HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 235 Addendum 4~.J ~~~~lYllC~ ~~~ ~~~
Villages at Paseo del Sol
0
Environmental Impact Report No.235, Addendum #4 to
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8
(Specific Plan No. SP-4)
Prepared by:
T6zB Planning Consultants, Inc.
3242 Halladay, Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 662.2774/Fax(714) 662-2708
Contacts: Barry Burnell
Mark Hickner
Q
In Association with:
Dahlin Group -Architecture
Wilkinson Design Group -Planning & Landscape Architecture
RBF -Civil Engineering
Capital Income Properties, Inc.
Grant General Contractors, J.V. -Commercial Development
FRCH -Commercial Architect
Markham & Associates
Sloo[en Consulting -Commercial Civil Engineer
Wilbur Smi[h Associates -Traffic Analysis
I,eucl f~ency:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400(Fax: (909) 694-6477
J-
Q Certified by the City of Temecula City Council on January 8, 2002
I\
0
a
O
AnnE>!rnonq IVo. 4 To EY&t 235
PALOMA DEL SOL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... .......................................... 2
A. BACKCROUND ........................................................................... ..........................................
B. PURPOSE ................................................................................... ..........................................3
C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS ................................................................ .......................................... 7
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................... ..........................................9
A. SEISMIC SAFETY ....................................................................... .......................................... 9
B. SLOPES AND EROSION .............................................................. ........................................ I O
C. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND ............................................. ........................................ I O
D. FLOODING ................................................................................. ........................................ 11
E. NOISF ......................................................................................... ........................................ II
F. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY .................................................... ........................................ I I
G. WATER AND SEWER ................................................................. ........................................II
H. TOXICSUBSTANCF,S .................................................................. ........................................ 13
1. AGRICHLTURE .......................................................................... ........................................ li
.I. OPEN JPACF. AND CONSERVATION ........................................... ........................................ I a
~{. WILDLIFE/YECETATION .......................................................... ........................................ la
L. MINERAL RESDIIRCES .......:...................................................... ........................................ 17
M. ENERGY' RESOIIRCES ................................................................ ........................................ 17
N. SCENICHICHWAYS ................................................................... ........................................ 1R
O. CLI,TURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ................................ ......................................_ 19
P. CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................... ........................................19
P. WATER AND SEWER ................................................................. ........................................ ~~
R. FIRE SERVICES ........................................................................ .........................................2i
S. SHERIFFSERVICES .................................................................. .........................................26
T. SCHOOLS ................:.................................................................. ........................................27
U. PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................ ......................................... 2A
V. II7'I LI'FI ES ................................................................................. ..........................................i 0
W. SOLID WASTE .......................................................................... ......................................... :~'~
){. LIBRARIES ................................................................................ .........................................34
Y. HEALTH SERVIC'ES .................................................................. ......................................... 35
Z. AIRPORTS ................................................................................. ..........................................ib
AA. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ....................................................... ......................................... 3C
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................... ......................................... 36
PALOMA DEL SOL Paoe I of 37 January 8.2002
ADDEATDDIH AiO.4 To SIR, 235
Q
I. INTR®I9UCTI®N
A. BACKGROUND
The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 235) was approved and
certified by the County of Riverside on September 6, 1988. Addendum No. 1 was prepazed 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 physical impacts identified in the EIR since it only dealt with collection of fees,
improvements to pazks and dedication ofpazks 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
prepazed. Therefore, the Council concluded that no further environmental analysis was required for
these amendments. Addendum No. 2 was adopted on Mazch 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
U del Sol EIR No. 235 and Addendum Numbers 1, 2 and 3 aze 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 EIR No. 235 and all four addendums (i. e., Addendums Nos. 1, 2,
3 and 4), aze available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Pazk 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 aze 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 ofthe subsequent
projects that: (1) have already have been mitigated or avoided as part ofthe 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
O
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 2 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPiDilAli 1110.4 To IE~II$ 235
- O (Addendum No. 3 in particulaz) 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 compazed 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.
B. PURPOSE
This document constitutes Addendum No. 4 to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 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 aze described below:
O ^ Amendments 1, 2, and 3 were prepazed under County jurisdiction and there aze no records to
be referenced for them.
The following Amendments were prepazed 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 pazk 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:
o 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 ofmulti-family dwelling units from 910 to 590;
A 4.0-acre pazk/recreation azea site;
o 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.
O
PALOMA DEL $OL Page 3 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDDBH Rio. 4 To ~IIIIt 235
Q O Amendment No. 6 encompassed several minor changes to the Specific Plan, including plan
revisions in Planning Areas 2, 28 and 29A. The pazk 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 standazds were updated to conform to the City's General Pian. Access points
and neighborhood entries on certain planning azeas were relocated to conform to the
approved Tentative Tract Maps. Streets "G" and "H" 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.
O 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
same. -
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 High
~../ 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 Portola Road and Meadows Pazkway from a 100-footright-of--way
to a 78-foot right-of--way with "rounded out" traffic circles and afour-way stop or signalized
intersection.
O 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. Similazly, the gross project density has
O decreased from 3.8 du/ac to 3.6 du/ac. When compazed to the 5,604 dwelling units adopted
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 4 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEATDIIDR RiO.4 To I';IIt 235
O 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 commercial uses planned for Planning Area 27 at the comer of Pauba and Butterfield
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 Commercial.
