t e Q u a d r a n g l e m a p Pe c h a n g a , C a l i f o r n i a - 1 9 7 7 . P h o t o r e v i s e d 1 9 8 2 . Re f e r e n c e : U. S . G . S . 7 . 5 M i n u t e Q u a d r a n g l e m a p Pe c h a n g a , C a l i f o r n i a - 1 9 7 7 . P h o t o r e v i s e d 1 9 8 2 . No r t h Re f e r e n c e : Te r r a S e r v e r A e r i a l P h o t o g r a p h Te m e c u l a , C a l i f o r n i a - M a y 2 0 0 2 RE G I O N A L S I T E L O C A T I O N 2-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION 3-DIMENSIONAL SITE LOCATION SI T E A E R I A L P H O T O G R A P H No r t h (N o t t o s c a l e ) North (Not to scale)North SA N T A Y S A B E L Nor t h Isl a n d NAS San Die g o B a y Miss i o n Bay BO N S A L L LA K E S I D E SA N D I E G O EL C A J O N LA M E S A FA L L B R O O K PA L A ES C O N D I D O SA N T E E AL P I N E CA R L S B A D LE U C A D I A EN C I N I T A S DE L M A R LA J O L L A SO L A N A B E A C H CA R D I F F - B Y - T H E - S E A TE C A T E VIS T A SA N M A R C O S JU L I A N DE H E S A Ca m p P e n d l e t o n (U . S . M . C . ) Fal l b r o o k Nav a l W e a p o n s Sta t i o n MC A S M i r a m a r Fo r e s t Cl e v e l a n d Na t i o n a l Fo r e s t An z a - B o r r e g o De s e r t An z a - B o r r e g o De s e r t TIJ U A N A Ca l i f o r n i a Me x i c o La k e H e n s h a w La k e S u t h e r l a n d La k e Ho d g e s El C a p i t a n L a k e Lo v e l a n d R e s e r v o i r Cor t e Ma d e r o L a k e Ba r r e t t L a k e La k e M o r e n a La k e Mu r r a y Lo w e r O t a y L a k e Sw e e t w a t e r Re s e r v o i r La k e J e n n i n g s San V i c e n t e La k e La k e Wo h l f o r d La k e Po w a y Dix o n Lak e Cl e v e l a n d N a t i o n a l JA C U M B A CA M P O VA L L E Y C E N T E R OC E A N S I D E RA M O N A PIN E VA L L E Y MI S S I O N B E A C H PA C I F I C B E A C H OC E A N B E A C H CO R O N A D O IM P E R I A L B E A C H BO R R E G O S P R I N G S WA R N E R S P R I N G S 94 67 54 54 94 78 78 78 76 79 PO W A Y 79 Cu y a m a c a R a n c h o St a t e Pa r k LE M O N G R O V E JA M U L To Lo s A n g e l e s To Pa l m S p r i n g s To S a n B e r n a r d i n o and L a s V e g a s 79 371 DE S C A N S O SP R I N G VA L L E Y TE M E C U L A S.D. I n t ' l Airpo r t (Lind b e r g h F i e l d ) Bro w n F i e l d Mu n . A i r p o r t Pa l o m a r Airp o r t Oce a n s i d e Mun . A i r p o r t Mon t g o m e r y Fiel d A i r p o r t SA N Y S I D R O To In d i o To El C e n t r o To El C e n t r o 8 8 5 5 56 76 78 1 5 80 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 125 16 3 905 Bal b o a Par k P A C I F I C O C E A N 5 805 NA T I O N A L CIT Y Ri v e r s i d e C o u n t y Sa n D i e g o C o u n t y I m p e r i a l C o u n t y S a n D i e g o C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y 5 94 94 52 CH U L A VIS T A Figure 1Project No.:01207522.00 Date Drafted:10/15/10 OT A Y M E S A BO N I T A 0 3 1 5 6 3 0 9 4 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e G r a p h i c S c a l e i n F e e t 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Approximate Graphic Scale in Feet S C S E N G I N E E R S En v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s 87 9 9 B a l b o a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 9 0 Sa n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 1 2 3 Project Site Project Site Pr o j e c t Si t e Pr o j e c t Si t e Disclaimer: This figure is based on available data. Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. EX P L A N A T I O N So i l v a p o r s a m p l e l o c a t i o n . So i l v a p o r s a m p l e a n a l y z e d f o r vo l a t i l e o r g a n i c c o m p u n d s ( V O C s ) i n c l u d i n g be n z e n e , t o l u e n e , e t h y l b e n z e n e , t o t a l xy l e n e s ( B T E X ) , a n d M T B E i n g e n e r a l ac c o r d a n c e w i t h E P A M e t h o d 8 2 6 0 B . Re s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n m i c r o g r a m s p e r lit e r o f v a p o r ( µ g / L v ) . N D = n o t d e t e c t e d a b o v e th e l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t i n g l i m i t ( 1 µ g / L v ) . S a m p l e s SV 1 t h r o u g h S V 1 0 c o l l e c t e d i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6 , sa m p l e s S G 1 t h r o u g h S G 1 1 c o l l e c t e d i n Ju l y 2 0 0 7 , a n d s a m p l e s S G 1 2 , S G 1 3 , a n d S G 1 4 co l l e c t e d i n A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 . A l l s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d un d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f S C S E n g i n e e r s . North CU R R E N T A N D P R E V I O U S S O I L V A P O R SA M P L I N G L O C A T I O N S W I T H AN A L Y T I C A L R E S U L T S Ci t y o f T e m e c u l a St a t e H i g h w a y R o u t e 7 9 Te m e c u l a , C a l i f o r n i a Figure 2Project No.:01207522.00 Date Drafted:10/15/10 Re p o r t e d g r o u n d w a t e r g r a d i e n t , a s r e p o r t e d b y De l t a E n v i