HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_044 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE .ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR
SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT
CORPORATION" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0217)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of Guidant
Corporation applied for development agreement with the City on April 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the
Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; Planning Application No. 02-0217, (hereinafter
"Development Agreement"); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this item at the September 18, 2000
and October 2, 2002 meetings and held a noticed public hearing on October 16, 2002 to
consider this item.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance
approving the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings:
(a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
industrial, commercial and residential development; and,
(b) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the
period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures
and conditions of approval imposed; and,
(c) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the
uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Proper'b/
subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is
consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property
consistent with the General Plan; and,
R:\D A\Guidant DA\PC Resolution .doc
1
(d) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public
convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable
provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and;
(e) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and,
(f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning
Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to
the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire
protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
(g) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the
date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general
explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust
administrative remedies;
(h) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are expansion of an important local employer
and could bring additional employment opportunities to local residents; and,
(i) The potentially significant impacts to the environment from the project will
be mitigated to a level of insignificance based upon the identified mitigation measures.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
and approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement contained in Attachment
"A", and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference,
Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution to
be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of October 2002.
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\D A\Guid~nt DA\PC Resolution .doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the PC Resolution No. 2002-044 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of October, 2002 by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso,
Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff
None
None
None
e Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\D A\Guidant DA\PC Resolution .doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 99-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR, AND APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH, ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR
SYSTEMS, INC, A SUBSIDIARY OF GUIDANT CORPORATION
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0217)
WHEREAS, Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California
and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing
and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in City Resolution 91-52 and the
Development Code, the City of Temecula has initiated said Development Agreement with
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of this Agreement with
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems has been duly given in the form and manner required by
law, and the Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public
hearings on October 16, 2002 and October 22, 2002, respectively, at which time it heard and
considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect
to this Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Advanced Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc, that:
A. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
industrial, commercial and residential development; and
B. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the
pedod of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures
and conditions of approval imposed; and,
C. The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the
uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which the Property
subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development Agreement is
consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Property
consistent with the General Plan; and,
D. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public
convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable
provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and,
E. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and,
R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc
10
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning
Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days pdor to the hearing to
the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, and police and fire
protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
G. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the
date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general
explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust
administrative remedies; and,
H. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are an increase in higher paying jobs and
increased local employment opportunities from an established local company. These
community benefits also satisfy the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.08.050.A.
Section 2. APPROVAL. The Development Agreement, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "1" is hereby approved. The Mayor is
authorized and directed to evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the
name of, the City of Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto; provided,
however, that this Agreement shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect
and the City has received from the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement.
Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. A detailed Initial Environmental
Study (lES) checklist was prepared for this project. Based upon the analysis contained in the
checklist, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The analysis identified potentially
significant impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Biologic Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, because
of the mitigation measures identified in the lES, all the potential impacts will be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. The lES and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was
circulated for public review between April 1 and Apdl 30, 2002. As a result, the City Council
hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
for this project. The approved Mitigation Monitoring Program is contained in Exhibit "2".
Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold
any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
R:\D A\Guidant DA\Staff Report PC3.doc
11
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this
Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the
Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002.
ATTEST:
Ronald E. Roberts, Mayor
Susan Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the 22nd day of October, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was
duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12~h day of November
2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
R:'~D A\Guidant DA~Staff Report PC3.doc
12
City of Ternecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Titie Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Guidant
Corporation
Lead Agency Name and City of Temecula
Address P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and David Hogan, Senior Planner
Phone Number (909) 694-6400
Project Location Generally located north of Solana Way, west of Margarita Road, south of
Ovedand Drive, and east of Ynez Road in the City of Temecula, County of
Riverside, California.
Project Sponsor's Name Guidant Corporation
and Address 26531 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92591-4628
General Plan Designation Business Park (BP)
Zoning Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI)
Description of Project Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant Corporation
i ("Guidant'), is applying to the City of Temecula for a Development Agreement
which would authorize the expansion of the existing Guidant Corporation Campus
on an approximate 27.8-acre site located directly across Ynez Road from its
existing facility in the City of Temecula. The project site is located northwest of
the intersection of Solana Way and Margarita Road. It is bounded by Solana Way
on the south, Margarita Road to the east, by undeveloped (commercial/office)
property to the north, and Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway to the west. The
project is located in an urbanized area surrounded by industrial, commercial and
residential land uses.
The proposed Development Agreement would guarantee the ability of Guidant
Corporation to expand their operations onto this site, providing for the
development of up to 481,260 square feet of building area in up to five main:
buildings in a campus setting. The Agreement would provide for a maximum
building height of 80 feet above the finished grade of building pad, exc usive of
rooftop mechanical enclosures and telecommunications equipment, and related
screening. The total number of floors and square footage for each building is not
known at this time. The proposed expansion is anticipated to be constructed in
~hases. The precise layout of the site and the appearance of the buildings and
other facilities will be determined at a later date during the development review
~rocess. The Development' Agreement will authorize maximum parameters for
overall development of the site, and site plans for individual phases will be subject
to a City development review process. The term of the Development Agreement
will extend, from the Agreement's effective date until 15 fiscal years from the date
a certificate of occupancy is issued for the first building to be built on the site.
Pdmary access to the proposed development would be provided via an entrance
off of Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway, .with secondary access provided via
entrances off of Solana wa}, and/or Margarita Road.
The future land uses at the site could include a combination of office, research,
manufacturing, and educational/training functions. The project would include
shared ancillary facilities for the employees such as a fitness center, childcare
and food services. The project would further conform to the provisions of the
Development Code. Parking to accommodate the proposed development would
be provided at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area and
would be accomplished within surface parking areas and up to two parking
structures. The proposed project also includes construction of a pedestrian
bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to link the existing Guidant facilities
with the proposed expansion. The bridge is intended to be used by Guidant
employees.
See Attachment A for a detailed description of the proposed project.
Surrounding Land Uses The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial
and Setting development to the north; multi-family and single-family residential development
to the northeast and east; multi-family residential development to the southeast
and south; commercial development to the west and southwest; and the existing
Guidant facilities to the west. See Figure A-3 of Attachment A.
Other public agencies None.
whose approval is
required
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.
· " Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Agricultural Resources '~' Noise
Air Quality Population and Housing
v' Biological Resources Public Services
· " Cultural Resources Recreation
· " Geologic Problems v' Transportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials v' Utilities and Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality v' Mandatory Findings of Significance
Land Use Planning None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
v' 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
ii 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, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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.
'gnature ' ~
Printed name
Date
3
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ,/
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state sceniC highway?.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ,/
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
la.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could potentially
affect a scenic vista. The project site is located within an urbanized area and approximately
seven acres of the project site are currently developed with parking lots, access roadways, and
landscape areas. The remaining 20 acres of the project site are currently undeveloped land.
Implementation of the proposed project would convert primarily vacant land to business park
development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Depending on their location
and height, the proposed project could potentially block long-range views of the Escarpment
from portions of an apartment complex located east of the site along Margarita Road.
The proposed Development Agreement would also provide for a maximum building height of
80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures). The City Development
Code currently allows for a building height of 50 feet within the BP zone, and 40 feet within the
LI zone. The City has the discretion to increase these limits through Development
Agreements. The potential for maximum building heights along Solana Way of 80 feet, could
result in development that is out of scale and character with adjacent residential uses to the
east. The impacts of buildings 80 feet in height along Margarita Road is expected to be less
because the apartments across Margarita Road are farther away and the apartment complex
site is higher than the Guidant site.
To address this concern, Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides
performance standards and cdteria for the design of commercial/office/industrial buildings
within the City, recognizing that the quality and compatibility of building design directly impacts
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community. These performance
standards include strategies for minimizing visual impacts of commercial/office/industrial
development that is located adjacent to residential through a variety of means including*
.building setbacks. In addition, the project will also be required to comply with the landscape
standards in the DeveloPment Code that requires either 20% (in the LI Zone) or 25% (in the
BP zone) of the site to be landscaped. Quality landscaping also has the potential to
significantly reduce potential visual impacts from development. The following supplemental
measure, to achieve the purposes of Section 17.08.070 (refer to visual depiction in Attachment
B of the Initial Study), will be implemented to minimize the visual and aesthetic impacts from
this project to a level of insignificance.
MM1. To ensure that the scale and character of proposed development along Margarita Road
and Solana Way are compatible with adjacent residential uses, the final Site Plan shall reflect
the following:
A minimum 35-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Margarita Road and
Solana Way.
· Heights of buildings located along Margarita Road and Solana Way at the 35-foot
setback line shall be limited to 50 feet. The angle formed from Guidant's existing.
easternmost property line along Margarita Road, and from Guidant's existing
southernmost property line along Solana Way, to the 50-foot vertical building height at
the setback line shall form the angular plane that establishes maximum building heights,
not to exceed 80 feet (excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures).
Setbacks on upper floors and building articulation to reduce the bulk and mass of the
buildings shall be emphasized.
· The visUal mass of buildings along Margarita Road and Solana Way shall be reduced
through breaks in the structure, tree plantings, articulation of the fac~ade, and other
architectural devices.
In addition, construction of the pedestrian walkway across Ynez Road would affect to some
extent scenic vistas of the mountains for motorists traveling south on Ynez Road. As the
majority of viewers would be motorists, view blockage would be temporary in nature. Views to
the south for pedestrians on sidewalks along Ynez Road would be preserved. The bridge
would be compatible in design with surrounding development through the use of
complementary materials, colors, form, and architectural detailing. The visual impact of the
pedestrian bridge is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
lb.
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of
the project site. There is one eligible State Scenic Highway (I-15) and one eligible County
Scenic Highway (R-79) in the vicinity of the project site. However, due to intervening urban
development, views of the project site are not available from these highways. Implementation
of the proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260 square
feet of business park development with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. Such
development would be consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity and would not
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. No
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
lC,
Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately seven acres of the project site have been
previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscape areas.