Planning Area 29 remains as a Pazk/Recreation Area, but the location and configuration of
the pazcel aze somewhat altered. However, the acreage ofthis Pazk/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 Pazk/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 Pazk/Recreation Area situated between Planning Areas 13 and 23)
has been merged into the greenbelt system and is no longer identified as a Pazk/Recreation
Area or a separate planning azea.
Due to remaining high demand for commercial uses in the village center azea near the
supermazket 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 standazds 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 de]
Sol and Amendment No. 8 aze illustrated below in Table 1, Summary ofLand Use Changes:
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 5 of 37 January 8, 2002
AuDEA1DIIHR Rio. 4 To EIIIli, 235
0
Table 1
Summa of Land Use Chan es
O
O
SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219 SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219 SPECIFIC PLAN No. 219
(original) Amendment No. 7 Amendment No. 8
Land Use Acres D.Us Laud Use Acres D.Us Land Use Acres D.Us
536.0 2,366 Medium 491.0 2,083 Medium 610.7 2,551
Medium Medium (Senior) 89.0 400 Medium (Senior) 89.0 335 (400)*
Medium High 437.5 2,406 Medium High 416.5 2,255 Medium High 303.8 1,678
High 22.3 268 High 22.3 268
Very High 56 840 Very High 12.0 240 Very High 12.0 240
Community/ 39.0 Community/ 35.0 Community/ 43.0
Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood
Commercial Commercial Commercial
Neighborhood 15.0 Neighborhood 17.5 Neighborhood 2.5
Commercial Commercial Commercial
Day Caze 2.0 Day Care 2.0 Day Care 2.0
Junior High 20.0 Junior High 20.0 Junior High 20.0
School School School
Elementary 41.0 Elementary 41.0 Elementary 31.0
School Schoo] School
Parks or 15.4 Parks or 32.5 Parks or 30.6
Recreation Recreation Areas Recreation Areas
Areas
Greenbelt 28.0 Greenbelt Paseos 28.0 Greenbelt Paseos 31.9
Paseos
Roadway 87.6 Roadway Paseos 82.0 Roadway Paseos 81.5
Paseos
-- t = `~' ~, ~',.~ ~ Open Space 9.0
Major Streets 1 ] 4.0 Major Streets 103.4 Major Streets 102.2
1,391.5 5,611 PxorECrToTAL 1,391.5 5,246 PaorECrTOTAL 1,3915 510~)
TOTAL *
(
* Implementation of the adult retirement option for Planning Area 8 increases the total dwelling unit allocation for Planning
Area 8 to 400 du, 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 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDIIBH 810.4 To SIR 235
O C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Section II 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 aze anticipated to result with implementation
of Amendment No. 8. As shown on Table 2, Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, the impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 aze substantially the same or less than the
impacts analyzed in the certified EIR. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required.
Table 2
Com arative Anal sis of Im acts and Miti ation Measures
0
O
Environmental Issue
Changes in Project Impacts Additional
Mitigation Measures
Seismic Safety Unchanged No
Slopes and Erosion Unchanged No
Wind Erosion & Blowsand Unchanged No
Flooding Unchanged No
Noise Decreased No
Climate and Air Quality Decreased No
Water Quality Unchanged No
Toxic Substances Unchanged No
Agriculture Unchanged No
Open Space and Conservation Decreased No
Wildlife/Vegetation Decreased No
Energy Resources Electricity -Unchanged No
Natural Gas -Decreased
Scenic Highways Unchanged No
Cultural and Scientific Resources Unchanged No
Circulation and Traffic Approximately Unchanged No
(Somewhat Decreased)
Public Facilities and Services Decreased No
Light and Glare Unchanged No
Disaster Preparedness Unchanged No
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 7 of 37 January 8, 2002
PeDDEPIDIINd 810.4 To EAR 235
O Table 3, below, provides an overview off all public utilities and serves and compazes 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
0
Public Approved Project Proposed Project
Amendment No. 7 (Amendment No. 8
Utilities and
Service Estimated Usage/ Impact after Estimated Usage/ Impact after
Service Level Mitigation Service Level Mitigation
Water' 4,026,400 gallons Insignificant 3,765,000 gallons Insignificant
Sewerz 1,845,300 gallons Insignificant 1,453,771 gallons Insignificant
Fire 15,879 residents Significant Decrease of 1,342
residents Significant
Sheriff 8.4 deputies (original SP) Significant 9.7 deputies Significant
10.6 deputies (adjusted)
Schools" 4,264 students Significant 3,855 students Significant
Parks/Recreation 131.0 acres Insignificant 144.0 acres Insignificant
39,133,910 cubic
s
Natural Gas feeUmonth (35,574,829
Insignificant 35,749,212 cubic
Insignificant
based on new usage feeUmonth
rates)
c 42,030,975 kWh per yeaz 37,958
936 kWh per
Electricity (63,388,761 based on Insignificant ,
, Insignificant
new usage rates) yew
Solid Waste 57 tons per day Insignificant 57.4 tons per day Insignificant
Health Servicese 15,879 residents Insignificant Decrease of 1,342
residents Insignificant
' 600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial, 3,800 gallons/acre/day for pazks
Z 300 gallons per day per residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial
s t deputy/1,500 people
" .55 K-8 students per du, and .21 high school students per du
s 80 kcf/du/yr for single family residential, 0.0348 kcf/sf/yr for retail commercial
s 5,621 kWh/du/yr for residential, and 13.54 kWh/sf/yr for commercial
' 7.9 pounds per person per day
O a Demands for health services aze based on population, but aze not quantified in this EIR.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 8 of 37 January 8, 2002
AnoElwuna R1o. 4 To ~H&t 235
II. ENVIR®NIVIENTAL 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. SEISMIC 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 flat
alluviated flood plain of Temecula Creek is located. When mitigation measures aze
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
Q high ground water levels by removal of rechazge 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.
