HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-003 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 02-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SP-4 AND
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 LOCATED EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF BU'I-rERFIELD STAGE ROAD,
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND SOUTH OF PAUBA
ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-019)
WHEREAS, Newland Communities filed Planning Application No. PA01-0109 (the
"Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development
Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on November 7, 2001
at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested
persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on January 8, 2002 at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons
had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified Addendum No. 4 to the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, and made all required
findings and determinations relative thereto after finding that the project proposed in the
Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby certifies Addendum No. 4 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Paloma Del
Sol Specific Plan, as contained in Exhibit A, and makes all required findings and determinations
relative thereto and finds that the Addendum was prepared consistent with the applicable CEQA
provisions and that the Addendum was considered in association with the approval of the
Specific Plan Amendment.
Section 3. General Plan Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-03 1
approves the Application changing the General Plan Land Use Designations on property located
east of Margarita Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Highway 79 South and south of
Pauba Road as contained in Exhibit B to this Resolution.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 8th day of January, 2002. ~(~
Ron Roberts, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 02-03 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of January, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES: 4
COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-03 2
EXHIBIT A
ADDENDUM NO 4 TO THE FINAL EIR
FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-4)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-03 3
PALOMA DEL SOL
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Prepared:
October 24, 2001
PALOMA DEL SOL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.
B.
C.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 2
PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 7
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 9
A. SEISMIC SAFETY ................................................................................................................. 9
B. SLOPES AND EROSION ...................................................................................................... 10
C. W.IND EROSION AND BLOWSAND ..................................................................................... 10
D. FLOODING ......................................................................................................................... 11
E. NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 11
F. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................ 1 1
G. WATER AND SEWER....~ .................................................................................................... 1 1
H. Toxic SUBSTANCES .......................................................................................................... 13
I, AGRICULTURE .................................................................................................................. 13
J. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ................................................................................... 14
K. WILDLIFEJ~EGETATION .................................................................................................. 14
L. MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 17
M. ENERaV RESOVRCES ........................................................................................................ 17
N. SCENIC H1GHWAYS ........................................................................................................... 18
O. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ........................................................................ 19
P. CIRCULATION A~D TRAW~C ............................................................................................ 19
P. WATER AND SEWER ......................................................................................................... 23
R. Fi~ SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 25
S. SHERIFF SERVICES ....................................... : ................................................................... 26
T. SCBOOLS ........................................................................................................................... 27
U. PARKS AND RECREATION ................................................................................................. 28
V.' U?ILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 30
W. SOLID WASTE ................................................................................................................... 34
X. LIS~aES ......................................................................................................................... 34
Y. ' HEALTH SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 35
Z. AIRPORTS ......................................................................... : ................................................ 36
AA. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................ 36
IlL CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 36
ADDENDUM N0.4 TO EIR 235
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (E1R No. 235) was approved and
certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Addendum No. I was prepared in
conjunction with Amendment No. 4 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 and was certified
by the Temecula City Council in 1992. Addendum No. 1 added a Development Agreement which
did not change the physicai impacts identified in the EIR since it only dealt with collection of fees,
improvements to parks and dedication of parks to the City for maintenance. When Amendments No.
5 and 6 were approved in January of 1997 and January of 1998 respectively, the City Council
determined that the project was consistent with a project for Which an EIR had already been
prepared. Therefore, the Council concluded that no further environmental analysis was required for
these amendments. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on March 17, 1999 by the City of Temecula.
Addendum No. 2 evaluated institutions such as facilities for the aged, congregate care residential
facilities, information center and nursery schools and found that no additional environmental impact
evaluation would be required. Addendum No. 3 evaluated the potential impacts resulting from
Specific Plan Amendment No. 7, which is referred to herein as the "Approved Project.". This
Addendum (Addendum No. 4) evaluates the current project, which is discussed .in full in Specific
Plan Amendment No. 219 and is referred to herein as the "Proposed Project." The original Paloma
del Sol EIR No. 235 and Addendum Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are hereby incorporated by reference into
this document. Copies of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and subsequent Amendments, as
well as the original Paloma del Sol Ell>, No. 235 and all four addendums (i.e., Addendums Nos. 1,2,
3 and 4), are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California 92590.
According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or
supplement environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the
following events occur: (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major
revisions of the EIR; (2) substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken that require major revisions in the EIR; or (3) new information which
was not known at the time that the EIR was certified and completed becomes available. None of the
situations have occurred as a result of Amendment No. 8.
By statute, the environmental analysis need not examine those significant effects of the subsequent
projects that: (1) have already have been mitigated or avoided as part of the prior project approval,
as evidenced in the findings adopted for the prior project, or (2) that were "examined at a sufficient
level of detail" in the prior EIR that they can "be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the
impositions of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the latter project."
(Public Resources Code {}21094, subd. (a).) Thus, this Addendum ~Addendum No. 4) only addresses
those project-related effects that have changed since the original EIR and subsequent Addendums
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 2 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
(Addendum No. 3 in particular) were certified and which might' feasibly result in potentially
significant impacts.
When the current project (Amendment No. 8 to Paloma del Sol Specific Plan 219) is compared to the
original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 project, there is a decrease of 474 dwelling units and
8.5 acres of commercial uses.
This document constitutes Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report 0EIR) No. 235, which
was certified on September 6, 1988 (SCH#8707003). EIR No. 235 analyzed the potential
environmental impacts associated with implementation of the approved Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to an existing
EIR is appropriate where, in order to comply with CEQA, the EIR requires only "minor technical
changes or additions" that do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the
environment" (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). A variety of land use changes were incorporated into
Amendments No. 4 through No. 7 of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219. For the
purposes of this Addendum a comparison will be made between the original approved Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan and the proposed land use changes for Paloma del Sol Amendment No. 8.
Approved land uses changes for Amendments No. 4 through No. 7 and the proposed land use
changes for Amendment No. 8 are described below:
Amendments 1,2, and 3 were prepared under County jurisdiction and there are no records to
be referenced for them.
The following Amendments were prepared under City of Temecula jurisdiction and are described
below:
Amendment No. 4 added 6.5 acres of Very High density residential to Planning Area 6. It
also added 1.5 acres of park to Planning Area 37; reduced community/neighborhood
commercial area in Planning Area 1 by 4.9 acres, and reduced major roads by 3.1 acres.
Amendment No. 5 resulted in several Land Use Plan modifications, including:
An increase in the number of Medium density dwelling units from 2,338 to 2,487;
A reduction in the number of Medium-High density dwelling units from 2,356 to
2,251;
A reduction in the number of multi-family dwelling units from 910 to 590;
A 4.0-acre park/recreation area site;
An increase in the community/neighborhood commercial acreage from 31.5 acres to
32.3 acres; and
A reduction in the roadway landscape requirements adjacent to commercial uses.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 3 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDt NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Amendment No. 6 encompassed several minor changes to the Specific Plan, including plan
revisions in Planning Areas 2, 28 and 29A. The park in Planning Area 29A was increased
from 4.0 acres to 5.0 acres. Planning Area 28 was reduced in size by one acre, resulting in a
reduction of dwelling units from 117 to 113. The dwelling units were transferred to Planning
Area 2, bringing the total number of units in Planning Area 2 up to 120. Roadway cross-
sections and standards were updated to conform to the City's General Plan. Access points
and neighborhood entries on certain planning areas were relocated to conform to the
approved Tentative Tract Maps. Streets "G" and "IT' were renamed as Campanula Way.
The phasing plan was revised to reflect current expectations. Overall, Specific Plan
Amendment No. 6 did not result in any total acreage or dwelling unit changes.
Amendment No. 7 involved land use changes in Planning Areas 1,6, and 8 and the alteration
of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. Planning Area 8,
designated in Amendment No. 6 as Medium Density Residential, was revised to allow a
Medium Density Senior Community. The size and number of dwelling units remained the
$~JTle.
Planning Area 6, already designated as Very High density residential, was reconfigured to
include both High and Very High density residential and reduced in size to accommodate the
expansion of Planning Area 1. Due to this density division and size reduction, Planning Area
6 was divided into Planning Area 6A (High Residential) and Planning Area 6B (Very I-Iigh
Residential). Combined, Planning Areas 6A and 6B were proposed to contain 508 dwelling
units; which was a reduction of 82 dwelling units from the approved number of dwelling
units (590 dwelling units).