The remaining 20 acres of the project site consist of undeveloped land disturbed by past land
use activities including grading and agriculture. In its current undeveloped and unimproved
state, the site has Iow visual quality. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the
visual character of the site through development of approximately 481,260 square feet of
business park uses with supporting parking facilities and landscaping. If not well designed, the
development could degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings. Section 17.08.070 of the City Development Code provides general performance
standards to support variety and visual interest in development design while still creating a
unified overall image within the City. Performance standards to achieve this image include but
are not limited to:
· use creative entry treatments with such features as canopies, awnings, comices or
atriums;
· use a variety of complementary colors and avoid the use of just one color and dark
colors;
· use various window shapes and sizes;
· vary the building shapes by using curved or angled walls;
· separate buildings or accessory structures should be designed as an integral part of the
primary building by using complementary materials, common architectural elements,
and special landscape design techniques;
· use a consistent design theme throughout the project. Employ complementary or
consistent details, shapes, materials and colors. In addition, consistent signage should
be provided with complementary colors, lettering, placement and materials;
· the mass of the building should be divided to reduce the apparent scale and provide
visual interest. Box-like designs should be avoided;
· where the character or scale is identifiable, new development should be designed to
maintain that character and to be compatible with that scale;
· development should be designed to minimize detrimental impacts on surrounding
properties, including, but not limited to, visual, noise, air quality and other environmental
impacts. Strategies for minimizing the impacts include protecting residential areas
adjacent to commercial development through screening of circulation areas, loading
areas and trash collection points or other areas that could potentially be disruptive to the
residential character of the adjacent area.
Conformance with Section 17.08.070 Commercial/office/industrial performance standards
would ensure that development is compatible in scale and character to surrounding land uses.
The project would enhance the visual quality of the site through architectural treatment and
landscaping consistent with City of Temecula standards. In addition, the Development
Agreement contains design guidelines for futura development that address color palette;
materials, landscaping, and lighting. Project compliance with the described performance
standards and design guidelines would ensure a high level of design and visual quality for the
site that would be compatible with surrounding development. In addition, the mitigation
measure listed under Item l.a will also reduce future visual impacts. Therefore, impacts
related to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
ld.
Less Than Significant ImpacL Existing lighting sources on the project site include surface
parking lot lighting on approximately seven acres of the overall 27.8-acre site. The remaining
20 acres of the project site are currently vacant and do not contain any sources of light and
glare. The project vicinity experiences existing light and glare as a result of lighting and
structures in adjacent commemial and residential areas surrounding the project site. In
addition, transient light sources and glare occur as a result of vehicles on Ynez Road, Solana
Way, Margarita Road, and Motor Car Parkway. Implementation of the proposed project would
introduce new light sources and glare on the project site including streetlights, interior building
lighting, exterior security lighting, parking lot lighting, and vehicles. The proposed project
would also contribute to the amount of transient lighting and glare as a result of increased
vehicular use of the surrounding roadways by the project occupants.
The business park lighting, and parking lot and street lighting would be typical of other
development in the surrounding area and would not create unusual levels of light and glare.
The proposed project would be developed consistent with the standards established in the
City's Development Code, and the proposed lighting design and landscaping would assist in
minimizing the effects of increased light and glare. Lighting on the site would be shielded and
directed downward and away from adjacent residential uses. Development associated with
the proposed project would also be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating
Light Pollution), which includes lighting standards to avoid impacts on astronomical research at
Mount Palomar Observatory. Project consistency with City Ordinance No. 655 would reduce
the potential for significant impacts on the Observatory to a less than significant level.
(Sources I and 2)
2. Agricultural 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 Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
". ': : · · · ' !: ' ~otenflaliy :~,Mltlg§fl~' :~: ~Than.
. ... i~ . '' ; :... : Significant ' ~n~ted 8~hltt~ht Nb
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 Califomia Resources Agency,
' to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
2a-c.
No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agriculture. The site is not under a
Williamson Act Contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. The 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
would not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this
issue. (Source 1)
3. AIR QUALITY. WOuld the project:
.a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ,/
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Comments:
,8.
No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The SCAQMD is
required, pursuant the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the
South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is in non-attainment (ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10). The
AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing
emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in
part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
8
SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the
sOuthem Califom[a region. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which includes Growth Management and
Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control
portions of the AQMP, and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and
consistency analysis included in the AQMP.
Projects proposing a General Plan Amendment, new or amended General Plan Elements, or
Specific Plans require consistency with AQMP review, since the RCPG and AQMP strategy is
based on projections from local General Plans. Since the proposed project does not require a
General Plan Amendment and is consistent with the land use designations of the City of
Temecula General Plan, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region's air
quality plans.
There are no roads or highways in the vicinity of the proposed project that have been
established by the Riverside County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) as arterial or
freeway monitoring locations. Furthermore, the proposed project would not add 50 or more
trips during the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours at CMP monitoring intersection, nor would it
add 150 or more tdps dudng the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours at CMP mainline freeway
monitoring locations. No impacts associated with implementation of the AQMP or CMP would
result, and no mitigation measures would be required.
3b.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin,
which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are
often exceeded in most parts of the Basin.
The proposed project would contribute to regional and local air emissions during construction
and operation. The SCAQMD has established screening thresholds which address pollution
sources associated with general construction activities, such as operation of on-site
equipment, fugitive dust from demolition, and travel by construction workers. Site grading and
construction activities would, produce equipment and fugitive dust emissions. As indicated in
Table C-1 included within Attachment C, a review of the proposed project emissions utilizing
the SCAQMD screening thresholds indicates that under worst-case assumptions, construction
activities would fall below SCAQMD's thresholds. Therefore, regional emissions associated
with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant (please refer to
Attachment C for air quality worksheets prepared by PCR Services Corporation, February
2002). In addition, all construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding
the control of fugitive dust and other specified dust control measures. Compliance with these
regulations would further ensure that the short-term air quality impacts of the proposed project
due to site preparation, grading, and construction activities would be less than significant.
The SCAQMD has also established screening thresholds to evaluate potential impacts
associated with operation of the proposed project. Project operations would increase vehicle
emissions generated by mobile sources as well as emissions generated by stationary sources
through the use of natural gas and electricity. The project site is designated as Business Park
(BP) in the City's General Plan Land Use Element and zoned Business Park (BP) and Light
Industrial (LI) in the City's Development Code. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, the
target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the BP Zone is 0.40 with a maximum FAR of 1.50. The
target FAR: for the LI Zone is also 0.40. The LI Zone has a maximum FAR of 1.0. Assuming a
27.8-acre project site and a target FAR of 0.40,.the site could ultimately be developed with
483,637 square feet of BP/LI uses. The proposed project's maximum potential buildout falls
within the target FAR: for the site as identified within the City's General Plan and evaluated in
the General Plan Ell=, Air Quality Analysis. Therefore, no impacts beyond those identified and
addressed within the General Plan EIR would occur. It should also be noted that with regard to
residential projects that were identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the
General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, evidence suggests that only one project
in recent years, a Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved
either close to or in excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this
assessment, City staff estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be
developed in the City have not, or will not, be constructed within the City of Temecula (refer to
City of Temecula Community Development Memorandum to City Councilmembers, dated
December 21, 2000). Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout
assumed within the General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations
made within the General Plan EIR continue to be valid. The General Plan EIR: air quality
analysis and mitigation measures are hereby incorporated by reference. These measures are
further discussed under Response No. 3.c below. With incorporation of the analysis and
mitigation measures identified in the City General Plan EIR, operational air quality impacts are
considered less than significant.
The proposed project's traffic analysis was reviewed to determine the potential for the
presence or the creation of carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots. Local area CO concentrations
were projected using the CALINE4 air quality model. Ambient CO concentrations were
combined with CO concentrations generated by vehicle traffic at individual intersections to
determine total intersection CO contributions from the proposed projectL The intersections
with the highest potential for CO hot spot formation were selected for analysis based on Level
of Service (LOS), high project-related traffic volumes, and the proximity of this traffic to
sensitive receptors. Intersections functioning above capacity, which are characterized by a
LOS of E or F, have the potential to yield a CO hot spot condition. Based on these criteria, the
intersections of Motor Car Parkway and Solana Way and Margarita Road and the apartment
driveway are the closest intersections to the project site with the potential for significant levels
of CO concentration, and therefore, were selected for analysis. The one-hour and eight-hour
local CO concentrations were found to be well below the State and federal air quality
standards. Please refer to Table C-2 of Attachment C, which presents the results of this
The analysis of CO impacts followed the methodology recommended by the California Department of Transportation and
published in the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California Davis, December 1997.
lO
analysis (detailed calculations are also included within Attachment C). Therefore, the
proposed project would not have a significant impact upon one-hour or eight-hour local CO
concentrations due to mobile source emissions.
.0.
Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for
ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10. As demonstrated above in Response No. 3.b., project
construction emissions are anticipated to fall below SCAQMD daily significance thresholds. As
previously stated, buildout of the project site would not result in new impacts above those
previously identified within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR identifies the
following mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project:
Implement transportation demand management techniques to reduce motor vehicle
trips, including walking, biking, ridesharing, local transit, staggered work schedules and
telecommunications.
2. Maintain an orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility through the use of transportation
systems management techniques.
3. Promote alternatives to motorized transportation by establishing a convenient and
efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian ways.
4. Promote the use of altemative work weeks and flextime among employers.
5. Encourage the formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMA) for large
companies and/or groups of companies. Provide potential TMA's with administrative
· guidelines and technical assistance, where feasible.
6. Attract and retain industry that complements Temecula's character and takes advantage
of Temecula's Iocational advantage for goods movement and corporate mobility.
Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service
and encourage transit ridership such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities,
efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, and incorporation of pedestrian
walkways tha{ pass.through subdivision boundary walls.
Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature trees,
and other significant vegetation on-site into the site and landscape design for proposed
projects.
9. Promote the use of altemative clean fueled vehicles for personal and business use.
11
The proposed project would assist in meeting the above-listed mitigation measures of the
General Plan EIR by implementing vadous design features and a Transportation Demand
Management Program as project design features. The project would provide ancillary uses to
existing and proposed Guidant business park and light industrial uses such as a day care
center, cafeteria, and fitness center for Guidant employees. These supporting uses would
assist in reducing trips that might otherwise need to be traveled by existing and future Guidant
employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway proposed to provide a
pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guidant development, also assists in
further reducing motor vehicle trips and promoting alternative modes for transportation. In
addition, existing employees currently utilize the crosswalk at Ynez Road to cross between the
existing Guidant facilities and the off-site parking lot. The bridge would allow for travel across
Ynez Road without requiring vehicles to stop for pedestrian traffic. Additionally, Guidant
currently maintains a Transportation Demand Management Program for the existing campus
that is monitored and certified annually by SCAQMD. The program includes Guidant-
implemented methods for reducing motor vehicle trips such as ride share/carpool incentives
including preferred parking and monthly cash drawings for carpoo[ers, opportunities to utilize
alternative methods for transportation, bus stops, bike room and bike racks, etc. The
Transportation Demand Management Program would be expanded to address increased
vehicle trips associated with the proposed project and ways to assist in the reduction of vehicle
trips. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
3.do
Less Than Significant Impact. The area surrounding the project site contains residential and
commercial uses. The closest residential uses are located approximately 100 feet east and
south of the project site across Margarita Road and Solana Way, respectively. The closest
school (Temecula Elementary School) is located at 41951 Moraga Road in Temecula,
approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the project site.
The proposed project does not contain any AQMD permitted stationary emissions sources. In
general, the primary pollutant of concern with regard to harmful pollutant concentrations
resulting from development projects is CO. As described in Response No. 3.b. above,
construction and operation of the proposed uses would not result in any substantial local or
regional air pollution impacts and, therefore, would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors
to severe air pollution conditions. Impacts. wouid be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
No impact. No construction activities, materials, or daily activities are proposed which would
create objectionable odors. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
(Source 1 )
12
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
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?
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?
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, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ,/
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
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?
Comments:
4a.d.
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In the winter of 2000 and the
spring of 2001, Dudek & Associates, Inc. conducted a biological resources survey of a 38-acre
site then owned entirely by Eli-Lilly. The unimproved 20 acres of the project site were part of
this SUrvey. During site visits, biologists characterized the site's habitat, mapped the
vegetative communities, and characterized the on-site habitat. The biologists evaluated the
potential for the Eli-Lilly site to support species considered sensitive by the City and State
and/or federal agencies. The results of the surveys are documented in the technical report
entitled Biological Resources Report for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek &
Associates, Inc. May 2001 (Biological Resources Report). Refer to that document for a
detailed discussion.
13
The Biological Resources Report did not address the remaining seven acres located in the
northwestern portion of the project site which was previously graded and developed.
According to a field survey conducted by PCR Services Corporation in January 2002,
biological resources in this area are limited to a few immature ornamental trees. No impacts
are anticipated to occur to the seven-acre developed portion of the site and no mitigation
measures are required.
No sensitive plant species were detected during focused surveys. In addition, the extensive
soil disturbance and grass density provides little potential habitat for sensitive plant species.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct ~emoval of many common
native and non-native plants. As these plant species are not sensitive species, their removal is
not'considered a significant impact and no mitigation measures are required.
One sensitive wildlife species was observed on the project site and a few others have the
potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity. While a total of three burrowing owls
(Athene cuniculada) were observed on and adjacent to the overall Site surveyed as part of the
Biological Resources Report, only one owl was observed on the southwest comer of the
project site. It has not been determined whether or not these individuals were winter visitors or
year-round residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in the
removal of burrowing owl habitat.
Two raptor nests (presumed red-tailed hawk and barn owl, both non-sensitive species) were
located within the stand of omamental trees along the eastern edge of the project site. As
there is the potential for nesting birds on the project site, the removal of existing vegetation has
the potential to result in a significant impact consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site,
was conditioned 'to address the potential disturbance of burrowing owls and associated habitat,
or other nesting birds prior to approval of grading permits. This project will be conditioned to
comply with Conditions of Approval regarding burrowing owls or other nesting birds for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed
below, potential impacts to burrowing owls or their habitat, or other nesting birds would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Sensitive species with moderate potential to occur on the project site and in the vicinity
include: western spadefoot toad (Scaphiiopus hammondO, San Diego ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus similes), California homed lark (Eremophila alpestds actia), loggerhead
shdke (Lanius ludovicianus). Sensitive species with high foraging potential but with no nesting
potential include: turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and white-
tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). These species are not State-listed or federally-listed as
threatened or endangered and it is anticipated that the loss of individuals, if any occur on the
project site, would not threaten their regional populations. In addition, habitat on the project
site would provide little or no value to sensitive species and therefore elimination or disruption
14
of habitat for these sensitive wildlife species on the project site and vicinity does not represent
a regionally significant effect on the populations of these species.
The project site is within the habitat area identified.for the Ouino Checkempot butterfly. A
focused survey conducted for the Quino Checkerspot butterfly was negative and habitat
assessments conducted for the California gnatcatcher also were negative.
Versatile fairy shdmp (Branchinecta lindahlO were not detected within the project site; however,
they were detected within several ponded areas in the detention basins located directly north
of the approximate seven-acre developed portion of the project site. This specie of fairy
shrimp is not State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. These man-made
basins where the shrimp were detected do not fit the classic definition of "vernal pools" which
is the preferred habitat type of fairy shrimp. However, the presence of fairy shrimp in the
ponded areas located off-site directly north of the project site indicates that there is some
potential for these areas to support the federally-endangered San Diego fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta sandiegoensis) and/or Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonO.
Tentative parcel Map No. 30107 was conditioned to address the potential presence of
federally-endangered fairy shrimp. The condition requires that grading of an area designated in
the Biological Resources Report as an interim grading exclusion area (i.e., a 100-foot wide
strip along the easterly side of the flood control channel on the Eli-Lilly property, which includes
the ponding areas containing fairy shrimp), must be delayed until an agreement has been
reached with US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the status of the Riverside fairy
shrimp in the detention basins. This may entail coordination with the USFWS and/or additional
focused surveys for the shrimp. Eli-Lilly is currently in COnsultation with USFWS and is in the
process of completing additional fairy shrimp surveys to address the potential presence of
federally-endangered fairy shrimp. Dependent 'upon the outcome of the surveys and Eli-Lilly
consultation with USFWS, the proposed project could, due to proximity, result in indirect
impacts to the fairy shrimp if their presence is established and if the off-site habitat is retained
adjacent to the site. To address this potential circumstance, implementation of the following
mitigation measure is proposed. This. measure ,would ensure.that impacts to potential fairy
shrimp are reduced to a less than significant level.
Miti.qation Measures:
MM2.
Prior to development or ground disturbance, the impacts to burrowing owls will be
mitigated by a combination of pre-construction surveying, passive owl relocation, and
burrow replacement. Two weeks before initiation of grading 'activities, a qualified
biologist must survey the entire project area for extant burrowing owls. The biologist
will look for burrowing owls whiie walking 20-meter transects. Every potential suitable
burrow will be examined for burrowing owl sign (e.g. feathers, pellets, whitewash,
bones, insect exoskeletons). All burrows found to house burrowing owls or sign will
be flagged and mapped for removal. When surveying for.burrowing owls, it should
be noted that they frequently fly to altemative burrow(s) when disturbed. All burrows
15
found to be inhabited by burrowing owls will be fitted with one-way doors for a pedod
of three days. After the third day, the one-way doors will be removed and the burrow
network excavated and closed so that re-occupation cannot occur. Before the one-
way doors are fitted to the burrows, replacement burrows must be installed in a
combination of the channel easement onsite and offsite location to be determined.
The offsite location must be considered suitable habitat and of sufficient size.
Burrows will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 for each burrow found occupied by
burrowing owls. A minimum of six burrows must be installed. Burrows should be
installed so that entrances randomly face the cardinal directions and that they are
randomly distributed throughout the open space area, however at least 20% should
be installed within the existing flood control channel. The design of the artificial
burrow should be consistent with the latest widely used design.
MM3.
General: In order to satisfy Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements,
vegetation removal should not occur between March and August. If vegetation
removal must occur between March and August, then a nesting bird survey must be
conducted by a qualified ornithologist. Trees and shrubs containing active nests may
not be removed until the nesters have finished. Finishing is defined as having
successfully raised a brood until they leave the nest or nest abandonment.
Renesting by birds requires the process to begin again. Raptors may nest during
most any time of the year.. Therefore, the barn owl nest and raptor nest must be
surveyed prior to removal regardless of time of year. Removal of the tree may occur
when it is determined that they are finished nesting or are not nesting.
MM4. In
the event federally endangered fairy shrimp are found off-site adjacent to the project
site, the Applicant shall consUlt with the USFWS prior to issuance of grading permits
or any actionsinvolving ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the identified off-
site habitat area so that to the extent feasible, project construction and/or operational
activities will not have an adverse effect on federally endangered fairy shrimp.
4b.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would not 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 (CDFG) or US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
was detected on the project site.
4C.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on 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, filing,
hydrological interruption, or other means. The 20-acre undeveloped portion of the project site,
as addressed in the Biological Resources Report, consists primarily of ruderal or weedy
vegetation, with patches of ornamental vegetation on the eastern portion of the project site,
and patches of tamarisk and mule fat scrub on the southeast corner of the project site.