Q 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 aze 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 5,61 I 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 unit). Consequently,
fewer residents will be exposed to seismic safety hazazds, including ground shaking. The
extent ofproject impacts upon existing seismic conditions will be the same since no increase
in the overall developable azea is proposed. No additional or revised mitigation measures aze
proposed.
" Geotechnica! Report for Emiranmental Impact Purposes, Butterfield Hills, Rancho California, County of
Riverside, CA. (May 1987), Fault Study, 1400-acre The Meadows at Rancho California Project, Rancho California
O (August 1987), and Evaluation ofLiquefaction Potential, Portion of Vail Meadows (September 1987).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 9 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDDRH 110.4 To EHIlt 235
B. SLOPES AND EROSION
O Previously Identified Impacts
According to the original Geotechnical Reportz, 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 azeas may be present on-site.
Mitigation measures required to alleviate impacts from the Paloma del Sol project aze 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.
O 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 similaz 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. hnpacts to slopes on-site will be
O similaz 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 aze proposed.
C. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND
O Previously Identified Impacts:
The project is not located within the wind/erosion or blowsand azea designated within the
City of Temecula's General Plan and is not considered an azea of concern. This issue was not
addressed in the adopted EIR.
O 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).
Z Geotechnical Report for Environmental Impact Purposes, Butte~eld Hills, Rancho California, County of
Riverside, CA. (May 1987), Fault Study, 1400-acre The Meadows at Rancho California Projec[, Rancho Cal forma
(August 1987), and Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Portion of !'ail Meadows (September 1987).
0
PALOMA DEL SOL Page ]0 of 37 January 8, 2002
AnDEAIDDAH Aio. 4 To IEIIIR. 235
O D. FLOODING
O Previously Identified Impacts
The hydrology report prepazed 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-yeaz storm runoff. The project site also lies within the Dam
Inundation Area fora 100-year event for Vail Lake dam. The Assessment District 159 has
been created to mitigate potential flooding impacts to Temecula Creek. All standazds ofthe
Riverside County Flood Control District will be met, and erosion control devices will be
installed in development azeas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
dischazge.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma de] 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 project would not result in any new flood-related impacts that have not already
v 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. Notse
O 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 aze construction-related activities at the time
of project implementation; the long-term sources aze vehiculaz 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.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
AmendmentNo. 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 aze expected to remain unchanged. The reduction of 474 residences from
0
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 11 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEATDOHH 110.4 To ~gR 235
O the residential component of the original Paloma del So] Specific Plan will also shorten the
duration ofshort-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. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
O 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). Constriction-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 ofNitrogen, 150 pounds per day of Oxides of Sulphur,
or 150 pounds per day of Particulate Matter. The primary source oflong-term impacts to air
O quality is automobile emissions. Other emissions will be generated from residential and
commercial natural gas and electricity consumption. Long-term air quality impacts aze
considered significant with respect to cazbon 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 solaz 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.
O 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
SCAQMD 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.
O
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 12 of 37 January 8, 2002
AunErmmw RTo. 4 To EIR 235
O G. WATER QUALITY
O 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 azeas.
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 aze not
considered significant.
In order to mitigate for water quality impacts, the project will comply with the Riverside
County Flood Control District requirements regazding erosion control devices during grading
(e.g., berms, culverts, sand-bagging and desilting basins), and the employment ofthe "Water
Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants" program published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
O 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. 23 5 would be implemented to ensure that water quality impacts remain
at a level of insignificance. No additional or revised mitigation measures aze proposed.
H. TOXIC SUBSTANCES
O Previously Identified Impacts/NYitigation
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).
I. AGRICULTURE
O 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
O
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 13 of 37 January 8, 2002
AoDENDIm~I No. 4 To EIIi, 235
important farmland within the Envirotunental 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 ofthe
site has already been mass graded as well.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Although Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan reconfigures 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
Ll Previously Identified Impacts
Amendment No. 7 includes 32.5 acres ofpazks/recreation azeas, 28.0 acres ofgreenbelts, 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, greenbelts, 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
Q in project open space and conservation impacts; therefore, no additional or revised mitigation
was required.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to Specific Plan No. 2 ] 9 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
Q Previously Identifed 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
7 Biological Assessment for Vail Meadows (May 1987)
0
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 14 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDiJDH RTo. 4 To ~~R, 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' Kangazoo Rat and
several "Blue-line" avian species and was considered an important raptor wintering azea.
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 prepazed as follows: A Quino
Checkerspot butterfly (QCB) Survey4 completed in 1999, a Final Paloma del Sol Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat Update Survey on May 30, 1496 (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
Pazkway, Mazgarita Road, Pio Pico Road, Montelegro Way, and Leena Way), and a haul
road used to transport dirt used for construction of the supermazkeUshoppingcentey and
sports park northeast of the intersection of State Highway 79 South and Mazgarita Road;
and
Grading for construction of the future extension of Meadows Pazkway along the eastern
tract boundary 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 azeas 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 aze no
existing sensitive species on site, there will be no impacts by constmction.