Planning Area 1 was increased in' size from 32.3 to 35.0 acres. As part of the proposed
changes to Planning Area 1 an application was submitted to the City of Temecula to process
Amendment No. 7 to the Specific Plan in conjunction with a Development Plan and a
Development Agreement, both pertaining only to a portion of Planning Area 1. The
Development Plan permits the construction of a 276,243 square foot community commercial
center of focused retail villages on 24 acres. In addition, Campanula Way was realigned and
reconfigured between De Ponola Road and Meadows Parkway from a 100-foot right-of-way
to a 78-foot right-of-way with "rounded out" traffic circles and a four-way stop or signalized
intersection.
The proposed Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan involves a reduction of
the total number of residential dwelling units within the overall Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
from the currently entitled 5,246 dwelling units to no more than 5,137 units and as few as
5,072 units. This represents a reduction of residential dwelling units between 2.1% and
3.3%. The High and Very High Residential categories remain unchanged. The decrease in
overall net residential density from 5.1 du/ac to 4.9 du/ac results in the allocation of more
land to each single-family detached residential unit. Similarly, the gross project density has
decreased from 3.8 du/ac to 3.6 du/ac. When compared to the 5,604 dwelling units adopted
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 4 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDt NO. 4 TO EIR 235
in the original Specific Plan, the total decrease in residential units lies between 8.3% (at
5,137 du) and 9.5% (at 5,072 du).
The commemial uses planned for Planning Area 27 at the comer of Pauba and Butteffield
Stage Roads have been relocated to Planning Area 38, adjacent to the south side of De
Portola Road. The deletion of the commercial center in Planning Area 27 resulted in land
use changes for Planning Areas 24, 28, and 29 as well. Planning Area 27 in Amendment No.
8 has been designated as a 9.0-acre natural open space area designed to preserve some
existing on-site wetland vegetation. Planning Area 28 has expanded from 25.0 acres of
Medium density residential uses in Amendment No. 7 to 49.4 acres of Medium density
residential uses in Amendment No. 8. The number of dwellings proposed in Planning 28
increased from 113 to 190 units as a result of removal of the commercial development.
However, there was a corresponding decrease in the amount of residential development as a
result of P.A. 38 converting from Medium-High Residential to Commemial.
Planning Area 29 remains as a Park/Recreation Area, but the location and configuration of
the parcel are somewhat altered. However, the acreage of this Park/Recreation Area remains
unchanged at 5.0 acres. In addition, the elementary school proposed for Planning Area 29B
in previous Amendments has been deleted since the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVUSD) has indicated that the site is no longer needed. Another change involves the
creation of a new Park/Recreation Area in Planning Area 24, which is located adjacent to the
Planning Area 27 Open Space. The former Planning Area 24 (formerly designated in
Amendment No. 7 as a Park/Recreation Area situated between Planning Areas 13 and 23)
has been merged into the greenbelt system and is no longer identified as a Park/Recreation
Area or a separate planning area.
Due to remaining high demand for commercial uses in the village center area near the
supermarket and the Home Depot, Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 proposes
that the residential uses allocated for Planning Area 38 be converted to
Community/Neighborhood Commercial. Planning Area 38 will incorporate the same
develop-ment standards that now apply to Planning Area 1.
Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 also proposes several minor residential dwelling unit
adjustments to reflect the approved and constructed implementing tracts.
Acreage and dwelling unit comparisons between the original Specific Plan for Paloma del
Sol and Amendment No. 8 are illustrated below in Table 1, Summary of Lancl Use Changes:
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 5 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDm NO. 4 TO EIR 235
SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219
(original)
Land Use Acres D.Us
536.0 2,366
Medium
Medium High 437.5 2,406
Table 1
Summary of Land Use Changes
SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219
Amendment No. 7
Land Use Acres
Medium 491.0
Medium (Senior) 89.0
Medium High 416.5
High 22.3
Very High 56 840 Very High 12.0
Community/ 39.0 ~ Community/ 35.0
Neighborhood Neighborhood
Commercial Commercial
Neighborhood 15.0 Neighborhood 17.5
Commercial Commercial
Day Care 2.0 Day Care 2.0
Junior High 20.0 Junior High 20.0
School School
Elementary 41.0 Elementary 41.0
School School
Parks or 15.4 Parks or 32.5
Recreation Recreation Areas
Arees
Greenbelt 28.0 Greenbelt Pasoos 28.0
Pasoos
Roadway 87.6 Roadway Paseos 82.0
Paseos
D.Us
2,083.
400
2,255
268
240
Major Stxeets 114.0 Major S~'eets 103.4
Paol~2'r 1,391.5 5,611 P~OmCT TO?AL 1,391.5 5,246
TOT,~
SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219
Amendment No. 8
Land Use Acres
Medium 610.7
Medium (Senior) 89.0
Medium High 303.8
High 22.3
Very High 12.0
Community/ 43.0
Neighborhood
Comrn~rciM
Neighborhood 2.5
Commercial
Day Care 2.0
Junior High 20.0
School
Elementary 31.0
School
Parks or 30.6
Recreation Areas
Greenbelt Pa.se. os 31.9
Roadway Pasoos 81.5
Open Space 9.0
Major S~xeets 102.2
P~OmCT TOTAL 1,391.5
D.Us
2,551
335 (400)*
1,678
268
240
5,072
(5,137)*
Implementation of the adult retirement option for Planning Area 8 increases the total dwelling unit allocation for Planning
Area 8 to 400 alu, raises the total medium density dwelling unit allocation to 2,951 du, and would raise the total dwelling
units allowed in the Specific Plan to 5,137.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 6 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Section ri contains a brief summary of the environmental impacts resulting from the approved
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 as analyzed in EIR No. 235. After each summary is a brief
statement describing the changes in project impacts that are anticipated to result with implementation
of Amendment No. 8. As shown on Table 2, Comparative Analysis oflmpacts and Mitigation
Measures, the impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 are substantially the same or less than the
impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.
Table 2
Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Issue
Seismic Safety
Slopes and Erosion
Wind Erosion & Blowsand
Flooding
Noise
Climate and Air Quality
Water Quality
Toxic Substances
Agriculture
Open Space and Conservation
Wildlife/Vegetation
Energy Resources
Scenic Highways
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Circulation and Traffic
Public Facilities and Services
Light and Glare
Disaster Preparedness
Additional
Changes in Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Decreased No
Decreased No
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Decreased No
Decreased No
Electricity - Unchanged No
Natural Gas - Decreased
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
Approximately Unchanged No
(Somewhat Decreased)
Decreased No
Unchanged No
Unchanged No
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 7 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Table 3, below, provides an overview off ali public utilities and serves and compares the Approved
Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7) with the Proposed Project (i.e.,
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8):
Table 3
Public Utilities and Services Comparison
Public
Utilities and
Service Estimated Usage/ Impact after
Service Level Mitigation
Water~ 4,026,400 gallons Insignificant
Sewer2 1,845,300 gallons Insignificant
Fire 15,879 residents Significant
Approved Project I Proposed Project
(Amendment No. 7) I (Amendment No. 8)
Estimated Usage/
Service Level
3,765,000 gallons
1,453,771 gallons
Decrease of 1,342
residents
Impact after
Mitigation
Insignificant
Insignificant
Significant
8.4 deputies (original SP) Significant
Sheriff3 10.6 deputies (adjusted)
Schools4 4,264 students Significant
Parks/Recreation 131.0 acres Insignificant
39,133,910 cubic
feeffmonth (35,574,829 Insignificant
Natural Gas5 based on new usage
rates)
9.7 deputies
3,855 students
144.0 acres
35,749,212 cubic
feetJmonth
Significant
Significant
Insignificant
Insignificant
42,030,975 kWh per year
Electricity6 (63,388,761 based on Insignificant
new usage rates)
Solid Waste7 57 tons per day Insignificant
Health Services8 15,879 residents Insignificant
37,958,936 kWh per
year
57.4 tons per day
Decrease of 1,342
residents
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial, 3,800 gallons/acre/day for parks
300 gallons per day per residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial
I deputy/I,500 people
.55 K-8 students per du, and .21 high school students per du
80 kcf/du/yr for single family residential, 0.0348 kcf/sf/yr for retail commercial
5,621 kWIVdu/yr for residential, and 13.54 kWhJsf/yr for commercial
7.9 pounds per person per day
Demands for health services are based on population, but are not quantified in this EIR.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 8 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADnEr Dt NO. 4 TO EIR 235
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
For the purposes of this environmental analysis, the existing or "baseline" condition is assumed to be
the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219.