16
According to the Biological Resources Report, although mulefat scrub is sometimes
considered a wetland community, conditions indicate that this vegetation would not be
regulated as wetlands by CDFG, or by the Corps. The mulefat scrub is not physically
connected to a stream channel and therefore, it would not be regulated by CDFG. The mulefat
scrub is isolated and does not have hydric soils or wetland hydrology and therefore, it would'
not be regulated by the Corps. In addition, according to the Biological Resources Report,
because the tamarisk scrub patches on site were not associated with a stream channel, nor
did they occur upon hydric soils or have wetland hydrology, they would not be regulated by the
Corps or CDFG. The project site does not contain any wetlands communities. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
4e.
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resoumes, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Locally
designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan area; however, they
are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since the project site is not located in Old Town
Temecula and there are no locally designated species on site, no impacts are anticipated.
4f.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A habitat assessment for the
federally-endangered Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) was conducted, and the survey results
indicate that no evidence of the species was found and that it is therefore, unlikely to occupy
the site. The project site is located within the fee area for the SKR Long-Term Habitat
Conservation Plan. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included all but seven developed
acres of the project site, was conditioned to comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the
Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. This
project will be conditioned to comply with the following mitigation regarding payment of Habitat
Conservation fees. As a result, the proposed project would be in compliance with local
regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements associated with
construction and operation of the project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation
measure listed below, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
MitiRation Measure:
MM5.
Prior to issuance of grading permits the applicant shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing .documented evidence that
the fees have already been paid.
(Sources 1, 3 and 4)
17
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
i ...... :"':! ': ": ..... :. .: ........ ,.._,.. ::,.:?..ii
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeologicel resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
5a.d. No ImpacL The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been previously
graded and developed. Results of record seamhes conducted by the University of Califomia,
Riverside Eastem Information Center, background review, and a field survey indicate that no
historic archaeological sites are known to exist within the project site. The seven-acre portion
of the project site has already been subject to disruption and any surficial amhaeological
resources which may have existed at one time have likely been removed or destroyed.
5b.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Results of record searches conducted
by the University of California, Riverside Eastern Information Center, background review, and
a field survey indicate that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are known to exist
within the project ·site. The seven-acre portion of the project site has already been subject to
disruption and any surficial archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have
likely been removed or destroyed. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which included the
remaining 20 acres of the project site, was conditioned to address 'CUltural resources prior to
grading the site to ensure that development would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of archaeological or paleontological resources. This project will be conditioned
to comply with the following mitigation to ensure that grading and development associated with
the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse effect to potential archaeological
or paleontological resources. ·
Miti.qation Measures:
MMg.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist
shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting
between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department -
Planning Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading
operations and the excavation shall be arranged. A qualified archaeologist and a
18
qualified paleontologist shall be present on-site during grading to monitor the site for
the presence of cultural or paleontological resources. A qualified
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources or
fossils. The developer shall submit to Planning Department staff a copy of a contract
between the developer and a qualified archeologist and a paleontologist for
monitoring services during grading of the site.
(Sources 1, 4 and 5)
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
,~ :.~.-;~!~, .? · , · .~. ~;.~=-~-~ ~,~ ~:~<.. ~,~ .; ... ~
, .......... . .,~,~u~ ~ ~,.,...~ .._,,:~,~. ,,~,,
a. ~ose ~ople or s~dums to ~tential subs~naal
adveme effe~, including ~e dsk of loss, inju~, or dea~
invol~ng:
i) Rup~re of a kno~ ea~hquake fault, as delineated on
· e most feint Nquist-Pdolo Ea~quake Fault Zoning
Map i~ued by the S~te G~l~ist for ~e area or based
on other substantial e~den~ of a kno~ faul~ (Refer to
Di~sion of Mines and Geol~y Spedal Public, on 42.)
ii)S~ng seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismi~mlated ground failure, including liquefa~ion?
~) ~ndslid~?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c. ~ lo.ted on a geol~ic unit or soil that is uns~ble, or
· at would be~me uns~ble as a result of the pmje~,
and ~entially r~ult in on- or off-sEe ~ndslide, lateral
spreading, subsiden~, liquefa~ion or ~llapse?
d. Be ~t~ on e~ansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of ~e UnEo~ Building ~e (1994), ~aang subs~ntial
~sks to lee or pmpe~
e. Have soil in~pable of adequately supposing ~e use of
septic ~nks or altema~ve wastewater disposal s~tems
where sewem am not available for the disposal of waste
wate~
Comments:
6.a.i.
No Impact. Althou.gh the project site is located in the seismically active region of southern
California, it is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor does it contain
any active faults. Therefore, no impacts associated with fault rupture are expected to occur
with implementation of the proposed project.
19
6.a.ii.
Less Than Significant ImpacL Faults within the region that are in proximity of the project site
include the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore Fault located approximately 0.12 miles to the
west; the Murdeta Fault located approximately 3.4 miles to the north; and the Wolf Valley Fault
located approximately 4.5 miles to the south. Dudng a seismic event, the project site is subject
to moderate to strong ground shaking typical of the general southem Califomia area. The
County of Riverside has established Groundshaking Zones, which indicate the level of risk
from groundshaking. The City is located in Groundshaking Zone I1, which is expected to vary
from moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. Development of the
proposed project could result in the potential exposure of people and structures to ground
shaking in the event of an earthquake. Any ground shaking that may occur would be similar
throughout the City and no unusual or unique dsk is posed by the proposed structures. With
adherence to seismic standards as identified in the Califomia Building Code as adopted in City
Municipal Code No. 15.04.010, potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be
less than significant.
6.a.iii.iv. and d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and vicinity are
predominately urbanized and consist of relatively fiat topography. As identified in the General
Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within a subsidence, liquefaction, expansive
soil, or landslide hazard area. The geotechnical investigation for the project site states that the
secondary effects of seismic activity, including landsliding, ground subsidence, ground
lurching, shallow-ground rupture, and liqUefaction, are considered unlikely at the site. Tentative
Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site, was
conditioned to address the potential dsk associated with seismic activity. This project will be
conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below,
no impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, expansive
soils, or landslides would occur.
Miti,qation Measures:
MM7.
Pdor to the issuance of grading and building permits, the recommendations
contained in soils report(s) shall be implemented.
6b.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. While the northwest portion of the
project site has been previously graded and developed with parking lots, access roadways,
and landscaped areas, the remainder of the site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The
proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils due to construction activities.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion of the project site,
was conditioned to address erosion of soils. This project will be conditioned to comply with
Conditions of Approval regarding geotechnical conditions for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107.
2O
With implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, impacts associated with potential
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Miti,qation Measures:
MM8.
Pdor to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the
Public Works Department an erosion control plan prepared in accordance with City
requirements.
MM9.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, landscape plans shall be prepared for all
slopes created by the grading and fill of these sites consistent with "Slope Planting
Guidelines" and the Development Code, and shall provide erosion control on
undeveloped portions of the site.
SC.
Less Than Significant Impac£ As the site is relatively fiat, implementation of the proposed
project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography on the project site.
According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, the entire site is underlain by
relatively horizontally bedded siltstone and sandstone of the Pauba Formation. Silty sands
predominate; however, beds of silt, well-graded, and poorly graded sands were also
encountered on the project site. Prior grading activities have resulted in desilting basins cut
into the existing bedrock and areas of undocumented artificial fill. In accordance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical investigation for the project site, all existing Iow-density
and potentially collapsible soil materials such as loose manmade fill, alluvium and highly
weathered bedrock, would be removed to underlying dense bedrock from each area to receive
compacted fill Mitigation Measure No. 6, provided above, would address the risk associated
with unstable soil conditions. With implementation of this mitigation, impacts related to
unstable soil conditions would be less than significant.
Se,
No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in which wastewater infrastructure
is currently in place. Therefore, the capacity of the soils to support septic tanks or alternative
waste water systems is not relevant to the proposed project. No impact would occur and no
mitigation measures ara required.
(Sources 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7)
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
· , ~. ... ~.:,
Potentially Mitig~on Less Than .
Significant Incorporated Significant No
Issues and Supporting Infomlaflofl Sources Impact ~, ImpaCt ~rnpaCt
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
21
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
b. Create a sign~nt h~ to the public or the,
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
a~dent ~nditions invoNing the release of ha~rdous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit ha~rdous emissions or handle ha~rdous or
a~tely ha~rdous materials, subs~n~s, or a~tely
h~rdous materials, substan~s, or waste ~thin on~
qua~er mile of an existing or proposed s~ool?
d. Be lo.ted on a site which is included on a list of
ha~ous materials sites ~mpiled pumuant to
Government ~de Se~on 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it ~ate a signifi~nt ha~ to the public or ~e
en~mnment?
e. For a proje~ lo.ted ~thin an ai~o~ land use plan or,
~em su~ a plan has not been adopted, ~thin ~o
miles or a public ai~od or public use ai~od, would ~e
pmje~ result in a safe~ h~rd for people residing or
wo~ing in the project ama?
f. For a pmje~ ~thin ~e vidni~ of a pdvate aim~p, would
· e proje~ result in a safe~ h~rd for people residing or
wo~ing in the proje~ ama?
g. Impair implemen~tion of or physi~lly inte~em ~ an
adopted emergen~ ms~nse plan or emergen~
eva~ation plan?
h. ~se ~ple or s~ums to a sign~nt dsk or loss,
~nju~ or death invol~ng ~ldland rims, including ~em
~ldlands am adja~nt to u~anized areas or ~em
msiden~ am inte~ixed ~th ~ldlands?
Comments:
7a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project would not use, store, transport,
generate, or dispose of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Construction activities
would involve the use of commonly used potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle
fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Operation of the proposed uses would involve the use and
storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of pharmaceutical or
medical device manufacturing materials, cleaning solvents and herbicides for landscaping.
Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan which is updated and submitted to
the County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division annually for operations
permit renewal. The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that all potentially hazardous materials
are contained, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with applicable standards and
regulations and that the appropriate personnel are contacted in the event of a hazardous
materials-related emergency. In the event pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing is
undertaken on the project site, Guidant would expand the Business Emergency Plan to
address the site and its related activities. All potentially hazardous materials would be
contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in
compliance with the Business Emergency Plan and other applicable standards and
regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
?C.
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest school to the project site is Temecula Elementary
· School located over one-half mile to the southeast. No new schools are proposed within one-
quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
7.do
No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site, which is included on a list of
h~Tardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e.f.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, nor is it located
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport or in the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip.
The closest airport to the project site is French Valley Airport located approximately 5 miles to
the northeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce people
into an area where there is a safety hazard as a result of an airport.
7.g.h.
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction. and operation of the proposed project would not
interl=ere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans on-site and in the local
area. The project site is within an urbanized area that is not considered to be a wildland fire
risk area. In addition, Guidant currently maintains a Business Emergency Plan, which is
updated and submitted to the .County of Riverside Hazardous Materials Management Division
annually for operations permit renewal. The Plan identifies an emergency response and
emergency evacuation plan for the existing Guidant facilities in the event of a hazardous
materials-related emergency. This plan would be updated to include the uses on the project
site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
(Sources 1 and 2)
23
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUTY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
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 net support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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?
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?
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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water qbality?
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?
h. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Comments:
8.a.f.
Less Than Significant Impact. Regulatory and permitting processes have been established
to control the water quality of runoff from urban construction sites. In 1987, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended to provide
that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from storm water is effectively
prohibited, unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments to the CWA added Section
402(p), which established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial and construction
stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. In Califomia, these permits are issued
through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the RWQCB,
San Diego Region 9. The SWRCB has adopted a statewide general construction permit that
applies to most construction projects. This permit allows storm water discharge under certain
conditions dudng the construction period but is intended to minimize the pollution of
downstream receiving waters from construction activities.
The conditions of approval for Tentative Pamel Map No. 30107 included requiring the
developer to submit to the Public Works department an erosion control plan prepared in
accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits. As a result, the proposed project would
be in compliance with state and local regulations governing water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore,
impacts related to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
would be less than significant.
Sob.
Less Than Significant Impact. The Rancho California Water District provides water and
reclaimed water services to the project area. Groundwater is located approximately 38 feet
below ground surface. The proposed project does not include the injection into or extraction
from groundwater and would not create substantial subsurface cuts, which might impede
groundwater movement. No water wells would be used on the project site, as the District
would provide domestic water supply. Implementation of the proposed project would not
deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.
8.c.d.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the alteration of existing
drainage pattems and the amount and quality of surface runoff due to grading, and
construction of business park structures and associated parking, resulting in the addition of
impervious surfaces and irrigation of landscaped areas within the 20-acre undeveloped portion
of the project site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff are expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable
ground. While absorption rates and surface' runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances, which are required for the project to
safely and adequately handle runoff that is created, are anticipated to ultimately drain into the
two existing storm drains located off of Motor Car Parkway. The proposed project will be
required to accommodate the drainage created as a result of proposed development, and not
impact surrounding properties. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
25
8.g.h.i.j.
No Impact. As identified in the General 'Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in
the 100 Year Flood Boundary or in any of the Dam Inundation Areas, nor is it near any large
bodies of water. Therefore, the proposed project would not place any structure within a 100-
year flood hazard area nor is the project site subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
(Sources 1 and 4)
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a Phys~lly d~v~de an es~bl shed ~mmum~
b. ~nfli~ ~ appli~ble land use plan, polio, or
~ulation of an agen~ with juHsdi~ion over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, spedfic
plan, I~1 ~astal p~mm, or zoning ordinan~)
adopted for ~e pu~ose of avoiding or mitigating an
envimnmen~l effe~?
c. ~nfli~ with any appli~ble habi~t ~nse~ation plan or
natural ~mmuni~ ~nse~afion plan?
Comments:
9.a. No Impact. The project site is surrounded by: undeveloped property and commercial
development to the north; ·single-family and multi-family residential development to the east
and northeast; multi-family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial
development to the west and southwest. Although there are residential neighborhoods to the
east and south of the project site, the single family neighborhoods are buffered by distance as
well as the multi-family units adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would be
compatible with the adjacent office park and commercial uses to the northwest and north,
respectively, of the project site. A Pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway
also is proposed as part of the project to provide a pedestrian linkage between the existing and
proposed development. This improvement would connect the proposed project to the non-
residential area located to the west and would not physically divide the established residential
communities located to the east and south of the proposed project. No impacts would occur
and no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. The City's General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as
Business Park (BP), and it is zoned BP on the approximately 20-acre portion of the site and
Light Industrial (LI) on the approximately seven-acre portion of the site. The General Plan BP
land use designation allows for the development of business and employment centers that
offer attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial
landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses may include: professional offices, research .and
development, laboratories, light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale
businesses. The intent of the LI District, as defined by the Development Code, is to promote
development of attractive comprehensively planned industrial uses that will help to provide the
City with a sound and diverse industrial base. The Development Agreement provides that the
development standards for the portion of the site zoned LI, shall.be the same as for the portion
of the site that is zoned BP. The BP and LI Zoning Districts as defined by the Development
Code allows for development consistent with the BP General Plan land use designation.
The proposed Development Agreement for the project site, will allow for the vested dght to
develop the site with up to 481,260 square feet of development in up to five buildings, plus two
parking structures. As identified within the Developmerff Agreement, the permitted uses could
include office, reseamh, medical device and/or pharmaceutical manufacturing, with employee
day care facility, employee commissary or cafeteria, educational/training facility, employee
gym, and other similar uses.
The proposed project would be consistent with the land uses permitted under the General Plan
BP land use designation and the BP/LI Zoning Districts, representing the logical extension of
the existing uses to the west of the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with
applicable land use plans and policies, including the City of Temecula General Plan and the
City's Development Code. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
(Sources 1 and 2)
9oCo
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is within the Fee Area of the Riverside
County Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) but is not within a
designated reserve area as defined by the Conservation Plan nor' is it within a proposed
reserve area for the County of Riverside Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project
site is located within the Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107. A Condition of Approval was
required for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which required that the applicant
comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing
documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. This condition has been placed
upon the proposed project as mitigation (refer to Response No. 4f.) As a result, the proposed
project would be in compliance with local regulations governing the Habitat Conservation Plan
requirements associated with construction and operation of the project. Therefore, no impacts
would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
(Sources 1 and 4)
27
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
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?
Comments:
10.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resoumes
or the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. Implementation of
the proposed project would not result in an impact related to mineral resources and no ·
mitigation measures are required.
(Source 1)
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
preiect area to excessive noise levels?
28
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis defines the existing noise environment
within the project area and evaluates the future estimated noise levels at noise-sensitive land
uses resulting from operation of the proposed project.
The noise environment in the project area is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways.
The heaviest traveled roadways in the vicinity of the project area include Margarita Road,
Solana Way, .and Ynez Road, which are located east, south, and west of the Project site,
respectively. Secondary noise results from nearby Interstate 15, commemial activities (e.g.,
delivery and garbage trucks), and residential noise sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, pets,
and landscape maintenance operations). Ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are typical
of noise levels experienced within urbanized areas throughout the City of Temecula.
Ambient noise measurements'were conducted with a Type I Sound Level Meter on February
26, 2002 to determine existing noise levels in the project vicinity. Four measurement sites
were located along the property.boundary approximately 10 feet from Margarita Road and
Solana Way and north and south of the project site along Margarita Road. Measurement data
is summarized in Table D-1 included as Attachment D to this report.
Noise-sensitive land uses (sensitive receptors) in the project vicinity include multi-family
residences east and south of the project site.
The City of Temecula has adopted local guidelines based on the community noise
compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in
assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These
guidelines are the basis for guidelines contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Noise
Element, which are expressed in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).2
CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories: (1) 'deafly
acceptable"; (2) "normally acceptable"; (3) 'normally unacceptable"; and (4) 'cleady
unacceptable." A CNEL value of 65 dBA is considered the dividing line between a 'normally
acceptable" and "normally unacceptable" noise environment for noise sensitive land uses,
including single-family and multi-family residences, parks, schools, and playgrounds. For less
sensitive office and industrial uses, the dividing line between "normally acceptable" and
'normally unacceptable"is set at 75 and 80 dBA, respectively. The CNEL guideline was used
to evaluate the impact of off-site vehicular noise associated with the proposed project.
Tire CNEL is the average of ali'~l-weighted dB levels for a 24-hour period, with a 5 dB upward adjustment added to those noise
levels occurring between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dB upward adjustment for noise levels occurring between 10:00 P.M.
and 7:00A.M.
29
Section 8.32.10 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code provides provisions related to noise
control. While the provisions of this Section do not provide a specific threshold, an increase in
the ambient noise level of 3 dB is generally considered to be noticeable and an increase in
noise level of 5 dB or more is considered cleady discemable.' Therefore, a project-related
operational noise level increase of 5 dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an
adjacent property would be considered a significant impact.
The noise levels associated with future operations subsequent to construction of the proposed
project have been analyzed and compared to the applicable significance threshold which limits
the equivalent sound level (Leq) for residential zones to a noise level increase of 5 dBA over
the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property.
The operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, fans, blowers, compressors,
and related equipment may generate audible noise levels. Mechanical equipment would be
located within buildings or shielded from nearby sensitive noise receptors to attenuate noise
and avoid conflicts with adjacent residential uses. Therefore, operation of mechanical
equipment within these areas would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels. No
significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
11.b.