Although the site is located within a potential habitat area for Stephens' Kangazoo Rat, it is
also within the Stephens Kangazoo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. The Paloma del Sol
project has complied with all applicable requirement ofthis program. Therefore, no further
mitigation is required.
4 Results ofAdult Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Flight Season Surveys (1999)
0
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 15 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEATDirnH RiO.4 To ~gR, 235
O At the time ofthe 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 resources firm, using the most up-to-date regulations and written policies in
conjunction with guidance from the regulatory agencies.
Three of the four jurisdictional azeas were graded and removed in conformance with permits
issued by the ACOE.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would result in approximately the same amount of
azea 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 ofthe
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
O ACOE jurisdictional wetland) by preserving the azea within a 7.1-acre natural open space
area (Planning Area 27).
As mentioned above, the ACOE, in addition to the CDFG, also has jurisdiction over this
same azea. With incorporation ofthe 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 ofthe project have already been constructed or aze in the
process of being constructed. Mitigation ofthe 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 comdor purposes, responds to previous mitigation measures.
All other mitigation for the other jurisdictional azeas on-site will remain the same as that
identified in the original EIR and previous Addendums.
In summary, the direct impacts associated with Amendment No. 8 to the Specific Plan would
be similaz 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 aze 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 37 January 8, 2002
AonENnum No. 4 To EIR 235
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
O Previously Identified Impacts/Mitigation
The State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared mineral resource reports designating
mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance. The State Geologist has classified
azeas 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 ofMRZ-3a has been
applied to the City and its Sphere of Influence by the State. "The MRZ-3 azeas contain
sedimentary deposits which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and
crushed stone for aggregate, however; these areas aze determined as not containing deposits
of significance economic value based on the available data."5 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.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
O The area and extent of impact for the Proposed Project (i. e., Amendment No. 8) would be the
same as the area and extent of impact for the Approved Project (i. e., Amendment No. 7).
Therefore, there would be no change in the level ofanticipated impacts to mineral resources,
and no mitigation measures would be required.
M. ENERGY RESOURCES
O 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 asdouble-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.
/ 1 5 City of Temecula Genera! Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element, page 5-20.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page ] 7 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEAIDUIIH RiO.4 To IEgR, 235
O Analysis of Change iu 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/yeaz for residential dwellings and by 1,189,645 kwh per
squaze foot per yeaz for commercial uses (assumes an average floor azea ratio of 0.21 for
commercial uses). The net result is a decrease in electricity demand of approximately
4,072,039 kwh/unit/yeaz (a 9.7% overall reduction in energy usage) when compazed with the
estimated electricity demand in the original Paloma del Sol EDZ. 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/yeaz for residential dwellings and by 225,488 kwh per square foot per year for
commercial uses (assumes an average floor azea 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.
0
N. SCENIC HIGHWAYS
O 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 adjoining properties.
O
O 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 18 of 37
January 8, 2002
ADDEATDIIIIH 10.4 TO ~IIIi, 235
~. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
O Previously Identified Impacts
The Paloma del Sol Specific Plan was surveyed for cultural resources in 1979 and was
incorporated into a report6. Cultural resources aze classified as both azchaeological 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 minimally
of two lm x lm excavation units.
Q Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
A report, Cultural Resource Management Investigations ofthe 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 aze likely to yield any
further 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
Luiseiio tribe were present during all test excavations, and a qualified monitor has been
present during project grading operations for azchaeological monitoring purposes. No
additional mitigation measures will be needed.
P. CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC
O 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 standazds set forth in the City's Circulation Element. The Vail
Meadows Development, Traff c Impact Study was prepazed by Wilbur Smith Associates for
the Vail Meadows project (now the "Paloma del Sol" project) in November 1987. In
September 1999, Wilbur Smith Associates prepazed an update to the traffic report entitled,
Traj~c Impact Study for Plaza Del Sol Commercial Center (now called the "Villages at
Paseo Del Sol"). This update related specifically to Planning Areas 1(a) and 1(b), which
border the north side of Highway 79 South. Wilbur Smith Associates prepazed a partial
traffic update in February 2001, which evaluated the traffic generation impacts associated
6Cultural Resource Ltventory and Impact Assessment for the KACOR/Rancho California Property (July 30
O and August 10, 1979).
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 19 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEINDIIM Ai0.4 To EgR, 235
Q 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 daily 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 aze 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 Mazgazita Road
Intersection, State Route 79 and Meadows Parkway Intersection, and at Mazgarita Road and
designated "gateway" street (south of Pauba Road), (3) provision of 4-lanes on: Meadows
Pazkway between State Route 79 and De Portola Road, designated secondary road
connecting Meadows Pazkway to De Portola 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.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The following conclusions aze based on the fmdings of the original 1987 Wilbur Smith
Associates (WSA) traffic impact study, the subsequent Traj~c Impact Study for Plaza Del
Sol Commercial Center (now referred to as the "Villages at Pasco Del Sol") update, and the
most recent traffic update letter, which was prepazed in February 2001 for Specific Plan
Amendment No. 8:
a 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 (10) acres from
the elementary school category. For the purposes of Wilbur Smith's latest traffic
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 20 of 37 January S, 2002
ADDEAIDiIAR RiO.4 To ~gIt 235
O analysis, one elementary school has been eliminated from the land use plan. Atypical
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 Pazkway, and Highway 79Butterfield Stage Road intersections and on
Campanula Way at the reaz 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 mitigated 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 trips
associated with Amendment No. 7 (see Table 4, Land Use and Trip Generation
Comparison, for detail). This reduction is determined as follows:
PALOMA DEL $OL Page 21 of 37 January 8, 2002
0
O
lfJ
M
~_
T~
O
E
O
a
w
O
.