A. SE1SMIC SAFETY
Previously Identified ImPacts
Several geotechnical investigations! were conducted on the project site, which concluded that
the site does not have any active faults within its boundaries. The site is expected to
experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The
dominant seismic feature in the project vicinity is the northwest striking Elsinore Fault Zone.
The site is subject to liquefaction in the southwestern portion of the site where the fiat
alluviated flood plain of Temecula Creek is located. When mitigation measures are
implemented, the impacts regarding seismic hazards are considered non-significant.
Mitigation measures contained in the EIR include: (1) Conformance with the latest Uniform
Building Code and City Ordinances can be expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effect of
seismic groundshaking; (2) Mitigation of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project development, which will lower artificially
high ground water levels by removal of recharge ponds, as well as increased overburden as a
result of site grading; (3) During site development, additional geological evaluation should
be continued in order to verify the extent and relative age of fault activity, according to
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
Analysis of Changed Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes 5,072 dwelling units without
a senior community option and 5,137 units if the senior community option and the dwelling
unit option for the proposed office designation are implemented. For the purposes of this
Addendum, the EIR has assumed a worst case scenario and evaluated the impacts associated
with a 5,137 unit project. As such, the current project proposes 474 units fewer than
proposed in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, which proposed 5,611 units. The 474
dwelling unit reduction would result in 1,342 fewer project residents (based upon City of
Temecula General Plan's generation factor of 2.83 persons per dwelling uni0. Consequently,
fewer residents will be exposed to seismic safety hazards, including ground shaking. The
extent of project impacts upon existing seismic conditions will be the same since no increase
l Oeorechnical Report for En,oironmemal Impact Purpose~, Bmteq%/d Hills, Rancho Callfomia, Count~ of
Riverside, CA. (May 1987), Fault Study, 1400.acre The Meadows at Rancho California Project, Rancho California
(August 1987), and Evaluation of Liquefac£ion Potent/al, Port/on o/Vail Meaz/ows (September 1987).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 9 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Be
in the overall developable area is proposed. No additional or revised mitigation measures are
proposed.
SLOPES AND EROSION
Previously Identified Impacts
According to the original Geotechnical Report2, there are no severely limiting or unamenable
geotechnical constraints associated with the project. However, some of the existing
landforms will be altered by grading, moderate to severe erosion may exist if graded slopes
are unprotected, and three potential landslide areas may be present on-site.
Mitigation measures required to alleviate impacts from the Paloma del Sol project are as ·
follows: 1) alluvial and colluvial soils removal should be developed during Tentative Map
studies and be incorporated into grading; 2) temporary ground cover will be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase; 3) grading shall be done in stages to lessen
erosion; and 4) final Slopes will be contour-graded and will blend with existing natural
contours.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan will require the same physical
alteration of the property resulting in similar impacts to slopes and erosion. Amendment No.
8 maintains the same amount of area being disrupted by grading. The proposed grading plan
identifies approximately the same quantities of earthwork. Impacts to slopes on~site will be
similar and the potential for erosion will remain high. These impacts, however, can be
reduced to an insignificant level through implementation of the mitigation measures
contained in EIR No. 235. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed.
WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND
Previously Identified Impacts:
The project is not located within the wind/erosion or blowsand area designated within the
City of Temecula's General Plan and is not considered an area of concern. This issue was not
addressed in the adopted EIR.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
This issue was not addressed in the adopted EIR, and does not need to be discussed in this
addendum (i.e., Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8).
l Georechnical Report for Environrremal Impact Purposes, Bur~erfield Hills, Rancho California, Count~ of
Riverside, CA. (May 1987), Fauk $~ud~, 1400.acre The Meadows at Rancho Califorraa Project, Rancho California
(August 1987), and Evaluation of Liquefaction Poteraial, pomon of Vail Meadows (September 1987).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 10 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENnUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
D. FLOODING
Previously Identified Impacts
The hydrology report prepared for the project concluded that implementation of the Paloma
del Sol Land Use Plan would result in the alteration of existing on-site drainage patterns.
The project would result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site resulting in an
increase to the existing 100-year storm runoff. The project site also lies within the Dam
Inundation Area for a 100-year event for Vail Lake dam. The Assessment District 159 has
been created to mitigate potential flooding impacts to Temecula Creek. All standards of the
Riverside County Flood Control District will be met, and erosion control devices will be
installed in development areas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, which reconfigures land uses and
roadways described in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, would not effect existing or
proposed flooding conditions any differently than previously approved Specific Plan
Amendments. Also, the proposed project would not significantly increase or reduce the
amount of land to be graded in excess of the grading already approved by the City. The
amended land use plan would still result in short term downstream impacts related to erosion
and sedimentation during grading and the creation of impermeable surfaces. Since the
proposed prgject would not result in any new flood-related impacts that have not already
been evaluated and approved for previous Specific Plan Amendments, then no new
mitigation measures would be required. The mitigation measures identified in EIR No, 235
and previous Addenda will adequately ensure that the degree of existing mitigation measures
is sufficient and that no additional mitigation measures will be required.
E. NOISE
Previously Identified Impacts
In the adopted EIR No. 235, noise-related impacts would be generated from both short-term
and long-term sources. The short-term sources are construction-related activities at the time
of project implementation; the long-term sources are vehicular traffic produced by the
project. There is minor existing noise associated with traffic on Highway 79 South, which is
mitigated by expanded setbacks that reduce traffic noise levels to below a level of
significance. This amendment does not change the situation in any way, so new mitigation
measures are not required.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan results in approximately the same
amount of grading as previously identified, therefore, short-term noise impacts related to
grading activities are expected to remain unchanged. The reduction of 474 residences from
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 11 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM N0. 4 TO EIR 235
the residential component of the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan will also shorten the
duration of short-term noise impacts associated with home building activities.
Amendment No. 8 proposes fewer dwelling units and fewer acres of commercial
development than the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; therefore, no additional or
revised mitigation measures are necessary.
F. CL~V~A~ AN~ AIR QUALITY
Previously Identified Impacts
Air quality impacts associated with Paloma del Sol include both short-term and long-term
impacts. Short-term impacts (at the time of the original EIR) result from project grading and
long-term impacts are associated with project build out. Short-term air quality impacts will
result from pollutant emissions from construction equipment and the dust generated during
grading and site preparation. Short-term impacts resulting from construction activities are
considered insignificant because they do not reach significant impact thresholds established
by Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction-related
significance thresholds, according to SCAQMD, are. based on exceeding any of the
following: 550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide, 75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic
.Gases, 100 pounds per day of Oxides of Nitrogen, 150 pounds per day of Oxides of Sulphur,
or 150 pounds per day of Particulate Matter. The primary soume of long-term impacts to air
quality is automobile emissions. Other emissions will be generated from residential and
commercial natural gas and electricity consumption. Long-term air quality impacts are
considered significant with respect to carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, and
reactive organic gas emissions. Mitigation at the grading and construction phase of the
project included watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover to reduce short-term
impacts to a level of insignificance. The project will integrate design elements such as transit
facilities, energy efficient buildings, and solar access orientation of structures to reduce long-
term impacts. Despite these measures, long-term impacts to air quality represent a
significant adverse impact which required a statement of overriding considerations.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any additional
grading of the property outside of the area, which was previously evaluated in EIR No. 235.
The proposed land use plan decreases dwelling unit density on-site and does not increase the
overall amount of developable area. Additionally, Paloma del Sol currently will not exceed
SCAQIvlD significant impact thresholds because the site only requires minimal grading since
mass grading has already occurred in conjunction with adjacent residential and commercial
projects. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed in conjunction with
Amendment No. 8. EIR No. 235 concluded that air quality impacts would remain a
significant adverse impact, which required, a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Amendment No. 8 will not substantially change the conclusions reached previously.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 12 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
O
WATER QUALITY
Previously Identified Impacts
Construction of the Paloma del Sol project will alter the composition of surface runoff.
Build out of Paloma del Sol will result in impervious surfaces and irrigated landscaped areas.
Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain urban pollutants such as pesticides,
fertilizers, and automobile related residues which will contribute to the incremental
degradation of water downstream in Temecula and Murrieta creeks. Erosion control
techniques will be implemented to reduce the amounts of sedimentation entering both
Creeks. Additionally, the project will comply with requirements of the California State
Water Quality Control Board with respect to urban runoff control. By implementing the
following mitigation measures, the level of impacts related to water quality are not
considered significant.
In order to mitigate for water quality impacts, the project will comply with the Riverside
County Flood Control District requirements regarding erosion control devices during grading
(e.g., berms, culverts, sand-bagging and desilting basins), and the employment of the "Water
Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contarn/nants" program published by the U.S..