r o n m e n t a l ( S h e l l [ J a n 2 0 0 8 ] ) , Ho l g u i n , F a h a n , & A s s o c i a t e s ( C h e v r o n [ J a n 2 0 0 9 ] ) , an d S t a n t e c ( A R C O M a y 2 0 0 9 ] ) . S C S E N G I N E E R S En v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s 87 9 9 B a l b o a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 9 0 Sa n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 1 2 3 SG 3 De p t h VO C s 5 ND MT B E ND 15 ND ND 0 1 2 5 2 5 0 3 7 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e G r a p h i c S c a l e i n F e e t H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h D a r t o l o R d Margarita R d Ar c o Shell Ch e v r o n County G l e n W a y Fl o o d C o n t r o l Ch a n n e l SV 9 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 1 0 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 7 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 3 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 8 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 6 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/3 / 0 5 SV 5 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 2 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/3 / 0 5 SV 1 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SV 4 De p t h BT E X 5 ND MT B E ND Da t e 1/ 3 / 0 5 SG 1 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/ 1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 2 De p t h VO C s 5,1 5 ND MT B E ND 5,1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/ 1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 3 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/ 1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 5 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/1 8 / 0 7 SG 6 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/1 8 / 0 7 SG 8 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/ 1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 9 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 1 1 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/1 8 / 0 7 SG 1 0 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/ 1 6 / 0 7 7/ 1 8 / 0 7 SG 4 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/1 8 / 0 7 SG 7 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 7/1 6 / 0 7 7/1 8 / 0 7 SG 1 2 De p t h VO C s 5, 1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 8/2 1 / 0 7 8/2 4 / 0 7 SG 1 3 De p t h VO C s 5,1 5 ND MT B E ND 5,1 5 ND ND Da t e 8/ 2 1 / 0 7 8/ 2 4 / 0 7 SG 1 2 De p t h VO C s 5,1 5 ND MT B E ND 5, 1 5 ND ND Da t e 8/ 2 1 / 0 7 8/ 2 4 / 0 7 Disclaimer: This figure is based on available data. Actual conditions may differ. All locations and dimensions are approximate. EX P L A N A T I O N Gr o u n d w a t e r s a m p l e l o c a t i o n . Gr o u n d w a t e r s a m p l e a n a l y z e d f o r b e n z e n e , to l u e n e , e t h y l b e n z e n e , t o t a l x y l e n e s ( B T E X ) , an d M T B E i n g e n e r a l a c c o r d a n c e w i t h E P A Me t h o d 8 2 6 0 B . R e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n mi c r o g r a m s p e r l i t e r ( µ g / L ) . G r o u n d w a t e r s a m p l e s co l l e c t e d b y S C S E n g i n e e r s i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 5 . North GR O U N D W A T E R S A M P L I N G L O C A T I O N S WI T H A N A L Y T I C A L R E S U L T S Ci t y o f T e m e c u l a St a t e H i g h w a y R o u t e 7 9 Te m e c u l a , C a l i f o r n i a Figure 3Project No.:01207522.00 Date Drafted:10/15/10 Re p o r t e d g r o u n d w a t e r g r a d i e n t , a s r e p o r t e d b y De l t a E n v i r o n m e n t a l ( S h e l l [ J a n 2 0 0 8 ] ) , Ho l g u i n , F a h a n , & A s s o c i a t e s ( C h e v r o n [ J a n 2 0 0 9 ] ) , an d S t a n t e c ( A R C O M a y 2 0 0 9 ] ) . S C S E N G I N E E R S En v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s 87 9 9 B a l b o a A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 9 0 Sa n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 5 2 5 0 3 7 5 Ap p r o x i m a t e G r a p h i c S c a l e i n F e e t B1 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B2 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B3 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B6 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B7 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B4 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B8 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B1 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B5 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 1. 3 B9 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 B1 0 B T E X MT B E <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <0 . 5 <1 . 5 <1 . 0 H i g h w a y 7 9 S o u t h D a r t o l o R d Margarita R d Flood contro l c h a n n e l Ar c o Shell Ch e v r o n County G l e n W a y Appendix B City of Temecula Director of Public Works/City Engineer Memorandum