~
d ~ d d
o
° m
u a o a
' ~ ~
' a
'
_
' c a ~ o ,0 0 c m eo oo oo e
L c .+
<
vi
a o
~o ~
d
d
-~
w a
P
°' z z a
i
z z
c
d
V m
a
. CG
y
F
o
O
~ W c C .y. .~. ~ v o~ m v
U U U ~
' ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 3 m m ~ m m o_U o0
c o G e
~"
C _
o ~p
~ o
~n
"' o
r
~ D
z A
z O
z 0
z
~
0
0
C
C m
t
M
~
r
O
R
O
O
a`
O ,-,
h
N
U O
e " ao Wi n' ? ri d o -
~ z
E
o
U
o
o z
R vi d m °r° ~ o ,~ .n o a o vi r+
~ L
r7
E 00
N ~p vi m
e
N v~
e
e+~
r+1
?'
W N
O
~
~ ~ ~ ~ e
~
O c ~
~
~
F d
•L
F ~
,fl d
[ z
y y m vii m O ~n
~ ~n o 0 0 0 ?
y E e N 1~ vi t N ~ 00 ~ !V G ~
.0 N N R ~ vl e N 00
b Y
Q
l
1~1
yM e0 W
c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3 3 3 6 Q Q Q Q 6 6 Q
C Q 0
W m ~
0 o
a
>
a
> C
H
uJ h
is id m
Y •C A ~ •i
~ ;o .` E d
E
'°
m m
E
c
E
~o d
0.'
o
U
U
z m
c
~
.7 ~ v
i o
°'
i m ~ U o h ~ ~
~ y
t=
S
~ o
t
~ p
n v
~ = `o ~ O
p > > F E s m c `.°. c `
m
'o
m
~o
°'
~
E
?o
E
~+
~
^
,~ o
'~
~
C ~ ~~ o
U o
U m
z ~,
w o ~
z o
a ~
ro
s
c
c
v
A
.p~
.d
d
v
s
0
s°
N
co
N
E
c
0
m
s
m C
d
N
T O
A ~
t~C ..~'.
o
0 0
~ U
d y
~ ~
~«
a~
E
..
v
~..
o m
N W
po
` U
7
a~
s =
d
w° t°
N
O
O
N
00
A
.,
W
N
N
m
0.
a
O
.a
W
A
d
O
a
a
Anosivno>n ~o. 4 To ~HR 235
O ~ 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
O 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.
Q. WATER AND SEWER
Q Previously Identified Impacts
A preliminary water and sewer reports was prepazed 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.
SPreliminary /rtvestigatian on Water and Sewer Service for Vail Meadows (August 1987)
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 23 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDENDUM 1V0.4 To EIR 235
_O 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 (b) establishes efficiency standazds that set the maximum
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 prohibits 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.
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan proposed 5,611 dwelling 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 S l acres
of commercial 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
commercial development, 53 acres of public uses (including the schools and the day caze
center), and 145.9 acres of park/recreation areas, greenbelt paseos and roadway paseos.
Although demand for non-potable water for use in the pazk/recreation azeas, 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 compazed with the assumptions made in the
original Paloma del So] EIR and EMWD's adopted Urban Water Management Plan.
Therefore, the net change in non-potable water usage would be insignificant.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 24 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDDIIR 1V0.4 To ]EII$ 235
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 pazk/recreation
azeas remain essentially unchanged, then the new proj ect would result in a reduction in water
demand of 261,400 gallons per day when compazed 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).
Table 5
Public Utilities and Services Com arison
Public APProved Project Proposed Project
Utilities and (Amendment No. 7 (Amendment No. 8
Service
Estimated Usage Im act after
Estimated Usage Im act after
Miti anon Miti ation
Water9 4,026,400 gallons Insignificant 3,765,000 gallons Insignificant
Sewer10 1,845,300 gallons Insignificant 1,453,771 gallons Insignificant
'600 gallons/day for residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day for commercial, 3,800 gallons/acre/day for parks
10300 gallons per day per residences, 3,000 gallons/acre/day far commercial
The Proposed Proj ect would result in reduced impacts to water and sewer when compazed to
the Approved Project. Therefore, with implementation ofthe 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
O Previously Ideutitied 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 Pauba Fire
Station on Pauba Road services the site.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 25 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDUIII 1!10.4 To SIR, 235
O The original EIR found that the existing fire station, which is located within three miles of
the project site, would only provide Category III 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 afive-minute response time to the project site. This
would mitigate the project's impacts to fire-related services to a level below significance.
O 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 compazed 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
O for the original Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, would require similaz mitigation to reduce the
impacts to a level below significant.
$. SHERIFF SERVICES
O Previously Identified Impacts
Police services are provided to the site by Riverside County Sheriff s Department, 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 Sheriffs 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 mitigate the project's impacts associated with police services, the applicant ofthe
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 ofthe 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.