Environmental Protection Agency.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any development
outside of the area that was previously evaluated in EIR No. 235. The proposed land use
plan reduces the number of dwelling units and slightly increases acreage of commercial land
use; however, it does not increase the overall developable area. Mitigation measures
contained in EIR No. 235 would be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts remain
at a level of insignificance. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed.
Toxic SUBSTANCES
Previously Identified Impacts/Mitigation
The project is not anticipated to produce toxic substances. This issue was not addressed in
the adopted EIR; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
This issue was not addressed in the adopted EIR, and does not need to be discussed in this
addendum (i.e., Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 8).
AGRICULTURE
Previously Identified Impacts
The Paloma del Sol project site was used for dryland farming and grazing by sheep and
cattle, however, it was not designated as prime, statewide important, unique or locally
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 13 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
important farmland within the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the
Comprehensive General Plan (Riverside County). In addition, the site has minor Class I and
Class II agricultural soils. Due to these two factors, the discontinuation of farming on this
site is not considered significant and, therefore, does not require mitigation. A portion of the
site has already been mass graded as well.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Although Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan reconfigums land uses and
slightly alters roadways, it does not substantially increase/reduce the amount of land being
graded, The same amount of impacts to agriculture will occur with the proposed changes in
Amendment No. 8 as with the adopted Specific Plan No. 219 and EIR No. 235. As such, no
mitigation is required.
J. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
Previously Identified Impacts
Amendment No. 7 includes 32.5 acres of parks/recreation areas, 28.0 acres of greenbelts, and
82.0 acres of roadway paseos for a park and recreation total acreage of combined 142.5
acres.. The approved Development Agreement allows for parks, gmenbelts, and roadway
paseos to count toward park and recreation credit. The land use changes included in the
adopted Paloma del Sol Specific Plan (i.e., Amendment No. 7) did not involve any increase
in project open space and conservation impacts; therefore, no additional or revised mitigation
was required.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to Specific Plan No. 219 includes land use changes that include the new
provision of 9.0 acres of Open Space (i.e., Planning Area 27) for drainage and wetland
vegetation preservation purposes. This Open Space category did not exist in the original
Specific Plan No. 219 or in the adopted Specific Plan No. 219 (i.e., Amendment No. 7). The
land use changes associated with the Proposed Project (i.e., Amendment No. 8) would not
involve any increase in project Open Space and Conservation impacts. Therefore, no
additional or revised mitigation are warranted.
K. WILDLIFE/VEGETATION
Previously Identified Impacts
A Biological Assessment3 for Paloma del Sol was prepared in 1987 to determine project
impacts to existing biological resources on-site, and the following represent the findings at
that time. When this assessment was completed, introduced grassland covered the majority
of the site, which was due, at least partly, to past agricultural and grazing practices on the
3 Biological Assessment for Vail Meadows (May 1987)
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 14 of 36 October 26, 2001
No. 4 TO EIR 235
site. In the extreme southern, western, central, and eastern portions of the site, coastal sage
scrub was found. The site potentially provided habitat for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat and
several "Blue-line" avian species and was considered an important raptor wintering area.
At that time, direct impacts would have resulted from construction-related activities
including cut, fill and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities,
fuel modification and flood control. There may be some indirect impacts such as noise, light
and glare and the introduction of domesticated animals (dogs and cats).
Three updates to the original biological assessment have been prepared as follows: A Quino
Checkerspot butterfly (QCB) Survey4 completed in 1999, a Final Paloma del Sol Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat Update Survey on May 30, 1996 (done by Biodiversity Associates), and a
Focused Survey for California gnatcatcher completed on December 28, 1995 (done by
Pacific Southwest Biological Services). These studies found that virtually no native
vegetation now exists on the site as a result of:
· Diking associated with past dry farming, weed abatement and cattle grazing;
Grading associated with construction of the roadways (De Portola ,Road, Meadows
Parkway, Margarita Road, Pio Pico Road, Montelegro Way, and Leena Way), and a haul
road used to transport din used for construction of the supermarket/shopping center and
sports park northeast of. the intersection of State Highway 79 South and Margarita Road;
and
· Grading for construction of the future extension of Meadows Parkway along the eastern
tract boundazy between Leena Way and De Portola Road.
No Quino Checkerspot butterfly adults were observed during any flight surveys and no
potentially suitable habitat components occur within the site. Although two small areas of
dwarf plantain (the primary host plant) were encountered, they represent too small of an area
to provide an adequate amount of host plant or nectary plants to support QCB. Also, there
were no observations made of California gnatcatchers on the site. Because there are no
existing sensitive species on site, there will be no impacts by construction.
Although the site is located within a potential habitat area for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, it is
also within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. The Paloma del Sol
project has complied with all applicable requirement of this program. Therefore, no further
mitigation is required.
4 Resu~ of,adult O. uino Checkerspot Bmrerfly Flight Season Surveys (1999)
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 15 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
At the time of the original analysis, the site contained four blueline streams as depicted on
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The jurisdictional boundaries for these
streams were mapped in December 1995 and January 1996 by Glenn Lukos Associates, a
biological resoumes firm, using the most up-to-date regulations and written policies in
conjunction with guidance from the regulatory agencies.
Three of the four jurisdictional areas were graded and removed in conformance with permits
issued by the ACOE.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would result in approximately the same amount of
area disrupted by grading activity as the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan and the
Adopted Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7). It should be noted that mass grading on the site
has already occurred. Three of the four jurisdictional areas on-site would be permanently
impacted by the proposed project, except for the jurisdictional area and wetland that would
be preserved within permanent natural open space in Planning Area 27.
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) has jurisdiction over approximately 7.13 acres of the
project site, of which 1.32 acres consists of jurisdictional wetlands. 'The proposed Specific
Plan Amendment No. 8 project would avoid impacts to an existing drainage area (2.18 acres
that is under the ACOE jurisdiction, including 0.84-acre, which has been identified as an
ACOE jurisdictional wetland) by preserving the area within a TI-acre natural open space
area (Planning Area 27).
As mentioned above, the ACOE, in addition to the CDFG, also has jurisdiction over this
same area. With incorporation of the open space feature (Planning Area 27), any potential
impacts to this jurisdictional wetlands would be mitigated to below a level of significance. It
should be noted, that the portions of the project have already been constructed or are in the
process of being constructed. Mitigation of the impacts associated with on-site biological
resources has already been approved by the City and is currently underway. Preservation of
Planning Area 27 for drainage corridor purposes, responds to previous mitigation measures.
All other mitigation for the other jurisdictional areas on-site will remain the same as that
identified in the original Ell*, and previous Addendums.
In summary, the direct impacts associated with Arfiendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would
be similar to or less than the impacts associated with the original Specific Plan. Because a
significant loss of native plants is not expected, and sensitive wildlife species are not
expected to be significantly impacted, no additional mitigation is required by Amendment
No. 8 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 16 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENntOA NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Le
MINERAL RESOURCES
Previously Identified Impacts/Mitigation
The State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared mineral resoume reports designating
mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance. The State Geologist has classified
areas into Mineral ResoUrCes Zones ('MRZ) and Scientific Resource Zones (SZ). The zones
identify the statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic
value of the deposits and accessibility. As discussed in the Open Space/Conservation
Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, the zoning classification of lVlRZ-3a has been
applied to the City and its Sphere of Influence by the State. "The MRZ-3 areas contain
sedimentary deposits which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and
crashed stone for aggregate, however, these areas are determined as not containing deposits
of significance economic value based on the available data? Therefore, potential impacts to
mineral resources resulting from implementation of the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan, Amendment No. 7) would be below a level of significance, and as such, no
mitigation is required.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The area and extent of impact for the Proposed Project (£ e., Amendment No. 8) would be the
same as the area and extent of impact for the Approved Project (£e., Amendment No. 7).
Therefore, there would be no change in the level of anticipated impacts to mineral resources,
and no mitigation measUres would be required:
ENERGY RESOURCES
Previously Identified Impacts
Development within Paloma del Sol will increase energy consumption for motor vehicle
movement, space and water heating, lighting, home appliance use, and construction
equipment manufacturing and operation. Natural gas demand for the approved Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan was calculated at 39,133,910 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity
demand was estimated to be 42,030,975 kilowatts per year.
In order to reduce impacts to a level below significance, the following measures shall be
employed: (1) Passive solar heating techniques such as double-pane windows, adequate roof
overhangs and proper building insulation; (2) Space and water heating should be provided
via gas instead of electricity; and (3) compliance with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code.