The proposed project would increase the number of daily trips on the roadway system
surrounding the project site. The maximum increase in noise levels resulting from project
traffic would be 0.3 dBA along Solana Way and Margarita Road. The FHWA traffic noise
model (FHWA~RD-77-108) was used to model existing and all future traffic noise levels. Noise
calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. This methodology allows for evaluation of
the Average Daily Traffic Volumes provided in the Guidant Traffic Impact Analysis. These
noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3
dBA is generallY not discernible to most people and, therefore,, no impact would occur and no
mitigation measures would be required.
Less Than Significant Impact- Excessive noise and vibration are not present in the project
area. The primary source of noise and vibration in the area is associated with vehicular traffic
along the various local transportation corridors within the area. As described in Response
Nos. 1 la. and d., construction and operation of the project would not result in the generation of
excessive groundbome noise levels. Although vibration would occur as a result of construction
activities, excessive groundbome vibration activities such as pile driving would not be required
during construction and given the distance of the sensitive receptors from proposed activities,
vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than .significant. No significant
impacts associated with the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
· Bruel & Kjaer, ,4coustic Noise Measurements Handbook, 5tk Ed., Hassall, J.R. & Zaveri, K., June 1998, pages 34 and 62.
3O
11.c.
Less Than Significant ImpacL Noise associated with the change in traffic VOlumes resulting
from cumulative traffic was also evaluated and compared to guidelines set forth in the City of
Temecula's General Plan to evaluate the impact of vehicular noise. The maximum increase in
noise levels resulting from cumulative traffic would be 0.5 dBA along Solana Way and 0.4 dBA
along Margarita Road. Noise calculation worksheets are included in Attachment D. These
noise levels are well below the 5 dBA threshold of significance. An increase of less than 3
dBA is generally not discernible to most people and, therefore, no impacts associated with
cumulative traffic noise would occur and no mitigation measures would be required.
11.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise impacts from construction
'activities occurring within the project site would be a .function of noise generated by
construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing
and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction activities would include five
stages: (1) site preparation; (2) excavation/fill; (3) foundation construction; (4)building
construction; and (5) finishing and cleanup. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of
construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. Clearing and
excavation typically involve the use of earth moving equipment, such as heavy-duty trucks,
graders~ backhoes, and front-end loaders. Foundation construction typically involves the use
of concrete trucks, cranes and pneumatic tools. Building construction typically involves the
use of. hammers, generators, compressors, and light trucks, while noise sources associated
with finishing and site cleanup generally include trucks, landscape rollers, and compactors.
Section 8.32.020 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code prohibits construction activities within
one-quarter mile of a residential zone during the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday
through Friday, 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Saturday, and does not allow construction activities on
Sunday.
Table D-2 in Attachment D lists the highest noise levels associated with each stage of
construction. These estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the high
noise-producing pieces of equipment to be used and represent conservative worst-case
conditions in which the maximum amount of construction equipment would be operating during
a one-hour period. These estimated maximum noise levels would not be continuous nor would
they be typical of noise levels throughout the construction period. As indicated in Table C-2,
due to the type of construction equipment proposed, the highest level of construction noise
would be expected to occur during the grading, excavation, and finishing phases, with an
equivalent sound level (Leq) as high as 86 dBA at 50 feet from the center of construction
activity.
The estimated construction noise levels during the heaviest periods of activity at nearby
sensitive receptors are provided in Attachment D. Residences near the project site would be
approximately 400-500 feet from the center of the construction zone. To ascertain
construction noise impacts, the construction-activity noise level was calculated by making a
distance adjustment to the construction noise level at the receptor location based on a 6 dBA
31
for doubling of distance. Residences located to the east of the project site could occasionally
experience construction noise levels of 68 dBA (hourly Leq) and residences to the south of the
project site could occasionally experience 'construction noise levels of 66 dBA (houdy Leq)
during the heaviest pedods of construction. A construction noise level of 68 dBA would be
slightly above existing ambient noise levels. However, such noise levels would be
experienced intermittently as only portions of the project site would be under construction at
any one time. The majority of the time, construction noise levels at adjacent sensitive
locations would be much lower, due to reduced construction activity and the phasing .of
construction (i.e., construction noise levels at a given location would be reduced as
construction activities conclude or move to another more distant location of the site).
Nevertheless, it is possible that construction noise would pose a temporary and periodic
nuisance to adjacent residential uses. Therefore, construction noise is considered significant.
The mitigation measures provided below would address intermittently high construction noise
levels. With their implementation and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, noise
impacts associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Miti.qation Measures:
MM10. Construction shall be restricted to the hours of 6:30 A,M. to 6:30 P.M. Monday.through
Friday and 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Saturday.
MM11. The project contractor shall use construction equipment with noise shielding and
muffling devices.
MM12. Construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of
equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.
MM13.
The Applicant shall notify the communities in advance of construction activ'~ies. The
construction manger's (or representative's) telephone number shall also be provided
with notification so that community concerns can be expressed and addressed
whenever feasible. Forms of notification shall include one or more of the following:
signs posted on the site and/or distribution of leaflets to adjacent residents.
11.e.
No Impact. There are no public airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. As such, project
construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive
noise levels and no mitigation measures would be required.
11.f. No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the. vicinity of the project site. As such,
project construction or operation would not expose people residing or working in the area to
excessive noise levels and no mitigation measures would .be required:
(Sources I and 9)
32
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
· ' ""'
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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a.
No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area with existing infrastructure and
roadways. Development of the project site would not result in the extension of roads or major
infrastructure. While the proposed project may cause some people to relocate to; or within
Temecula to be closer to their place of employment, it would not induce growth beyond what is
projected in the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the proposed project is largely
intended to implement the City General Plan by attracting additional quality employment for
local residents and to the support the. existing Guidant Corporation Campus in that it provides
for an additional 481,260 square feet of allowable building space to include supporting office
space, a day care center, commissary, and ~ness center for Guidant employees.
12.b.c. No Impact. No residential properties currently exist on the project site and none would be
provided as part of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not
displace existing housing, nor would it displace numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur and no mitigation
measures are required.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal result in substantial adverse physical Impacts
associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signlficanti
environmental Impacts, In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the following public services:
· · Le~s Than
Significant With
Potentially M!flgatlon Less 'rhan
Significant Incorporated Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources . Impact Impact tml~ct.
a. Fire protection? ,/
b. Police protection?
c. Schools? ,/
33
e. Other public facilities?
Comments:
13.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Temecula contra cts with the County of Rivem ide
for enhanced frae protection services, as a result them am four Stations that provide frae
protection to the City. RCFD Station No. 73 would primarily serve the project site. RCFD
Station No. 73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle, is less than one mile from the project site.
.Typical emergency msponse time for the RCFD is 5 minutes or less on the avem ge. The
development of approximately 481,260 square feet of business park uses on the project site
would thereby increase the potential number of structure s and pemons who would need frae
protection and para medic services. The Genera I Plan EIR states that additional tim facilities
and personnel needs in the City of Temecula would be addressed during the contra ct r newal
pm cess between the City and the RCFD. Development within the City would be subject to Fire
Mitigation Fees established, by the RCFD. This fee covers the cost of building, staffing and
operating additional 'tim facilities. Although it is anticipated that the project site can be
adequately serviced by Station No. 73, any potential need for incmased personnel or
equipment would be adequately addmssed through the payment by the applicant of the Fire
Mitigation Fees which am included in the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the
Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measure s am require d.
13.b.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The City of Temecula contra cts with the County of Riverside
for enhanced police services, as a result, police protection for the 'project ama is based out of
the Southwest Justice Center located near the French Valley Airport. The City also has throe
store-front Sheriff's Department office locations: Town Center Store front at 27540 Ynez Road,
Old Town Store front at 28410 Old Town Front Stm et, and Promenade Mall Store front at
Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The Town Center Store front is located approximately 1.5
miles from the project site. The City has an established Level of Service Standard of one
officer per 1,000 m sidents. While the incmase in building space and the potential increase in
new residents would generate additional demands on police protection services, it is
anticipated that the Sheriff's Department can adequately service the project site. In.addition,
the Applicant would addm ss any potehtial need for incmased personnel or equipment thru ugh
the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development Impact Fees as provided in the
Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
measumsammquimd.
13.c.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project site is within the Temecula Valley Unified School
District. Them am no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. As them
am no msidential land uses provided with the pm posed project, school services would not be
directly impacted. However, the proposed project includes the expansion of existing business
park/light industrial facilities, and employment opportunities genera ted by the proposed project
could have the potential to generate a demand for housing, which could in turn affect the
existing schools in the area. Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) was signed into law on August 27, 1998.
Under SB 50, the state, except where hardship assistance is provided, will fund 50 percent of
the cost of future school facilities, assuming that local bonds will be approved, and that school
fees will provide the remaining 50 percent. SB 50 states that the maximum fee amounts
allowed by the bill are "deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation" for
purposes of CEQA. Pumuant to the bill, the initial, or "Level 1" fees that can currently be
charged by a school distdct are $2.05 per square foot for residential construction and $0.33
per square foot for commercial construction. Therefore, the school fees for the proposed
project would be a commercial/industrial fee of $0.33 per square foot of new construction. In
addition, the potential demand for housing and the associated increase for school services
would be within regional levels accounted for by the General Plan. Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
13.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The increase in employee population has the potential to
affect existing recreational facilities or increase the demand for adult recreation programs in
the City. The proposed project would provide a fitness center to be utilized by the project-
generated employees, as well as Guidant employees located at the existing facility. Although
it is anticipated that the proposed fitness center would adequately serve the Guidant
employees regarding recreation, the Applicant would address any potential need for increased
personnel or equipment through the payment by the Applicant of the City's Development
Impact Fees as provided in the Municipal Code Section 15.06.030. Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
13.e.
Less Than significant Impact. The project would have a less than significant impact upon,
or result in a need for new or altered public facilities. No significant impact would occur with
respect to public facilities and no mitigation measures would be required.