O
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 26 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEATDDHR RiO.4 TD ~g1Q. 235
0
O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
The original Paloma del Sol Specific plan proposed 5,611 dwelling units, which would
equate to a population of 15,879 persons, assuming a generation factor of 2.83 persons per
unit as indicated in the City of Temecula General Plan. Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del
Sol 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 standazd 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 from 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 prepazed using a different deputy/population ratio. Updating the original
EIR to use the current Sheriff's Department current deputy/population ratio, would increase
the deputies need to adequately serve the original Specific Plan from 8.4 to 10.6 deputies.
Impacts to sheriff services would be reduced by 0.9 deputy.
When compazed 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 iri impacts to sheriff services of 0.4
O 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.
T. SCHOOLS
O 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
O site is no longer needed (see dated February 4,19991etter in the Appendix), since most of the
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 27 of 37 January 8, 2002
AnDEATDm~ A1o. 4 To EIHI 235
O dwelling units within the Paloma Del Sol project have already been built and aze 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 Pazkway.
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 Mazgarita 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
O Area 30 is no longer required.
O 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.
U. PARKS AND RECREATION
O Previously Identified Impacts
Implementation of the Approved Project (i. e., Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, Amendment
No. 7) would create a demand for pazks and recreation facilities in the project area. To meet
this demand, the Specific Plan includes an extensive Open Space and Recreation Program.
This program will provide 142.5 acres of land for pazk, recreational open space, pazkway and
paseo 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
O generated by the Approved Project.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 28 of 37 3anuary 8, 2002
ADDEATDIIIIR RTo. 4 To EIIlt 235
O O Analysis of Change in Project Impacts
Implementation of Amendment No. 8 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan would result in a
reduction of 474 dwelling units when compazed 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 compazed 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 pazk
and recreation acreage has increased slightly from 142.5 to 144.0 acres.
Amendment No. 8 includes 30.6 acres of pazks/recreation azeas, 31.9 acres of~eenbelts, 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 pazks, greenbelts, and roadway paseos to
count towazd pazk and recreation credit. A comparison of pazk 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 Analvsis
0
Amendment /Plan No. of Population Amount of Amount of Acreage
Dwelling Multiplier ParWRec ParWRec That
Units Acreage Required Acreage Exceeds
(5 AC/1,000) Provided 5 AC/1,000
Amendment No. 7: 5,246 2.85 74.8 142.5 +67.7
Adopted Land Use Plan
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
Land Use Retirement
plyn Option
As depicted in Table 6, above, Amendment No. 8 would result in a net increase of 1.5 acres
of land devoted to pazk 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 pazks and recreation. No additional mitigation measures aze
warranted.
O
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 29 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEAIDIIBH fii0.4 To SIR 235
O V. U'rtt.tTtes
O Special Background Information
Beginning in January 2001, Califomia 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 Califomia 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 eazly 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 dollaz amount the California
utilities, like SCE, could chazge their customers. Because of the price cap, SCE was forced
to chazge 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.
O 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 D WR was used to
supply those customers who were beyond the daily capacity of SCE. The D WR paid for the
electricity with funds from the State of Califomia General Fund and this money would be
reimbursed to the State by a three cent (32) increase per Kilowatt hour (KW) chazge. This
chazge 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 companies they owe,
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 yeaz (one Megawatt supplies 750 homes). An additional plant, anout-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 aze either being constructed or aze in the process of
obtaining financing. These 12 plants aze 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 37 January 8, 2002
AnnE»nuna ftto. 4 To Egflt 235
_O Combined, these 79 projects, which will be located throughout California, will result in an
additional 30,482 MW produced per yeaz. 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 Bernazdino County.
It is important to note that some aging facilities 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 200].
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 standazds set forth in the (CEQG).
Table 7
California Power Plant Project Status
~.J
Projects approved Over 300
Mega Walt (MW) Capacity (MW) Location
(By County) Status On-line Date
Sunrise' 320 Kern Co. Operational June 2001
Sutter 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 Paloma2 1,048 Kern Co. Construction April-June
2002
Delta' 880 Contra Costa Construction April 2002
Moss LandingZ 1,060 Monterey Co. Construction June 2002
High Desert 720 San Benazdino' Construction July 2003
Elk Hills 500 Kern Co. Construction March 2003
Blythe 520 Riverside Co.' Construction Mazch 2003
Pastoria 750 Kern Co. Construction January 2003
Operafional and Under
Construction Subtotal 7,343
Mountain View 1,056 San Bernardino3 Financing June 2003
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 31 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPiDUDH 810.4 To EIR 235
0
Projects approved Over 300
Mega Watt (MW) Capacity (MW) Location
(By County) Status On-line Date
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 Kem Co. Financing June 2004
Financing Subtotal 10,439
Wildflower Larkspur 90 San Diego Co. Construction July 2001
Wildflower Indigo 135 Riverside Co.' Construction July 2001
Alliance Century 40 San Bemazdino' Constmction September
2001
Alliance Drews 40 San Be_mazdino' Construction September
2001
GWF Hanford 95 Kings Co. Constmction September
2001
Calpine Gitroy Phase I 135 Santa Clara Co. Construction September
200]
Calpeak Escondido 49.5 San Diego Co. Construction September
2001
Under Construction Subtotal 584.5
Pegasus 180 San Bernardino
C0.3 Financing April 2002
Calpine King City 50 Monterey Co. Financing December2001
Calpine Gilroy 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
Z 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: ~://www.enerev.ca.gov/sitinecases
O
PALOMA DEL 3OL Page 32 of 37 January 8, 2002
AnDENDUM Rio. 4 To EIR 235
O O 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 usage rates) for natural gas. The Southern California Edison Company and
the Southern Califomia Gas Company provide electricity to the project site and have
indicated that they would be able to meet these estimated demands.