5 City of Temecula General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element, page 5-20.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 17 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units and 54 acres of
commercial land uses. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a
maximum of 5,137 dwelling units (assumes senior housing option) and 45.5 acres of
commercial land uses, resulting in a reduction of 474 dwelling units and a decrease of 8.5
acres of commercial uses. Project impacts to energy resources will therefore decrease energy
consumption by 2,882,394 kwh/unit/year for residential dwellings and by 1,189,645 kwh per
square foot per year for commercial uses (assumes an average floor area ratio of 0.21 for
commercial uses). The net result is a decrease in electricity demand of approximately
4,072,039 kwh/unit/year (a 9.7% overall reduction in energy usage) when compared with the
estimated electricity demand in the original Paloma del Sol Ell*,. Therefore, potential impacts
to electricity would decrease slightly.
In comparison to the project impacts for the original Specific Plan, Amendment No 8 impacts
to natural gas conserves would result in a decrease in natural consumption by 3,159,210
kwh/unit/year for residential dwellings and by 225,488 kwh per square foot per year for
commemial uses (assumes an average floor area ratio of 0.21). This would result in an
overall net decrease in natural gas demand of approximately 8.6% when compared with the
estimated natural gas consumption for the original Specific Plan as assessed in the original
Paloma del Sol EIR.
N. SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Previously Identified Impacts
The project site is directly bordered by a designated scenic highway (Highway 79 South).
Mitigation measures to protect this area along the project frontage will include special
setback and landscaping concepts to buffer the site from traffic and enhance the project's
visual image for drivers and persons viewing the site from ~idjoining properties.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan does not propose any significant
changes to the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to the County-
designated eligible scenic highway (Highway 79 South) will continue to be mitigated to
below a level of significance. No additional or revised mitigation measures are proposed.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 1.8 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
O. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Previously Identified Impacts
The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was surveyed for cultural resources in 1979 and was
incorporated into a report~. Cultural resources are classified as both archaeological and
paleontological resources. One prehistoric and one historic resource were identified on-site.
The historic site no longer exists on-site. The prehistoric site consisted of two unifacial
manos and a 40m X 20m area of sporadic occupation.
In order to mitigate this prehistoric site, it is recommended that the ground cover be reduced
by removal of vegetation and trash to provide better surface visibility and all artifacts and
features mapped and collected. Subsurface testing shall be conducted consisting rrfinimally
of two lm x lm excavation units.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
A report, Cultural Resource Management Investigations of the Paloma del Sol Development
Temecula, California, was completed September 24, 1996 by Chris E. Drover, Ph.D. The
report indicated that none of the cultural resource sites to be impacted are likely to yield any
fuFther significant information and that grading could proceed, but should be monitored in
the vicinity of the cultural deposits. Since preparation of that report, mass grading of the
project site has occurred. Native American representatives from the Pechanga Band of the
Luisefio tribe were present during all test excavations, and a qualified monitor has been
present during project grading operations for archaeological monitoring purposes. No
additional mitigation measures will be needed,
P. CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC
Previously Identified Impacts
The Riverside County Master Plan of Highways was used in preparing the original EIR. The
Paloma del Sol project site has since been incorporated as a part of the City of Temecula and
is subject to the criteria and standards set forth in the City's Circulation Element. The Vail
Meadows Development, Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates for
the Vail Meadows project (now the "Paloma del Sol" project) in November 1987. In
September 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates prepared an update to the traffic report entitled,
Traffic Impact Study for Plaza Del Sol Commercial Center (now called the "Villages at
Paseo Del Sol"). This update related specifically to Planning Areas l(a) and l(b), which
border the north side of Highway 79 South. Wilbur Smith Associates prepared a partial
traffic update in February 2001, which evaluated the traffic generation impacts associated
6Culmral Resource Invemor2 and Impact Assessmera for the KACOR/Rancho California Property (July 30 and
August 10, 1979).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 19 of 36 October 26, 2001
No. 4 TO EIR 235
with the land use changes proposed in Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan.
A multi-step methodology was used to estimate the projected traffic forecasts in these
studies. The first step was to determine project trip generation, which estimates the total
arriving and departing traffic at the project site on a peak hour and dally basis. The second
step of the forecasting process was project traffic distribution, which involves the
development of a geographic trip distribution pattern that identifies the origins/destinations
of project traffic. The third step was project traffic assignment, by which project-generated
trips are allocated to the street system.
Project generated traffic was calculated at approximately 42,055 vehicle trips per day based
on the land use mix proposed in the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. 219 as
analyzed in the certified EIR No. 235. Based upon project generated traffic and associated
impacts to roadway segment and intersections within the project vicinity, mitigation
measures were identified consisting of roadway and intersection improvements.
Recommended long range roadway improvement needs in the project vicinity (which
resulted from the specific plan build-out and cumulative area development traffic impact
analysis) were identified as follows: (1) extension of Meadows Parkway from De Portola
Road, south to State Route 79, (2) signalization at State Route 79 and Margarita Road
· Intersection, State Route 79 and Meadows Parkway Intersection, and at Margarita Road and
designated "gateway" street (south of Pauba Road), (3) provision of 4-lanes on: Meadows
Parkway between State Route 79 and De Portola Road, designated secondary road
connecting Meadows Parkway to De Ponola Road, which provides access to the proposed
community shopping center; and, designated "gateway" streets, (4) inclusion of separate left
and right turn lanes at certain intersections, and (5) the widening and signalization of various
off-site .roads and intersections.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The following conclusions are based on the findings of the original 1987 WilburSmihh
Associates CC/SA) traffic impact study, the subsequent Traffic Impact Study for Plaza Del
Sol Commercial Center (now referred to as the "Villages at Paseo Del Sol") update, and the
most recent traffic update letter, which was prepared in February 2001 for Specific Plan
Amendment No. 8:
Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 would result in a combined net reduction in residential
units, commercial acreage, and school acreage. Residential units would be reduced by
either 109 (Adult Retirement Option) or 174 dwellings (Proposed Land Use Plan),
depending on the development option implemented for Planning Area 8. Within the
community and neighborhood commercial land use categories, the proposed changes
would result in an overall net reduction of seven (7) commercial acres. In addition, the
proposed land use plan changes would result in the elimination often (I0) acres from
the elementary school category. For the purposes of Wilbur Smith's latest traffic
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 20 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
analysis, one elementary school has been eliminated from the land use plan. A typical
attendance of 700 students per school was used for the remaining elementary schools.
Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 also proposes minor changes in greenbelt paseos,
roadway paseos and major streets. However, these changes would not result in
significant differences in the vehicle trip generation for the Specific Plan.
Traffic signals have been installed at the Margarita Road/De Portola Road, Highway 79
South/Meadows Parkway, and Highway 79/Butteffield Stage Road intersections and on
Campanula Way at the rear of the Home Depot to ensure that the intersections operate
at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS D or better). Installation of these four traffic
signals has rrdtigated the potential traffic impacts at these intersections to below a level
of significance.
In summary, the proposed changes in Specific Plan Amendment No. 8 will result in a
total reduction of 7,963 daily vehicle trips from the number of daily vehicle lrips
associated with Amendment No. 7 (see Table 4, Land Use and Trip Generation
Comparison, for detail). This reduction is deten-ained as follows:
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 2t of 36 October 26, 2001
.=.
.<
0
ADDENDt V NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Qe
The trip reduction (as shown in Table 4, Land Use and Trip Generation Comparison)
is determined as follows:
Amendment No. 8 results in a decrease of 174 medium density residential
dwelling units from the number of units proposed in Amendment No.7. This
change results in a reduction of 1,163 daily vehicle trips.
Amendment No. 8 also proposes changes to commercial property densities.
Community commercial uses will be increased by eight acres, resulting in an
addition of 4,400 daily trips. However, neighborhood commercial uses will be
reduced by 15 acres, resulting in a net reduction of 10,500 daily trips. Taken
together, trips associated with all types of commercial uses will be reduced by
6,100.
Daily trips associated with the elementary schools will be reduced by 700, and
changes to greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos and major streets were found to be
negligible.
The proposed land use changes (from Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 7 to
Amendment No. 8) would result in an overall reduction traffic impacts associated with the
Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7). While substantial, this reduction would not be
great enough to eliminate the need for the traffic improvements identified elsewhere in this
section. The developer will continue to be responsible for payment of development impact
fees in accordance with the fee schedule established by the City. However, with the
reduction in traffic volumes associated with Amendment No. 8, the developer's fair share
contribution of development impact fees shall be concomitantly reduced.