(Sources 1, 8 and 10)
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project in.ease the use of existing
neigh~rh~d and regional pa~s or other m~eational
fadlities such that substantial physi~l deterioration of the
facili~ would occur or be ac~lemted?
b. Does the project include m~eational facilities or require
the ~nstmction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adveme physi~l effect on the
environment?
35
Comments:
14.a.b.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The increase in the on-site population has the potential to
increase the demand for adult recreation programs in the City. The proposed project would
provide a fitness center, which would accommodate the new employees as well as existing
employees at the Guidant facilities. Therefore, impacts related to increased use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated would be less than significant.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
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
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g-, bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
15a.b. Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan has established
Level of Service (LOS) D as the lowest acceptable level of service for traffic circulation within
the City of Temecula. The applicant prepared a traffic study, entitled Guidant Corporation
Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 12, 2002 by Urban Crossroads.
The analysis reviewed the existing conditions, as well as the potential project impacts at the
following eight intersections adjacent to the project site:
36
· Ynez Road (NS) at Overland Ddve (EW)
· Ynez Road (NS) at Motor Car Parkway (EW)
· Ynez Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW)
· Promenade Way (NS) at Overland Ddve (EW)
· Motor Car Parkway (NS) at Solana Way (EW)
· Margarita Road (NS) at Ovedand Drive (EW)
· Margarita Road (NS) at the apartment driveway (EW)
· Margarita Road (NS) at Solana Way (EW)
All study area intersections currently operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the
exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway. The proposed project would generate
approximately 5,089 daily vehicle trips with 737 vehicles per hour during the A.M. peak hour
and 697 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour. With the addition of estimated proposed
project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent development, all study area intersections are
expected to operate at LOS D or better at peak hours with the- exception.of Margarita Road at
Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at Solana Way.
The following public improvements were required as conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel
Map No. 30107:
· Improve Solana Way (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of
half-width'street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage
facilities, signing and striping, raised landscaped median.
· Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include installation
of a deceleration lane to access the private Street "A". Said lane is to be 10 feet wide,
150 feet long, and is to include a transitional distance of 120 feet.
· Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
median/striping modifications, etc. to provide for a full turning movement driveway (i.e.,
left turn in from Margarita Road onto private Street "B".
In additiOn, the Development Agreement identifies public road improvements that will be
accomplished as part of the Owner Participation Agreement entered into by and between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and the applicant. These improvements
include the following and have been taken into consideration in the analysis of potential
significant impacts related to traffic/circulation:
· Improve Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway to include installation of a deceleration lane
to access Motor Car Parkway. Said lane is to be 10 feet wide, 150 feet long, and is to
include a transitional distance of 120 feet.
· Improve Motor Car Parkway to acceptable standards.
· Improve and signalize Margarita Road at Private Street "B".
37
I§.C
15.d
15.e.
15.f
15.g
Taking into consideration the improvements that would occur as conditions of approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107 and as part of the Owner Participation Agreement,
incorporation of the mitigation measures provided below would reduce these potentially
significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
Miti.qation Measures:
MM14. Mar.qadta Way/Apartment Driveway: The proposed access should be located directly
across from the existing Apartment Ddveway and form the fourth leg of this
intemection. A traffic signal should be constructed with development to allow this
access point full access along Margarita Road and additional median modifications
and re-striping will be accomplished to maintain LOS D for existing plus project
conditions.
MM15. Project Driveway/Solana Way: This access point should be restricted'to right-in/right-
out only. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend should be provided to control
vehicles exiting the site.
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not 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. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's
'flight overlay district and therefore the proposed project would not result in a change in air
traffic patterns.
No Impact. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design featuresl The project is
designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impac£ The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access
to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate
emergency access. The project does not interfere with access to nearby .uses~ No impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant ImpacL. The proposed development complies with the City's
Development Code parking requirements for business park/light industrial uses. The project
exceeds the City's parking standards, providing 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
development. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. To accommodate
employees, the applicant has provided motorcycle and bicycle parking, vanpool and carpool
spaces, all as preferential spaces at the main entry. As a consequence, the project supports
altemative transportation, and no impact is anticipated.
(Sources 1, 2 and 11)
38
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ,/
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a., b. and e.
16.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor
affect the capacity of treatment providers. The proposed project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).for the
City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not
significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the
project will be conditioned to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that
will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. Potential impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the parcel will
require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities onsite that will
39
COnnect to the existing system currently in place. The design of the e~(isting system that exists
offsite is expected to be sufficient to handle this project and will not require the expansion of
existing facilities. Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which includes the 20-acre vacant portion
of the project site, was conditioned to address storm drainage flows that would result from
proposed development. This project will be conditioned to comply with Conditions of Approval
· for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107, which required submittal of a drainage study'with the
initial grading plan check. With implementation of the mitigation measure listed below, impacts
associated with storm water drainage would be less than significant.
Miti.qation Measure:
MM16.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall
identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and
upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public
or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be
conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff w'~hout
damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis
verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities
necessary to COnvey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development
of the project site. The basis for analysis ands design shall be a storm with a
recurrence interval of one hundred years.
16.d. Less Than Significant Impac[ The proposed project will not significantly impact existing
water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements. While the proposed project will have
an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the City's General Plan states: "Both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply
as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services (p. 40)." 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 wilt not result in a need for new landfill capacity.
Any potential impacts from solid waste created by futUre development can be mitigated
through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by
the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
(Soumes 1,4, 10, 11, 12, 13)
4O
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. D~s ~e proje~ have the potential to degrade ~e quali~
of the environment, substantially r~u~ the habi~t of a
fish or ~ldlife species, ~use a fish or ~ldlife population
to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal communi~, r~u~ the numar of
mstH~ ~e range of a mm or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate impo~ant e~mples of the major ped~s of
CalEomia histo~ or pmhisto~
b. D~s ~e' pmje~ have impa~ ~at am indi~dually
limited, b~ cumula~vely ~nsidemble? ('Cumulatively
~nsidemble" means that ~e in~emen~l effe~s of a
pmje~ am ~nsidemble ~en ~ew~ in ~nne~ion ~
· e effe~ of past pmje~, ~e effe~ of o~er ~ffent
pmje~, and ~e effe~ of probable f~um pmje~?
c. Does ~ proje~ have en~mnmen~l effe~ ~i~ ~11
~use subs~nfial adveme effe~ on human beings,
either dimply or indim~
Comments:
17.a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within an
urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed. No riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community was detected on the project site. Implementation of the proposed
project would result in the removal of burrowing owl habitat and could indirectly impact the
man-made basins found to the north of the project site, which could provide habitat for fairy
shrimp. Implementation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial Study
would ensure that impacts to burrowing owls and potential fairy shrimp are reduced to a less
than significant level.
17.b.
As described previously, no prehistoric or histodc archaeological sites are known to exist within
the project site. In addition, mitigation would ensure that development would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of amhaeological or paleontological resources.
Development of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of 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 restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site would be developed
in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All
cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
41
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With
cumulative traffic (estimated proposed project traffic plus traffic from future adjacent
development) all study area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels at peak
hours with the exception of Margarita Road at Apartment Driveway and Motor Car Parkway at
Solana Way. Incorporation of mitigation measures as previously described within this Initial
Study would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Ail other
cumulative resource issues were found to be consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. It should also be noted that with regard to residential projects that were
identified as part of the City buildout projections assumed in the General Plan and analyzed in
the General 'Plan EIR, evidence suggests that only one project in recent years, a
Redevelopment Agency affordable housing project, has been approved either close to or in
excess of the applicable maximum density range. Based on this assessment, City staff
estimates that at least 3,667 residential units originally assumed to be developed in the City
have not, or will not,' be constructed within the City of Temecula (refer to City of Temecula
Community Development Memorandum to City Councilmembers, dated December 21, 2000).
Accordingly, actual development within the City is less than buildout assumed within the
General Plan EIR and therefore, the analysis, findings, and determinations made within the
General Plan EIR continue to be valid. Given the project's consistency with the General Plan
and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the proposed
project will not have a significant impact.
17.c. No ImpacL The proposed project will not have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The proposed project is
designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.'
Comments: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D), this Guidant Corporation
Campus Expansion Initial Study has referenced and incorporated information from the General Plan
EIR in analyzing the project's potential significant environmental effects as further described below:
42
According to Section 21083.3(b) of the Public Resources Code, 'If a development project is
consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified
with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development
project shall be limited to effects on the environment which ara peculiar to the parcel or to the project
and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which
substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental
impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in
the prior environmental impact report." Furthermore, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section
15183, CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established
by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not
require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are
project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Ultimate develoPment of
the project site has been addressed under the City of Temecula General Plan, adopted in 1993, and
analyzed within the 1993 certified General Plan EIR (copies of these documents are available for
review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department). The proposed project's
maximum potential buildout falls within the target FAR (0.40) for the site as identified within the City's
General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Initial Study summarizes the
findings of the General Plan EIR where appropriate and incorporates this docUment by reference. In
addition, potentially significant impacts "peculiar to the project" are identified in the Initial Study, and
mitigation measures are provided to reduce potential impacts to a lessthan significant level. ' ·
The Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Initial Study identifies significant environmental effects
related to air quality and traffic/circulation that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened despite the
project's incorporation of all feasible mitigationmeasures. These impacts associated with air quality
and cumulative traffic, are fully addressed in the City's General Plan EIR, and are not peculiar to the
project or its site. Furthermore, the project has provided mitigation measures that are feasible atthe
project-level and has also incorporated design features that contribute to implementation of the
program-level mitigation measures set forth in the City General Plan EIR (refer to Section 4.2 Air
Quality of the General Plan EIR). In accordance with Section 15152(f)(3)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines,
the only purpose of including analysis of such effects in another environmental impact report would
be to put the agency in a position to adopt a Statement of Dverfiding Considerations with respect to
the effects. The City previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, acknowledging
significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and traffic, and maximum buildout potential of the
project site had been addressed in the General Plan EIR; therefore, significant environmental effects
have been adequately addressed.
