Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021716 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting[28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 17, 2016—6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 16-05 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Commissioner Youmans Roll Call: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts, Youmans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of February 3, 2016 COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 2 Selection of 2016 Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Select members of the Planning Commission to serve on the Promenade Mall Subcommittee. 2.2 Select members of the Planning Commission to serve on the Linfield Generations Project Subcommittee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 3 Planning Application No. PA15-0655 and PA15-1502, a Conditional Use Permit for Holiday Inn & Suites to allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) ABC License located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue, Brandon Rabidou RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0655, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOLIDAY INN & SUITES TO ALLOW FOR A TYPE 20 ABC LICENSE (OFF SALE BEER & WINE) AND TYPE 70 ABC LICENSE (ON SALE GENERAL — RESTRICTIVE SERVICE) AND PA15-1502, A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER &WINE) ABC LICENSE LOCATED AT 27660 JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) (APN 921-480-078) 4 Planning Application Numbers PA14-0051 and PA15-1664, a Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement and portions of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. These changes would allow for the modification of timing requirements for various improvements which are required by the existing approvals for the Phase II area of Roripaugh Ranch. The areas of the Specific Plan affected by the proposed 2 modifications are generally situated along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road, between Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north and must south of Calle Chapos to the south. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase II builders, but would affect the timing of construction for certain improvements. Proposed changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan include only those changes necessary for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction, Stuart Fisk RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 97121030)", ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 15-1664)", AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 14-0051)" REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, March 2, 2016, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula)after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time,the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda,will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center(41000 Main Street,Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website —www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Community Development Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951)694-6400. 3 IF ITEM 1 AGENDA MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 3, 2016 —6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 16-03 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Guerriero Flag Salute: Commissioner Watts Roll Call: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts, Youmans Staff Attendees: Watson, Marroquin, Fisk, Cooper, De LaTorre, Jacobo PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of January 6, 2016 2 Director's Hearing Summary Report RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Summary Report MOTION: COMMISSIONER YOUMANS MOVED TO APPROVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WATTS, AND THE VOICE VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Community Development Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 3 Planning Application Nos. PA15-1808 and PA16-0006, a Conditional Use Permit and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the operation of The Paint Barrel Art & Wine Studio, an art studio that offers canvas painting classes in conjunction with a full service wine and beer bar under a Type 42 (on-sale beer and wine) ABC License, located at 40573 Margarita Road, Suite K, Scott Cooper APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WATTS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TURLEY-TREJO; VOICE VOTE REFLECTED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 16-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-1808, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PAINT BARREL ART & WINE STUDIO, AN ART STUDIO THAT OFFERS CANVAS PAINTING CLASSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A FULL SERVICE WINE AND BEER BAR UNDER A TYPE 42 (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE) ABC LICENSE AT 40573 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE K, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 914-470-035) 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 16-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA16-0006, A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PAINT BARREL ART & WINE STUDIO, AN ART STUDIO THAT OFFERS CANVAS PAINTING CLASSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A FULL SERVICE WINE AND BEER BAR UNDER A TYPE 42 (ON- SALE BEER AND WINE) ABC LICENSE AT 40573 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE K (APN 914-470-035) 2 REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Guerriero adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. and announced the next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Ron Guerriero Luke Watson Chairperson Director of Community Development 3 IF ITEM 2 COMMISSION BUSINESS Selection of 2016 Planning Commission Subcommittee Assignments • Promenade Mall Subcommittee • Linfield Generations Project Subcommittee IF ITEM 3 STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: February 17, 2016 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Brandon Rabidou, Assistant Planner PROJECT Planning Application No. PA15-0655 and PA15-1502, a Conditional SUMMARY: Use Permit for Holiday Inn & Suites to allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) ABC License located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: Kimberly Gross General Plan Specific Plan Implementation (SP-1) Designation: Zoning Designation: Uptown Center (UC) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Existing Hotel/Uptown Center (UC) North: Existing Restaurant (China Buffet) / Uptown Center (UC) South: Existing Drive Thru Restaurant (In-N-Out) /Uptown Center (UC) East: Interstate 15/ N/A West: Existing Commercial Center/Uptown Center (UC) Existing/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 115,759 square feet 10,000 square foot minimum / N/A 1 BACKGROUND SUMMARY On April 29, 2015, Kimberly Gross submitted Planning Application No. PA15-0655, a Conditional Use Permit for Holiday Inn and Suites to allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) located at 27416 Jefferson Avenue. On September 14, 2015, the applicant submitted Planning Application No. PA15-1502, a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity application for a Type 20 (Off- Sale Beer &Wine) ABC License, for the same location. On April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted a 45 day Interim Ordinance that prohibited certain land uses and construction in the then named Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Area (subsequently renamed Uptown Temecula Specific Plan). This Interim Ordinance was extended for ten months and fifteen days or until the City Council adopted the Specific Plan. On December 8, 2015, the City Council adopted the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP), PA15-0655, could not be processed until the moratorium was lifted and the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan was officially adopted. The 45,591 square foot hotel was originally approved under PA97-0235 on September 15, 1997. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing 45,591 square-foot, three-story hotel located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue. The applicant is proposing to obtain a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service). The applicant states that changing market conditions have created an environment where travelers expect lodging establishments to offer alcoholic beverages. The convenience of serving alcoholic beverages to guests is seen as another amenity for guests that stay at lodging facilities. Regular surveys conducted by the hotel have provided feedback on the lack of alcohol service at this location (specifically because other Holiday Inn and Suites have alcohol service). Other hotels have been requesting similar licenses, including the Fairfield Inn, which was approved for an identical set of licenses on July 15, 2015. If approved, the applicant will be permitted to have a Type 20 - Off Sale Beer and Wine License. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) defines a Type 20 license as: (Package Store) Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold. Minors are allowed on the premises. If approved, the applicant will be permitted to have a Type 70 - On Sale General — Restrictive Service License. ABC defines a Type 70 license as: Authorizes the sale or furnishing of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises to the establishment's overnight transient occupancy guests or their invitees. This license is normally issued to "suite-type" hotels and motels, which exercise the license privileges for guests' "complimentary" happy hour. 2 In addition to the above licenses, the applicant is requesting a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Type 20 license. ABC allows for two Type 20 licenses per tract. After two licenses have been issued, the area is considered "over concentrated". Currently, there are fifteen active Type 20 licenses in Census Tract 512.The Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity would allow for the issuance of the Type 20 license in Census Tract 512. The Type 20 license will allow for beer and wine to be sold in the designated Marketplace, to hotel guests, located off the lobby area and was part of the original building construction. The Type 70 license will allow for the establishment to offer beer, wine, and distilled spirits to the customers (and their guests) at a complimentary in-house evening reception Monday through Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. It is anticipated that 30-50 guests will attend the evening reception on a nightly basis. No new additional floor area is proposed beyond the existing floor area. Due to the nature of the Holiday Inn & Suites, customers will be hotel customers versus being another establishment that services the general population. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on February 4, 2016 and mailed to the property owners within 1,000-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities). The request for a Conditional Use permit for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General— Restrictive Service) at Holiday Inn & Suites will be conducted in an existing hotel. All access and public utilities are available to the site. The proposed use, with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, is in conformance with all zoning requirements of the Development Code. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (Development Code Section 17.04.010.E) The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. Holiday Inn and Suites operates as a hotel. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan which specifies hotels in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. 3 Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional uses will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The application will allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and a Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General— Restrictive Service) at an existing hotel location. The site will remain unchanged in size and shape to accommodate the uses prescribed in the Development Code as required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The nature of the proposed conditional uses are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project meets all requirements of the Fire Code, the Building Code, Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (Section 17.10.020) Whether or not the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. Holiday Inn and Suites operates as a hotel. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan which specifies hotels in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. Whether or not the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and character of adjacent land uses. Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Center zone. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Whether or not the proposed use would have an adverse effect on adjacent land uses. 4 Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Center zone. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. In addition, the site will remain unaltered, and adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. The addition of the proposed use does not impact any of the site requirements. Whether or not the proposed use would result in an excessive number of similar establishments in close proximity. The Holiday Inn & Suites is located in Census Tract 512. ABC considers this tract as `over- concentrated" with off-sale licenses. Per ABC, two off-sale licenses are allowed in this tract, and fifteen active licenses currently exist. Therefore, a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity is required for Holiday and Suites to be the sixteenth establishment with an active off- sale ABC License. The finding will allow the applicant to stay competitive with other hotels in the area, as it is a convenience that travelers have come to expect when making the accommodation arrangements. Type 20 licenses are available at several surrounding gas stations, and the Fairfield Inn and Suites. Due to the nature of the Holiday Inn & Suites, customers will be hotel customers versus being another establishment that services the general population and will not result in an excessive number of similar establishments. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Site Plan PC Resolution Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Statement of Operations Notice of Public Hearing 5 VICINITY MAP 4O Lu 0 � m r - z Project Site f J 11 0 250 500 1 000 r Feet SITE PLAN i ----------__� T �-� ^ . ------- ��-~~~ / / * ' / ®r, rL | y / � [� U / / / / / / / / / __�� PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0655, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HOLIDAY INN & SUITES TO ALLOW FOR A TYPE 20 ABC LICENSE (OFF SALE BEER & WINE) AND TYPE 70 ABC LICENSE (ON SALE GENERAL — RESTRICTIVE SERVICE) AND PA15-1502, A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR THE TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER & WINE) ABC LICENSE LOCATED AT 27660 JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) (APN 921-480- 078) Section 1 . Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On April 29, 2015, Kimberly Gross filed Planning Application No. PA15- 0655 a Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. On September 14, 2015, Kimberly Gross filed Planning Application No. PA15-1502, a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. C. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. D. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on February 17, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA15-0655 and PA15-1502 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. F. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Conditional Use Permit, Development Code Section 17.04.010 A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; Holiday Inn and Suites operates as a hotel. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan which specifies hotels in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed conditional uses will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; The application will allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and a Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) at an existing hotel location. The site will remain unchanged in size and shape to accommodate the uses prescribed in the Development Code as required by the Planning Commission or City Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional uses are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; The project meets all requirements of the Fire Code, the Building Code, Development Code and General Plan which provided safeguards for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. E. That the decision to conditionally approve or deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal; The decision to conditionally approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit has been based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (Section 17.10.020) A. Whether or not the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. Holiday Inn and Suites operates as a hotel. The proposed use is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan which specifies hotels in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. B. Whether or not the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and character of adjacent land uses. Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Center zone. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. C. Whether or not the proposed use would have an adverse effect on adjacent land uses. Holiday Inn and Suites is an existing hotel within the Uptown Center zone. As conditioned, the proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. In addition, the site will remain unaltered, and adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. The addition of the proposed use does not impact any of the site requirements. D. Whether or not the proposed use would result in an excessive number of similar establishments in close proximity. The Holiday Inn & Suites is located in Census Tract 512. ABC considers this tract as "over-concentrated" with off-sale licenses. Per ABC, two off-sale licenses are allowed in this tract, and fifteen active licenses currently exist. Therefore, a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity is required for Holiday Inn and Suites to be the sixteenth establishment with an active off-sale ABC License. The finding will allow the applicant to stay competitive with other hotels in the area, as it is a convenience that travelers have come to expect when making the accommodation arrangements. Type 20 licenses are available at several surrounding gas stations, and the Fairfield Inn and Suites. Due to the nature of the Holiday Inn & Suites, customers will be hotel customers versus being another establishment that services the general population and will not result in an excessive number of similar establishments. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Major Modification: A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review (Section 15301 , Existing Facilities); The request for a Conditional Use permit for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) at Holiday Inn & Suites will be conducted in an existing hotel. All access and public utilities are available to the site. The proposed use, with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, is in conformance with all zoning requirements of the Development Code. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-0655 and PA15-1502, a Conditional Use Permit for Holiday Inn & Suites to allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) ABC License located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (APN 921-480-078) subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of February, 2016. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 16- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Secretary DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA15-0655 & PA15-1502 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit for Holiday Inn & Suites to allow for a Type 20 ABC License (Off Sale Beer & Wine) and Type 70 ABC License (On Sale General — Restrictive Service) and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) ABC License located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-480-078 MSHCP Category: N/A(no new grading) DIF Category: N/A(no additional square footage) TUMF Category: N/A(no additional square footage) Quimby Category: N/A(non-residential) Approval Date: February 17, 2016 Expiration Date: February 17, 2018 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Exemption. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/ developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards,judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three (3) one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. SP 14. 6. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 7. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 9. Statement of Operations. The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations dated March 9, 2015, on file with the Planning Division, unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 10. Revocation of CUP. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 11. City Review and Modification of CUP. The City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council retain and reserve the right and jurisdiction to review and modify this Conditional Use Permit (including the Conditions of Approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of business, a change in scope, emphasis, size of nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use. The reservation of right to review any Conditional Use Permit granted or approved or conditionally approved hereunder by the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission and City Council is in addition to, and not in-lieu of, the right of the City, its Director of Community Development, Planning Commission, and City Council to review, revoke or modify any Conditional Use Permit approved or conditionally approved hereunder for any violations of the conditions imposed on such Conditional Use Permit or for the maintenance of any nuisance condition or other code violation thereon. 12. Posting of Local Transportation Providers. An 8.5" x 11" (or larger) sign listing local transportation service providers and corresponding telephone numbers shall be posted at a conspicuous location within the building. Information to assist in the compilation of this sign may be obtained through the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce at (951) 676-5090. 13. Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. The project shall operate in conformance with all requirements and regulations of Chapter 9.20 (Noise) of the Temecula Municipal Code. 14. Compliance with State Laws and Labor Code. The permittee shall comply with all applicable state laws, including the California Labor Code. Outside Agencies 15. Compliance with Dept. of Environmental Health. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Healths transmittal dated (insert date), a copy of which is attached. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 16. Fire Requirement. No Conditions of Approval are required by the Fire Department for the change in liquor licenses. No additional permits are required by the Fire Department. POLICE DEPARTMENT General Requirements 17. No Alcohol Sales Between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. Licensees may not sell, give, or deliver alcohol (by the drink or by the package) between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day. No person may knowingly purchase alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Section 25631 B&P Code). Licensees may not permit patrons or employees to consume alcohol between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the same day (even if someone bought the drinks before 2:00 a.m. Section 25632 B&P). Some ABC licenses have special conditions (restrictions) as to hours of sale that are stricter that the law. Those licenses are marked "Conditional" (23805 B&P). 18. Inspections. Police officers, sheriff's deputies and ABC investigators are sworn law enforcement officers (peace officers) with powers of arrest. Whether in plainclothes or uniform, peace officers have the legal right to visit and inspect any licensed premises at any time during business hours without a search warrant or probable cause. This includes inspecting the bar and back bar, store room, office, closed or locked cabinets, safes, kitchen, or any other area within the licensed premises. It is legal and reasonable for licensees to exclude the public from some areas of the premises. However, licensees cannot and must not deny entry to, resist, delay, obstruct, or assault a peace officer (Sections 25616, 25753, and 25755 B&P; 148 and 241 (b) PC). 19. Disorderly House. Licensees may not permit their licensed premises to become a disorderly house. A disorderly house is a licensed outlet (on or off sale) that: (a) disturbs neighbors with noise, loud music, loitering, littering, vandalism, urination or defecation, graffiti, etc., and/or (b) has many ongoing crimes inside such as drunks, fights, assaults, prostitution, narcotics, etc. The licensed premise includes the parking lot (Section 25601 B&P; 316 PC). 20. Public Telephones. Any public telephones located on the exterior of the buildings shall be placed in a well-lit, highly visible area, and installed with a "call-out only" feature to deter loitering. This feature is not required for public telephones installed within the interior of the buildings. 21. Employee Training for Identification Checks. The applicant shall ensure all employees involved with the sales, service and identification checks for the purpose of any sales of alcoholic beverages are trained in the proper procedures and identification checks. The Temecula Police Department provides free training for all employers and employees involved in service and sales of alcoholic beverages. It is the responsibility of the applicant to set up a training session for all new employees. Contact the Crime Prevention and Plans Office at (951) 695-2773 to set up a training date. Training should be completed prior to the grand opening of this business and periodic updated training should be conducted when new employees/management are hired. 22. Identification Verification. Identification will be verified utilizing one of the following: (a) valid California driver's license; (b) valid California identification card; (c) valid military identification card (active/reserve/retired/dependent); (d) valid driver's license from any of the 50 States or Territories of the United States; (e) valid U.S. Passport; (f) valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, and County or City agency. 23. Acceptable Forms of Identification. As noted above, only a valid government issued identification card issued by a Federal, State, County or City agency is acceptable, providing it complies with 25660 of the Business and Profession Code (B&P), which includes the following requirements: (a) name of person; (b) date of birth; (c) physical description; (d) photograph; (e) currently valid (not expired). It is the responsibility of business owners and any person who sells or serves alcoholic beverages to be aware of current laws and regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverages. 24. Questions Regarding Conditions. Any questions regarding these conditions should be directed to the Temecula Police Department Crime Prevention and Plans Unit at (951) 695-2773. STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS City of Temecula 41000 Main Street PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 March 9, 2015 REF: Starwood III Hospitality, LLC dba Holiday Inn 27660 Jefferson Ave. Temecula, CA 92590 This letter is to serve as an initial Statement of Operations for the sale and serving of beer and wine with respect to the referenced property as required and set forth by the City of Temecula in the Conditional and Temporary Use Permit Application Submittal Requirements. We are applying for Conditional Use Permits for both Type 20 and Type 70 licenses which are required by our Franchise to sell and serve beer and wine to our hotel guests. Alcoholic beverages for sale, for guest consumption on the property, will be available in our designated Marketplace which is located off our lobby and part of the original building construction. We also look to offer beer and wine, along with light snacks such as pretzels, nuts and crackers, to our guests at our complimentary in-house Manager's Reception that will be Monday through Thursday, 5 P.M. to 7 P.M. • The hotel is open 24 hours, 7 days a week operation • There are approximately 25 employees • No private security is required • Number of people in attendance for our Evening Reception will average 30-50 • Total of 95 parking spaces • No live entertainment or loud music • Structures to be used are reach-in refrigerators for our on-sale and a portable stand for the Evening Reception; all housed on-site and owned by the property. • No portable restrooms are required • Existing ADA paths are on-site Please let us know should further assistance be required in moving forward. Sincerely- Kimberly Eepresentative Starwood III Hospitality, LLC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing X959 . A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA15-0655 & PA15-1502 Applicant: Kimberly Gross Proposal: A Condition Use Permit to obtain Type 20 and Type 70 liquor license for the Holiday Inn & Suites and a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity to authorize a Type 20 license at 27660 Jefferson Ave located at 27660 Jefferson Avenue Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (15301, Class 1, Type Existing Facilities); Case Planner: Brandon Rabidou, (951) 506-5142 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: February 17, 2016 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. FTG�ECt SE?E 3W am t 70 Tel f n Notice of Public Hearing The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.citvoftemecula.org. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Community Development Department, (951) 694-6400. IF ITEM 4 STAFF REPORT— PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: February 17, 2016 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Case Planner APPLICANT NAME: Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation PROJECT Planning Application Numbers PA14-0051 and PA15-1664, a SUMMARY: Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to modify the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement and portions of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. These changes would allow for the modification of timing requirements for various improvements which are required by the existing approvals for the Phase II area of Roripaugh Ranch. The areas of the Specific Plan affected by the proposed modifications are generally situated along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road, between Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north and just south of Calle Chapos to the south. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase II builders, but would affect the timing of construction for certain improvements. Proposed changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan include only those changes necessary for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction. CEQA: Addendum to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution approving the project subject to Conditions of Approval BACKGROUND SUMMARY The approved Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (RRSP) allows for the development of 2,015 residential units on 804.7 acres, including 1,056 low and low medium density single-family units, and 959 medium density single family units. The RRSP also allows development of 15.4 acres (110,000 square feet) of commercial uses, a 22-acre elementary school site, a 20-acre middle school site, a 5.1-acre neighborhood park, a 19.7-acre community park with lighted athletic fields, 9.1 acres of private recreational facilities, 202.7 acres of biological habitat, 56.6 acres of flood control and landscaped slope areas, and a 2-acre fire station. At build out, the project would have a gross density of 2.5 units per total acre and a net density of 4.88 units per residential acre. The project is required to construct a number of improvements, including CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 1 regional and local roads such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road, and major sewer, water and drainage facilities. Planning Application PA14-0051 is a Development Agreement Amendment to modify the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement. These changes would allow for the modification of timing requirements for various improvements identified in Exhibit C (attached) which are required by the existing approvals for the Phase I I area of Roripaugh Ranch. The Phase I I area of the RRSP is generally situated along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road, between Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north and just south of Calle Chapos to the south. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase 11 builders, but would affect the timing of construction for the improvements identified in Exhibit C. Planning Application PA15-1664 is a Specific Plan Amendment to modify the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction. No Specific Plan changes are proposed beyond those necessary for consistency between the proposed Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. ANALYSIS The proposed Development Agreement Amendment only proposes to modify the timing requirements for certain improvements as identified below. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase 11 builders. Proposed changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan include only those changes necessary for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction. Items No. 1 through 18 below provide the proposed improvement timing threshold changes and the thresholds per the existing Development Agreement: 1. Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 A. Description of Public Improvement. Acquire all right-of-way, complete engineering design, and construct Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 to the intersection with Rancho California Road. Construction will include intersection and traffic signal improvements at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road and landscaping of the center medians of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 improvements. When appropriate warrants are met, Owners of Phase 11 shall contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way and related intersection improvements as provided in Section 2.2.6, Phasing of Road Improvements, of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and more specifically, Table 2-3 and Paragraph 4 on page 2-22 of the Specific Plan. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. Complete Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements prior to issuance of 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11, excluding the installation of center median landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Complete center median landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 2 and Phase 3 prior to the issuance of the 500th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Same as proposed building permit release schedule. The purpose of modification to this item is to clearly state construction and funding responsibility for this improvement. D. Responsibility. The City shall construct the Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements using Remaining CFD Funds, excluding the installation of landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 shall be constructed by the Owners of Phase II Property. (As used in this Attachment 5-A, the term "Remaining CFD Funds" shall mean available bond proceeds from duly authorized community facility district bonds issued by the City and secured by a special tax on the Project Site or the Phase II Properties, or both, pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5.) 2. Traffic Signal, Road, and Intersection Acquisition Fee A. Description of Public Improvement. Establish an on and offsite traffic signal, road and intersection acquisition fee. The fee amount will be determined by the City based on cost estimates provided by the Owners of Phase II Property, and fees will be collected by the City at the time of building permit issuance. The City will determine when the improvements are required to be installed. The Constructing Party will be reimbursed upon acceptance of the completed improvements by the City. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. The on and offsite traffic signals, roads, and intersections to which the Acquisition Fee will be applied are: • Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road • Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos • Nicolas Road at Winchester Road B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II shall provide cost estimates and fee basis to the Director of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The City shall collect the approved fee amount at issuance of each building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II starting with the 1St building permit. The ultimate signal modifications and associated improvements at the Nicolas Road and Winchester Road intersection shall be operational prior to the issuance of the 26th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The timing of the installation for the remaining traffic signals and intersection improvements shall be as determined by the City Director of Public Works, and shall not be an unreasonable time-schedule. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 3 C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Several interrelated thresholds required construction of these traffic signals and other related intersection improvements prior to 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11. However warrants for traffic signals will not all be met at the same time, and all improvements are not needed until a majority of the units in Phase II are constructed and/or schools or Sports Park are in operation. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 3. Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering design and construct full Nicolas Road improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection. The City will use the Remaining CFD Funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, to construct the improvements from the approved plan as a City- sponsored project. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall be required, on behalf of the City, to provide for all required engineering design, construction plans, CEQA analysis & processing, environmental mitigation measures, right-of-way acquisition, and to obtain all necessary Resource Agency and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District permits. Costs of design, mitigation, project management and construction will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds, with priority to the costs of construction. Costs of right-of-way acquisition will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds upon completion of the required acquisition. The approved plan shall include all utility, drainage, flood control, bridge, and intersection improvements necessary for the roadway connection. Resource Agency permits for the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection should be combined with the permits for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road and processed and obtained as a single package. Upon review of final design plans and estimates by the City, the City shall determine a security amount corresponding to the then current engineering cost estimates plus design, mitigation and right-of-way acquisition costs, costs of construction and contingencies for both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall post a letter of credit with the City, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of the Security Amount. The City shall release the letter of Credit upon the occurrence of one of CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 4 the following events: (1) Completion of the construction of both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing as required by this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; or (2) additional proceeds from new CFD bonds are approved and available so that the Remaining CFD funds are sufficient to complete both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. After determination of the Security Amount, any Remaining CFD Funds in excess of the security amount may then be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channel improvements. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Offsite Segment (Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection to Phase II Boundary). The Owners of Phase II Property shall submit complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals on behalf of the City, together with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, to allow for start of the City- sponsored project prior to issuance of the 200th building permit for the Phase II Property. If, however, the Owners of Phase II Property are unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, the Owners of Phase II Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits, up to a total 522 building permits prior to obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits. 3. City shall construct Nicolas Road from the western Project boundary to Calle Girasol Owners of Phase II Property shall construct Nicolas Road Improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western Project boundaries as described in this Section with the Park-n-Ride/Equestrian Staging Area, which is required to be constructed prior to the 1St building permit for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Owners of the Phase II Property shall construct a barricade and turn-around acceptable to the Fire Department on Nicolas Road at the boundary of the Phase II Property. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 5 C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Several interrelated thresholds originally required construction of Nicolas Road in phases, with some phases to be constructed prior to building permit issuance in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1. The thresholds were subsequently modified through Operating Memorandum. The full completion of utility, drainage, flood control, bridge and intersection improvements necessary for the roadway connection were required to be completed prior to the 1 st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. City, Owners of Phase II Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated between Owners of Phase II Property as noted in item #18 herein below. 4. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the improvements upstream and downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road from the plans approved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Both upstream and downstream improvements must be constructed concurrently. Remaining CFD funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, above the Security Amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol improvements may be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek channel improvements. Permanent maintenance of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of RCFC&WCD. City of Temecula, as the underlying property owner, will cooperate to remove the existing Restrictive Covenant on the land, and to grant fee ownership to RCFC&WCD for Permanent Maintenance. Resource Agency permits for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, and the improvements are off site. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements permits downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road should be combined with the permits for Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection and processed and obtained as a single package. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Owners of Phase II Property shall submit complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals, together with the Nicolas CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 6 Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, prior to issuance of the 200th building permit within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. If, however, Owners of Phase II Property is unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, Owners of Phase II Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, up to a total of 522 Building Permits within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property prior to obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. As previously modified by Operating Memorandum, construction of Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements is required prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 5. Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements from the plans approved by RCFC&WCD and/or City of Temecula. Construction shall include the bridge abutments for the Pedestrian Bridge. Remaining CFD Funds above the security amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol and Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements may be applied to Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements Permanent maintenance of the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA, or other maintenance entity approved by the City of Temecula. As used in this Attachment 5A, "Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA," shall mean a homeowners association duly incorporated under the laws of the State of California for the purposes, among others, of maintaining the various public and private improvements as provided in the Development Agreement and funding such maintenance obligations. There shall only be one HOA for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II maintenance obligations in a form approved by the Director of Community Development and City Attorney, provided, however, that this HOA may provide for special benefit zones to fund maintenance obligations as approved by the Director of Public Works. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements prior to issuance of the CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 7 1St building permit in a Planning Area draining into the channel (i.e., Planning Areas 17 thru 31). C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Several interrelated thresholds require the design, maintenance agreements, Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMAR)/Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) processes and/or construction of components of Long Valley Wash channel Improvements prior to rough grading, building permits and/or occupancy of units. Essentially, construction of the channel improvements was required prior to the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 6. Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQMP) A. Description of Public Improvement. As needed, each Owner of Phase II Property shall submit a WQMP Amendment covering its ownership to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and City for review and comment. The WQMP Amendments shall address both construction and occupancy of the project. The amended WQMPs shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit WQMP Amendments covering their respective ownerships to the SDRWQCB and City for review and comment prior to any additional approval of plans, issuance of permits, and/or grading of each Party's site. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Submittal of a WQMP to the RWQCB was required prior to the issuance of any grading permit. A WQMP for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II was submitted, but submittal of amendments will be required by the City prior to any additional approval of plans, issuance of permits, and/or grading of each Party's site. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, individually by Planning Area. 7. Remaining Public Improvements & Landscaping — Major Roadways A. Description of Public Improvement. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the public improvements, including sidewalks, parkway landscaping, raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, along the frontage of major roadways adjacent to each Planning Area in their respective ownerships, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. This requirement will pertain to the following major roadways: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road • Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street) • Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) • Nicolas Road • North Loop Road CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 8 • South Loop Road In the event that sidewalks along the above streets are not continuous, the Owners of Phase II Property shall provide an all-weather pedestrian path of travel to ensure continuous pedestrian circulation. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall each complete the public improvements and landscaping including sidewalk, parkway landscaping, raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, adjacent to their frontage on major roadways, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in each adjacent Planning Area and/or Tract Map. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Completion of public improvements for the listed major roadways were addressed through specific building permit thresholds for each major roadway. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, individually by Planning Area. 8. Permanent Maintenance of Parkway Landscaping — Landscape Maintenance Master Plan A. Description of Public Improvement. Although originally intended to be maintained by the TCSD, permanent maintenance of slopes and parkways along the frontage of major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA. Owners of Phase II Property shall each prepare and submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan to the Community Development Director for review and comment covering all public and private open space areas, parks, slopes, parkways, etc., and especially slopes and parkways along their frontage on major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, which will not be maintained by individual commercial or residential property owners. The Landscape Maintenance Master Plan(s) shall show the locations of any necessary water meters and electrical meters, together with the permanent maintenance entity for each area. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan for their respective ownerships to the Community Development Director for review and comment prior to the 1 St building permit in each Planning Area and/or Tract Map. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. No building permit thresholds currently exist in Development Agreement for a parkway landscape maintenance master plan because these areas were originally intended to be maintained by the TCSD. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property. 9. North and South Loop Roads —Complete Engineering and Landscape Architectural Design CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 9 A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering and landscape architectural design as public roadways, with: • narrow roadway pavement widths consistent with current City design criteria; • traffic calming measures including measures to address traffic to/from Sports Park (Planning Area 27), Secondary School (Planning Area 28) and Elementary School (Planning Area 29) such as a traffic round-about on the North Loop Road easterly of Planning Area 29; • water quality measures addressing runoff from the roadway pavement and parkway areas; • areas with widened parkways, meandering sidewalks or trails, variations in wall locations and type, or other design features intended to create unique character and visual appeal; and • a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Submit design to the Public Works Director and Community Development Director for approval. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete engineering design of the North and South Loop Roads, and a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development, and submit for approval to the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete landscape architectural design of the North and South Loop Roads and submit for approval to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Several interrelated thresholds require construction of North and South Loop Road improvements prior to 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 10. Sports Park (Planning Area 27) —Complete Design & Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description of Public Improvement. Update design of the Sports Park with: • water quality measures addressing runoff from impervious areas and incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the amended WQMP; • unnecessary turf areas converted to drought tolerant plant materials; • fescue turf soccer fields converted to synthetic turf; • design of tot lot and playground updated to the latest Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standards; CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 10 • proposed site lighting converted to more efficient LED lighting; • pre-wiring for security cameras for each major use area (parking lot, ball fields, restrooms, etc.) and provision of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) system, • approval of the sports field lighting design by the Community Services Director, and, if require , the Riverside County Airport Land Use Authority, with the intent of minimizing the impacts of lighting on the surrounding community; • connection to the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash and potential connection to the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian, and Trailhead facility in Planning Area 3313; and • conversion of the proposed ball field to a 90' infield/ 325' outfield. Owners of Phase II Property shall submit design to the Community Services Director and Public Works Director for approval. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, the Owners of Phase II Property shall update the Sports Park design, and submit plans for approval to the Community Services and Public Works Directors. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct the Sports Park and the City shall accept the park, prior to issuance of the 1200th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch, that number including Roripaugh Ranch Phase I. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Current threshold require completion of the Sports Park prior to the 700th (total) building permit in Roripaugh Ranch. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated on the basis of the City of Temecula's typical parks fee methodology. 11. Private Recreation Center(Planning Area 30) — Use Analysis, Design Development, and Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description of Public Improvement. Perform a recreational use analysis to guide design development of the Private Recreation Center, optimum location within Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, and to form the basis for fair share construction and maintenance fiscal contribution decisions by the Owners of Phase II Property. Perform design development based on the recreational use analysis and submit to the Community Development Director for approval. Design development drawings and documents must be sufficient to understand recreational uses, conceptual architecture, construction costs and maintenance/operational costs. Permanent maintenance of the Private Recreation Center shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 11 B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. RVR and/or Wingsweep shall perform a recreational use analysis, design development, and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Prior to the issuance of the 300th building permit in Phase II the schedule for completion of construction of the Private Recreation Center shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. C. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Current thresholds required completion of a private recreation center on Planning Area 30 prior to the 800th (total) building permit in Roripaugh Ranch. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 12. Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash. Bridge abutments to be constructed with Long Valley Wash channel construction. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. RVR shall construct the Pedestrian Bridge prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, and 24. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Same as proposed building permit release schedule. The purpose of modification to this item is to identify responsibility for this improvement. D. Responsibility. RVR, individually. 13. Multi-Use Trail in Planning Areas 19, 20, & 21 — Design Development A. Description of Public Improvement. Perform design development of the 15' wide Multi-Use Trail intended to provide a trail in Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 along their southerly boundary, then crossing Long Valley Wash to connect to Planning Area 19 and along its easterly boundary and connecting to properties to the east. Due to changed conditions, trail access into Planning Area 13 has been precluded, crossing of Long Valley Wash may only be accomplished at the easterly Loop Road crossing and introduction of the Wine Country Sewer provides additional opportunity for alternate trail alignment. Design development shall include: • measures to screen onsite and offsite homes from the trail on an "as- needed" basis; • measures to provide for safe crossing at the easterly Loop Road crossing of Long Valley Wash; • consideration of connection to properties to the east at Calle Contento, in the alignment of the Wine Country Sewer, as opposed to an alignment through Planning Area 19 to connect to Planning Area 13; • consideration of any potential connection of the trail alignment through Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to properties to the south, or to CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 12 the west across Butterfield Stage Road, or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities required to be constructed in Planning Area 33B. If safe and reasonably useful connections from Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to such properties or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities cannot be expected, then alternate alignments, such as trail crossing facilities at Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and/or use of the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash shall be considered in the design development instead; • a Phasing Plan for construction of the multi-use trail in segments to allow for its early construction as well as orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase II Owners of Phase II Property shall submit design development to the Community Development Director for approval. Permanent maintenance of the Multi-Use Trail shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall perform design development of the Multi-Use Trail and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The Multi-Use Trail may be constructed in phases, in accordance with the approved design. In each Planning Area, the Multi-Use Trail shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 1St building permit (excluding model home permits) in the Planning Area. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Current thresholds require completion of the Multi-Use Trail prior to the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 19, 20, and 21. D. Responsibility. Costs allocated in the future based on Planning Area ownership (i.e. trail costs within each Planning Area will be borne by the owner of that Planning Area). 14. Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, Trailhead in Planning Area 33B A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete design and construct the Park-n- Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities, in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City. Permanent Maintenance of and providing utilities for the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, and Trailhead in Planning Area 33B shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. Maintenance of the sites for Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities and the facilities during construction shall be the responsibility of the Owners of Phase II. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 13 B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete design and construct the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City, prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 23, 31 and 33A. Prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, 31 and 33A, the Owners of Phase II Property shall also complete the design and construction of the portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the MWD easement, including necessary temporary turn-around geometrics to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The design and construction of this portion of Nicolas Road must be coordinated and consistent with the engineering design and construction of Nicolas Road (Item #3 of this Attachment 5-A). C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. The original Development Agreement thresholds required the completion of the Park-n-Ride in Planning Area 11 (Commercial Use) prior to the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, and 33A. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 moved the facility to Planning Area 33B and added the requirement for an Equestrian Staging Area/Trail Head, but did not specify a revised building permit threshold. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 15. Fire Protection Plans A. Description of Public Improvement. Submit plans for structural protection from vegetation fires to the City of Temecula Fire Department. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit a Fire Protection Plan for their respective areas for approval by the City of Temecula Fire Department prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract/Parcel Map in each of their respective ownerships. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Current thresholds require submittal of a Fire Protection Plan prior to the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, individually by Planning Area. 16. Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street) —Complete Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Roripaugh Valley Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the access for the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6) shall be installed prior to the acceptance of the Neighborhood Park by the City. CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 14 B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. If not already completed with the construction of the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6), Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 11. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Several interrelated Thresholds required construction of Roripaugh Valley Road improvements in phases: • Prior to completion of the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6) • Prior to 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 17. Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) Improvements — Complete Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements from Nicolas Road to Roripaugh Valley Road. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 12. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Current thresholds require construction of Fiesta Ranch Road prior to the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. D. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 18. On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities — Proportional Cost Sharing. A. Description of Public Improvement. Owners of Phase II Property shall share the costs to complete the design, planning, government agency permit approvals, construction and implementation of all of the On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities per the items above on a proportional basis. B. Proposed Building Permit Release Schedule. Not Applicable. C. Building Permit Release Schedule per the existing Development Agreement. Not Applicable. D. Responsibility. As costs are incurred, The Owners of Phase II Property shall each pay their agreed upon proportional share of said approved costs. RVR's proportionate share shall be ninety percent (90%). Wingsweep's proportionate share shall be ten percent (10%). CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 15 LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U-T San Diego on February 4, 2016 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600-foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan certified by the City Council on December 24, 2002, including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein, and the subsequent environmental reviews required as mitigation measures identified therein. Based on that review, and review of the First Amendment adopted on February 14, 2006 and the Second Amendment adopted on April 23, 2013, the proposed Third Amendment does not require the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration as none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162) exist. Specifically, there are no substantial changes proposed by the Amendments that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Amendments are undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, showing that: (a) the Amendments will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map PC Resolution — EIR Addendum, Specific Plan Amendment, and Development Agreement Amendment Exhibit A —CC Resolution — EIR Addendum Exhibit B —CC Resolution — Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit C — CC Ordinance —Third Amendment to the Development Agreement Notice of Public Hearing CAProgram Files(x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\02133AEA-6E7F-4E6D-9255-3BCC85404810\11950.docx 16 AERIAL MAP City of Temecula PA 14-0051 .._.._.._ .