WATER AND SEV~ER
Previously Identified Impacts
A preliminary water and sewer report6 was prepared for the Paloma del Sol project in 1987.
The site lies within the Rancho Villages Assessment District (providing for major
infrastructure improvements), Rancho California Water District (water service), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (sewer services). The site lies within the 1305, 1380, and 1485
pressure zone systems, with the majority of the site lying within 1380 pressure zone system.
Sewage from Paloma del Sol would be treated at the EMWD's Rancho California Regional
Water Reclamation Facility. The EMWD site is (was) proposed to expand its capacity in
time to adequately serve the needs of Paloma del Sol residents.
6preliminary Investigation on Water and Sewer Service for Vail Meadows (August 1987)
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 23 of 36 October 26, 2001
No. 4 TO EIR 235
Approximately four million gallons of water reservoir storage would be required for the
previously approved Paloma del Sol project. This storage would be provided by existing
reservoirs in the local area. It is unknown whether additional reservoir storage would be
constructed for future use.
In addition, approximately 100 gallons of sewage per person per day (the Eastern Municipal
Waste District's sewage generation factor) would be generated by the project, which is
approximately 1,453,771 million gallons per day for the Paloma del Sol project. The
proposed infrastructure wastewater collection facilities to ultimately serve the project was
based on EMWD's overall system master planning for the Rancho Villages Assessment
District. See V.D.2 for further discussion and exhibits.
In order to mitigate for potential impacts associated with the original Paloma del Sol Specific
plan, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) Health and Safety Code
Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in all buildings; 2) Title 20, California
Administrative Code Section 1606 Co) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximurn
flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, etc.; 3) Title 20 of the CAD Sections
prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations; 4) Title 24 CAD 2-5307 (b)
prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC
compliance with flow rate standards; 5) Title 24 CAD Sections 2-5352 (i) and (j) address
pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches
equipment or fixtures; 6) Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibifs installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied;
7) Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped
with self-closing faucets that limit the flow of hot water.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposed 5,611 dwellihg units and 54 acres of
commercial development. In December 1995, the Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) adopted an Urban Water Management Plan using Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
Amendment No. 1 as the basis for the project. The Urban Water Management Plan assumes
a total of 5,604 dwelling units in Paloma del Sol at project build out, in addition to 51 acres
of commemial uses, 63 acres of public uses, and 129 acres of park. These uses were factored
into the long term non-potable water needs of the EMWD. The current proposal
(Amendment No. 8) would provide a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units, 45.5 acres of
commemial development, 53 acres of public uses (including the schools and the day care
center), and 145.9 acres of park/recreation areas, greenbelt paseos and roadway paseos.
Although demand for non-potable water for use in the park/recreation areas, greenbelt paseos
and roadway paseos within the proposed project would increase somewhat from that
anticipated in the Urban Water Management Plan. Non-potable water usage for all of the
other uses would incrementally decrease when compared with the assumptions made in the
original Paloma del Sol Ell>, and EMWD's adopted Urban Water Management Plan.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 24 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Therefore, the net change in non-potable water usage would be insignificant.
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137
dwelling units and 45.5 acres of commercial land uses, a reduction of 474 dwelling units and
a decrease of 8.5 acres of commercial uses from the original Specific Plan. Consequently,
the decrease in residential development would result in a reduction in water usage of
approximately 284,400 gallons per day for residential uses (assumes 600 gpd/du) and a
reduction of 17,000 gpd for the 8.5 acres of commercial uses. The addition of the 20.0-acre
junior high school (not included in the original Specific Plan) would increase water usage by
another 40,000 gallons per day (assumes 2,000 gpd/ac). Furthermore, if it is assumed that
the water requirements for the elementary schools and the open space and park/recreation
areas remain essentially unchanged, then the new project would result in a reduction in water
demand of 261,400 gallons per day when compared with the original Specific Plan.
Table 5, below, identifies the estimated usage and impacts after mitigation for both the
Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7) and the Proposed Project (i.e., Amendment No.
8).
Public
Utilities and
Service
Table 5
Public Utilities and Services Comparison
Sewers
Approved Project
(Amendment No. 7)
Estimated Usage
4,026,400 gallons
1,845,300 gallons
Proposed Project
(Amendment No. 8)
Impact after Est~nated Usage Impact after
Mitigation Mitigation
Insignificant 3,765,000 gallons Insignificant
Insignificant 1,453.771 gallons Insignificant
7600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial, 3,800 gallons/acre/day for parks
s 300 gallons per day per residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial
The Proposed ~'oje~t wc~uld-~sult in reduced impacts to water and sewer when compared to
the Approved Project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures specified
in Section V.D of the certified EIR for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, potentially
significant impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
R. FIRE SERVICES
Previously Identified Impacts
The project site is presently provided with fire protection services by the Riverside County
Fire Department in cooperation under contract with the City of Temecula. The Panba Fire
Station on Pauba Road services the site.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 25 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. ~ TO EIR 235
The original EIR found that the existing fire station, which is located within three miles of
the project site, would only provide Category RI level of protection. However, that station
was determined not to be adequate to serve the project site. Consequently, the original
Paloma del Sol Specific plan would be subject to Development Impact Fees to offset the cost
of providing a new fire station within a five-minute response time to the project site. This
would mitigate the project's impacts to tire-related services to a level below significance.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units and 54 acres of
commercial land uses. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposes a
maximum of 5,137 dwelling units and 45.5 acres of commercial land uses, a reduction of 474
dwelling units and a decrease of 8.5 acres of commercial uses. The change in land uses
between Amendments No. 7 and 8 is even smaller: When compared to Amendment No. 7,
the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would decreased by 174 dwelling units
(Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would
result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented.
The acreage of proposed commercial development in Amendment No. 8 remains the same as
the commercial acreage associated with Amendment No. 7. The net effect of these land use
changes would not significantly change the response times from the existing fire station to
the project site. Accordingly, the significant impacts associated with the previous assessment
for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, would require similar mitigation to reduce the
impacts to a level below significant.
S. SttERIFF SERVICES
Previously Identified Impacts
Police services are provided to the site by Riverside County Sheriff's Deparm~ent, which
operates from the Lake Elsinore Sheriff's Station. The County and City recognize the need
for additional sheriff services with the increase in population. The EIR states that the - -
Sheriff's department attempts to maintain a ratio of one deputy for every 4,000 persons,
while a letter from the Sheriff's Department reflects the need for one deputy per 1,500
people. According to the City of Temecula's General Plan, one deputy per 1,000 people is
the desired ratio.
In order to rrfitigate the project's impacts associated with police services, the applicant of the
original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would be required to coordinate with the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department to assure that proper protection facilities and personnel would
be available. To ensure safety to the residents of the original Paloma del Sol project, safety
measures would be incorporated in the design of the project's circulation components (for
pedestrians, vehicles, and police), street lighting, residential door and window visibility from
street and buildings, and fencing.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 26 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235'
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units, which would
equate to a population 0f 15,879 persons, assuming a generation factor of 2.83 persons per
unit as indicated in the City of Temecula General Plan. Amer~dment No. 8 to the Paloma del
SUl Specific Plan proposes a maximum of 5,137 dwelling units, which represents a reduction
of 474 dwelling units or 1,342 project residents from that proposed in the original Specific
Plan. Assuming a County standard of one deputy per 1,500 persons, then Specific Plan
Amendment No 8 would generate a need for 9.7 deputies. This is a reduction fi.om the 10.6
deputies required under the original Specific Plan (as recalculated using the Sheriff
Department's current ratio of one deputy per 1,500 persons). It should be noted that the
original EIR was prepared using a different deputy/population ratio. Updating the original
EIR to use the current SherilT s Department current deputy/population ratio, would increase
the deputies need to adequately serve the original Specific Plan fi.om 8.4 to 10.6 deputies.
Impacts to sheriff services would be reduced by 0.9 deputy.
When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8
would decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units
(Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents,
depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associated with
Amendment No. 8 would result in a slight reduction in impacts to sheriff services of 0.4
deputy for the Proposed Land Use Plan and 0.2 deputy for the Adult Retirement Option.
Consequently, impacts to utilities would be reduced, and no further mitigation is required.
SCHOOLS
Previously Identified Impacts
The Paloma del Sol project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District
(TVUSD) for grades K-12. The entire project will be served by three existing elementary
schools:
· Abby Reinke Elementary School (K-5), 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive, Temecula
(Planning Area 11 on-site);
· Paloma Elementary School (K-5), 42940 Via Rami, Temecula (located off-site); and
· Joan F. Sparkman Elementary School (K-5), 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula
(Planning Area 7 on-site).