Q 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 associated 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.
Table 8
Estimated Natural Gas and Electricity Demand Comparison
0
Public Approved Project Proposed Project
Utilities and (Amendment No. 7) (Amendment No. 8)
Service
Estimated Usage Impact after
Estimated Usage Impact after
Miti anon Miti ation
4,115,715 therms per 3,976,688 therms per
5 year per dwelling unit year per dwelling unit
Natural Gas (based on new usage Insignificant (based on new usage Insignificant
rates) rates)
42,030,975 kWh per year
Electricityb (63,388,76] based on Insignificant 37,958,936 kWh per year Insignificant
new usage rates)
s New generation rates provided by Southern Califomia Gas Co. (SCG) provide for 799 therms/year/dwelling
unit for single-family residences and 483 therms/year/dwellingunit formulti-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 m types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for commercial
construction from SCG.
O e 5,621 kWh/dWyr for residential, and 13.54 kWh/sf/yr for commercial
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 33 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDENDilPR RTO.4 To ~~Hd, 235
Q
W. SOLID WASTE
O Previously IdentiSed Impacts
The project site is located within the El Sobrante service azea. The Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan will result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site when
compazed to existing 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 EI
Sobrante Landfill; however, the landfill has received County approvals for a major multi-yeaz
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 streams from landfills. This
practice is expected to continue and will also contribute to the life expectancy of the landfill.
0
O 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 compazed 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.
X. LIBRARIES
O Previously Identi£ed Impacts
The project is currently served by library facilities located neaz the intersection of Ynez Road
and Rancho California Road in Rancho California. Due to the increase in population that
Paloma del Sol will generate, mitigation fees will be required by the project to increase the
facility size, book collection and library staff.
O 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 compazed 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 37
January 8, 2002
ADDEAiDiIDH 1110.4 To EYIlt 235
O When compazed to the Approved Project (i. e., 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 less demand for books, library space, and
library facilities. Since impacts to libraries would be reduced, and no further mitigation is
required.
Y. HEALTH SERVICES
O Previously Identified Impacts
The following medical facilities serve the project area: (1) Inland Valley Regional Medical
Center (80 beds); (2) Menifee Valley Medica] Center (84 beds); and (3) Rancho Springs
Medical Center (99 beds). Other facilities-for specialized medical cases aze also located
throughout the azea. No mitigation measures aze required, as it is believed that medical
facilities respond to "mazket" demand.
O 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 compazed 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 31 I
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 reduced, and
no further mitigation is required.
Z. AIRPORTS
O Previously Ideutified 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.
Q Analysis of Change is Project Impacts
The project is not within an Airport Influence area, and does not require mitigation measures.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 35 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEATDDM 1110.4 To ~III$ 235
AA. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
O Previously Identified Impacts
Earthquakes, floods, and wildfires are natural occurrences that cannot be prevented. The
County Office of Disaster Prepazedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies
to assure prepazedness and recovery from a-natural disaster. Seismic safety, slopes and
erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire services impacts and accompanying
mitigation aze discussed in sepazate sections of the EIR.
Q 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 Sol Specific Plan. In comparison 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. 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
O hazards, including ground shaking. As such, no further mitigation is necessary.
0
PALOMA DEL $OL Page 36 of 37 January 8, 2002
ADDEPIDIIBH ftTO.4 To EIIIt 235
III. C®NCLIJSI®N
In all cases, impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project (i. e., Paloma de] Sol
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 8) would be the same as or less than those analyzed in the
certified FEIR and Addendum No. 3 for the Approved Project (i. e., Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 7). The Proposed Project will be required to comply with all mitigation
measures identified in the certified FEIR and the subsequent EIR addendums, including this EIR
addendum (i. e., Addendum No. 4). No additional mitigation measures are necessary to reduce
potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance.
PALOMA DEL SOL Page 37 of 37 January 8, 2002
~~i~~'~'I~~~41`~
0
0
,JjJN-t6-a® t2=09 FRON+NE{,lI,AND
O ~~~~~~~ ~r~~~
~a
~T
~~~
0
O
February 4,14~J
c,~ty Thornhiu
~ ofTeareeala
PO Box ~3Zt10
Tentecai$, CA 92559-9033
rp:ga9 694 3612
Se~tamd S'dsa ~ t&e ~asee ded Sea Dee¢loprarwad
Dear Rdr. ']7tnttda'il:
PAGE 2/2
~AFO OF C{lJCA7L^e7
1~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
This lttrra ceafnans tI» the Temecula Valley Uaif:ed School District, upon close of escxaw
nnmher 11053593012-U43 (School Site in the Paseo del Sal FYojact}, wi11 ~t rsquire and wiII not
togttsst azry additional scboDl site or sifts within the Project at any time in the future without the
prior wattea coroser>Q of ffie Shcer, vrhiclt consent maybe withheld, by Shcar in Sends sole
discretion. This man is cantirrgeat uQon the cnrrrnt total number of units agptDVed Air
ths: Projeet pursvaat to the Developmeat A~tZac~ent oat matesialty increasing in the fnAtre.