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._......_.._.., .._.._.._.._.._ _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ ..... Project Site IP r �,,�; SRS e`er' �� •r.: c• a J TCyLLE CHAPQS �, r f -� r�',' visrn aE+oRD Yw�• ' �"��isiA"��i.�N 0 500 1,000 Feet This map was made the City or Temecula Geographic Information System The map is derived from m base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside a NORTH county,The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on[his map.Data and information represented on[his map ■ re subject to update and modification..The Geographic Information System and `f other sources should be queried for the most current information. This map is not for reprint or resale. L 7flyrupMt[C�r:Mortrr:rtogt: Syratinrs PC RESOLUTION EIR ADDENDUM, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 97121030)", ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 15-1664)", AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 14- 0051)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The City Council of the City of Temecula certified the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") on December 24, 2002. B. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 11) was approved by the City Council on November 26, 2002 by the adoption of Resolution No. 02-112. Amendment No. 1 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific (SP 11) was approved on January 11, 2005 by the adoption of Resolution No. 05-08. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendment No. 1 shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "Specific Plan". C. On November 5, 2015, Ken Kraemer filed Planning Application No. 15- 1664, a Specific Plan Amendment to amend the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. D. Planning Application PA15-1664 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. E. The City of Temecula ("City"), a general law city in the State of California and Ashby USA, LLC entered into a Development Agreement on December 17, 2002 for the development of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ("Development Agreement"). A First Amendment to the Development Agreement was adopted on February 14, 2006 and a Second Amendment to the Development Agreement was adopted on April 23, 2013. F. On March 5, 2014, Ken Kraemer filed Planning Application No. PA14- 0051, a Development Agreement Amendment Application in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. G. Planning Application PA14-0051 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. H. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Applications PA15-1664, Specific Plan Amendment, and PA14-0051, Development Agreement Amendment, and the associated Environmental Impact Report Addendum on February 17, 2016, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. I. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Planning Application PA15-1664, Specific Plan Amendment and PA14- 0051, Development Agreement Amendment, subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. J. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the City Council approve the Applications hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is The City has reviewed the potential impacts of the Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) and the various potential benefits to the City of the Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) and has concluded that Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) is in the best interests of the City. B. Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) is consistent with the City's General Plan including the goals and objectives thereof and each element thereof. C. The City has reviewed the potential impacts of the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and the various potential benefits to the City of the Third Amendment and has concluded that the Third Amendment is in the best interests of the City. D. The Third Amendment to the Development is consistent with the City's General Plan including the goals and objectives thereof and each element thereof. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Agreement Amendment Application: A. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Amendments that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Amendments are undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, showing that: (a) the Amendments will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR: (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Addendum no. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH no. 97121030) for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 and the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement per Exhibit "A" attached hereto; adopt a resolution approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan per Exhibit "B" attached hereto; and adopt an ordinance approving the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement per Exhibit "C" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of February, 2016. Ron Guerriero, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February: 2016, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A CC RESOLUTION - EIR ADDENDUM RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 97121030) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. In November and December 2002, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, along with other land use entitlements, and a 10-year Development Agreement for the Roripaugh Ranch Project. At that time, the City certified a comprehensive Final Environmental Impact Report State, State Clearinghouse No. 97121030 ("EIR"), to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for all of the land use approvals and the development agreement for the Project. In April 2013, the City prepared Addendum No. 1 to that EIR for a proposed 15-year extension to the Development Agreement from 2013 to 2028. B. The Development Agreement and the Specific Plan provide that the issuance of building permits for Phase II buildings are conditioned upon the completion of design and construction of certain Public Improvements. The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan would modify the schedule and building permit "trigger points" or "building permit thresholds" for various public improvements related to development in Phase II of the Roripaugh Project (collectively the "Amendments"). The Owners of the Phase II Properties have requested modifications to the infrastructure implementation schedule to be able to install them in a more cost effective and efficient manner based on current market conditions. C. Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report City of Temecula, California, State Clearinghouse No. 97121030 ("Addendum No. 2") addresses potential environmental impacts that might result from the Amendments. D. The City has caused an Addendum No. 2 ("Addendum") to be prepared for the Amendments in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines because the Amendments do not require the preparation of a new or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. E. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is attached to a final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15164. F. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 2 in conjunction with the EIR and Addendum No. 1. G. On _ , 2016 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, and proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. After hearing all written and oral testimony on the proposed actions and duly considering the comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that the Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) be approved. G. On , 2016 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council. H. The City Council has reviewed the findings made in this Resolution and finds that they are based upon substantial evidence that has been presented to the City Council in the record of proceedings. The documents, staff reports, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in City Hall through the office of the Director of Community Development, who serves as the custodian of these records. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of Addendum No. 2 prior to deciding whether to approve the Amendments. Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council finds and determines that Addendum No. 2 is the appropriate environmental document to analyze the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan ("Amendments") because: A. There are no substantial changes proposed by the Amendments that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Amendments are undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, showing that: (a) the Amendments will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR: (b) there are significant effects previously examined that will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts Addendum No. 2 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 97121030) - i Prepared for: Stuart Fisk City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Prepared by: Kent Norton, AICP LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 L S A Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... 1 A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. . .. 1 B. ADDENDUM DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 1 C. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2 D. APPROVED PROJECT........................................................................................2 E. PREVIOUS OR RELATED ACTIVITY.................................................................. 5 F. ADDENDUM NO. 1 .............................................................................................. 5 G. PROPOSED ADDENDUM NO. 2 ......................................................................... 6 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT................................................................... 21 I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 26 J. REFERENCES AND SOURCES........................................................................ 26 APPENDICES A. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN B. RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT EIR C. RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL EIR AND MMRP D. RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 1 E. WINE COUNTRY EIR AND ORIGINAL RORIPAUGH EIR TRAFFIC STUDY EXCERPTS Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In late 2002, the City of Temecula approved a 10-year Development Agreement as part of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. At that time, the City certified a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. In April 2013, the City prepared Addendum No. 1 to that EIR for a proposed 15-year extension to the Development Agreement from 2013 to 2028. That action did not create or result in any new or different environmental impacts identified in the EIR, and was needed to continue implementation of the Specific Plan, Community Facilities District, and planned improvements for the Roripaugh project. The site was already rough graded and a number of permanent improvements were already installed, including roads, retaining walls, and a recreation center in the Panhandle area. Extension of the development agreement allowed for completion of necessary infrastructure improvements associated with the Roripaugh project. Addendum No. 2 proposes to modify the schedule and building permit "trigger points" for various public improvements related mainly to development in the"pan" portion of the Roripaugh project. The developer has requested modifications to the infrastructure implementation schedule to be able to install them in a more cost effective and efficient manner based on current market conditions. This addendum addresses potential environmental impacts that would result from these requested infrastructure timing changes. A. INTRODUCTION The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), State Clearinghouse No. 97121030, for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ("RRSP") was certified by the City of Temecula ("City") on December 17, 2002 to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). As part of that action, the City, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, approved a Development Agreement ("DA")that stipulated impact fee limits in exchange for the private construction of various public improvements (e.g., fire station, regional roadways, etc.). The most recent amendment to the RRSP occurred in March 2003 and the DA was authorized for a 10-year period which was set to expire in November 2013. Prior to its expiration, the City Council approved a fifteen year extension to assure that the identified improvements were constructed in an efficient and equitable fashion by local developers as development occurred after 2013. That DA extension was addressed in EIR Addendum No. 1. The proposed EIR Addendum No. 2 is intended to slightly modify the implementation schedule of various infrastructure improvements. B. ADDENDUM DOCUMENTATION When a lead agency has already prepared an EIR, CEQA mandates that "no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following occurs: (a) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; (b) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the environmental impact report;or (c) new information, which was not known or could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available."(Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21166). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 clarifies that a subsequent EIR or supplemental EIR is only required when "substantial changes" occur to a project or the circumstances surrounding a project, or "new information"about a project implicates"new significant environmental effects"or a"substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects"(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 2 When only minor technical changes or additions to a previous EIR are necessary and none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum to the previously approved EIR [State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b)]. In this case, the City of Temecula, as the Lead Agency, has decided to prepare an Addendum to the RRSP EIR for modification to the implementation schedule of various infrastructure improvements identified within the existing Development Agreement because this action will not create or result in any new or different environmental impacts identified in the RRSP EIR. C. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Roripaugh Ranch project is located in the eastern portion of the City of Temecula, just west of the Temecula Wine Country area, off of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road, as shown in the attached exhibit from the RRSP EIR("Figure 2"). For reference, the long narrow portion of the project just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road is referred to as the "panhandle"while the "valley" portion covers the southeastern portion of the site. This property had been farmed for many years by the Roripaugh family, and planning for development on approximately 800 acres of this property began around 1995. In 1997, a Notice of Preparation (NOP)was prepared for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, but it was almost six years later (late 2002) before final approval was given for the Specific Plan and certification of the EIR. Subsequent to approval of the Specific Plan and EIR,the site was rough graded and temporary erosion control/water quality improvement installed, but no development has occurred on the site due to the economic downturn that started in 2007. The RRSP was officially approved on March 25, 2003 but has been amended several times with the latest amended version approved on February 14, 2006. The DA was first approved on October 21, 2003 and amended on February 14, 2006 and April 23, 2013. However, there have been a number of"operating memoranda" for implementation of the DA by several specific builders, the last one being approved on January 25,2011 (6 Operating Memorandum). Several administrative Specific Plan Amendments were also approved since the Specific Plan was originally adopted, and the CEQA documents prepared for these amendments were "conformity"findings tiered off the original EIR approval, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan. The City first circulated a Draft EIR for public review on this project on June 1, 1999. After various project changes and a series of public comments, a Revised Draft EIR was circulated on June 8, 2001 and a 2nd Revised Draft EIR was circulated on April 1, 2002. The Final EIR for the project was certified by Resolution 02-111 in late December 2002 and the Notice of Determination for the EIR was filed on December 17, 2002. D. APPROVED PROJECT The approved RRSP allows the development of 2,015 residential units on 804.7 acres, including 1,056 low and low medium density single family units, and 959 medium density single family units. The RRSP also allows development of 15.4 acres (110,000 square feet) of commercial uses, a 22-acre elementary school site, a 20-acre middle school site, a 5.1-acre neighborhood park, a 19.7-acre community park with lighted athletic fields, 9.1 acres of private recreational facilities, 202.7 acres of biological habitat(mainly in the Santa Gertrudis Creek area), 56.6 acres of flood control and landscaped slopes, and a 2-acre fire station. At buildout, the project would have a gross density of 2.5 units per total acre and a net density of 4.88 units per residential acre. The project proposed to construct a number of improvements, including regional and local roads such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road, and several major utility lines. The approved land use plan for the RRSP is shown in EIR Figure 2-1 (attached). Final January 27, 2016 12— 9-97; 6c32PM;CILy Of YeMaCula ;9096946477 V 14i 17 i 11 N 4+ N 79 MURRIETA WnT SPRINGS RVAU M r::::;:: :.,.r: .,;;.::,.,,;., TA � 1 rn rr m Z l� WAY II +� oil � r I! � I •. 15 t? II �yGN - { 1 VICINITY MAP RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN EIR City of Temecula Figure 2 2 w _ : w 4A 48 Lu TKC NAP 33B J '33A ,imous i 1 11 d1 G�ee�c FIGURE 2-1 17 01 --i ql 1 I lr](+L N pus X21 2:-o 32 holes A 15'wide multi-u so trail�s located 11 Pl—,riq Areas 19 20 and 21 ad(acenl to the pronely boundary 'Plan-9 Areas 19 2C 71 33A and 336 w,ll nave i ace min,mum loss adjacent to the property ooundary and 1r acre T,nimum loss adjacent to Ire 1 acre lots Ca . N Cn C CQ J LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 107E 1 1 117 LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 194 8 a 8 939 MED DENSITY RES tSlandardl M1 21 S 5 7 123 -�MED DENSITY RES (Clustered Courtyard) M7 869 9 a 937 NEIGHBORHOOD COMME R DIAL NC 154 1®NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 5 1 SPORTS PARK SP 197 PRIVATE MINI PARK —PRVATE RECREATION CENTER MP RC 3 9 2 HE EDUCATIONAL(Schools) S1 S2 32 0 FNT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL(Fire Station) Pi 2 0 HABITAT OS1 2027 FLOOD CONTROL OS2 39 1 LANDSCAPE SLOPES(Manufactured Slopes) OS3 21 2 PUBLIC STREETS 354 PRIVATE STREETS 98 GRAND TOTAL 8047 25 2015 Ill-r , Glv C-nl7 Bcurdary '""� Pedestrian Bridge Lu TKC NAP 33B J '33A ,imous i 1 11 d1 G�ee�c FIGURE 2-1 17 01 --i ql 1 I lr](+L N pus X21 2:-o 32 holes A 15'wide multi-u so trail�s located 11 Pl—,riq Areas 19 20 and 21 ad(acenl to the pronely boundary 'Plan-9 Areas 19 2C 71 33A and 336 w,ll nave i ace min,mum loss adjacent to the property ooundary and 1r acre T,nimum loss adjacent to Ire 1 acre lots Ca . N Cn C CQ J Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 5 A complete copy of the RRSP is included in Appendix A of this document, the 2nd Revised Draft EIR is included in Appendix B, and the Final EIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), is included in Appendix C of this document. The most recent circulated Draft EIR is dated April 1, 2002 and the Final EIR is dated September 26, 2002, although the Final EIR was certified in late December 2002 and the Notice of Determination for the EIR was filed on December 17, 2002. The April 2013 Addendum No. 1 to the EIR is attached as Appendix D. E. PREVIOUS OR RELATED ACTIVITY The first approval of the RRSP by the Temecula City Council occurred on December 17, 2002, including the DA. The Notice of Determination (NOD)was filed with the Riverside County Clerk and the appropriate Fish and Game fees were paid on December 18, 2002. The project was not appealed or otherwise legally challenged following filing of the NOD. The final "original' approval of the RRSP occurred on November 26, 2002 by Resolution No. 02-112 and the zoning portion of the RRSP was approved on December 17, 2002 by Ordinance No. 02-13. Since then, there have been several minor (administrative) amendments and the latest amended version was approved on February 14, 2006. At the time the project was approved, approximately 201 acres of the site, most of it along Santa Gertrudis Creek, was set aside under the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan which was later absorbed into a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)Conservation Area for the same purpose. Subsequent to approval of the RRSP and EIR, the site was rough graded and erosion control/water quality management improvements were installed on the site except in the habitat conservation area to be preserved along Santa Gertrudis Creek. In addition, roads and a private recreation center were built in the"panhandle" portion of the site just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In 2007, development activity began to slow throughout the nation and California, including Temecula and western Riverside County. Development under the RRSP has not proceeded to any appreciable degree to this point, other than development of some roads and a recreation center in the panhandle portion of the site, and the fire station in the valley portion of the site. As of March 2014, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan for the unincorporated land east of the Roripaugh Ranch property. Its EIR (SCH# 2009121076 circulated December 5, 2011) included a cumulative traffic study that took into account more current data on other cumulative development in the eastern Temecula area (including delayed development of the Roripaugh Ranch project). The Development Agreement was amended on April 23, 2013 by Ordinance No. 13-04 to extend its term for 15 years. The DA is needed to assist the project developers to continue installing the various improvements outlined in the DA, including grading, parks, trails, recreation buildings, walls, infrastructure, etc. F. ADDENDUM NO. 1 The City and the developers involved in various portions of the Roripaugh Ranch project(e.g., Van Daele, Standard Pacific, KB Homes)had mutually agreed to extend the DA for the project for another 15 years to assure completion of the various improvements specified in the DA, in exchange for impact fee amounts to remain as indicated in the approved DA. The DA was scheduled to expire in November 2013, and the amended DA would run from November 2013 through November 2028. No physical aspects of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project were proposed to change as a result of that action. Addendum No. 1 determined the proposed changes would not increase or change the extent of any environmental impacts or mitigation measures identified in the RRSP EIR. New development Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 6 under the RRSP would still have to comply with all existing laws and regulatory programs in place at the time development occurs, other than certain specific fee items exempted by the DA, such as the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)for Western Riverside County. G. PROPOSED ADDENDUM NO. 2 The proposed EIR Addendum No. 2 is intended to slightly modify the implementation schedule of various required infrastructure improvements to better match the expected phasing of development based on current market conditions. Table A summarizes the various project improvements with their approved and proposed implementation schedules,along with the party responsible for implementing the improvement. The following figure shows the locations of the proposed infrastructure improvements outlined in Table A. The potential impacts of these proposed changes are evaluated in Section H that follows. Specific Plan Amendment(SPA)and Development Agreement Amendment(DAA) The owners of the properties located in the Phase 2 portion of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (e.g., Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation) propose to modify the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement and portions of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. These changes would allow for the modification of timing requirements for various improvements (identified in Table A of this document) which are required by the existing approvals for the Phase 2 area of Roripaugh Ranch. The areas of the Specific Plan affected by the proposed modifications are generally situated along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road, between Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the north and just south of Calle Chapos to the south. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase 2 builders, but would affect the timing of construction for the improvements identified in Table A of this document. Proposed changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific,Plan include only those changes necessary for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction. Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 7 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility Butterfield Siaoe_Road Phase-3 Complete Butterfield Stage Complete Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 The City shall construct the 1_ Acquire all right-0f-way,complete engineering Road Phase 3 improvements prior to issuance of 1" Butterfield Stage Road design,and construct Butterfield Stage Road improvements prior to Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 3 improvements Phase 3 to the intersection with Rancho issuance of I"Building Phase 2,excluding the installation of using Remaining CFD California Road. Construction will include Permit in Roripaugh Ranch center median landscaping for Butterfield Funds,excluding the intersection and traffic signal improvements at Phase 2. Stage Road,Phase 1,Phase 2,and installation of landscaping Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California I Phase 3.Complete center median for Butterfield Stage Road, Road and landscaping of the center medians landscaping improvements for Butterfield Phase 1,Phase 2,and of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1,Phase 2, Stage Road Phase 1,Phase 2,and Phase 3.Landscaping and Phase 3 improvements. When Phase 3 prior to the issuance of the 500th improvements for Butterfield appropriate warrants are met,Owners of Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Stage Road Phase 1,Phase Phase 2 shall contribute a fair share Phase 2. 2,and Phase 3 shall be contribution towards the installation of a traffic constructed by the Owners signal at Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena of Phase 2 Property. Way and related intersection improvements as provided in Section 2.2.6,Phasing of Road Improvements,of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan,and more specifically,Table 2-3 and Paragraph 4 on page 2-22 of the Specific Plan. 2 T R In Several interrelated The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and i i Igor Fee Thresholds required shall provide cost estimates and fee basis developers of Roripaugh Establish an on and offsite traffic signal,road construction of these traffic to the Director of Public Works for Ranch Phase 2.Shortfall and intersection acquisition fee. The fee signals and other related approval prior to issuance of 1st Building costs to be allocated among amount will be determined by the City based intersection improvements Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. The the owners and developers on cost estimates provided by the owners and prior to 1a`Building Permit in City shall collect the approved fee amount as noted in item#18 herein developers of Phase 2 and fees will be Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. at issuance of each Building Permit in below. collected by the City at the time of building However warrants for traffic Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 starting with permit issuance. The City will determine signals will not be met all at the 1"Building Permit. when the improvements are required to be the same time,and all The ultimate signal modifications and installed. The Constructing Party will be improvements are not associated improvements at the Nicolas reimbursed upon acceptance of the needed until majority of units Road and Winchester Road intersection completed improvements by the City. The in Phase 2 are constructed shall be operational prior to the issuance owners and developers of Phase 2 shall be and/or schools or Sports of the 2e Building Permit in Roripaugh responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. Park are in operation. Ranch Phase 2. The on and offsite traffic signals,roads,and The timing of the installation for the intersections to which the Acquisition Fee will remaining traffic signals and intersection be applied are: improvements shall be as determined by Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 8 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility the City Director of Public Works,and • Butterfield Stage Road and shall not be an unreasonable time- Murieta Hot Springs Road schedule. • Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas The Constructing Party will be reimbursed Road upon acceptance of the completed • Butterfield Stage Road and Calle improvements by the City. The owners Chapos and developers shall be responsible to • Nicolas Road at Winchester Road cover the cost of any shortfall. 3 Nicotas Road From_Butterlield Stage Road to Several interrelated 1. Offsite Segment(Calle The current owners and the Calls GirasoilNieolas Road Cannectiom Thresholds originally Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection to developers of Roripaugh Complete engineering design and construct required construction of Phase 2 Boundary).The owners and Ranch Phase 2.Shortfall full Nicolas Road improvements from Nicolas Road in phases, developers of Phase 2 shall submit costs to be allocated among Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle with some phases to be complete engineering design plans, the owners and developers Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection. constructed prior to Building including initial application for as noted in item#18 herein Permit issuance in Resource Agency permits and below. The City will use the remaining CFD funds, Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1. RCFC&WCD approvals,for approval after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road The Thresholds were by the City Director of Public Works Phase 3,to construct the improvements from subsequently modified prior io issuance of the I"Building NOTE:this is a City- the approved plan as a City-sponsored project through Operating Permit in RVR Phase 2. sponsored project but not a (but not a separate project under CEQA. The Memorandum. 