The following soumes as listed below were utilized in preparation of the Guidant Corporation Campus
Expansion Initial Study: ' ~
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan, November 1993.
City of Temecula Development Code, Title 17 Zoning.
Biological Resources Report for the Temecula Eli Lilly Project, prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc.
May 2001.
Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30107.
Histo#caYArcheological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, December 15, 2000.
California Department of Conservation, Seismic Hazards Evaluation & Zoning For California,
www. consrv.ca..qov/dmq/shezp, September 2001.
Geotechnical Investigation, 37-Acre Commercial Parcel, Located West of Margarita Road and South of
Overland Drive, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc.,
January 26, 2001.
City of Ternecula Official Intemet Site, www.ci.temecula.ca.us
Bruel & Kjaer, Acoustic Noise Measurement Handbook,--~ Ed., Hassal, J.R. & Zaveri, K., June 1998,
pages 34 and 62.
City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 1993.
Guidant Corporation Campus Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, February 12,
2002.
Eastem Municipal Water District, EMWD Insights - Temecula Valley, June 2001.
Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdiction Profile for City of Temecula, October 4, 2001,
www. ciwb.ca..qov/Profiles/Juris.
Memorandum to City Councilmembers, Subject: Information on Actual Development Project Intensities,
prepared by Community Development Department, December 21, 2000.
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. INTRODUCTION
The Project Applicant, the Guidant Corporation, is applying to the City of Temecula for a
Development Agreement, which would authorize the expansion of the existing Guidant
Corporation Campus on an approximate 27.8-acre site located directly across Ynez Road from
the existing Guidant Corporation facility in the City of Temeeula (City), Riverside County
(County). The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260
square feet of allowable building area to include supporting office space, a'day care facility,
commissary or cafeteria, an educational/training facility, and fitness center for Guidant
employees.
The project site is designated as Business Park (BP) in the City'S General Plan I.and Use
Element and.zoned BP and Light Industrial (LI) in the City's Development. Code. The grading
and development associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the provisions of
the City's Development Code.
B. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Tamecula, Riverside
County, as shown in Figure A-1 on page A-2. Access to the project site is provided via Ynez
Road end Motor Car Parkway to the west, Margarita Road to the east, and Solana Way to the
south as shown in Figure A-2 on page A-3.
The project site is surrounded by'. undeveloped properW and commercial development to
the north; multi- and single-family residential develOPment to the east and northeast; multi-
family residential development to the southeast and south; commercial development to the west
and southwest and the existing Guidant Corporation facility to thc west. Figure A-3 on page A-4
provides an am'iai view of the project site and adjacent vicinity.
C. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The approximately 27.8-acre project site is located directly across Ynez Road from the
existing Guidant Corporation Campus. The project site ranges in elevation from approximately
Guldant Corporation City of Temecula
PCR Services Corporation March 28, 2002
Page A-I
...
~ / / ~/ -~X~~ '~--- -~~OCOUN~
~ ~ ~. f ~ ~ N~,, oo7~0'o"~ -~ -, ~,~ ~ j
Is/and *~~Ie~Me~NDLETON
.~ ~ Figure A-1
G~d~t Co~orafion
~ ~ ~0 20' ~iles C~pus ~sion
~: ~CR s~, ~.~, ~ Region~ Map
Single-family
Residential
The Promenade
at Temecula
Commercial/
Office
Development
Overland Drive
Single-family
Residential
Commercial/
Office Development
PROJECT
SITE
Multi-family
Residential
Multi-family
Multi-familY Residential
Residential
Commercial/Office
Development
Commercial/
Office Development
~ Figure A-2
Guidant Corporation
No scale Cam. pus Expansion
so~,~: ~c. s~*. c~o,. 2004 Vicinity Map
No scale
Campus Expansion
Aerial Photograph
Attackment A: Project De$¢,ipiion
1,060 to 1,090 feet above mean sea level. Approximately seven acres of the project site located
at the northwest comer of the project site immediately east of Ynez Road, are currently
developed with parking lots, access roadways, and landscaped areas.
The remaining 20 acres consist of currently undeveloped land previously disturbed by
past land use activities including grading and agriculture. Ruderal and non-native grassland
occurs on this portion of the project site. In addition, several ornamental non-native trees are
found on the eastern edge of tho project site.
D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project would provide for the development of approximately 481,260
square feet of allowable building area to Include supporting office apace, a day care facility, a
commissary or cafeteria, an educationaFlraining facility, and fitness center for Guidant
employees. A pedestrian bridge over Ynez Road at Auto Mall Parkway is proposed to provide a
pedestrian linkage between the existing and proposed Guidant development. The proposed
project is anticipated to be constructed in phases with the ultimate timing of buildout to occur in
response to market demand for the products manufactured within by Guidant.
The proposed development concept includes the construction of up to five office
buildings at a maximtun of five stories. The maximum height of the buildings would be 80 feet
above the ground level, excluding mechanical equipment and associated enclosures. Appropriate
building setback~ and landscaping, would be utilized to address the proximity of the proposed
development to the adjacent land uses.
Primary access to the. proposed project would be provided via an entrance off of Ynez
Road at Motor Car Parkway, with secondary access provided via ena'ances off of Solana Way
and Margarita Road. Parking will be accommodated at a ratio of 5 spaces .per 1,000 square feet
of building area within surface parking areas and potentially two parking sa-ucturcs at buildout of
the proposed project.
Guldanl Corporation City of Temecula
PCR So'vices Corporation March 28, 2002
Page A-5
Atiachn~mt A: Project Des~iplion
E. DESCRIPTION OF DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Implementation of the proposed project would require the following approvals:
City of Temeeula
· Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
· DeVelopment Agreement
· Grading Permits
· Building Permits
Guldant Corporlltlon City of Temeeula
P(2R Services Ctmporation March 28, 2002
Page A-6
ATTACHMENT B: BUILDING SETBACK DIAGRAM
ATTACHMENT C: AIR QUALITY TABLES
Attacluueut C: Air Quality Tables
Table C-1
ESTIMATED WORST CASE PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUC'IION EMISSIONS'
CO ROC NOg SOx PM~ob
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)¢ 65 71 89 5 9
SCAQIVID Daily Threshold (lbs/day) 550 75 100 150 150
Lbs/Day Over (Under) (485) (4) (I 1) (145) (141)
Worst-case construction impacts are based upon the highest projected daily emissions occurring during the
site preparation and construction phases.
Fugitive dust emissions based on .4P-42 assumptions.
Daily estimate based on 22.5 working days per month.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2002. Construction emission calculation worksheets are included
in Appendix A.
Guldant Corporation City of Temecula
PCR S~'vices Co~oratlon March 28, 2002
Page C.-1
Attachment C: Air Quality Tables
Table C-2
ESTIMATED ~ MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS
(20OS)'
Averaging Future Without Future With Project Project
· Modeled Intersection Period Project (2005) b Project (2005)' Increment Impact
Motor Car Parkway and 1-hr. 9.3 9.5 0.2 No
Solana Way 8-hr. a 3.9 4.4 0.5 No
Margarita Road and 1-hr. 10.8 11.8 1.0 No
Apartment Driveway 8-hr. ~ 4.7 5.2 0.5 No
Note: The State I-hour average CO standard is 20 ppm; the state and federal 8-hour average CO standard is 9.0
ppm. No excecdances of applicable standards were estimated. These estimated concentrations are based
on the traffic impact analysis.
Modeled with the C,41.JNE4 dispersion model using EMF,4C7F composite emission factors and assuming
worst-case meteorological conditions. Concentrations correspond to a location ten feet from the edge of the
given intersection for l-hour concentrations and 23 feet from the edge of the given intersection for 8-hour
concentrations.
These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-case background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, I-hour average,
and 5.77 ppm, 8-hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends as
described in the 1997/IQMP, $C.4QMD. This scenario presents conditions resulting from cumulative projecis
without the proposed project
These estimates refer to 2005 and include worst-case background concentrations of 6.1 ppm, 1-hour average,
and 5.77 ppm, 8-hour average. These projected backgrounds were based on future CO emission trends as
described in the 1997 AQMP, $C.4QMD. This scenario presents condition~ resulting from cumulative
projects, including the proposed project.
The 8-hour average concentrations (calculated) are based on the local 1-hour average concentrations and a
O. 7persistence factor.
~ource: PCR Services Corporation, 2002.
Guldant Corporation City of Temecula
PCR Service~ Col~oration March 28, 2002
Page C-2
ATTACHMENT D: NOISE TABLES
Attachment D: Noise Tables
Table D-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
Receptor Location · Time Duration L~
Margarita Road north of 8:11 15-minute 70.2
Overland l~ive 10:53 68.7
Margarita Road south of 7:45 15-minute 70.8
Overland Drive 10:26 69.1
Margarita Road south of Solana 8:45 15-min~lte 72.1
Way 11:22 71.7
Solana Way west of Margarita 7:20 15-minute 67.7
Road 10:01 66.5
a Noise measurements were conducted 10 feet from the roadway segment along the project boundary.
Source: PCR Services Corporation, February 2002.
Guldant Corporation City of Temecula
PCR Services Coq~oration March 28, 2002
Page D-1
Altachment D: Noise Tables
Table D-2
ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUcflON
ACTIVITtES
(Highest Noise Levels During One-Hour Period)
Construction Stage Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet
Clearing (Site Preparation) 82
Grading 86
Excavation 86
Building Foundation 77
Building Construction 83
Finishing 86
Source: EPA, Noise from construction Equipment and Operations,
BuiMing Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971.
Guldant Corporation City of Temecula
PCR Sm'vices Corporation March 28, 2002
Page D-2