Abby Reinke Elementary School is partially built and is being built in phases, although it is
presently serving students. Estimated completion date for the school is approximately 2002.
Although the Specific Plan designates an additional site for another elementary school within
the project (Planning Area 32 in the Approved Project), the TVUSD has indicated that this
site is no longer needed (see dated February 4, 1999 letter in the Appendix), since most of the
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 27 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
dwelling units within the Paloma Del Sol project have already been built and are not
generating as many students as originally predicted. Planning Area 32 will develop with
Medium density (2-5 du/ac) residential uses instead of an elementary school.
The project includes a middle school in Planning Area 30, adjacent to Meadows Parkway.
This school (Temecula Middle School) is open and serves students in grades 6-8. Temecula
Middle School is located at 42075 Meadows Parkway. Existing high school students in
Paloma Del Sol attend (and new students will also attend) Temecula Valley High School,
which serves grades 9-12. The high school is located at 31555 Rancho Vista Road adjacent
to Margarita Road.
According to the certified EIR for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the project
would generate an estimated 3,086 students in Grades K-8 (based upon
TVUSD's generation factor of 0.55 students per dwelling unit). In addition, 1,178 high
school students would be generated from the previously approved project (based upon
Elsinore Union High School District's generation factor of 0.21 students per dwelling unit).
The certified EIR determined that the proposed 61 acres of school sites would provide
adequate school services for TVUSD students. Since certification of the EIR, the project is
building out at a lower density than originally envisioned. Therefore, the number of students
generated by the proposed project will be reduced accordingly. The Temecula Valley
Unified School District has already determined that the Junior High School site in Planning
Area 30 is no longer required.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original EIR assumed that the original Specific Plan project would generate 3,086 K-8
students and 1,178 high school students. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan would result in a reduction of 539 single-family dwelling units (assuming that Planning
Area 8 would built out with 335 single family homes) from that anticipated in the original
Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Using generation factors of 0.55 students per unit for Grades
K-8 and 0.21 students per unit for high school, there would be a decrease of-296 K-8 students-
and 113 high school students from those generated by the Original Specific Plan project.
Amendment No. 8 will reduce impacts to schools, and no further mitigation is required.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Previously Identified Impacts
Implementation of the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment
No. 7) would create a demand for parks and recreation facilities in the project area. To meet
ttfis demand, the Specific Plan includes an extensive Open Space and Recreation Program.
This program will provide 142.5 acres of land for park, recreational open space, parkway and
pasco uses, which is equivalent to 9.53 acres of park and recreation land per 1,000 residents.
The provision of this acreage will adequately mitigate the increased recreational demands
generated by the Approved Project.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 28 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Lmplementation of Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a
reduction of 474 dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan. The reduction Would cause 1,351 fewer project residents (based on the City of
Temecula's generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit). When compared to
Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 has decreased by 174
dwelling units and 109 dwelling units under the adult retirement option, while the total park
and recreation acreage has increased slightly from 142.5 to 144.0 acres.
Amendment No. 8 includes 30.6 acres of parks/recreation areas, 31.9 acres of greenbelts, and
81.5 acres of roadway paseos for a combined park and recreation total acreage of 144.0 acres.
The approved Development Agreement allows for parks, greenbelts, and roadway paseos to
count toward park and recreation credit. A comparison of park and recreation open space for
both Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 8 is contained in Table 6, Park/Recreation
Acreage Comparison Analysis.
Table 6
Park/Recreation Acreage Comparison Analysis
Amendment / Plan No. of Population Amount of Amount of Acreage
Dwelling Multiplier Park/Rec Park/Ret That
Units Acreage Required Acreage Exceeds
(5 AC/I,000) Provided 5 AC/l,000
Amendment No. 7:
Adopted Land Use Plan
5,2A6 2.85 74.8 142.5 +67.7
Amendment Proposed LUP 5,072 2.85 72.3 144.0 +71.7
No. 8:
Proposed Adult 5,137 2.85 73.2 144.0 +70.8
l~d US~ Retirement
Plan Option
As depicted in Table 6, above, Amendment No. 8 would result in a net increase of 1.5 acres
of land devoted to park and recreation uses over that provided in Amendment No. 7.
Therefore, Amendment No. 8 would not result in any increase in potentially significant
impacts associated with parks and recreation. No additional mitigation measures are
warranted.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 29 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDESDt NO. 4 TO EIR 235
UTILITIES
Special Background Information
Beginning in January 2001, California began to experience a shortage in the supply of
electricity. That situation was a result of three fundamental changes within the organization
of the power industry: (1) a halt in power plant construction during the 1990's, (2)
deregulation in 1996, and (3) an increase in the price of natural gas.
According tO the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the majority of the
energy crisis stems from the lack of new plant construction during the 1990's, which
corresponded directly to the decline in the availability of electrical energy early in 2001.
Because of the decreasing supply and a high demand for energy, the wholesale price of
electricity began to rise. This situation was further exacerbated by deregulation. The
deregulation agreement of 1996 placed a price cap on the dollar amount the California
utilities, like SCE, could charge their customers. Because of the price cap, SCE was forced
to charge consumers less for energy than the price they had to pay. This price discrepancy
eventually forced SCE into debt, and because of waning credit the company was no longer
able to buy enough power to satisfy demand. SCE, however, was able to buy power on a
daily basis with cash reserves, but this was not a reliable means by which to supply all of
their customers on a continual basis.
As a direct result of SCE's financial difficulties, on January 17, 2001, the DWR was given
authority to purchase power on behalf of SCE. The power purchased by DWR was used to
supply those customers who were beyond the daily capacity of SCE. The DWR paid for the
electricity with funds from the State of California General Fund and this money would be
reimbursed to the State by a three cent (3¢) increase per Kilowatt hour (KW) charge. This
charge was added to consumers' bills starting on June 3, 2001. Additionally, on August 21,
2001, the California Senate passed a bill allowed SCE to issue bonds for up to $2.9 billion.
The money generated from the bonds will allow SCE to reimburse the companiestheyowe;
approximately 70 percent of their debt. Most notably, these measures are a first step to
providing SCE with the ability to regain its credit status, thus, enabling SCE to begin
providing all of its customers with electricity.
In addition to the steps taken by SCE and the state, within the last year the California Energy
Commission (CEC) has approved a total of 16 power plant projects. Of these approved
projects three have been completed and are currently producing 1,415 Megawatts (MW) of
electricity per year (one MegaWatt supplies 750 homes). An additional plant, an out-of-
service unit in Huntington Beach, is being upgraded and retrofitted, and completion is
expected in November 2001. This plant will add an additional 450 MW per year to the
energy grid. The remaining 12 plants are either being constructed or are in the procegs of
obtaining financing. These 12 plants are expected to be online between 2001 and 2004 (see
Table 7, California Power Plant Project Status). In addition, the CEC is reviewing
proposals for 20 new power plants, and has announced plans for 31 additional power plants.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 30 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Combined, these 79 projects, which will be located throughout California, will result in an
additional 30,482 MW produced per year. These projects are expected to be completed
between September 2001 and August 2005. Most notably, eight of these power plants will
be located in Riverside County and seven will be located in San Bemardino County.
It is important to note that some aging facilitie~ will require special pollution permits and
expensive maintenance, which may render them too costly to operate. Therefore, some
power plants presently producing energy may be taken off-line. Additionally, approximately
22 executive orders were issued by Governor Gray Davis in the first six months of 2001.
The intent of these executive orders was to promote conservation and to temporarily ease
restrictions found within the California Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) that
pertain to power generation. More specifically, the executive order'eased regulations
pertaining to power plant construction, shortened new plant approval time, eased power
generation restrictions, and eased overall plant production and management guidelines. Most
of these executive orders will expire December 31, 2001, which will cause the approval time
for new power plants, existing plant emission standards, and overall plant management
requirements to revert to the standards set forth in the (CEQG).