This lrtter is provided in accordance with the tears of the Agreement of Pusebase sad Sale sad
Escrow Insauciions, dated October 20,1598, as approved by the Governing Board of the
Temeaila VatleyUmfied School District on October 20, 1948.
Shy,
TII~Tl.A VALLEY UNIFIED SCIiOaL DISTRICT
'!Save GaAaha
Dizeerns ofPaalities Services
DG:ch
ce: David B, Alhren, Superintcudany TVL7SD
Geri gesip-Coley Assistarrt SuQerintzrcleat, TVLTSD
3t76p Rebn Yrta Reed / 7ert~orada, G 42582/ 1909 E
Poat~t° Faz Nae 7St1 °pv0 y ~ ow®~
zo -2r r'°°r~avt Ucltah-2/
~~ ~s -[til u s~
~o ~e
c®r• ,-~~S.Z pie Cv4 - 3
C~~~~ ®~ ~c~~c~c~~~~.
43200 Business Park Drive # PO Box 9033 # Temecula # California 92589-9'033
(909) 694-6400 #FAX (909) 694-6477
January 16, 2002
Cherrie Seager
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
PO Box 751
Riverside, CA 92502-0751
SUBJECT: Addendum to Environmental Impact Report '
Planning Application No. 01-0109 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. 01-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8)
Planning Application No. 01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188 Amendment
No. 4)
Dear Ms. Seager:
Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to
Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a check in the amount of $914.00 County Administrative
^ fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination. The City of Temecula is payingthe $64.00 filing
(~.. Jl fee under protest. It is the opinion of the Citythat the administrative fee has been increased in a manner
inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code. Section 21152 and 14
California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.
Please return a stamped copy of the Notice of Determination within 5 working days after the 30 day
posting in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at (909)
694-6400.
Sincerely,
l~1
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning ~ ~
Enclosures: check
2 copies of this letter
2 self addressed stamped envelopes
O
R:IS P A~2W 1~A7-0102 Paloma Del Sol #BWOTICE OF DETERMINATION.doc
1
ou~~y ®~ ~~~~~c~~~
a~~Q`llmlo~`]l~J DD C~~9~1Q°f~~C~Q`~~ Notices of Determi~-nation
~: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Department
County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 43200 Business Park Drive
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula,CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination incompliance with the provisions of Section 2 7152 of
the Public Resources Gode.
Mate Clearinghouse No.:
project Title: Addendum to Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. 01-0109 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. Oi-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No.
8)
Planning Application No. 01-0117 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188
Amendment No. 4)
Project Location: North of State Highway 79 South, south of Pauba Road, west of Butterfield
Stage Road and east df Margarita Road.
Project Description: Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment no. 8 and related cases.
~ad Agency: City of Temecula
Contact Person: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Telephone Number: (909) 694-6400
This is to advise you that the City Council for the City of Temecula has approved the above described
project on {date} and has made the following determinations regarding this project:
1. The project ((x ]will [ ]will not) have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That ([ x ] An Environmental Impact Report [ ] A Negative Declaration) was pre pared for
this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures ([ x ]were [ ]were not) made a condition of the approval of the
project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Consideration ([ x ]was [ ]was not) adopted for this project.
5. Findings ([ x ]were [ ]were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA,.
This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval
is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California, 925~D-~ n ; f
Signature:
Date:
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:
R:~,S P A\200 7101-07 02 Paloma Del Sol YBWOTICE OF DETERMINATION.doc
2
LZ,-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC
sNDOR: COTJNT7 OF RIVERSIDE-CNTY CLERK-RECORDER V-CNTYR CHK N0: 4586 CHK DT: 1/23/02
,NV.DATE INVOICE LOST CODE INVOICE AMOUNT RTN/HLD AMT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT
JOB CONTRACT DESCRIPTION
/14/02 LRIVRJAN02 007 011202 914.00 914.00
015533 MASTER PLAN PHASE 3
0
-~~~ad~~
II ~~ JAN 1 6 2002 I U
914.OD
914.00
:,L11L}:f;SANK 8 7RU57~~:• - ~~ 903Z101~222 ...
;•4320 iA dOLtA YItLAGE DR1VEr STE 70D ~" ..°„~ ass xl..
sAt! rorEtio; •cq 92SZ2 ~ ,
,t x+
DATE LNECK N0 `.. ~~
w e ~~/~'.~
/.0.~ fir 'H u 4S$~
~~~<
' .
T ~' `Y
MINE ~i~ND
RE3?y3~00;!#TESN TDQT+I;~32S ..A3Vp; ,DD C$~73'.,4r~ '~ ,
,:x,
~ . ~,
.
r COUNTY flF RIVERSIDE CNTY CLERK RECORDER
z~
`oRnaR P.O: SOX 75 ~. <
a~ ,~ _ i.
xN'' ~ X720 GA2'$i?$y DRI'FIE~--RSVERSIII~E, CA ~ 92507,~~~`",~ ' t `
' .~3tIVER52DE:: CTi S35D2-0~751~:~,. a p " ~;< <3 < ~ x
1p tF,• Y.. ~
vc # ~^Sxx.., r s
~`
..ennnnl r~7 r..o .01777171f1 ~~^ 17f11]17gfT lno
.,