Table 7
California Power Plant Project Status
Projects approved Qver 300 Capacity (MW) Location Status On-line Date
Mega Watt (MW) (By County)
Sunrise~ 320 Kern Co. Operational June 2001
Suner~ 540 Sutter Co. Operational July 2001
Los Mendanoa~ 555 Contra Costa Operational July 2001
Operational Total 1,415
Huntington Beach~ 450 Orange Co. Construction Nov. 2001
La Paloma 1,048 - Kern Co. Construction'- April-lune
2002
Delta2 880 Contra Costa Construction April 2002
Moss Landing2 1,060 Monterey Co. Constxuction June 2002
High Desert 720 San Benardino3 Construction July 2003
Elk Hills 500 Kern Co. Consumction March 2003
Blythe 520 Riverside Co? ConsU'uction March 2003
Pastoria 750
Operational and Under 7;343
Construction Subtotal
Kern Co. Construction January 2003
Mountain View 1,056 San Bernardino3 I Financing [ June 2003
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 31 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Projects approved Over 300 Capacity
Mega Watt (MW)
Location Status On-line Date
(By County)
Otay Mesa 510 San Diego Co. Financing July 2003
Three Mountain 500 Shasta Co. Financing December 2003
Contra Costa 530 Contra Mesa Financing July 2003
Midway-Sunset 500 Kern Co. Financing June 2004
Financing Subtotal 10,439
Wildflowcr Larkspur 90 San Diego Co. Construction July 2001
Wildflower Indigo 135 Riverside Co? Construction July 2001
Alliance Century 40 San Bcmardino3 Construction September
2001
Alliance Drews 40 Sun Bemardino~ Construction September
2001
GWF Hanford 95 Kings Co. Construction September
2001
Calpinc Gilroy Phase I
135 Santa Clara Co. Construction September
2001
Calpeak Escondido 49.5
Under Construction Subtotal 584.5
San Diego Co. Cons~raction September
2001
Pegasus 180 San Bernardino Financing April 2002
Co?
Calpine King City 50 Monterey Co. Financing December2001
Calpine Cdlroy . 49.5 San Diego Co. Financing ' September
2001
Financing Subtotal 864
APPROVED TOTAL 11 ~303
Denotes power plants that became operational in the summer of 2001
Denotes power plants that are expected to be operational in the summer of 2002
Denotes power plants that will eventually be operational in the region of the proPOsed project.
*Source: California Energy Commission (CEC), Website: http:l/www.enerev.ca.oeovlsitingcases
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 32 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Previously Identified Impacts
The residential, commercial and office uses in the Approved Project (i.e., Specific Plan
Amendment No. 7) will create a demand for energy estimated at 63,388,761 kWH per year
for electricity and 35,574,929 cubic feet/month (4,115,715 therms per year per dwelling unit
based on new ussage rates) for natural gas. The Southern California Edison Company and
the Southern California Gas Company provide electricity to the project site and have
indicated that they would be able to meet these estimated demands.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
When compared to Amendment No. 7, the number of dwelling units in Amendment'No. 8
would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units
(Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents,
depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population associat~i with
Amendment No. 8 would result in a corresponding reduction in utility demand (see Table 8,
Estimated Natural Gas and Electricity Demand Comparison). Consequently, impacts to
utilities would be reduced, and no further mitigation is required.
Public
Utilities and
Service
Table 8
Estimated Natural Gas and Electricity Demand Comparison
37,958,936 kWh per
ElectricityS year
Approved Project
(Amendment No. 7)
Estimated Usage Impact after
Mitigation Estimated Usage
4,115,715 therms per 3,976,688 therms per
year per dwelling unit year per dwelling unit
Natural Gas5 (based on new usage Insignificant (based on new usage Insignificant
rates) rates)
42,030,975 kWh per year
(63,388,761 based on Insignificant
new usage rates)
Proposed Project
(Amendment No. 8)
Impact after
Mitigation
Insignificant .
~ New generation rates provided by Southern California Gas Co. (SCG) provide for 799 therms/year/dwelling
unit for single-family residences and 483 therms/year/dwelling unit for multi-family dwellings of five or more units.. Due
to the fact that construction varies so widely (e.g., a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and that there is such
a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for commercial
construction from SCG.
65,621 kWh/du/yr for residential, and 13.54 kWh/sf/yr for commercial
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 33 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDESDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
We
SOLID WASTE
Previously Identified Impacts
The project site is located within the El Sobrante service area. The Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site when
compared to e~isting conditions. There will also be a corresponding increase in the service
needs for waste haulers. The population of 14,546 estimated to be generated by Proposed
Project will result in approximately 57.5 tons of waste a day assuming that 7.9 pounds of
waste is generated per person per day. This will incrementally shorten the life span of the El
Sobrante Landfill; however, the landfill has received County approvals for a major multi-year
expansion that would dramatically extend the life expectancy of the landfill. The expansion
project is already under construction. In addition, California law currently requires all
municipalities to recycle or divert 50% of their solid waste stream.g from landfills. This
practice is expected to continue and will also contribute to the life expectancy of the landfill.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474
dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction
would result in 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula General Plan's
generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit).
When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling
units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use
Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311
fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in
population associated with Amendment No. 8 would result in the generation of less amounts
of solid waste, which would reduce the demand for landfill space. Consequently, impacts
associated with solid waste would be reduced, and no further mitigation is required.
Previously Identified Impacts
The project is currently served by library facilities located near the intersection of Ynez Road
and Rancho California Road in Rancho California. Due to the increase in population that
Paloma del Sol will generate, rrdtigation fees will be required by the project to increase the
facility size, book collection and library staff.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474
dwelling units when compared to the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction
would result in 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula General Plan's
generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 34 of 36 October 26, 2001
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
O
gJ
When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling
units in Amendment No. 8 woald decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use Plan)
or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311 fewer
project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in population
associated with Amendment No. 8 would result in less demand for books, library space, and
library facilities. Since impacts to libraries would be reduced, and no further mitigation is
required.
HEALTH SERVICES
Previously Identified Impacts
The following medical facilities serve the project area: (1) Inland Valley Regional Medical
Center (80 beds);'(2) Menifee Valley Medical Center (84 beds); and (3) Rancho Springs
Medical Center (99 beds). Other facilities for specialized medical cases are also located
throughout the area. No mitigation measures are required, as it is believed that medical
facilities respond to "market" demand.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 m the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474
dwelling units when compared with the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. The reduction
would mean a decrease of 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon City of Temecula's new
generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit).
When compared to the Approved Project (i.e., Amendment No. 7), the number of dwelling
units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling units (Proposed Land Use
Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which would result in 496 or 311
fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets implemented. The reduction in
population that would occur if Amendment No. 8 is implemented would result in a reduced
--demand for health services. Consequently, impacts to health services would be redu~ced;and
no further mitigation is required.
AIRPORTS
Previously Identified Impacts
Paloma del Sol is not affected by any "Airport Influence Areas," and therefore was not
discussed in the adopted EIR, nor were mitigation measures required.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The project is not within an Airport Influence area, and does not require mitigation measures.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 35 of 36 October 26, 2001
No. 4 TO EIR 235
AA.
DISASTER ~EPAREDNESS
Previously Identified Impacts
Earthquakes, floods, and wildfires are natural occurrences that cannot be prevented. The
County Office of Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies
to assure preparedness and recovery from a natural disaster. Seismic safety, slopes and
erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and tim services impacts and accompanying
mifigaton are discussed in separate sections of the gl'P,.
Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 474
dwelling units, or 1,351 fewer project residents (based upon the City of Temecula's new
generation factor of 2.85 persons per dwelling unit), from that envisioned in the original
Paloma del S01 Specific Plan. In comparison to the Approved Project (£e., Amendment No.
7), the number of dwelling units in Amendment No. 8 would be decreased by 174 dwelling
units (Proposed Land Use Plan) or 109 dwelling units (Adult Retirement Option), which
would result in 496 or 311 fewer project residents, depending upon which plan gets
implemented. Implementation of either the Proposed Land Use Plan or the Adult Retirement
Option would result in a reduction in population that would be exposed to seismic safety
hazards, including ground shaking. As such, n6 further mitigation is necessary.
III. CONCLUSION
In all cases, impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8) would be the same as or less than those analyzed in the
certified FEIR and Addendum No. 3 for the Approved Project (i.e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 7). The Proposed Project will be required to comply with all mitigation
measures identified in the certified FEIR and the subsequent EIR addendums,includingfl~_is
addendum (£e., Addendum No. 4). No additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce
potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 36 of 36 October 26, 2001
APPENDIX
ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO EIR 235
Tcmc~t~a V~lcy U~,.~i Sc, t~l ~ ~ Oc~bcr 20, 199~.
VALLEY UNIFIE~ $[~IOOL DIST~CI~
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP
R:\S P A~2001\01-0102 Paloma Del Sol #8\cc gpa res. doc
4
~o