2 The owners and developers of Phase separate project under . owners and developers of Phase 2 shall be 2 shall make good faith efforts to CEQA because the responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. The full completion of utility, improvements and their acquire any required regulatory The owners and developers of Phase 2 will be drainage,flood control, impacts were already required,on behalf of the City,to provide for bridge and intersection agency permits/approvals on behalf evaluated in the Draft EIR. all required engineering design,construction improvements necessary for of the City,together with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Only the responsibility for plans,CEQA analysis&processing, the roadway connection was constructing the Improvements downstream of the environmental mitigation measures,right-of- required to be completed improvements is changing. way acquisition,and to obtain all necessary prior to the I"Busiding existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Resource Agency and Riverside County Flood Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Road regulatory agency Control and Water Conservation District Phase 2. permits/approvals as a package,to City-sponsored r start of for the ty-sponsored permits.Costs of design,mitigation,project allow w management and construction will be eligible project prior to issuance of the 200 for reimbursement from the CFD funds,with Building Permit in RVR Phase 2. If, priority to the costs of construction. Costs of however,the owners and developers right-0f-way acquisition will be eligible for of Phase 2 are unsuccessful in reimbursement from the CFD funds upon obtaining the required regulatory completion of the required acquisition. The agency permits/approvals within a approved plan shall include all utility, reasonable timeframe to allow orderly Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Paae 9 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility drainage,flood control,bridge,and development of Roripaugh Ranch intersection improvements necessary for the Phase 2,the owners and developers roadway connection. of Phase 2 may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of Resource Agency permits for Nicolas Road additional sequential phases of 100 from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Building Permits,up to a total 522 Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection were not Building Permits prior to obtaining the obtained with the Resource Agency permits required regulatory agency permits/ for Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2,and the approvals.After 50 of each additional improvements are off site. Due to Resource phase of 100 Building Permits have Agency regulations,Nicolas Road from been issued,the Director of Public Butterfield Stage Road to the Calls Works shall determine,using Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection should be ordinary and reasonable criteria,if combined with the permits for the Santa sufficient progress has been made in Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements obtaining the regulatory agency downstream of the existing culverts at approvals for the City to issue the Butterfield Stage Road and processed and next additional phase of Building obtained as a single package. Permits. 3. City shall construct Nicolas Road Upon review of final design plans and from the western Project boundary to estimates by the City,the City shall determine Calle Girasol Owners of Phase 2 a Security Amount corresponding to the then Property shall construct Nicolas Road current engineering cost estimates plus Improvements from Butterfield Stage design,mitigation and right-of-way acquisition Road to western Project boundaries costs,costs of construction and contingencies as described in this Section with the for both the Nicolas Road Improvements as Park-n-Ride/Equestrian Staging described in this Section and the Santa Area,which is required to be Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements constructed prior to the 1 s building associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. permit for Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Owners of Phase 2 Property shall post a letter Owners of the Phase 2 Property shall of credit with the City,in a form reasonably construct a barricade and turn- acceptable to the City Attorney,in the amount around acceptable to the Fire of the Security Amount. The City shall Department on Nicolas Road at the release the letter of Credit upon the boundary of the Phase 2 Property. occurrence of one of the following events: (1) Completion of the construction of both the Nicolas Road Improvements and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Pa._ge 10 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility associated with the Nicolas Road crossing as required by this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director or Public Works;or(2) additional proceeds from new CFD bonds are approved and available so that the Remaining CFD Funds are sufficient to complete both the Nicolas Road Improvements and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. After determination of the Security Amount, any Remaining CFD Funds in excess of the Security Amount may then be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channel improvements. 4 Santa GertrudIs Creek Channel Essentially the Thresholds, 1. The owners and developers of The current owners and Imanavements as previously modified by Phase 2 shall submit complete developers of Phase 2. Construct the improvements upstream and Operating Memorandum, engineering design plans,including Shortfall,with costs downstream of the existing culverts at require construction of initial application for Resource allocated as noted in item Butterfield Stage Road from the plans Santa Gertrudis Creek Agency permits and RCFC&WCD #18 herein below. approved by RCFC&WCD. Both upstream Channel Improvements prior approvals,for approval by the City and downstream improvements must be to issuance of 1"Building Director of Public Works prior to constructed concurrently. Permit in Roripaugh Ranch issuance of the 10 Building Permit Phase 2. in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Remaining CFD funds,after the funding of 2. The owners and developers of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3,above the Phase 2 shall make good faith Security Amount determined by the City for efforts to acquire any required Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol improvements may be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek regulatory agency permits/ channel improvements. approvals,together with the Nicolas Road from Butterfiakl_5tan-Road Permanent Maintenance of the Santa to the Calle Girasoll Nir&a5 Rpad Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements shall Connection regulatory agency be the responsibility of RCFCWCD. permits/approvals as a package, prior to issuance of the 20e City of Temecula,as the underlying property Building Permit within the owner,will cooperate to remove the existing Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. If, Restrictive Covenant on the land,and to grant however,the owners and fee ownership to RCFCWCD for Permanent developers of Phase 2 are unsuccessful in obtaininq the Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 11 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility Maintenance. required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a Resource Agency permits for the Santa reasonable fimeframe to allow Gsrtrudis Creek Channel Improvements orderly development of the downstream of the existing culverts at Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 Butterfield Stage Road were not obtained with property,the owners and the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh developers of Phase 2 may petition Ranch Phase 2,and the improvements are off the Director of Public Works to site. Due to Resource Agency regulations, allow issuance of additional the^,manta GartrudIs Creek Channel sequential phases of 100 Building IMO rovemerla permits downstream of the Permits for the Roripaugh Ranch existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road Phase 2 property,up to a total of should be combined with the permits for 522 Building Permits within the Nlealas Road from Butterfield EWop Road to Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 property Calle GirasoVNlUIa2I3oaj n prior to obtaining the required and processed and obtained as a single regulatory agency package. permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 Building Permits have been issued,the Director of Public Works shall determine,using ordinary and reasonable criteria,if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of Building Permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 property. LQOQ Val ley sh I Impigyements, Several interrelated The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 5. Construct the Long Valley Wash Channel Thresholds required the shall construct Long Valley Wash developers of Phase 2,with Improvements from the plans approved by design,maintenance Channel Improvements prior to issuance costs allocated as noted in RCFC&WCD and/or City of Temecula. agreements,CLOMR/LOMR of the 1'r Building Permit in a PUnning item#18 herein below. Construction shall include the bridge processes and/or Area draining into the channel(PA-17— abutments for the Pedestrian Bridge. construction of components 31). of Long Valley Wash Remaining CFD funds above the Security Channel Improvements prior Amount determined by the City for Nicolas to rough grading,Building Road/Calle Girasol improvements may be Permits and/or occupancy of Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 12 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold i Responsibility applied to Long Valley Wash channel units. Essentially, improvements. construction of the Channel Improvements were required Permanent Maintenance of the Long Valley prior to the 1sr Building Wash Channel Improvements shall be the Permit in Roripaugh Ranch responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase Phase 2 2 HOA(s),or other maintenance entity approved by the City of Temecula. 6 Water QualIIV Improvement Plans(WOMPl Submittal of a WQMP to the The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and As needed,each Party shall submit a WQMP RWQCB was required prior shall each submit WQMP Amendments developers of Phase 2, Amendment covering its ownership to the to the issuance of any covering their respective ownership to the individually by Planning SDRWQCB and City for review and comment. grading permit. A WQMP SDRWQCB and City for review and Area. The WQMP Amendments shall address both for Roripaugh Ranch Phase comment prior to any additional approval construction and occupancy of the project. 2 was submitted,but of plans,issuance of permits,and/or The amended WQMPs shall be implemented submittal of Amendments grading of each Party's site. to the satisfaction of the City Public Works should be required by the Department. City prior to any additional approval of plans,issuance of permits,and/or grading of each Party's site. 7 Remaining Public t mnroveeaent & Completion of public The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and Landscaping—Major RgadwaYS improvements on the listed shall each complete the public developers of Phase 2, The owners of Phase 2 Property shall major roadways were improvements and landscaping including individually by Planning complete the public improvements,including addressed through specific sidewalk,parkway landscaping,raised Area. sidewalks,parkway landscaping,raised Building Permit Thresholds landscaped median landscaping, landscaped median landscaping,perimeter for each major roadway. perimeter walls and street lighting, walls and street lighting,along the frontage of adjacent to their frontage on major major roadways adjacent to each Planning roadways,to the satisfaction of the Public Area,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Works Director,prior to the issuance of Director. This requirement will pertain to the the 1"Building Permit in each adjacent following major roadways: Planning Area and/or Tract Map. • Murieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road • Roripaugh Valley Road("A"Street) • Fiesta Ranch Road("B"Street) • Nicolas Road • North Loco Road Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 13 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility • South Loop Road In the event that sidewalks along the above streets are not continuous,each Party shall provide an all-weather pedestrian path of travel to ensure continuous pedestrian circulation. 8 permanent Maintenance of Parkway No Current Building Permit The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and Landscaping—Landscape Maintenance Thresholds. shall each submit a Landscape developers of Phase 2. Master Plan Maintenance Master Plan for its Although originally intended to be maintained ownership to the Community by the TCSD,permanent maintenance of Development Director for review and slopes and parkways along the frontage of cornment prior to the 1•r Building Permit in major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 each Planning Area and/or Tract Map. shall be the responsibility of Home Owners Association(s)to be formed. The owners and developers of Phase 2 shall each prepare and submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan to the Community Development Director for review and comment covering all public and private open space areas,parks,slopes,parkways,etc., and especially slopes and parkways along their frontage on major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2,which will not be maintained by individual commercial or residential property owners. The Landscape Maintenance Master Plan(s)shall show the locations of any necessary water meters and electrical meters,together with the permanent maintenance entity for each area. Norm and South Logo Rands=Cra{ P Several interrelated The current owners and g, 1. The owners Phase 2 property Engineering and Landscape Architectural Thresholds required developers of Phase 2,with Design construction of North and shall complete to engineering design of costs allocated as noted in the North and South Loop Roads, Complete engineering and landscape South Loop Roads item#18 herein below. architectural design as public roadways,with improvements prior to 1s, and a Phasing Plan for construction • narrow roadway pavement widths Building Permit in Roripaugh of the roads to allow for orderly development,and submit for Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No 2 City of Temecula Page 14 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility consistent with current City design Ranch Phase 2.However approval to the Public Works criteria, the Thresholds anticipated Director prior:o Vie issuance of the • traffic calming measures including design of the North and 1"Building Pemiii in Phase 2. measures to address traffic to/from South Loop Roads to 2. The owners of Phase 2 property Sports Park(PS27),Secondary include private gates and shall complete landscape School(PA 28)and Elementary private road segments that architectural design of the North and School(PA 29)such as a traffic are no longer favored by the South Loop Roads and submit for round-about on the North Loop City or Developer,and that approval to the Community Road easterly of PA 29, precluded unique character Development Director prior to the • water quality measures addressing and visual appeal,and are issuance of the 1"Building Permit in runoff from the roadway pavement now inconsistent with Phase 2. and parkway areas, current City design criteria. • areas with widened parkways, meandering sidewalks or trails, variations in wall locations and type,or other design features intended to create unique character and visual appeal, • a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development of Phase 2. Submit design to the Public Works Director and Community Development Director for approval. Snorts Park IPA 27.3—Coolete Design& Current Thresholds require The current owners and 10. 1. Prior to the issuance of the 1st Construc�ar9 and Maintenance Aoreement completion of the Sports developers of Phase 2,with Update design of the Sports Park with Park prior to the 700'"total Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch costs allocated on the basis • the owners and water quality measures addressing Building Permit in Roripaugh Phase 2, of the City of Temecula's runoff from impervious areas and Ranch developers of Phase 2 shall update typical parks fee incorporating LID BMPs,in the Sports Park design,and submit methodology. accordance with the amended plans for approval to the Community Services and Public WQMP • unnecessary turf areas converted Works Directors to drought tolerant plant materials, 2. The owners and developers of • fescue turf soccer fields converted Phase 2 shall construct the Sports to synthetic turf, Park and the City shall accept the • design of tot lot and playground park,prior to issuance of the 1200" Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 15 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility updated to the latest CPSC Building Permit in Roripaugh standards, Ranch,that number including • proposed site lighting converted to Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1. more efficient LED lighting, • pre-wiring for security cameras for each major use area(parking lot, ball fields,restrooms,etc.)and provision of CCTV system, • approval of the sports field lighting design by the Community Services Director,and if necessary the Riverside County Airport Land Use Authority,with the intent of minimizing the impacts of lighting on the surrounding community, • connection to the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash and potential connection to the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian,and Trailhead facility in PA 33B, • conversion of the proposed ball field to a 90'infield/325'outfield, Submit design to the Community Services Director and Public Works Director for approval. 11. ti on npQr —U Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and Analysis.s.Qokio DOvttlament._and completion of a private shall perform a recreational use analysis, developers of Phase 2,with Qp Maintenance Agreement recreation center on design development,and submit to the costs allocated as noted in Perform a recreational use analysis to guide PIanrsing Area 30 prior to the Community Development Director for item#18 herein below. design development of the Private Recreation 800"total Building Permit in approval prior to the 1"Building Permit in Center,optimum location within Roripaugh Roripaugh Ranch. Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2.Prior to the Ranch Phase 2,and to form the basis for fair issuance of the 300''the schedule for share construction and maintenance fiscal completion of construction of the Private contribution decisions by The owners and Recreation Center shall be approved by developers of Phase 2. the Director of Community Development. Perform design development based on the recreational use analysis and submit to the Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 16 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility Community Development Director for approval. Design development drawings and documents must be sufficient to understand recreational uses,conceptual architecture, construction costs and maintenance/operational costs. Permanent maintenance of the Private Recreation Center shall be the responsibility of the HOA(s). 12 ri r' over n V ll Wash Current Thresholds require RVR shall construct the Pedestrian Bridge RVR,individually. Construct the Pedestrian Bridge over Long completion of the Pedestrian prior to issuance of the 75th Building Valley Wash. Bridge abutments to be Bridge prior to the 75" Permit for PAs 22,23,and 24. constructed with Long Valley Wash channel building permit for PAs 22, construction. 23,and 24. 13. Multi-use Troll In PAs 19.20.&21—Design Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 Costs allocated in the future Oevelaomenl completion of the Multi-Use shall perform design development of the based on Planning Area Perform design development of the 15'wide Trall prior to the 1"Building Multi-Use Trail and submit to the ownership(i.e.trail costs Multi-Use Trail intended to provide a trail in Permit in PAs 19,20,and Community Development Director for within each Planning Area PA 21 and PA 22 along their southerly 21. approval prior to issuance of the Ise will be bome by the owner of boundary,then crossing Long Valley Wash to Changed conditions warrant Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch that Planning Area). connect to PA 19 and along its easterly a more comprehensive Phase 2. boundary,and connecting to properties to the analysis and design of trail east. Due to changed conditions,trail access access throughout The Multi-Use Trail may be constructed in into PA 13 has been precluded,crossing of Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. phases,in accordance with the approved Long Valley Wash may only be accomplished Design. In each Planning Area,the Multi- at the easterly Loop Road crossing and Use Trail shall be constructed prior to introduction of the Wine Country Sewer issuance of the 1"Bullding Permit provides additional opportunity for alternate (excluding Model Home permits)in the trail alignment. Planning Area. Design development shall include: • measures to screen onsite and offsite homes from the trail on an "as-needed"basis; • measures to provide for safe crossing at the easterly Loop Road crossing of Lonq Vallev Wash; Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 17 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility • consideration of connection to properties to the east at Calle Contento,in the alignment of the Wine Country Sewer,as opposed to an alignment through PA 19 to connect to PA 13; • consideration of any potential connection of the trail alignment through PA 21 and PA 22 to properties to the south,or to the west across Butterfield Stage Road,or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities required to be constructed in PA 33B. If safe and reasonably useful connections from PA 21 and PA 22 to such properties or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities cannot be expected,then alternate alignments,such as trail crossing facilities at Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road,and/or use of the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash shall be considered in the design development instead; • a Phasing Plan for construction of the multi-use trail in segments to allow for its early construction as well as orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Submit design development to the Community Development Director for approval. Permanent Maintenance of the Multi-Use Trail shall be the responsibility of the HOA(s),or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 18 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility 14. Park-n•Ride.Equestrian Facilities.Trailhead Original Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and in PA 33B the completion of the Park- shall complete design and construct the developers of Phase 2,with Complete design and construct the Park-n- n-Ride in PA 11 Park-n-Ride,Equestrian Facilities and costs allocated as noted in Ride,Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead (Commercial Use)prior to Trailhead Facilities in accordance with the item#18 herein below. Facilities,in accordance with the approved the I"Building Permit in approved Multi-Use Trail design Multi-Use Trail design development and the PAs 10,12,14 thru 23,and development and the requirements of the requirements of the City. 33A. City,prior to issuance of the ix Building Specific Plan Amendment Permit in PAs 10,12,14 thru 23 and 33A. Permanent Maintenance of the Park-n-Ride, #2 moved the facility to PA Equestrian Facilities,and Trailhead in PA 33B 33B and added the Prior to issuance of the 1"building permit shall be the responsibility of the HOA(s),or as requirement for an in PAs 10,12,14 thru 23 and 33A,the determined in the Landscape Maintenance Equestrian Staging owners and developers of Phase 2 shall Master Plans.Maintenance of the sites for Areafrrail Head,but did not also complete the design and construction Park-n-Ride,Equestrian Facilities and specify a revised Threshold. of the portion of Nicolas Road from Trailhead Facilities and the facilities during Butterfield Stage Road to the MWD construction shall be the responsibility of the easement,including necessary temporary Owners of Phase 2. turn-around geometrics to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The design and construction of this portion of Nicolas Road must be coordinated and consistent with the engineering design and construction of Nicolas Road(item#3 of the DAA). 15 Fire Protection Plank Current Thresholds required The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and Submit plans for structural protection from submittal of a Fire Protection shall each submit a Fire Protection Plan developers of Phase 2, vegetation fires to the City of Temecula Fire Plan prior to the 13"Building for their respective areas for approval by individually by Planning Department. Permit in Roripaugh Ranch the City of Temecula Fire Department Area. Phase 2. prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract/Parcel Map in each of their Because there are alternate respective ownership. approaches and methods for compliance with City of Temecula guidelines,each Ownership should prepare its own plan. Final January 27,2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No.2 City of Temecula Page 19 Table A:Summary of Roripaugh Ranch Improvements and Implementation Schedule Current Building Modified Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility 16 Roripaugh Vefiev Road f A'S1 roe()— Several interrelated If not already completed with the The current owners and Complete Improvements Thresholds required construction of the Neighborhood Park developers of Phase 2,with Complete construction of Roripaugh Valley construction of Roripaugh (PA 6),the owners and developers of costs allocated as noted in Road Improvements from Murrieta Hot Valley Road improvements Phase 2 shall complete the Roripaugh item#18 herein below. Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. in phases: Valley Read Improvements prior to the • Prior to issuance of the'I't Bul[ding Permit in PA Roripaugh Valley Road from Murieta Hot 11. Springs Road to the access for the completion of the Neighborhood Park(PA 6)shall be installed Neighborhood prior to the acceptance of the Neighborhood Park(PA 6) Park by the City. Prior to 1s Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. 17 Fiesta Ranch Road I'B"&reetl Improvements Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and —Complete Improvements construction of Fiesta Ranch shall complete the Fiesta Ranch Road developers of Phase 2,with Complete construction of Fiesta Ranch Road Road prior to 1"Building Improvements prior to issuance of the 1"' costs allocated as noted in Improvements from Nicolas Road to Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Building Permit in PA 12. item#18 herein below. Roripaugh Vallev Road. Phase 2. 18 On4le and Dff-sife lnfrasImcLu-m Not Applicable Not Applicable As costs are Incurred.The lmproyements and facilities—PoQWxLhna I hers of Phase 2 Property Cost SharincL shall each nay their agreed upon proportional share pf Owners of Phase-2 Progerj,+ys}all share the sald approved costs, costs to comolete Ita r government agency permit approvals. RVR's proportionate share ggnst ctlan and imolementadon of ail of the AW11 t&n On-site and Off-site infrastructure am impgWm_ents and facilities per the Items above on a noopp Ignal basis. Wingsweep's propodionale share shall ba ten percent RVR=Roripaugh Valley Restoration,LLC Final January 27,2016 re ' s i i f i v Inea P xe f tt rk m - . ,i p i,000 .-ROR : R Fae � •M a - t .Y' t• L S A FIGURE I 2D:Nicolas Road&Winchester Road 9:North and South Loop Roads- 13B:Multi-Use Tmil in PM 19,20,& 3:Nicolas Road Win BUtterfeld Stage Complete Enginceringand Landscape 21-Design Development Specific Plan Boundary Road to Calle Girasol Architeelnual Design 13C:Multi-Use Tail in PM 19,20,& O Site Improvements 4:Santa Genrudis Creek Channel 10:Sports Park(PA-27)-Complete 21-Design Development Design&Construclion and Santa Gems 14:Park-n-Ride,Equeslrian Facililies, Maintenance Agreetnen[ I:Butterfield Stage Road.Plrase 3 Trailhead iu PA 33B S:Long Valley Wash Channel I1:Private Recreation Center(PA-30)- Hot Butterfield Stage Road&Murtieta hnprovemeols IG:Roripa inp Valle)Road('A'Street)- HolSpringsRoad Use Analysis,Manteanc Developmau' Complete hnprovelnenls 7A:Butterfield Stage Road Coast&Maintenance Apeanwl 2B:Butterfeld Stage Road&Nicolas 7B:Nicolas Road 12:Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley 17:Fiala Ranell Road('B'Street) Road Wash hoproveems-Canplete 2C Butterfield Stage Road&Calle 7Ct North Loop Road hnprovenentm s 13A:Multi-Use Trail in PAs 19,20,& Chapos 7D:South Loop Road Gareral hnprovem,pr(Not rls(W): I-Design Development G:Water Quality hnpra•e�nenls(WQMP) 8:Pennanem Mahll-ofPs loesy landscaping Addendum No,2 15:Fire Protection Plans Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report SOURC E:Ring Acrbk,2010;Riverside C—ty.2_015 Site Improvements I:\TMU1401\Reponv\EIR\fig!ImprovemsL xd(51151 2015) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 21 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The RRSP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of development of the proposed project(FEIR Sections 3.0 and 6.2): 1) Agriculture—loss of prime soils and locally important farmland(project and cumulative); 2) Traffic — two local intersections' exceed Level of Service D during peak hours (project and cumulative); 3) Air Quality—both short-term and long-term criteria air pollutants(project and cumulative); 4) Noise—contributions to cumulative noise levels; and 5) Aesthetics—loss of views and new skyglow conditions(project impacts). In addition, the EIR examined a number of alternatives, as required under CEQA, including: (1) No Project— No Development; (2) Continued Agriculture — Clustered Development; (3) Reduced Density Development; and(4)Rural Density Development(FEIR Section 7.0). Due to the nature of the proposed action relative to the previously approved EIR, the City will not use an Environmental Checklist form (i.e., an Initial Study) to document the potential effects of the action, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3)of the State CEQA Guidelines. Rather, the City has conducted a brief but thorough assessment of the 18 different environmental issues analyzed in the RRSP EIR. The primary factor in this assessment is that the proposed action, an extension of the existing development agreement,does not result in any physical changes to the environment that were not already anticipated or analyzed of the EIR, but only:(a)extends the time needed to complete proposed infrastructure in support of new development;(b) makes minor changes to the timing or order of infrastructure improvements; and (c) makes minor modifications to the triggers for completion of the planned improvements. Recent economic conditions have also resulted in a delay in developing the proposed land uses within the RRSP, so the residential development, and its related infrastructure improvements outlined in the RRSP, have not yet been built. This assessment complies with the intent and requirements of CEQA relative to the preparation of an EIR Addendum. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Agriculture. The site has already been rough graded and is no longer used for agriculture. Whenever development of the site occurs, prime and locally important agricultural soils will be covered over so the impacts are equivalent to those identified in the EIR,which were determined to be significant both at a project level and on a cumulative basis (FEIR pages ES-4 and 3-22). No mitigation was determined to be feasible and these conditions still apply in the project area, so no new mitigation is required or needed. Approval of Addendum No.2 would not change these conclusions. Traffic. The DEIR determined the project-level and cumulative impacts in this regard to be significant(DEIR pages ES-6 and 3-97). Impacts from traffic both from construction and occupancy of the project have not occurred yet, and approval of Addendum No. 2 would still require completion of the various roadway and intersection improvements identified in the original traffic study. This does not represent a substantial change from the impacts, conclusions, or mitigations identified in the EIR. This conclusion is supported by a more recent comprehensive traffic impact study prepared for the Wine Country Community Plan prepared by Fehr and Peers for Riverside County in 2011 (see discussion below and Appendix E). That study was prepared ten years after the original Roripaugh study(November 2011 versus 2001) and used more current General Plan Buildout estimates. The newer study indicates that cumulative traffic volumes on area roadways would be increased from those identified in the cumulative analysis in the original Roripaugh EIR traffic study(see Ynez Road at Winchester Road and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 22 Table B). However, the EIR already concluded project and cumulative traffic impacts from the Roripaugh project were significant, and the project will still be required to fully mitigate its project-specific impacts and its fair share of cumulative traffic impacts as development occurs. Therefore, the proposed minor modifications to the implementation schedule for various infrastructure improvements do not alter the significance conclusions of the EIR and mitigation is equivalent to that outlined in the EIR. Table B: Comparison of EIR Traffic Studies—Original Roripaugh Project to Wine Country Plan A. Roadway Segment Comparison Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California Road North of West of Rancho California Road Butterfield Stage Road_ Year/Condition/Source _ _ ADT LOS ADT LOS 2011 WCP TIA Existing Conditions(2009)(weekday, Table 4) 4,616 C 14,132 C General Plan Buildout(no WCP. Scenario 3,Table 8) 13,516 C 17,374 C 2001 RSP TIA Existing Conditions(2000)(Exhibit 3-7) 200 A 11,300 A Year 2003 With Project(Exhibit 4-W) 200 A 12,500 A Year 2007 With Project(Exhibit 4-Y) 8,800 C 19,400 C GP Buildout Without Project(Exhibit 4-Z) 26,400 F 11,600 C GP Buildout With Proiect(Exhibit 4-AA) 32;500 F 14,000 C B. Intersection Comparison Butterfield Stage Road Winchester Road At At Rancho California Road Nicolas Road Year/Condition/Source Delav(sec) LOS Delav(secF LOSS 2011 WCP TIA Existing Conditions(2009)(weekday, Table 5) >120 F >120 F General Plan Buildout(no WCP, Scenario 3,Table 9) >120 F >12_0 F 2001 RSP TIA(Without Improvements) Existing Conditions(2000)(PM peak, Table 3-1) 36.8 E 36.3 D 2007 Without Project(PM peak, Table 5-3) >120 F 83.6 F 2007 With Project(PM peak,Table 5-4) >120 F >120 F General Plan Buildout Without Project(Table 5-5) 37.3 D 47.9 D General Plan Buildout With Protect(Table 5-6) 61.8 D 38.3 D Data Source slAbbreviations ADT Average Dailv Traffic LOS Level of Service(A-F) TIA Traffic Impact Assessment sec Seconds of Delav RSP Original Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan TIA Dreoared by Urban Crossroads dated November 2001 WCP Wine Country Plan-TIA Dreoared by Fehr&Peers dated November 2011 2 Estimated from WCP TIA Table 1, Intersection and Roadway Segment LOS Criteria.Segments noting LOS C are actually LOS C or better Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 23 On March 11, 2014 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan (WCP)for the unincorporated land east of the Roripaugh Ranch property. The EIR for the WCP (SCH# 2009121076) included a cumulative traffic study with its EIR that took into account the delayed development within the Roripaugh Ranch project. The WCP traffic study included the Roripaugh Ranch in its cumulative projects list for estimating future traffic impacts. The Addendum No. 2, both in terms of the extensions of deadlines and the re-ordering of improvements, will not alter the WCP traffic study conclusions, and constructing the planned improvements later in the future, but still in concert with development as it occurs, will not create any new or significantly different impacts than those identified in the original Roripaugh EIR. According to the WCP traffic study, future development within the RRSP is also consistent with the traffic projections and roadway network outlined in the County's TUMF program and as evaluated in the Wine Country traffic study and EIR(see Appendix E). The extended DA approved under EIR Addendum No. 1 would allow for the efficient implementation of the various road and intersection improvements identified in the DA for 15 years through 2028. Ultimately, all of the roadway and intersection improvements identified in the original EIR will be implemented in conjunction with future development under the RRSP. Since all of the improvements outlined in the original EIR would be implemented, approval of Addendum No. 2 would not change the impact determination or proposed mitigation of the Roripaugh EIR. Air Quality. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be significant (DEIR pages ES-6 and 3-115). Impacts from air quality, both short-term from construction and long-term from occupancy of the project, have not occurred yet, except for rough grading the site. Approval of EIR Addendum No. 1 extended the DA and extended the beginning and ultimate impacts of air emissions from project construction and occupancy into the future. All of this work would occur beyond 2014, which means actual emissions would likely be equivalent to or lower than estimated in the EIR due to improved fleet emission controls and upgraded fuel standards. (i.e., air assessment in original EIR assumed 1998 fleet mix and emission characteristics, while current vehicles would have to comply with the latest emission controls and standards at the time of implementation (currently 2007 or newer). For these reasons, emissions from project construction and operation would be cleaner(i.e. less polluting)than estimated in the original EIR as project implementation is delayed and more stringent air pollution control requirements are in place. In addition, the cumulative list of future development outlined in the original EIR was considerably larger (i.e., more development) than that used in the more recent Wine Country Community Plan traffic study, which would support the assumption that future development under current conditions would be equal or less than that evaluated in the original EIR under cumulative impacts.Therefore, implementation of EIR Addendum No. 2 does not represent a substantial change from the impacts identified in the EIR, and new development would be required to implement current air quality regulations which would help reduce both project and cumulative air pollutant emissions from dust control,etc. Noise. The DEIR concluded that the project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts(DEIR pages ES-8 and 3-165). Long-term noise impacts have not occurred yet, but would be similar to those impacts identified in the EIR once the project is built out. Approval of the previous EIR Addendum No. 1 extended the DA to would extend the beginning and ultimate effect of those impacts to 2028,and all of the improvements outlined in the original traffic study would still be installed under EIR Addendum No. 2, except that the timing of their construction would be modified to better track actual development of the project under current market conditions.The Wine Country traffic study discussed above indicates that area traffic would be equal or less than that originally projected under the original Roripaugh EIR (see Appendix E), so traffic-related noise would also be equal or less than outlined in the original EIR. However,these minor changes do not represent a substantial change from the impacts,mitigation,or conclusions identified in the EIR. Aesthetics.The DEIR concluded that project-level impacts would be significant(DEIR pages ES-11 and 3- 219). Most of the project impacts would occur as identified in the EIR, including views changing and additional skyglow as development occurs. Most of the site is not visible to the public from existing roadways or from existing residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area, other than along Calle Contento to the Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 24 east and Nicolas Road to the southwest. It should be noted that grading for the panhandle portion of the site has already altered views of that area from Nicolas Road in terms of the ridgeline, although no homes have been built along the southern boundary of the panhandle that would be visible from Nicolas Road. None of the minor revisions outlined in Table A will result in any appreciable changes in short-term or long-term views of the project and its related improvements from surrounding areas than what were identified and analyzed in the EIR.Therefore, no additional mitigation is required or needed as a result of the minor infrastructure timing changes proposed under EIR Addendum No.2. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Noise. The DEIR concluded that project-level impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-8 and 3-165). Direct noise impacts both from construction and occupancy of the project have not occurred yet, but would be similar to those impacts identified in the EIR. The Wine Country traffic study discussed above indicates that area traffic would be equal or less than that originally projected under the original Roripaugh EIR(see Appendix E), so traffic-related noise would also be equal or less than outlined in the original EIR. In addition, minor changes to the infrastructure completion schedule would incrementally extend the beginning and ultimate effect of those impacts into the future, but this does not represent a substantial change from the impacts identified in the EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. When the EIR was prepared and approved, an analysis of impacts related to greenhouse gases and global climate change was not required. New development within the City, including Roripaugh Ranch, will be required to comply with the latest California Green Building Code (CGBC) requirements and Title 24 energy conservation standards issued by the State, which will minimize potential greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. In addition, the minor infrastructure implementation changes would cause no physical changes or different impacts from those identified in the EIR, and later implementation of new development under the RRSP would place that development under the more strict building code standards of the CGBC.Therefore, no mitigation measures are required or proposed as part of EIR Addendum No.2. Hydrology and Water Quality. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-5 and 3-54). The site has already been rough graded, and extension of the DA under EIR Addendum No. 1 allowed for effective implementation of planned improvements to the Roripaugh Ranch property, including drainage improvements along Long Valley Wash and other permanent erosion control and water quality maintenance features throughout the remainder of the site. Implementation of EIR Addendum No. 2 would still tie planned improvements to new development, so the conclusions of the EIR remain unchanged relative to drainage and water quality. Biological Resources. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-7 and 3-140). Impacts to biological resources would be the same as outlined in the EIR, and future development would be required to comply with the Western Riverside County MSHCP including impact fees and preservation of the Santa Gertrudis Creek area, as outlined in the RRSP. Table A indicates that general road and intersection improvements (Item 3) and improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek(Item 4)might be temporarily delayed if the developer is unable to obtain permits from the regulatory agencies in a timely manner for these improvements. The City would have the discretion to approve an additional 100 units prior to obtaining permits for each of these categories of improvements. However, the roadway/intersection improvements and overall improvements to the creek would still be made as outlined in the original EIR and prior to completion of the Roripaugh project. Due to the disturbed nature of the Phase 2 planned development area, this small change in the timing of improvements would not result in any new of substantially increased impacts to biological resources. This also applies to any improvements that were originally going to be constructed by developers but which the City has chosen to construct instead, because the potential environmental impacts of the improvements themselves were already evaluated in the EIR. Therefore, the minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule as a result of EIR Addendum No.2 would not change the conclusions of the EIR, nor would it require additional mitigation. Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 25 Scientific Resources. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-11 and 3-231). Impacts to paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources would be the same including onsite monitoring of grading by qualified archaeological and paleontological personnel as appropriate as development occurs. Minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule would not affect impacts or mitigation identified for archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources. Geology and Soils. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-8 and 3-165). Development under the RRSP would result in the same geologic and soil impacts as identified in the EIR, and would be subject to the same mitigation and the latest Conditions of Approval from the City regarding geotechnical hazards. It was determined that extending the DA under EIR Addendum No. 1 would not result in any significant effects related to geologic or soils constraints. Likewise, minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule under EIR Addendum No. 2 would also not result in substantial changes related to these impacts. All future development would also have to comply with the latest state green building code requirements regarding geotechnical hazards, and additional site specific geotech and soil testing and reports are required for specific tentative maps within the specific plan, consistent with Mitigation Measures 1, 2, and 4 in Section 3.3.6 of the original EIR. Therefore, impacts would still be less than significant and no new mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-8 and 3-147). Future development of the site under the RRSP would result in the same number of units, same location of planned uses, same circulation network, and similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as identified in the EIR. Future uses would be subject to the same mitigation in the original EIR as well as the latest Conditions of Approval from the City regarding hazards and hazardous materials. For these reasons, there would be no significant effects related to these issues by making minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule proposed under EIR Addendum No.2. Land Use and Planning. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-4 and 3-15). The revised DA would not alter the number, density, or location of planned uses, and the project would have the same circulation network. Future development would occur on the Roripaugh Ranch site consistent with the land use designations outlined in the RRSP, and the project site has already been rough graded with development pads and roads. Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes to the infrastructure implementation plan would have no demonstrable adverse effect on either land use or planning impacts of the project, and would allow for more effective construction of planned improvements to be tied more closely to the timing of actual development in the future. The addition of new houses and residents to the City will occur at a later time than identified in the EIR, but the magnitude of these impacts will be equivalent to those identified in the EIR.The current City General Plan and Housing Elernent2 took into account the housing that would occur when the RRSP is built. There would be no significant effects on population and housing by minor changes to the infrastructure implementation plan. Services. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-9, 3-173, 3-175, 3-178, 3-180, 3-185, 3-187, 3-188, 3-189, and 3-190). The service impacts identified in the EIR would still occur, but begin at a later time and extend into the future. No substantial changes are envisioned compared to the impacts identified in the EIR,and the fire station outlined in the current DA has already been built. Utilities. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-10, 3-197, 3-200, 3-201, 3-203, 3-205, and 3-207).The utility impacts identified in z Published September 2009 for period July 1,2008 to June 30,2014 Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 26 the EIR would still occur, but begin at a later time and extend into the future. No substantial changes are envisioned compared to the impacts identified in the EIR, and the fire station outlined in the current DA has already been built. Building these pipelines later than originally planned and evaluated in the original EIR would also result in equal or less actual traffic and air quality impacts due a reduced amount of cumulative development currently projected (as in the Wine Country EIR) and more stringent air pollution regulations passed since 2002. Therefore, minor changes to the infrastructure implementation plan, mainly roads but also pipelines within those roads, would not significantly change the anticipated impacts or recommended mitigation measures in the EIR. Mineral and Forest Resources. The DEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES-4 and 3-15). The site does not contain these resources so they are unaffected by changes in infrastructure implementation. I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on available information and the analysis presented in Section H, making the proposed minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan would not increase the severity or extent of any of the identified impacts,would not create any new impacts, nor would it require any new or modified mitigation measures identified in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR, and development within Phase 2 would be required to implement the improvements identified in the EIR, the timing and responsibility of which are outlined in Table A. With implementation of these mitigation measures, no revisions to the EIR are necessary and approval of this addendum will fully comply with the CEQA requirements for this proposed action. J. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Development Agreement 1"Operating Memorandum,October 21,2004 1'�Amendment, February 14,2006 2"d Operating Memorandum,March 21,2006 3'd Operating Memorandum,August 31,2006 4th Operating Memorandum,March 6,2007 50 Operating Memorandum,October 26,2010 6''Operating Memorandum,January 25,2011 Environmental Impact Re ort Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula. The Keith Companies.June 1, 1999. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula. The Keith Companies.April 1,2002. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula. The Keith Companies.September 26,2002. Addendum No. 1, Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula.Approved by City Council on April 9,2013. Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula Page 27 Specific Plan Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Keith Companies. Approved on November 26, 2002 by Resolution No. 02-112 with the zoning portion of the RRSP approved on December 17, 2002 by Ordinance No.02-13. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, Matthew Fagan Consulting Services. December 2004. Wine Country Community Plan Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community Plan, Riverside County, CA. Fehr&Peers. November 2011. Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX A RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 (December 2004) Specific Plan Document Volume 1 (Approved November 2002) Specific Plan Appendices Volume 2 (Approved November 2002) Final Draft January 26, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX B RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT EIR (April 1, 2002) Final Draft January 26, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX C RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL EIR AND MMRP Final Draft January 26, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX D RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 1 Final Draft January 26, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX E WINE COUNTRY EIR AND ORIGINAL RORIPAUGH EIR TRAFFIC STUDY EXCERPTS Final Draft January 26, 2016 r• �,, 1r rs- AiA FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR THE WINE COUNTRY COMMUNITY PLAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA PREPARED FOR: Riverside County PREPARED BY: 3850 Vine Street Suite 140 F E H R ' PEERS Riverside, 92507-4225 p 951-274-4-4 800 f951-684-4324 November 2011 3 f 4 rr... Final Traffic Impact Stud for the Wrne Count Community Plan, Riverside,Count CA" 4 A Y rI' Y Y I, „ November 2011 The model was used to forecast Scenario 3 and Scenario 4 forecasts. Adjustments were made to the model forecast volumes by applying "the difference method," which utilizes the model to forecast the growth on a particular roadway segment and adds that growth to the existing traffic volume. This procedure is consistent with forecasting guidance provided in the NCHRP 255 guidance on adjusting travel demand forecast volumes. TABLE 2-ROADWAY SEGMENT THRESHOLDS Number of Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volume(ADT)(2) Roadway Classification Lanes LOS C LOS D LOS E j Collector 2 10,400 11,700 13,000 Secondary 4 20,700 23,300 25,900 1 Major 4 27,300 30,700 34,100 Arterial(3) 2 14,400 16,200 18,000 Arterial 4 28,700 32,300 35,900 Mountain Arterial(3) 2 12,900 14,500 16,100 Mountain Arterial with Roundabouts(5) 2 16,000 18,000 20,000 Mountain Arterial 3 16,700 18,800 20,900 Mountain Arterial 4 29,800 33,500 37,200 Urban Arterial 4 28,700 32,300 35,900 Urban Arterial 6 43,100 48,500 53,900 Urban Arterial 8 57,400 64,600 71,800 Expressway 4 32,700 26,800 40,900 Expressway 6 49,000 55,200 61,300 Expressway 8 65,400 73,500 81,700 i Freeway 4 61,200 68,900 76,500 i Freeway 6 94,000 105,800 117,500 i Freeway 8 128,400 144,500 160,500 Freeway 10 160,500 180,500 200,600 Ramp(4) e� 1 16,000 18,000 20,000 Notes: (1) All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. (2) Maximum two-way ADT values are based on the Riverside County General Plan and the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. (3) Two-lane roadways designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design standards for vertical and horizontal alignment are analyzed as arterials. (4) Ramp capacity is given as a one-way traffic volume. (5) Capacity based on simulation models developed by Fehr&Peers and is unique to the future control along Rancho California Road. ,;.,.. FEHRtPEERS Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community F/an, Riverside County. CA November 2011 • Route 24—Route 24 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the City of Temecula. It connects the retail uses at the north end of the City to Old Town, Pechanga Resort, and Redhawk areas of the City. Near the WCP area it operates on Moraga and Margarita Roads,just west of WCP area, with stops at Palomar Village and the Temecula Walmart. It operates on 30-to 60-minute headways during weekdays and on 60-minute headways on weekends. In addition to this route, several private companies operate shuttles that circulate customers throughout the WCP area on wine tasting tours. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK In general, there are limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the WCP area. The provided facilities are mixed- use pathways providing facilities for bicycles, pedestrians, and equestrians in the study area. These facilities are generally provided parallel to Rancho California Road and De Portola Road. The rural nature of the remaining facilities requires bicycles, pedestrians,and equestrians to use the roadway shoulders in the WCP area. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS The number of lanes and daily volumes shown on Figures 2 and 3 were utilized to evaluate traffic operations on the study roadway segments. Figure 4 summarizes the existing intersection turning movement volumes. Traffic volumes were obtained from County Staff, the City of Temecula Traffic Count Database, collected by Fehr & Peers,or were obtained from the Caltrans publication"Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2009." ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Fehr& Peers utilized the existing traffic volumes and number of travel lanes to evaluate operations at the study roadway segments. Results for weekday and weekend conditions are summarized in Table 4. F- TABLE 4—ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS Rancho California Road West of La Serena Way 2 14,285 D 13,569 D Rancho California Road West of Anza Road 2 NIA N/A 13,798 D Anza Road South of Rancho California Road 2 N/A N/A 3,924 C or Better Glenoaks Road South of Rancho California Road 2 N/A N/A 4,316 C or Better Rancho California Road East of 1-15 8 58,091 D 52,444 C or Better Rancho California Road East of Anza Road 2 13,358 D 14,104 D Anza Road North of De Portola Road 2 4,031 C or Better 4,235 C or Better De Portola Road East of Anza Road 2 4,137 C or Better 5,235 C or Better Mesa Road North of Glenoaks Road 2 3,187 C or Better 3,189 C or Better De Portola Road East of Glenoaks Road 2 528 C or Better 654 C or Better SR 79 East of 1-15 6 36,789 C or Better 35,775 C or Better SR 79 West of Butterfield Stage Road 6 30,984 C or Better 32,192 C or Better SR 79 East of Anza Road 2 8,300 C or Better 11,145 C or Better FEHRJf PEERS `# r i iss "AW Q TI , w Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community Plan, Wi 64ir<fa',, November 2011 TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS Butterfield Stage Road north of De Portola Road 4 11;881 C or Better 14,257 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road north of Rancho California Road 2 4,616 C or Better 5,539 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road north of Temecula Parkway 3 13,061 C or Better 15,673 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road south of Channel Street 4 10,257 C or Better 12,308 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road south of La Serena Way 2 4,391 C or Better 5,269 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road 4 9,458 C or Better 11,350 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road south of Rancho California Road 4 9,903 C or Better 11,884 C or Better Butterfield Stage Road south of Rancho Vista Road 4 10,168 C or Better 12,202 C or Better Calle Medusa south of Enfield Lane 2 3,849 C or Better 4,619 C or Better De Portola Road east of Jedediah Smith Road 2 7,517 C or Better 9,020 C or Better De Portola Road east of Margarita Road 4 9,223 C or Better 11,068 C or Better De Portola Road east of Meadows Parkway 4 4,129 C or Better 4,955 C or Better De Portola Road.west of Butterfield Stage Road 4 3,980 C or Better 4,776 C or Better Diaz Road north of Rancho California Road 3 10,132 C or Better 12,158 C or Better La Serena Way east of Meadows Parkway 4 7,797 C or Better 9,356 C or Better Margarita Road east of Avenida Barca 4 20,190 C or Better 24,228 C or Better Margarita Road north of Rancho California Road 4 19,771 C or Better 23,725 C or Better Margarita Road north of Santiago Road 4 19,334 C or Better 23,201 C or Better Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway 4 24,057 C or Better 28,868 D Margarita Road south of Jedediah Smith Road 4 16,450 C or Better 19,740 C or Better Margarita Road south of Rancho California Road 4 19,564 C or Better 23,477 E Margarita Road south of Rancho Vista Road 4 20,071 C or Better 24,085 E Meadows Parkway north of Rancho California Road 4 7,151 C or Better 8,581 C or Better Meadows Parkway north of Temecula Parkway 4 11,715 C or Better 14,058 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of La Serena Way 4 4,416 C or Better 5,299 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Leena Way 4 10,823 C or Better 12,988 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Pauba Road 4 11,395 C or Better 13,674 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Rancho Califomia Road 4 10,466 C or Better 12,559 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Rancho Vista Road 4 11,213 C or Better 13,456 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Sunny Meadows Drive 4 9,579 C or Better 11,495 C or Better Pauba Road east of Butterfield Stage Road 2 3,954 C or Better 4,745 C or Better Pauba Road east of Margarita Road 3 8,621 C or Better 10,345 C or Better Pauba Road east of Meadows Parkway 2 4,745 C or Better 5,694 C or Better Pauba Road east of Ynez Road 3 8,924 C or Better 10,709 C or Better Pauba Road west of Margarita Road 4 8,586 C or Better 10,303 C or Better Rainbow Canyon Road south of Pechanga Parkway 2 7,570 C or Better 9,084 C or Better t FEHR PEERS 4 ;. ' ��n 'a r; ^a 5 F;• Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wire Country Community Plan, Riversi x November 2011 TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS I Volume LOS Rancho California Road east of Diaz Road 4 21,654 C or Better 25,985 C or Better Rancho California Road east of Moraga Road 4 33,144 E 39,773 F Rancho California Road west of Business Park Drive 2 5,937 C or Better 7,124 C or Better Rancho California Road west of Butterfield Stage Road 4 14,132 C or Better 16,958 C or Better Rancho California Road west of Diaz Road 4 11,993 C or Better 14,392 C or Better Rancho California Road west of Meadows Parkway 4 21,285 D 25,542 E Rancho California Road west of Ynez Road 8 54,850 C or Better 65,820 E Rancho Vista Road east of Margarita Road. 4 7,289 C or Better 8,747 C or Better Rancho Vista Road east of Ynez Road 3 8,075 C or Better 9,690 C or Better Rancho Vista Road west of Margarita Road 4 5,632 C or Better 6,758 C or Better Rancho Vista Road west of Meadows Parkway 3 4,791 C or Better 5,749 C or Better Temecula Parkway east of Margarita Road 6 35,328 C or Better 1 42,394 C or Better Temecula Parkway east of Meadows Parkway 6 28,426 C or Better 34,111 C or Better Temecula Parkway east of Pechanga Parkway 6 41,564 C or Better 49,877 D Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road 6 38,199 C or Better 45,839 C or Better Vincent Moraga south of Rancho California Road 2 5,212 C or Better 6,254 C or Better Walcott Lane north of Klarer Lane 2 4,332 C or Better 5,198 C or Better Ynez Road north of Santiago Road 2 13,840 D 16,608 F Ynez Road south of Solana Way 6 30,167 C or Better 36,200 C or Better Ynez Road west of Jedediah Smith Road 2 9,369 C or Better 11,243 C or Better Rainbow Canyon Road S/O Clubhouse Road(Feb.) 2 5,336 C or Better 6,403 C or Better Rainbow Canyon Road S/O Clubhouse Road(Oct.) 2 5,206 C or Better 6,247 C or Better Rancho California Road W/O Margarita Road(Feb.) 4 24,329 C or Better 29,195 D Rancho California Road W/O Margarita Road(July) 4 25,055 C or Better 30,066 D Temecula Parkway E/O Butterfield Stage Road(Feb.) 4 18,476 C or Better 22,171 C or Better Temecula Parkway E/O Butterfield Stage Road(Oct.) 4 18,489 C or Better 22,187 C or Better ' 1-15 South of SR 79 8 129,000 D 129,000 D 1-15 North of SR 79 8 150,000 E 150,000 E 1-15 South of Rancho California Road Interchange 8 150,000 E 150,000 E 1-15 North of Rancho California Road Interchange 8 161,000 F 161,000 F I� 1-15 NB Off-Ramp at SR 79 1 10,500 C or Better 10,819 C or Better 1-15 NB On-Ramp at SR 79 1 12,000 C or Better 11,273 C or Better 1-15 SB Off-Ramp at SR 79 1 12,500 C or Better 13,000 C or Better 1-15 SB On-Ramp at SR 79 1 1 14,600 C or Better 15,050 C or Better 1-15 NB Off-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 12,000 C or Better 11,247 C or Better pj RS FEHR,�PEE xa Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community Plan, Riverside County CA November 2011 Will f TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume FLOS Volume LOS 1-15 NB On-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 14,000 C or Better 13,780 C or Better 1-15 SB Off-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 19,000 E 18,711 E 1-15 SB On-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 11,500 C or Better 11,883 C or Better Source.Fehr&Peers,2011 N/A-Count Data Not Available INTERSECTION OPERATIONS The LOS results are summarized in Table 5 for weekend peak hour intersection operations assessment. TABLE 5-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE:EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Delav LOS 1.Winchester Road at Nicolas Road Signalized 7120 F 2.Winchester Road at Margarita Road Signalized 112.6 F 3.Winchester Road at Ynez Road Signalized 40.3 D 4.Winchester Road at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 70.0 E 5.Winchester Road at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 28.8 C 6.Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue Signalized 48.6 D 7. Rancho California Road at Ynez Road Signalized 90.4 F 8. Rancho California Road at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 43.8 D 9. Rancho California Road at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 41.9 D 10. Rancho California Road at Jefferson Avenue Signalized 34.5 C 11.Temecula Parkway at Old Town Front Street Signalized 28.4 C 12.Temecula Parkway at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 34.4 C 13.Temecula Parkway at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 38.4 D 14.Temecula Parkway at Pechanga Parkway Signalized 72.2 F 15. Pechanga Parkway at Anza Road Signalized 33 C 16. Margarita Road at La Serena Way Signalized 16.7 B 17. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road Signalized 57.0 E 18. Margarita Road at Rancho Vista Road Signalized 56.8 E 19. Margarita Road at Pauba Road Signalized 41.9 D ,"4{,-�J FEHR,t PEERSn Final Traffic Impact Study for the W"ne Country Community Plan Rtverslde, November 2011 s ...]x11 :. TABLE 5 CONTINUED-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE:EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Delay LOS 20. Margarita Road at De Portola Road Signalized 31.8 C 21. Margarita Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 38.1 D 22. Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way Signalized 10.1 B 23. Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road Signalized 31.8 C 24. Meadows Parkway at Rancho Vista Road Signalized 15.1 B 25, Meadows Parkway at Pauba Road Signalized 17.1 B 26.Meadows Parkway at De Portola Road Signalized 16.7 B 27, Meadows Parkway at Temecula Parkway Signalized 37.8 D 28. Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way SSSC 8.9 A 29. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road Signalized >120 F 30. Butterfield Stage at Rancho Vista Road SSSC 11.6 B 31.Butterfield Stage Road at Pauba Road Signalized 16.7 B 32. Butterfield Stage Road at De Portola Road Signalized 22.7 C 33. Butterfield Stage Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 29.0 C 34, La Serena Way at Rancho California Road SSSC 35.5 E 35. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road SSSC 70.4 F 36. Calle Contento at Madera de Playa SSSC 9.4 A 37. Calle Contento at Pauba Road SSSC 9.7 A 38. Calle Contento at De Portola Road SSSC 8.6 A 39.Anza Road at Borel Road(future) AWS n/a n/a 40.Anza Road at Buck Road(future) AWS n/a n/a 41.Anza Road at Rancho California Road' AWS 69.4 F 42.Anza Road at Madera de Playa SSSC 10.5 B 43.Anza Road at Pauba Road AWS 9.3 A 44.Anza.Road at De Portola Road AWS 10.9 B. 45.Anza Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 6.7 A 46. Rancho California Road at Camino del Vino SSSC 11.5 B 47. Rancho California Road at Buck Road(future) AWS 10.2 B 48. Rancho California Road at Glen Oaks Road AWS 10.2 B 49. Rancho California Road at Monte De Oro SSSC 42.1 E 50. Los Caballos Road at Temecula Parkway SSSC 16.5 C 51. Camino del Vino at Glen Oaks Road SSSC 11.4 B 52. Camino del Vino at Monte De Oro SSSC 9.2 A 53. De Portola Road at Benton Road SSSC 9.0 A 54. De Portola Road at Glen Oaks Road SSSC 14.2 B 55. De Portola Road at Via De Oro SSSC 10.1 B FEHRtPEERS y.f SOREL RD 1.6W 3 500 K RD 5, c 0 S� 1 ILL 100 1 3 � Ng r 2 I f LA E,,M YYAY lb p�pYARD g CO 700 $ SPA 14.800 �i 4. $ 58140 25 10 ° a 2 a 21700 �3 a + q 4 !� A t J72. m 2. °e 0 RANCHO 7 4 ¢9 \\ � VISTA AD 5.604. o $� 1 �y 4 o 5900 x.000 .Y7 8 6 p RD 6.604 ,rte 6 ° 4.100 r 3 A Rid �• 20,100 a ;, 2 as p°rE 1 s� �A o & ; N 31•� 00 2 as A �g� s 3 �H 44`�J S 41 s 11.700 �4 © Dft 4 xx_xxx Tto=vbmm x 'mumbw of Lwoo g y N wkwcow"eowam 75 Maim EXISTING CONDITIONS WEEKDAY ROADWAY SEGMENT FEHR,#PEERS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND NUMBER OF LANES a« V.2011 sx FIGURE 2 M:Vma\ksa\¢.im,\e�o-wea.ax\caon:.�PCVT+Or�emwa 15 Final Traffic Impact Study forthe Wine Country Community Plan,R vats November 2019 ,ru TABLE 8 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE:FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Weekday Weekend Segment. Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS Margarita Road north of Temecula Parkway 4 30,620 D 28,868 D Margarita Road south of Jedediah Smith Road 4 20,961 C or Better 23,944 C or Better Margarita Road south of Rancho California Road 4 27,021 C or Better 29,136 D Margarita Road south of Rancho Vista Road 4 30,767 D 30,421 D Meadows Parkway north of Rancho California Road 4 9,522 C or Better 12,709 C or Better Meadows Parkway north of Temecula Parkway 4 22,605 C or Better 27,626 D Meadows Parkway south of La Serena Way 4 6,458 C or Better 9,463 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Leena Way 4 13,273 C or Better 23,868 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Pauba Road 4 18,871 C or Better 25,013 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Rancho California Road 4 18,301 C or Better 23,938 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Rancho Vista Road 4 25,870 C or Better 26,869 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Sunny Meadows Drive 4 16,464 C or Better 24,260 C or Better Pauba Road east of Butterfield Stage Road 4 16,052 C or Better 21,533 C or Better Pauba Road east of Margarita Road 4 21,690 C or Better 28,052 C or Better Pauba Road east of Meadows Parkway 4 18,389 C or Better 20,735 C or Better Pauba Road east of Ynez Road 4 16,613 C or Better 20,735 C or Better Pauba Road west of Margarita Road 4 16,302 C or Better 20,109 C or Better Rainbow Canyon Road south of Pechanga Parkway 4 10,644 C or Better 12,498 C or Better Rancho California Road east of Diaz Road 6 21,654 C or Better 28,565 C or Better Rancho California Road east of Moraga Road 6 42,330 C or Better 50,245 E Rancho California Road west of Business Park Drive 4 11,205 C or Better 9,249 C or Better Rancho California Road west of Butterfield Stage Road 4 17,374 C or Better 29,302 D Rancho California Road west of Diaz Road 4 23,473 C or Better 20,578 C or Better Rancho California Road west of Meadows Parkway 4 27,902 C or Better 37,187 F Rancho California Road west of Ynez Road 8 59,458 D 65,820 E Rancho Vista Road east of Margarita Road. 4 16,937 C or Better 21,803 D Rancho Vista Road east of Ynez Road 4 22,135 D 23,974 E Rancho Vista Road west of Margarita Road 4 21,380 D 20,292 C or Better Rancho Vista Road west of Meadows Parkway 4 16,831 C or Better 20,418 C or Better Temecula Parkway east of Margarita Road 6 42,947 C or Better 50,801 D Temecula Parkway east of Meadows Parkway 6 43,986 C or Better 58,403 E Temecula Parkway east of Pechanga Parkway 8 41,740 C or Better 51,421 C or Better Temecula Parkway west of Margarita Road 6 38,199 C or Better 45,839 C or Better Vincent Moraga south of Rancho California Road 2 7,576 C or Better 11;171 D Ynez Road north of Santiago Road 4 20,645 C or Better 27,651 C or Better Ynez Road south of Solana Way 6 46,188 D 47,690 D FEHRJf PEERS Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community nrity Plan.Dili �4 November 2011 i M Y��.4 VzrYi+ffe.i" TABLE 8 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE:FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS Ynez Road west of Jedediah Smith Road 4 21,393 D 26,762 F Rainbow Canyon Road S/O Clubhouse Road(Feb.) 4 8,410 C or Better 9,817 C or Better Rainbow Canyon Road S/O Clubhouse Road(Oct.) 4 8,280 C or Better 9,661 C or Better Rancho California Road W/O Margarita Road(Feb.) 6 32,279 C 42,728 C Rancho California Road W/O Margarita Road(July) 6 33,005 C 43,599 D Temecula Parkway E/O Butterfield Stage Road(Feb.) 6 49,423 D 65,847 F Temecula Parkway E/O Butterfield Stage Road(Oct.) 6 49,436 D 66,863 F 1-15 South of SR 79 8 192,212 E 185,484 E 1-15 North of SR 79 8 213,434 F 199,359 E 1-15 South of Rancho California Road Interchange 8 213,434 F 199,359 E 1-15 North of Rancho California Road Interchange 8 223,344 F 208,758 F 1-15 NB Off-Ramp at SR 79 1 15,192 C or Better 17,890 C or Better I-15 NB On-Ramp at SR 79 1 16,190 D 13,143 C or Better 1-15 SB Off-Ramp at SR 79 1 30,792 C or Better 27,455 C or Better 1-15 SB On-Ramp at SR 79 1 32,166 D 31,429 C or Better 1-15 NB Off-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 19;555 E 13,962 C or Better 11-15 NB On-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 17,970 D 15,592 C or Better 1-15 SB Off-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 20,354 F 18;711• E 1-15 SB On-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 14,012 C or Better 13,140 C or Better Source:Fehr&Peers,2011 N/A-Count Data Not Available INTERSECTION OPERATIONS The intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 9 for Scenario 3 weekend conditions. The intersection volumes are shown on Figure 10. TABLE 9-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE:FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Intersection Control Delay LOS 1.Winchester Road at Nicolas Road Signalized >120 F 2.Winchester Road at Margarita Road Signalized 73.6 E 3.Winchester Road at Ynez Road Signalized 66.4 E 4.Winchester Road at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized >120 F 5.Winchester Road at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 48.3 D FEHRJf PEERS :, � t �n Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community Plan l"', 13 November 2011 TABLE 9 CONTINUED-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE: FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Intersection Control Dela LOS 6.Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue Signalized 48.9 D 7. Rancho California Road at Ynez Road Signalized >120 F 8. Rancho California Road at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 42.9 D 9. Rancho California Road at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 34.3 C 10. Rancho California Road at Jefferson Avenue Signalized 43.1 D 11.Temecula Parkway at Old Town Front Street Signalized 39.9 D 12.Temecula Parkway at 1-15 SB Ramps Signalized 103:8 F 13.Temecula Parkway at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 63.3 E 14.Temecula Parkway at Pechanga Parkway Signalized 38.4 D 15. Pechanga Parkway at Anza Road Signalized 85.5 F 16. Margarita Road at La Serena Way Signalized 102.1 F 17. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road Signalized 89.6 F 18. Margarita Road at Rancho Vista Road Signalized 86.7 F 19. Margarita Road at Pauba Road Signalized 1047 F 20. Margarita Road at De Portola Road Signalized 41.3 D 21. Margarita Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 53.9 D 22. Meadow Parkway at La Serena Way Signalized 11.0 B 23. Meadow Parkway at Rancho California Road Signalized 46-6 D 24. Meadow Parkway at Rancho Vista Road Signalized 40.2 D 25. Meadow Parkway at Pauba Road Signalized 50.2 D 26. Meadow Parkway at De Portola Road Signalized 28.3 C 27. Meadow Parkway at Temecula Parkway Signalized 68.5 E 28. Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way SSSC >120 F 29. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road Signalized >120 F 30. Butterfield Stage at Rancho Vista Road SSSC >120 F 31. Butterfield Stage Road at Pauba Road Signalized 97.8 F 32. Butterfield Stage Road at De Portola Road Signalized 32.9 C 33. Butterfield Stage Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized >120 F 34. La Serena Way at Rancho California Road Signalized 23.5 C 35.Calle Contento at Rancho California Road Signalized 11.0 B r 36.Calle Contento at Madera de Playa Signalized 7.9 A 37.Calle Contento at Pauba Road Signalized 11.1 B 38.Calle Contento at De Portola Road SSSC 16.4 C 39.Anza Road at Borel Road(future) Signalized 11.5 B 40.Anza Road at Buck Road(future) Signalized 13.6 B 1141.Anza Road at Rancho California Road Signalized 48.7 �D� FEHRJ' PEERS 5. 7 � "AM'.0- n 1 Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community flan. Riverside November 2011 TABLE 9 CONTINUED-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE:FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Intersection Control Delay LOS 42.Anza Road at Madera de Playa Signalized >120 F 43.Anza Road at Pauba Road Signalized 16.7 B 44,Anza Road at De Portola Road Signalized 7.7 A 45.Anza Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized >120 F 46. Rancho California Road at Camino del Vino SSSC >120 F 47. Rancho California Road at Buck Road(future) AWS 55.4 F 48. Rancho California Road at Glen Oaks Road AWS 32.1 D 49 Rancho California Road at Monte De Oro Signalized 12.4 B 50, Los Caballos Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 36.6 D 51 Camino del Vino at Glen Oaks Road Signalized 11.1 B 52.Camino del Vino at Monte De Oro Signalized 6.9 A 53. De Portola Road at Benton Road SSSC 9.8 A 54. De Portola Road at Glen Oaks Road SSSC 19.9 C 55. De Portola Road at Via De Oro SSSC 10.2 B 56. De Portola Road at Monte De Oro SSSC 27.3 D 57. De Portola Road at Camino del Vino SSSC 14.3 B 58. De Portola Road at Pauba Road SSSC 40.4 E 59. Pauba Road at Los Caballos Road SSSC 9.8 A 60. Pauba Road at Temecula Parkway SSSC 20.8 C Source: Fehr&Peers, 2011 AWS-All Way Stop, SSSC-Side Street Stop Control " Intersection evaluated using the TRAFFIX software as Synchro cannot evaluate stop-controlled intersections with more than two lanes on any one approach. Shaded cells indicate unacceptable operations. FEHRJ" PEERS r - 1 SL BORELR!D 2.90O 7 2OO 1910OMM RD 76• a9 Q .000 kry �r 'm 2 700 # LA WAY � v � 1A•� ���pkpYA� 14,300 i� 11 Flfl g 9� 32200 � 700 ;' 4 � S 0M 21700 r 9 m 4 tB 6 g 1400 1 4 a�00 gS a 4 it 4 �$ 16 P RB18 0 ° O 75pp ro 30.M r 2 4 Ag A40 9 00 gpp d6. 6 44. a os ' 4 5 4 d7q� 8� 313 6 a 417 r 80 � £EGOM A Ditty 30 6O 2 © �K Mpas'W V 4 wr,.coUrrve boUrodoy FEHR PEERS FUTURE(CUMULATIVE)NO PROJECT CONDITIONS WEEKDAY ROADWAY SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND NUMBER OF LANES o er.mn +ai+£..l�+.K+wuvo-o�tl6xW.n.eyuv�wr„a...w.� FIGURE 37 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ' Prepared for: ' Mr. Richard Ashby ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, CA 92879-1314 Prepared by: URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 �tioorx T r� Irvine, CA 92606 ix rw o..C 2 U N M EV. John Kain, A.I.C.P. Scott Sato, P.E. Tom Huang, EIT I Original Submittal May 25, 1999 City Screencheck Revised May 18,2001 Revised November 26,2001 1 00044-08 t JK:SS:TH:ko 1 EXHIBIT 4-W YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Jqp PRi ci y m m Q a I 1 POURROY RD. URRd A � � fN � t~" PRIdVGSTA H� ��'� v a 7.8 '��. Z1I_,__-_—__i ;SITE CALLS � WI �f-•�,�° I DEL LAGO 74. a '►y CALLE CHAPOS 4 i Sf:ftE NA D �ti�� +►- I LA ► , e 1 t 6 �3 N.GENERAL 6A b KEARNY RD. o►► °•fa, 8.5 6� � x'13 a � d,v► Vk UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 1 �� OVERLAND DR. tx 28.9 MEADOWS PKWY. 6.6 LEGEND: 66.6 a VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) i RORIPAUGH RANCH_.Temecula.California-00WIS N 4-30 , I EXHIBIT 4-Y YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Ln a ay m ( G POURROY RD.�N flpU#tlglEr ( 4 t] ry to 3 _ SPRIGS O 3K tyT ? U %Y o TI 28 y — "_� 7 14.4 Cc:L--------, 12,8'yS�T E ' CALLE ai DEL LAGOI ��'1 •o�,��►�+■ 1 t0.2 i 1 t 66 r r 0.8 1� r• �`'�� � I ! ti 1`97 CALLE CHAPOS �i ,M4 Q � LA S�RENA ■ Li ,■� N.GENERAL $J h KEARNY RD. ��■ I i 4' 5.7 h1� s 13 0 k9- `+ 3�.5 ' \F SO UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 9 OVERLAND DR. '° 42.0 Nc ' %EADOWS PKWY, � �) ok 8 b 4� 76.1 LEGEND: 75.6 s VEHICLES PER DAY(10001) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Callfomia-00044:27 4-33 EXHIBIT 4-Z GENERAL PLAN BBILDODT WITHOUT PROJECT ' AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) " Q ADURROY RD. 7 N ilp' st�.a 5PRIN S HOB 11 Q s5O. 3�g� 40.3 s�JITE r , CALLE DEL LAGO 1 R {�` 3.9 6.6 DA`" --- IC s sn J` 'q 25.8 0 CALLE CHAPOS -y �LA SERE NA— WY,— �i♦ s v A v ti9 N.GENERAL 1 `36' KEARNY RD. � 7 \UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. J1 o v i OVERLAND DR. N 34.7 r3 RANG EADOWS PKWY. v aQ 0 w � 9s 6.0 I 1 LEGEND: 66.0-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) A 1 R0RIPAUGH RANCH,Temecu?a,California-00044:28 SAN 4-34 EXHIBIT 4-AA GENERAL PLAN BUILBOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) � POURROY RD., M � 1 fir' J PRING$ A � ash q 3 j R 6.7 �I--------- � .,SITE DEL LAGOS w r 5.0 la i 0y �a CALLE CHAPOS .y. ►�SERE NA +Q -I'r N.GENERAL 9 t s` KEARNY RD. r+ry� I bQ Yd 0.3 D 1j C '•P UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. a N 9Q OVERLAND DR. w 96.3 RAKC EADOWS PKWY. 7.5 S � - 1 LEGEND: ' 67.3-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000-S) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula;Califomia.00044:29 Bl 4-36 ' I 1 TABLE 3.5 , INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIOAS w INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES 1 NORTH- SOUTH- I EAST- WEST- DELAYS LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) I SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM 1-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)al: • Murrieta Hot Sorinas Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1- 21.0 13.6 C B 1-215 Fwy,NB Ramps(NS)at: ' Murrieta Hot Sorinas Rd.(EW) TS 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 5.8 12.7 A B 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 4 1- 0 4 1>> 29.5 '5 C F ' Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1» 0 3 1» 17.5 41.11 B D 1-15 Fwy.N8 Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3 1>> 20.1 - C F Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>>10 3.5 1.5» 11.3 16.8 B B nez Rd.(NS)at: Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 - 15;.61 F F Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1 2 3 1- 2 3 1- 2 3 1 48 D D Margarita Rd.(NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 3 1> 1 3 0 29.1 36.4 C 0 Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 3 1> 2 3 1 40.0 - 0 F La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 18.3 28.9 B C Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 46.3 49.4 D D Winchester Rd.(NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 41.2 46.1 D D Nicolas Rd.(EW) TS 2 4 1--2 4 1 1 1 1> 3 1 0 48.2 47.9 D D N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 26,7 31.7 C C Meadows Pkwy.(NSj at: La Serena Wy.(EW) TES 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 7.0 7.3 A A Rancho California Rd, EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1. 2 1 44.5 34.4 D C Pourroy Rd.(NS)at • Murrleta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1> 2 2 0 0 2 1 29.5 28.4 C C Bulleefe)d Stage Rd_(NS)at: - Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 0 0 2 1» 2 0 1s> 0 0 0 25.5 22.2 C C Nicolas Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 15.9 20.7 B C ' Calle Chapos(EW) TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 31.3 19.1 C B La Serena Wy.(EW) L j 3 1 1 2 j 2 1 0 1 1 0 27.8 38.1 C D Rancho Callfarnla Rd. EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 32.5 37.3 C D Calle,Contenla(NS)at; Rancho California Rd, EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15A 16.8 C C r 11 should be noted Thal improvements have been constructed by the City of Temecula and Cahrans at the study area inlersections. These ' additional lanes have been accounted for within the lane connguralions with improvements. 2 When a ngre turn is designated,the lane can either be striped or unsirfped. To function as a nghl turn Ian , there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the Through lanes L-Leh:T=Through;R•RigN;»•Free RigN Turn;a•Right Turn Overlap:1-Lane Improvement Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software;Traf ix.Version 71.0607(1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersectlora with tral6c signal or all way stop Control.For intersections with cross street stop control.the , delay and level or service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 4 TS .Traffic Signal CSS•Cross Street Slop s •Additional General Plan analysis of"4orm future service levels a"SR-79 in the vicinfly of the Temecula Valley Maff is curranety being oonducted by Ifs City or Temecula. E:%U blobs\D0001•-1WW44%excefy0o044.0039.05.x1s15s 5-24 1 TABLE 5.3(CONT-D) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- I WEST- DELAYa LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE I! TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL-' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Winchester Rd.(NS)al: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 30.5 47.3 C D Nicolas Rd.(EW) Without Improvements — TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 71.0 83.6 E F rGeneral Imorovements TS 1 3 1> 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 39.9 41.4 D D Keamy Rd.(NS)al: Rd.(EW) ut Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 —r — F F morovemenls TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 11.3 8.6 13 A Pkwy.;NS)al. ena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 15.5 13.8 C B Rancho California Rd EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 50.1 41,6 D D ' Butterl1eid Stage Rd.(NS)at: Rancho CaNfomia Rd.(FW) • .Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 F F -With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 12 a 11.0 B B_ Calle Contento(NS)at. • Rancho California Rd.IE1 l CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 20.5 23.4 C 1 C ( i r t When a rV*Mni is derignsted.the tans can akhw be sWrped or umulped.To k rrotlon as a right rum Ww Own wAw W uOlcim width for rlplt haft valadas to Wravel watch the tlsoWgh times. L-Let T-Ttrpgh;R e FWt>•Free Rlyn Tum: FigN Turn Overlap:l'Wriwavernsm .. 2 Delay and Pavel of service calculated usMq to fON Aft arw"4 soMnrw Traft.Vwslon 7.1.0E67(IMI, Pw du 1947"0hw*y CapM*y Wn umk overall evarapa Irftmecoon deby and level of service are shown ror FWersectons with Irafllo sVW or all way stop control. For irlaisedfdns with r/ee3 gtieet step tontAk ft dewy and bvel of service for the wort rrdkid w aworWr(or w&AM nts 3ha q a strgle lane)ale 3h,", s TS -Traffic SWW CSS•Cross Sheaf Stop s—a Intersection Unslable,Delay Mph.Laval of Swvkw'F• _ U;111C1obs100 W�1EreoM1l�.r1S163 i 5-13 ' TABLE 5-4(CONTD) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- I EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS-1 SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM inchester Rd.(N$)et: ' Munteta Hot Spdnps Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 29.7 52.0 C D Nledes Rd.(EW) Wahout Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 = – F F With Im rovameds TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 41.A 48.7 D D ' N.Gerleral Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) WI0qu11mprovements CSS D 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - F F -With Im menu TS 0 1 1 0 s n 1 2 1 1 2 1 MA 9 e B A Ialeadom Pkwy.(NS)al: • La Serena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 17.2 15.9 C C Rancho t',04mla Rd. TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 52,9 36.5 D D BultedWd Stage Rd.(NS)at; •RarxSlo CW tamlo Rd.(EW) ' •WIMA I nprovemerds CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 - .. F F -VOh tm mvenwis TS 0 1 -0 D 1 0 D 1 1 0 1 0 %2 0 9 B c Cage Contedo(NS)at • Rancho Celifomla Rd.IEWI CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 21;'d .6 C C i i i I . i r Whm a dgN hm is dnowled,the Ism ran slllrr be sbtperl or um 4wd. To krcdon as a"km we two must t~udlkleri wldb far rwo b-Av V*N to baud aml ere woo*WNS. L.LWt T.n o*p R.Ffthk»=Fro%VN Tug> FW Tun Overbp;I.t^Pownwo 2 Daley end tsval d sarvlte ob Wed u q ft fcwhft wwr sla sdkmm Tnlf04 Version 7.8.1015 t=l,Per the 1997 H Wmy Cape* Marsal a-WU VAMP MomocclM detey and level dam, sm ellowvr for tnraneriw will wfso WWW oral way Lap ccx. For Inwmedtsm vwb am shat stop chid ere dally and level d servfpa for tM wcnt lndivldrrsl'movrnent(a aw.wrwas aforkip a atnpls ' Wr)an shorn 'TS •Trafk qW* CSS•Cmu SWW Stop 4–s Inwo6dion U w4ft DWy Fftk Level d Swvka'r. tk.WWob@WWl-o wa0G�74a.'+dncoHooO*+l-USinoS.xi,� I 5-19 TABLE 5-6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH, EAST. WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L .T R AM I PM AM PM ' 1.215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at Murrieta HotSprings Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1» 23.5 16.9 C B I-215 Fwy.NO Ramps(NS)at; • Murriete Ho1S rin s Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3 1 5,6 15.0 A B I.15 Fwy.$8 Ramps(NS)at: Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 1i> 0 4 1» 32.7 ' C F Rancho California Rd, EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1>> 0 3 1>> 18.1 1 42.0 B D I-1S Fwy.NO Ramps(NS]at: Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1,5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 » 21,8 - C F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5» 11.6 17.9 8 B_ Ynex Rd.(NS)al: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 F F Rancho California RcL EW TS 2 2 1 2 3 1>> 2 3 1» 3 1 50,9 52.7 D D Margarita Rd.(NS)at Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 3 1> 1 a 0 32,1 50.8 C D Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 L 2 3 1> 2 3 1 47.3 • D F La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 20.5 27.6 B C • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 Z 1 2 1> 2 1> 49.3 52.1 D ❑ Inchester Rd.(NS)at Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 0 47.$ 55.0 D D ' • Nicolas Rd.MV TS 2 4 1» 2 4 1 1 1 > 3 11 1> 54.1 36-3 D D N.General Kaneny Rd.(NS)at Nicolas Rd. EW TS 1 0 1 1 01 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 36.7 36.0 D D eadows Pkwy.(NS)at: La Serena Wy.(EW) TA 1 0 1 0 0 0 10 2 1 1 2 0 7.1 7.4 A A • Rancho California Rd. EW TA 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1' 44.9 36.9 D D Pourfoy Rd.(TIS)al: - Murrieta Hat Springs Rd. EW 1 1 1 1> 1 1 42.6 54.4 D 1 D Project Entrance[NS)at Murrieta llol Springs Rd. EW 0 11 0 2 0 12.1 24.1 B 1 C Butterrleid Stage Rd,(NS)al: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.,(LW) s 2 2 0 0 2 » 2 0 0 0 0 :4.6 46.7 D D Nicolas Rd.(EW) 0 2 2 2 1 } 1 1 1> 39.5 46.7 C D Celle Chapos(EW) L 1 E 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 50.1 37.2 D C Le Serena Wy.(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 29.3 51,4 C D • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 0 1 2 0 2 2 R 1 0 34.6 51.8 C one Conlento(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 0' 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 15.8 17.3 C C t It should be noted that Improverner S have been constructed by the City of:Temewla and Coltrane at the study area interaadions. These additional lanes have been acoounled for within the lane conngmations with improvements. =Wlreir a nitre cum if.dl41gn31ed,the lane pn vithvr be elnpvd qr 1n51nped.TO hln[fipry a9 a fight IUfI1 lane Inrre mull besvrfktaentw, n irr ripe turning ventilesso rraval onside thethfOtgh lanes. L a Len:T z Through:A.Right;»s Free Right Turn;s a Right Turn Overlap:f e Lane Improvement o Delay and level of service calculated usbtg the following analysis soltwara:Traflix,Version 7.5.1015(20001, i Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual;overall average intersection delay and level orservice are shown for inlerseciions with trafficsignal or an way slop central. Fat Iniamodions with cross street stop contra,the delay and level ofservkwfor the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. ' TS +TrarticSlgnal CSS•Cross Street Slop e• •Additional General Plan analysis d long•lemt future service Isvela along SR•741n the vicinity cif the Temecula Valley Man Is wrmrtly being conducted by the City of Temecula. C:lData�wocM1r>r1044rExceryg0044�039.05,xq]SA 5--28 . i EXHIBIT 3-F EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) � rn r y1F PR/ a POURROY RD. D se zQ SP HIh►ETp tyDh 1a► ❑ a� ra Cr$ Rp, ry 7B F y 2.4 z�F----- ---r� SITL CALLE Fk` op DErL LAGO JR �'� n•����+ �� I NtCO 63 . in s m f 14 ►° CALLE CHAPOS 1t1 Y ti3 ¢" j Lq 5 RfcrIVA ry 1 k 1 �- qg N.GENERAL C3 KEARNY RD. ` 6 ry sp 49.4 S w •t UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND DR. ° 23.5 RANCH A4 €ADOWS PKWY. 54.4 O ` LEGEND: 90.0 VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5) r 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH Temecula,California.00044.14 3-10 EXHIBIT B CC RESOLUTION - SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11) (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 15-1664) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 11) was approved by the City Council on November 26, 2002 by the adoption of Resolution No. 02-112. Amendment No. 1 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific (SP 11) was approved on January 11, 2005 by the adoption of Resolution No. 05-08. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendment No. 1 shall be referred to in this Resolution as the "Specific Plan". B. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan provides that the issuance of building permits for Phase II buildings of the Specific Plan are conditioned upon the completion of design and construction of certain Public Improvements. Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan would modify the schedule and building permit "trigger points" or "building permit thresholds" for various public improvements related to development in Phase II of the Specific Plan. The Owners of the Phase II Properties have requested modifications to the infrastructure implementation schedule to be able to install them in a more cost effective and efficient manner based on current market conditions. C. On 2016 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, and proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in these actions had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. After hearing all written and oral testimony on the proposed actions and duly considering the comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that the Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) be approved. D. On 2016 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council. E. The City has reviewed the potential impacts of the Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) and the various potential benefits to the City of the Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) and has concluded that Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) is in the best interests of the City. F. Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) is consistent with the City's General Plan including the goals and objectives thereof and each element thereof. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. H. By Resolution No. 2016- _ the City Council certified and approved the Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Project. Section 2. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (AP 11). The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11) The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 11) was approved by the City Council on November 26, 2002 by the adoption of Resolution No. 02-112. Amendment No. 1 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific (Specific Plan No. 11) was approved on January 11, 2005 by the adoption of Resolution No. 05-08. This Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 11) was approved by the City Council on March_, 2016 by the adoption of Resolution No. 16- . The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan as originally approved and as amended by Amendment No. 1 shall be referred to in this Amendment No. 2 as the "Specific Plan." The Specific Plan is amended as follows: 1. This Amendment No. 2 to the Specific Plan only pertains to those portions of the Specific Plan affecting the properties and development of Phase II of the Specific Plan. 2. The Specific Plan provides that certain Public Improvements shall be designed and constructed in conjunction with the development of Phase II of the Specific Plan"Phase II Specific Plan Improvements." The Specific Plan also provides that the issuance of building permits for Phase II buildings are conditioned upon the completion of design and construction of certain Phase II Specific Plan Improvements. Those provisions of the Specific Plan conditioning the issuance of building permits upon the completion of design and construction of certain Phase II Specific Plan Improvements are hereby amended by deleting the text, descriptions and building permit release thresholds for the Phase 11 Specific Plan Improvements and replacing the text, descriptions and building permit release thresholds for the Phase 11 Specific Plan Improvements with Exhibit A to this First Amendment, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 3. Except as otherwise provided in this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Specific Plan shall remain in full force and effect. -1- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing "AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11)" was duly adopted by Resolution No. 16-_of the City Council of the City of Temecula on March_, 2016. Randi Johl, JD, MMC City Clerk -2- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 EXHIBIT A TO AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE II SPECIFIC PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AND SCHEDULE 1. Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 A. Descri t�ion of Public Improvement. Acquire all right-of-way, complete engineering design, and construct Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 to the intersection with Rancho California Road. Construction will include intersection and traffic signal improvements at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road and landscaping of the center medians of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 improvements. When appropriate warrants are met, Owners of Phase II shall contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way and related intersection improvements as provided in Section 2.2.6, Phasing of Road Improvements, of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and more specifically, Table 2-3 and Paragraph 4 on page 2-22 of the Specific Plan. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Complete Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements prior to issuance of 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, excluding the installation of center median landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Complete center median landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 prior to the issuance of the 500th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. C. Responsibility. The City shall construct the Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements using Remaining CFD funds, excluding the installation of landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 shall be constructed by the Owners of Phase II Property.. (As used in this Attachment 5-A, the term "Remaining CFD funds" shall mean available bond proceeds from duly authorized community facility district bonds issued by the City and secured by a special tax on the Project Site or the Phase 11 Properties, or both, pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5.) 2. Traffic Signal, Road, and Intersection Acquisition Fee A. Description of Public Improvement. Establish an on and offsite traffic signal, road and intersection acquisition fee. The fee amount will be determined by the City based on cost estimates provided by the Owners of Phase II Property and fees will be collected by the City at the time of building permit issuance. The City will determine when the improvements are required to be installed. The Constructing -3- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 Party will be reimbursed upon acceptance of the completed improvements by the City. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. The on and offsite traffic signals, roads, and intersections to which the Acquisition Fee will be applied are: ■ Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road ■ Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos • Nicolas Road at Winchester Road B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase 11 shall provide cost estimates and fee basis to the Director of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of 1 st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11. The City shall collect the approved fee amount at issuance of each building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II starting with the 1St building permit. The ultimate signal modifications and associated improvements at the Nicolas Road and Winchester Road intersection shall be operational prior to the issuance of the 26th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The timing of the installation for the remaining traffic signals and intersection improvements shall be as determined by the City Director of Public Works, and shall not be an unreasonable time-schedule. The Constructing Party will be reimbursed upon acceptance of the completed improvements by the City. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall.. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. 3. Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering design and construct full Nicolas Road improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection. The City will use the Remaining CFD funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, to construct the improvements from the approved plan as a City- sponsored project. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. Owners of Phase II Property shall be required, on behalf of the City, to provide for all required engineering design, construction plans, CEQA analysis &processing, environmental mitigation measures, right-of-way acquisition, and to obtain all necessary Resource Agency and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District permits. Costs of design, -4- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 mitigation, project management and construction will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds, with priority to the costs of construction. Costs of right-of-way acquisition will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds upon completion of the required acquisition. The approved plan shall include all utility, drainage, flood control, bridge, and intersection improvements necessary for the roadway connection. Resource Agency permits for the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection should be combined with the permits for the Santa_Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road and processed and obtained as a single package. Upon review of final design plans and estimates by the City, the City shall determine a security amount corresponding to the then current engineering cost estimates plus design, mitigation and right-of-way acquisition costs, costs of construction and contingencies for both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. Owners of Phase II Property shall post a letter of credit with the City, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of the security amount. The City shall release the letter of Credit upon the occurrence of one of the following events: (1) Completion of the construction of both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing as required by this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; or(2) additional proceeds from new CFD bonds are approved and available so that the Remaining CFD funds are sufficient to complete both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. After determination of the security amount, any Remaining CFD funds in excess of the security amount may then be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channel improvements. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Offsite Segment (Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection to Phase 11 Boundary). The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall submit complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. -5- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doe 1-25-2016 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals on behalf of the City, together with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, to allow for start of the City- sponsored project prior to issuance of the 200`1i building perni t for the Phase II Property. If, however, the Owners of Phase II Property are unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, the Owners of Phase II Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits, up to a total 522 building permits prior to obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits. 3. City shall construct Nicolas Road from the western Project boundary to Calle Girasol Owners of Phase II Property shall construct Nicolas Road Improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western Project boundaries as described in this Section with the Park-n-Ride/Equestrian Staging Area, which is required to be constructed prior to the 1St building permit for Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1I. Owners of the Phase II Property shall construct a barricade and turn-around acceptable to the Fire Department on Nicolas Road at the boundary of the Phase II Property. C. Responsibility_. City, Owners of Phase 11 Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated between Owners of Phase II Property as noted in item #18 herein below. 4. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the improvements upstream and downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road from the plans approved by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Both upstream and downstream improvements must be constructed concurrently. Remaining CFD funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, above the security amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol improvements may be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek channel improvements. Permanent maintenance of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of RCFC&WCD. -6- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 City of Temecula, as the underlying property owner, will cooperate to remove the existing Restrictive Covenant on the land, and to grant fee ownership to RCFC&WCD for Permanent maintenance. Resource Agency permits for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, and the improvements are off site. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements permits downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road should be combined with the permits for Nicolas Road from Butterfield Staize Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection and processed and obtained as a single package. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Owners of Phase II Property shall submit complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1 St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals, together with the Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, prior to issuance of the 2001h building permit within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. If, however, Owners of Phase II Property is unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, Owners of Phase 11 Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, up to a total of 522 building permits within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 property prior to obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 5. Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements from the plans approved by RCFC&WCD and/or City of -7- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 Temecula. Construction shall include the bridge abutments for the Pedestrian Bridge. Remaining CFD funds above the security amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol and Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements may be applied to Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements. Permanent maintenance of the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 HOA, or other maintenance entity reasonably approved by the City of Temecula. As used in this Attachment 5A, "Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA," shall mean a homeowners association duly incorporated under the laws of the State of California for the purposes, among others, of maintaining the various public and private improvements as provided in the Development Agreement and funding such maintenance obligations. There shall only be one HOA for Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 maintenance obligations in a form reasonably approved by the Director of Community Development and City Attorney, provided, however, that this HOA may provide for special benefit zones to fund maintenance obligations as approved by the Director of Public Works. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in a Planning Area draining into the channel (i.e., Planning Areas 17 through 31). C. Responsibility_. Owners of Phase 11 Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 6. Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQMP) A. Description of Public Improvement. As needed, each Owner of Phase 11 Property shall submit a WQMP Amendment covering its ownership to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and City for review and comment. The WQMP Amendments shall address both construction and occupancy of the project. The amended WQMPs shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall each submit WQMP Amendments covering their respective ownerships to the SDRWQCB and City for review and comment prior to any additional approval of plans, issuance of permits, and/or grading of each Party's site. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, individually by Planning Area. 7. Remaining Public Improvements & Landscaping—Major Roadways A. Description of Public Improvement. The Owners of Phase 2 Property shall complete the public improvements, including sidewalks, parkway landscaping, -8- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, along the frontage of major roadways adjacent to each Planning Area in their respective ownerships, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. This requirement will pertain to the following major roadways: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road Butterfield Stage Road • Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street) Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) Nicolas Road North Loop Road • South Loop Road In the event that sidewalks along the above streets are not continuous, the Owners of Phase I1 Property shall provide an all-weather pedestrian path of travel to ensure continuous pedestrian circulation. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall each complete the public improvements and landscaping including sidewalk, parkway landscaping, raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, adjacent to their frontage on major roadways, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in each adjacent Planning Area and/or Tract Map. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, individually by Planning Area. 8. Permanent Maintenance of Parkway Landscaping—Landscape Maintenance Master Plan A. Description of Public Improvement. Although originally intended to be maintained by the TCSD, permanent maintenance of slopes and parkways along the frontage of major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase I1 HOA. Owners of Phase II Property shall each prepare and submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan to the Community Development Director for review and comment covering all public and private open space areas, parks, slopes, parkways, etc., and especially slopes and parkways along their frontage on major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11, which will not be maintained by individual commercial or residential property owners. The Landscape Maintenance Master Plan(s) shall show the locations of any necessary water meters and electrical meters, together with the permanent maintenance entity for each area. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan for their respective ownerships to the Community Development Director for review and comment prior to the 1st building permit in each Planning Area and/or Tract Map. -9- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property. 9. North and South Loop Roads—Complete Engineering and Landscape Architectural Design A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering and landscape architectural design as public roadways, with: • narrow roadway pavement widths consistent with current City design criteria; r traffic calming measures including measures to address traffic to/from Sports Park(Planning Area 27), Secondary School (Planning Area 28) and Elementary School (Planning Area 29) such as a traffic round-about on the North Loop Road easterly of Planning Area 29; • water quality measures addressing runoff from the roadway pavement and parkway areas; • areas with widened parkways, meandering sidewalks or trails, variations in wall locations and type, or other design features intended to create unique character and visual appeal; and • a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Submit design to the Public Works Director and Community Development Director for approval. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete engineering design of the North and South Loop Roads, and a Phasing Plan for construction of the a roads to allow for orderly development, and submit for approval to the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete landscape architectural design of the North and South Loop Roads and submit for approval to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the 1 St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 10. Sports Park(Planning Area 27)— Complete Design & Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description of Public Improvement. Update design of the Sports Park with: -10- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 • water quality measures addressing runoff from impervious areas and incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the amended WQMP; • unnecessary turf areas converted to drought tolerant plant materials; fescue turf soccer fields converted to synthetic turf, • design of tot lot and playground updated to the latest Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standards; ■ proposed site lighting converted to more efficient LED lighting; + pre-wiring for security cameras for each major use area (parking lot, ball fields, restrooms, etc.) and provision of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) system; • approval of the sports field lighting design by the Community Services Director, and, if required, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Authority, with the intent of minimizing the impacts of lighting on the surrounding community; • connection to the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash and potential connection to the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian, and Trailhead facility in Planning Area 3313; and • conversion of the proposed ball field to a 90' infield/ 325' outfield. Owners of Phase II Property shall submit design to the Community Services Director and Public Works Director for approval. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Prior to the issuance of the I st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11, the Owners of Phase 11 Property shall update the Sports Park design, and submit plans for approval to the Community Services and Public Works Directors. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct the Sports Park and the City shall accept the park, prior to issuance of the 1200'" building permit in Roripaugh Ranch, that number including Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated on the basis of the City of Temecula's typical parks fee methodology. 11. Private Recreation Center(Planning Area 30) —Use Analysis, Design Development, and Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description.of Public Improvement. Perform a recreational use analysis to guide design development of the Private Recreation Center, optimum location within Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, and to form the basis for fair share construction and maintenance fiscal contribution decisions by the Owners of Phase II Property. Perform design development based on the recreational use analysis and submit to the Community Development Director for approval. Design development -11- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 drawings and documents must be sufficient to understand recreational uses, conceptual architecture, construction costs and maintenance/operational costs. Permanent maintenance of the Private Recreation Center shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA. B. Building;Permit Release Schedule. RVR and/or Wingsweep shall perform a recreational use analysis, design development, and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the Is'building permit in Roripaughi Ranch Phase 11. Prior to the issuance of the 300th the schedule for completion of construction of the Private Recreation Center shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. C. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 12. Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash. Bridge abutments to be constructed with Long Valley Wash channel construction. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. RVR shall construct the Pedestrian Bridge prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, and 24. C. ResponsihilitN". RVR, individually. 13. Multi-Use Trail in Planning Areas 19, 20, & 21 —Design Development A. Description of Public Improvement. Perform design development of the 15' wide Multi-Use Trail intended to provide a trail in Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 along their southerly boundary, then crossing Long Valley Wash to connect to Planning Area 19 and along its easterly boundary and connecting to properties to the east. Due to changed conditions, trail access into Planning Area 13 has been precluded, crossing of Long Valley Wash may only be accomplished at the easterly Loop Road crossing and introduction of the Wine Country Sewer provides additional opportunity for alternate trail alignment. Design development shall include: • measures to screen onsite and offsite homes from the trail on an"as- needed" basis; • measures to provide for safe crossing at the easterly Loop Road crossing of Long Valley Wash; • consideration of connection to properties to the east at Calle Contento, in the alignment of the Wine Country Sewer, as opposed to an alignment through Planning Area 19 to connect to Planning Area 13; -12- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 + consideration of any potential connection of the trail alignment through Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to properties to the south, or to the west across Butterfield Stage Road, or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities required to be constructed in Planning Area 33B. If safe and reasonably useful connections from Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to such properties or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities cannot be expected, then alternate alignments, such as trail crossing facilities at Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and/or use of the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash shall be considered in the design development instead; + a Phasing Plan for construction of the multi-use trail in segments to allow for its early construction as well as orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase Il Owners of Phase II Property shall submit design development to the Community Development Director for approval. Permanent Maintenance of the Multi-Use Trail shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase lI HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase Il Property shall perform design development of the Multi-Use Trail and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase Il. The Multi-Use Trail may be constructed in phases, in accordance with the approved Design. In each Planning Area, the Multi-Use Trail shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 1 st building permit (excluding Model Home permits) in the Planning Area. C. Responsibility. Costs allocated in the future based on Planning Area ownership (i.e. trail costs within each Planning Area will be borne by the owner of that Planning Area). 14. Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, Trailhead in Planning Area 33B A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete design and construct the Park-n- Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities, in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City. Permanent maintenance of and providing utilities for the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, and Trailhead in Planning Area 33B shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase Il HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. Maintenance of the sites for Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities and the facilities during construction shall be the responsibility of the Owners of Phase II. -13- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doe 1-25-2016 B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete design and construct the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City, prior to issuance of the 1 st building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, 31 and 33A. Prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, 31 and 33A, the Owners of Phase II Property shall also complete the design and construction of the portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the MWD easement, including necessary temporary turn-around geometrics to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The design and construction of this portion of Nicolas Road must be coordinated and consistent with the engineering design and construction of Nicolas Road (Item #3 of this Attachment 5-A). C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 15. Fire Protection Plans A. Description of Public Improvement. Submit plans for structural protection from vegetation fires to the City of Temecula Fire Department. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall each submit a Fire Protection Plan for their respective areas for approval by the City of Temecula Fire Department prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract/Parcel Map in each of their respective ownerships. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, individually by Planning Area. 16. Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street)—Complete Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Roripaugh Valley Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the access for the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6) shall be installed prior to the acceptance of the Neighborhood Park by the City. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. If not already completed with the construction of the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6), Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 11. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 17. Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) Improvements —Complete Improvements -14- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements from Nicolas Road to Roripaugh Valley Road. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 12. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 18. On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities —Proportional Cost Sharing. A. Description of Public Improvement. Owners of Phase II Property shall share the costs to complete the design, planning, government agency permit approvals, construction and implementation of all of the On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities per the items above on a proportional basis. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Not Applicable. C. Responsibility. As costs are incurred, The Owners of Phase II Property shall each pay their agreed upon proportional share of said approved costs. RVR's proportionate share shall be ninety percent (90%). Wingsweep's proportionate share shall be ten percent (10%). -15- 11086-0097\1919359v1.doc 1-25-2016 EXHIBIT C CC ORDINANCE -THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 14-0051) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC (also known as the "Pre-annexation and Development Agreement") was initially approved by Ordinance No. 02-14 of the City Council on December 17, 2002 and recorded on January 9, 2003 as Document No. 2003-018567 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. The Development Agreement has been previously amended pursuant to: (1) the First Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC, dated February 14, 2006 and recorded on March 7, 2006 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2006-0162268; and (2) the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC, dated April 23, 2013 and recorded on July 3, 2013 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2013- 0324057. The December 17, 2002 development agreement as amended shall be referred to in this Ordinance as the "Development Agreement." B. The Development Agreement and the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan provide that the issuance of building permits for Phase II buildings are conditioned upon the completion of design and construction of certain Public Improvements. The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan would modify the schedule and building permit "trigger points" or "building permit thresholds" for various public improvements related to development in Phase II of the Roripaugh Project (collectively the "Amendments"). The Owners of the Phase II Properties have requested modifications to the infrastructure implementation schedule to be able to install them in a more cost effective and efficient manner based on current market conditions. C. On 2016 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission. After hearing all written and oral testimony on the proposed actions and duly considering the comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that the Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) be approved. D. On 1 2016 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council. E. The City has reviewed the potential impacts of the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement and the various potential benefits to the City of the Third Amendment and has concluded that the Third Amendment is in the best interests of the C ity. F. The Third Amendment to the Development is consistent with the City's General Plan including the goals and objectives thereof and each element thereof. G. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. H. By Resolution No. 2016- _the City Council certified and approved the Addendum No. 2 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Project. Section 2. Approval of Third Amendment to Development Agreement. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves that certain Third Amendment to Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC (also known as the "Pre-annexation and Development Agreement")and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Development Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Michael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS. ABSENT- COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street. Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: City Clerk Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Code Section 27383 (Space above for recorder's use) THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA LLC (RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN} THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of March , 2016, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), Wingsweep Corporation, a California corporation ("Wingsweep"), and Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("RVR") (collectively "Phase II Owners"") pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Pursuant to said authority and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Third Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Third Amendment is made with respect to the following purposes and facts which the parties agree to be true and correct: a. The Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC (also known as the "Pre-annexation and Development Agreement") was initially approved by Ordinance of the City Council on December 17, 2002 and recorded on January 9, 2003 as Document No. 2003-018567 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside. The Development Agreement has been previously amended pursuant to: (1)the First Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC, dated February 14, 2006 and recorded on March 7, 2006 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2006-0162268; and (2)the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 1 Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC, dated April 23, 2013 and recorded on July 3, 2013 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2013-0324057. The December 17, 2002 development agreement as amended shall be referred to in this Third Amendment as the "Development Agreement." b. Section 3.5.5 of the Development Agreement authorizes parties to the Development Agreement and the City to approve an"Operating Memorandum" which does not constitute an amendment to the Development Agreement, in order to implement the Development Agreement or provide for"changes, adjustments, or clarifications [that] are appropriate to further the intended purposes" of the Development Agreement. Since the date of the Development Agreement, seven Operating Memoranda have been approved: (1) The First Operating Memorandum was entered into on October 21, 2004; (2) the Second Operating Memorandum was entered into on March 21, 2006; (3) the Third Operating Memorandum was entered into on August 31, 2006; (4) the Fourth Operating Memorandum was entered into on March 8, 2007 and recorded on March 8, 2007 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2007- 0160512; (5)the Fifth Operating Memorandum was entered into on October 26, 2010 and recorded on November 18, 2010 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2010-0557219; (6) the Sixth Operating Memorandum was entered into on January 25, 2011 and recorded on March 3, 2011 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2011-0093836; and (7)the Seventh Operating Memorandum was entered into on April 17, 2015 and recorded on May 28, 2015 in the Official Records of Riverside County as Document No. 2015-0223568. C. The real property which is the subject of this Third Amendment is generally known as the Phase II Property of the Roripaugh Ranch Project. The Phase II Property consists of the Wingsweep Property described in Section I.d. and the RVR Property described in Section Le.. The Phase II Property is depicted on the map in Exhibit A ("Phase II Property Map") and is a part of the property subject to the Development Agreement. d. Wingsweep is the owner of real property within the Phase II Property that is described on Exhibit B to this Third Amendment("Wingsweep Property") and is a part of the property subject to the Development Agreement. Wingsweep warrants and represents to the City that all persons who have an ownership interest or other interest in the Wingsweep Property have executed this Third Amendment as a party and, further, that no other persons are required to approve this Third Amendment on behalf of Wingsweep. e. RVR is the owner of real property with the Phase II Property that is described on Exhibit C to this Third Amendment ("RVR Property") and is a part of the property subject to the Development Agreement. RVR warrants and represents to the City that all persons who have an ownership interest or other interest in the RVR Property have executed this Third Amendment as a party and, further, no other persons are required to approve this Third Amendment on behalf of RVR. f. By Resolution No. 2016- the City Council certified and 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 2 approved the Third Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, its land use entitlements and the Development Agreement pertaining to the environmental analysis of this Third Amendment and Amendment No. 2 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11). g. On , 2016 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum, the proposed Third Amendment to the Development Agreement, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11). After hearing all written and oral testimony on the proposed actions and duly consideration the comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that this Third Amendment be approved. h. On_ ;the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Addendum, the proposed Third Amendment, and the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11). After hearing all written and oral testimony on the proposed actions and duly consideration the comments received, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 156- _on , 2016 and adopted Ordinance No. 16- on , 2015 approving this Third Amendment. i. On 2016, the City Council of the City of Temecula also adopted Resolution No. 2016- approving Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) 2. Amendment of Section 4.2 Phase II Improvements. Section 4.2 of the Development Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: "4.2 Physical Improvements. In consideration of the CITY'S promises and performances, OWNER agrees to the following: "4.2.1 Off-Site Improvements. Subject to the CITY'S assistance pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5 OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well as constructing all improvements identified in Attachment 5, as modified by Section 4.2.1.1. "4.2.1.1 Phase II Improvements. A. As used in this Section 4.2.1.1, "Phase II Property Owners" shall mean the owners of the Phase 11 Property and their successors and assigns. B. The Phase 11 Property Owners hereby acknowledge and agree that on-site and off-site improvements required for Phase I of the Roripaugh Ranch Project as described in Attachment 5 have been completed, or are secured with construction pending or in progress, and that the Phase II Owners shall not have any responsibility for the Phase I Improvements. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 3 C. Attachment 5 is hereby amended by deleting the text, descriptions and building permit release thresholds for the Phase II Improvements and replacing the text, descriptions and building permit release thresholds for the Phase II improvements with Attachment 5-A to this Third Amendment. D. Subject to the CITY'S assistance pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5, the Phase II Property Owners shall be responsible for funding, designing, obtaining required all applicable permits, including, without limitation, resource agency permits, acquiring rights-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well as constructing all of the Phase II Improvements as identified and described in Attachment 5-A, Phase II Improvements and Schedule. Phase II Property Owners, agree that to the extent the costs of said Phase 11 Improvements exceeds available proceeds from duly authorized community facility district bonds issued by the City and secured by a special tax on the Project Site or the Phase II Properties, or both, pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5, Wingsweep Corporation, a California corporation ("Wingsweep"), and its successors and assigns, shall pay ten percent (10%) of such costs and Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("RVR") shall pay ninety percent (90%) of such costs. It shall be the responsibility of Wingsweep and RVR to fund the costs of the Phase II Improvements as provided in this subsection as between themselves. E. City shall have no responsibility to fund any of the Phase II Improvements except with proceeds from duly authorized and available community facilities district bonds issued by the City and secured by a special tax on the Project Site or the Phase II Properties or both. Further, City shall be under no obligation to issue any building permits pursuant to Attachment 5-A should Wingsweep or RVR fail to contribute their respective shares of the funds required to complete the Phase II Improvements. "4.2.2 On-Site Improvements. OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well as all other On-Site improvements necessary to accomplish the Development, in whole or in part." 3. New Attachment 5-A Phase II Improvements. A new Attachment 5-A, Phase II Improvements and Schedule, is hereby added to the Development Agreement to read as provided in Exhibit D to this Third Amendment. 4. Amendment No. 2 to Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP 11) Shall Constitute a Development Plan Approval. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.6, Wingsweep and RVR each agree that that Amendment No. 2 to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan shall be an amendment to the Development Plan Approvals and that Amendment No. 2 shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated for Phase II as if it were in existence on the Effective Date. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 4 5. General a. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, as amended by the First and Second Amendments, shall remain in full force and effect. b. This Third Amendment contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, concerning the subject matter hereof. C. The following Exhibits are attached to this Third Amendment and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Phase II Property Map Exhibit B Wingsweep Property Exhibit C RVR Property Exhibit D New Attachment 5-A to Development Agreement, Phase II Improvements and Schedule 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Third Amendment as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation Jeff Comerchero Mayor Attest: Randi Johl-Olson, JD, MMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: Peter M. Thorson City Attorney 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 6 WINGSWEEP CORPORATION, A California corporation By: Corry Hong President and Chief Executive Officer 1 1086-0097\1 902902v4.doe 1-25-2016 7 RORIPAUGH VALLEY RESTORATION LLC A Delaware limited liability company By; Ken Kraemer Operating Manager 11086-0097\19029020.doe 1-25-2016 8 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California ) County of ) On , before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 9 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California ) County of ) On , before me, , (insert name and title of the officer) Notary Public, personally appeared_, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 10 EXHIBIT A PHASE II PROPERTY MAP 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 11 Exhibit A Phase 2 Property . . iM..w....w..ww.w..w...w.... ....1............................ MU�RJSF� F1prSAy+NGS RD S �ORJPACJGFf,YALLl=_Y_'RD a s 2• F. N _w + 4%COLAS RD 'Ar ��No1 ft w C) H n J � W E� l4'q„ !0 S6UiYi LQ[]P-RQ _ ''L E CHAPOS Q-T a f .jq A8141J' 0 500 1,000 Ad% Feet 33 "1Y NORTHt{Geographic Io,farr„atiun Systems EXHIBIT B WINGSWEEP PROPERTY 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 12 PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,SHOWN AS"NOTA PART"ON PARCEL MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 1,PAGE 44 OF PARCEL MAPS,RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID"NOT A PART"SOUTH 0'33 55" WEST,974.13 FEET FROM NORTHEAST CORNERIHEREOF;THENCE NORTH 89"26'05"WEST,711.64 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID"NOT A PART"TO A POINT ON TH EAST LINE OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 12'32'02"WEST 1004,04 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID"NOT A PART";THENCE SOUTH 12'32'02"WEST,278,15 FEET ON SAID EAST METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT LINE;THENCE SOUTH 89'26'05"EAST,829,32 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID"NOT A PART"SOUTH 0'33'55" WEST,1246,24 FEET FROM SAID NORTHEAST CORNER;THENCE NORTH 0"33'55'[AST,272.11 FEET ON SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF,SHOWN As'NOT A PART"AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1,PAGES 44,45 AND 46 OF PARCEL MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID"NOT A PART'SOUTH 0'33'55"WEST,1,246.24 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID'NOT A PART';THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0' 33'55"WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 375.50 FEET TO A POINT;THENCE NORTH 89'26,05' WEST 904 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 24,1968,AS INSTRUMENT NO.37774,OFFICIAL RECORDS,SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAI CERTAIN PARCEL CONVEYED TO MATCHAM REALTY BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 21,1971,AS INSTRUMENT NO.120094,OFFICIAL RECORDS;THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 12'32' 02"EAST(RECORDED NORTH 12'34'14"EAST)383.24 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS SOUTH 12°32'02" WEST(OF RECORD SOUTH 12"34'14"WEST)1,282.19 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID"NOT A PART%THENCE SOUTH 89"26'05"EAST 829,32 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND,IN THE TEMECULA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DELINEATED AND DESIGNATED"NOT A PART"ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 44 OF PARCEL MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY BEING A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH,RANGE 2 WEST,SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 20 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP IN BOOK 1,PAGE 44;THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION SOUTH 0'33'55"WEST,1,621.74 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 0°33'55"WEST,98.5 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89'26'05"WEST 928 FEET,MORE 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 13 EXHIBIT C RVR PROPERTY Real property in the City of Temecula.County of Riverside, State of California, described as follmvs: PARCEL A: LOTS 7 THROUGH 11 AND LETTERED LOTS "I" "J"AND"L"OF TRACT 29353-2,IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOCK 342 OF IVLAPS,PAGE(S)73 THROUGH 85,INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL B: LOTS 1 THROUGH 15 ACID LETTER LOT "4"OF TRACT 29353,IN THE CITY OF TEINIECULA, COG1=OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA_AS PER K4.P RECORDED IN BOOK 401 OF IhIAPS PAGES 89 THROUGH 96 LNCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. A.PN-s: 964-180-004-6 (Affects Lot 7 of Parcel A) 964-180-005-7 (Affects Lot 8 of Parcel A) W, -180-007-9 (Affects Lot 10 ofPaircel A) 964-180-008-0 (Affec:ts Lot 11 of Parcel A) 964-180-017-8 (Affects Lot 1 of Parcel B) 964-180-018-9 (Affects Lot 2 of Parcel B) 964-180-019-0 (Affects Lot 3 ofRucel B) 964-180--020-0 (Affects Lot 4 of Parcel B) 964-180-021-1 (Affects Lot 5 of Parcel B) 964-180-022-2 (Affects Lot 6 of Parcel B) 964-180-023-3 (Affects Lot 7 of Parcel B) 964-180-024-4 (Affects Lot 8 of Parcel B) 964-180-025-5 (Affects Lot 9 of Parcel B) 964-180-026-6 (Affects Lot 10 of Parcel B) 964-180-027-7 (Affects Lot 11 of Parcel B) 964-180-028-8 (Affects Lot 12 of Parcel B) 964-180-029-9 (Affects Lot 13 of Parcel B) 964-180-030-9 (Affects Lot 14 of Parcel B) 964-180-031-0 (Affects Lot 15 of Parcel B) 964-180-033-2 (Affects Lot 9 of Parcel A) 964-180-034-3 (Affects Lot J of Parcel A) 964-180-036-5 (Affects Lot L of Parcel A) 964-180-037-6 (Affects Lot I of Parcel A) 964-180-032-1 (affects Lot A of Parcel B) 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 14 EXHIBIT D NEW ATTACHMENT 5-A TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS AND SCHEDULE 1. Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 A. Description of Public Improvement. Acquire all right-of-way, complete engineering design, and construct Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 to the intersection with Rancho California Road. Construction will include intersection and traffic signal improvements at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road and landscaping of the center medians of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 improvements. When appropriate warrants are met, Owners of Phase II shall contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way and related intersection improvements as provided in Section 2.2.6, Phasing of Road Improvements, of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and more specifically, Table 2-3 and Paragraph 4 on page 2-22 of the Specific Plan. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Complete Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements prior to issuance of 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, excluding the installation of center median landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Complete center median landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 prior to the issuance of the 500th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. C. Responsibility. The City shall construct the Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 improvements using Remaining CFD funds, excluding the installation of landscaping for Butterfield Stage Road, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3. Landscaping improvements for Butterfield Stage Road Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 shall be constructed by the Owners of Phase II Property.. (As used in this Attachment 5-A, the term "Remaining CFD funds" shall mean available bond proceeds from duly authorized community facility district bonds issued by the City and secured by a special tax on the Project Site or the Phase II Properties, or both, pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5.) 2. Traffic Signal, Road, and Intersection Acquisition Fee A. Description of Public Improvement. Establish an on and offsite traffic signal, road and intersection acquisition fee. The fee amount will be determined by the City based on cost estimates provided by the Owners of Phase II Property and fees will be collected by the City at the time of building permit issuance. The City will determine when the improvements are required to be installed. The Constructing Party will be 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 15 reimbursed upon acceptance of the completed improvements by the City. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. The on and offsite traffic signals, roads, and intersections to which the Acquisition Fee will be applied are: • Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos • Nicolas Road at Winchester Road B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II shall provide cost estimates and fee basis to the Director of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of 1 st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The City shall collect the approved fee amount at issuance of each Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II starting with the 1St building permit. The ultimate signal modifications and associated improvements at the Nicolas Road and Winchester Road intersection shall be operational prior to the issuance of the 26th building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. The timing of the installation for the remaining traffic signals and intersection improvements shall be as determined by the City Director of Public Works, and shall not be an unreasonable time-schedule. The Constructing Party will be reimbursed upon acceptance of the completed improvements by the City. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall.- C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated as noted in item 418 herein below. 3. Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering design and construct full Nicolas Road improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection. The City will use the Remaining CFD funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, to construct the improvements from the approved plan as a City-sponsored project. Owners of Phase II Property shall be responsible to cover the cost of any shortfall. Owners of Phase II Property shall be required, on behalf of the City, to provide for all required engineering design, construction plans, CEQA analysis & processing, environmental mitigation measures, right-of-way acquisition, and to obtain all necessary Resource Agency and Riverside County Flood 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 16 Control and Water Conservation District permits. Costs of design, mitigation, project management and construction will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds, with priority to the costs of construction. Costs of right-of-way acquisition will be eligible for reimbursement from the CFD funds upon completion of the required acquisition. The approved plan shall include all utility, drainage, flood control, bridge, and intersection improvements necessary for the roadway connection. Resource Agency permits for the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the offsite portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection should be combined with the permits for the_Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road and processed and obtained as a single package. Upon review of final design plans and estimates by the City, the City shall determine a security amount corresponding to the then current engineering cost estimates plus design, mitigation and right-of-way acquisition costs, costs of construction and contingencies for both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. Owners of Phase Il Property shall post a letter of credit with the City, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount of the security amount. The City shall release the letter of Credit upon the occurrence of one of the following events: (1) Completion of the construction of both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertruis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing as required by this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; or(2) additional proceeds from new CFD bonds are approved and available so that the remaining CFD funds are sufficient to complete both the Nicolas Road Improvements as described in this Section and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements described in Section 4 of this Attachment 5-A associated with the Nicolas Road crossing. After determination of the security amount, any remaining CFD funds in excess of the security amount may then be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channel improvements. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Offsite Segment(Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection to Phase II Boundary). The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall submit 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 17 complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals on behalf of the City, together with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, to allow for start of the City-sponsored project prior to issuance of the 2001h building permit for the Phase II Property. If, however, the Owners of Phase Il Property are unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase Il, the Owners of Phase II Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits, up to a total 522 building permits prior to obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits. 3. City shall construct Nicolas Road from the western Project boundary to Calle Girasol Owners of Phase 11 Property shall construct Nicolas Road Improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western Project boundaries as described in this Section with the Park-n-Ride/Equestrian Staging Area, which is required to be constructed prior to the 1 st building permit for Roripaugh Ranch Phase I1. Owners of the Phase lI Property shall construct a barricade and turn-around acceptable to the Fire Department on Nicolas Road at the boundary of the Phase II Property. C. Responsibility. City, Owners of Phase 1I Property. Shortfall costs to be allocated between Owners of Phase II Property as noted in item#18 herein below. 4. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the improvements upstream and downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road from the plans approved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 18 Conservation District(RCFC&WCD). Both upstream and downstream improvements must be constructed concurrently. Remaining CFD funds, after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, above the security amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol improvements may be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek channel improvements. Permanent maintenance of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of the RCFC&WCD. City of Temecula, as the underlying property owner, will cooperate to remove the existing Restrictive Covenant on the land, and to grant fee ownership to the RCFC&WCD for permanent maintenance. Resource Agency permits for the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road were not obtained with the Resource Agency permits for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, and the improvements are off site. Due to Resource Agency regulations, the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements permits downstream of the existing culverts at Butterfield Stage Road should be combined with the permits for Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection and processed and obtained as a single package. B. Building.Permit Release Schedule. 1. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall submit complete engineering design plans, including initial application for Resource Agency permits and RCFC&WCD approvals, for approval by the City Director of Public Works prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. 2. Owners of Phase II Property shall make good faith efforts to acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals,together with the Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection regulatory agency permits/approvals as a package, prior to issuance of the 200th building permit within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase Il. If, however, Owners of Phase II Property is unsuccessful in obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals within a reasonable timeframe to allow orderly development of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, Owners of Phase II Property may petition the Director of Public Works to allow issuance of additional sequential phases of 100 building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property, up to a total of 522 building permits within the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 property prior to 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 19 obtaining the required regulatory agency permits/approvals. After 50 of each additional phase of 100 building permits have been issued, the Director of Public Works shall determine, using ordinary and reasonable criteria, if sufficient progress has been made in obtaining the regulatory agency approvals for the City to issue the next additional phase of building permits for the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II property. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 5. Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements from the plans approved by RCFC&WCD and/or City of Temecula. Construction shall include the bridge abutments for the Pedestrian Bridge. Remaining CFD funds above the security amount determined by the City for Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol and Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements may be applied to Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements. Permanent maintenance of the Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA, or other maintenance entity reasonably approved by the City of Temecula. As used in this Attachment 5A, "Roripaugh Ranch Phase II HOA," shall mean a homeowners association duly incorporated under the laws of the State of California for the purposes, among others, of maintaining the various public and private improvements as provided in the Development Agreement and funding such maintenance obligations. There shall only be one HOA for Roripaugh Ranch Phase II maintenance obligations in a form reasonably approved by the Director of Community Development and City Attorney,provided, however, that this HOA may provide for special benefit zones to fund maintenance obligations as approved by the Director of Public Works. B. Building Permit Release Schedule, The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in a Planning Area draining into the channel (i.e., Planning Areas 17 through 31). C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. 6. Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQMP) 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 20 A. Description of Public Improvement. As needed, each Owner of Phase I1 Property shall submit a WQMP Amendment covering its ownership to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and City for review and comment. The WQMP Amendments shall address both construction and occupancy of the project. The amended WQMPs shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit WQMP Amendments covering their respective ownerships to the SDRWQCB and City for review and comment prior to any additional approval of plans, issuance of permits, and/or grading of each Party's site. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase 11 Property, individually by Planning Area. 7. Remaining Public Improvements & Landscaping—Major Roadways A. Description of Public Improvement. The Owners of Phase 2 Property shall complete the public improvements, including sidewalks, parkway landscaping, raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, along the frontage of major roadways adjacent to each Planning Area in their respective ownerships, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. This requirement will pertain to the following major roadways: Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street) Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) Nicolas Road ■ North Loop Road r South Loop Road In the event that sidewalks along the above streets are not continuous, the Owners of Phase 11 Property shall provide an all-weather pedestrian path of travel to ensure continuous pedestrian circulation. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall each complete the public improvements and landscaping including sidewalk, parkway landscaping, raised landscaped median landscaping, perimeter walls and street lighting, adjacent to their frontage on major roadways, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, prior to the issuance of the 1 st building permit in each adjacent Planning Area and/or Tract Map. C. Responsibility_. Owners of Phase 11 Property, individually by Planning Area. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 21 8. Permanent Maintenance of Parkway Landscaping—Landscape Maintenance Master Plan A. Description of Public Improvement. Although originally intended to be maintained by the TCSD, permanent maintenance of slopes and parkways along the frontage of major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 HOA. Owners of Phase II Property shall each prepare and submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan to the Community Development Director for review and comment covering all public and private open space areas, parks, slopes, parkways, etc., and especially slopes and parkways along their frontage on major roadways in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1I, which will not be maintained by individual commercial or residential property owners. The Landscape Maintenance Master Plan(s) shall show the locations of any necessary water meters and electrical meters, together with the permanent maintenance entity for each area. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall each submit a Landscape Maintenance Master Plan for their respective ownerships to the Community Development Director for review and comment prior to the 1St building permit in each Planning Area and/or Tract Map. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property. 9. North and South Loop Roads—Complete Engineering and Landscape Architectural Design A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete engineering and landscape architectural design as public roadways, with: ■ narrow roadway pavement widths consistent with current City design criteria; ■ traffic calming measures including measures to address traffic to/from Sports Park(Planning Area 27), Secondary School (Planning Area 28) and Elementary School (Planning Area 29) such as a traffic round-about on the North Loop Road easterly of Planning Area 29; ■ water quality measures addressing runoff from the roadway pavement and parkway areas; ■ areas with widened parkways, meandering sidewalks or trails, variations in wall locations and type, or other design features intended to create unique character and visual appeal; and ■ a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase I1. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 22 Submit design to the Public Works Director and Community Development Director for approval. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete engineering design of the North and South Loop Roads, and a Phasing Plan for construction of the roads to allow for orderly development, and submit for approval to the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase I1. 2. The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall complete landscape architectural design of the North and South Loop Roads and submit for approval to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11. C, Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. 10. Sports Park(Planning Area 27)— Complete Design & Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description of Public Improvement. Update design of the Sports Park with: • water quality measures addressing runoff from impervious areas and incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the amended WQMP; • unnecessary turf areas converted to drought tolerant plant materials; • fescue turf soccer fields converted to synthetic turf; ■ design of tot lot and playground updated to the latest Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standards; • proposed site lighting converted to more efficient LED lighting; • pre-wiring for security cameras for each major use area(parking lot, ball fields, restrooms, etc.) and provision of Closed-Circuit Television(CCTV) system; and • approval of the sports field lighting design by the Community Services Director, and, if required, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Authority, with the intent of minimizing the impacts of lighting on the surrounding community, • connection to the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash and potential connection to the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian, and Trailhead facility in Planning Area 33B, 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 23 • conversion of the proposed ball field to a 90' infield/ 325' outfield. Owners of Phase I1 Property shall submit design to the Community Services Director and Public Works Director for approval. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. 1. Prior to the issuance of the 1 st building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II, the Owners of Phase II Property shall update the Sports Park design, and submit plans for approval to the Community Services and Public Works Directors. 2. The Owners of Phase II Property shall construct the Sports Park and the City shall accept the park, prior to issuance of the 12001h building permit in Roripaugh Ranch, that number including Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase Il Property, with costs allocated on the basis of the City of Temecula's typical parks fee methodology. 11. Private Recreation Center (Planning Area 30)—Use Analysis, Design Development, and Construction and Maintenance Agreement A. Description of Public Improvement. Perform a recreational use analysis to guide design development of the Private Recreation Center, optimum location within Roripaugh Ranch Phase 1I, and to form the basis for fair share construction and maintenance fiscal contribution decisions by the Owners of Phase II Property. Perform design development based on the recreational use analysis and submit to the Community Development Director for approval. Design development drawings and documents must be sufficient to understand recreational uses, conceptual architecture, construction costs and maintenance/operational costs. Permanent maintenance of the Private Recreation Center shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 HOA. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. RVR and/or Wingsweep shall perform a recreational use analysis, design development, and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the I" building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase II. Prior to the issuance of the 300i" the schedule for completion of construction of the Private Recreation Center shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. C. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 24 12. Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash A. Description of Public Improvement. Construct the Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley Wash. Bridge abutments to be constructed with Long Valley Wash channel construction. B. Buildinp-Permit Release Schedule. RVR shall construct the Pedestrian Bridge prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, and 24. C. Responsibility. RVR, individually. 13. Multi-Use Trail in Planning Areas 19,20, & 21 —Design Development A. Description of Public Improvement. Perform design development of the 15' wide Multi-Use Trail intended to provide a trail in Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 along their southerly boundary, then crossing Long Valley Wash to connect to Planning Area 19 and along its easterly boundary and connecting to properties to the east. Due to changed conditions, trail access into Planning Area 13 has been precluded, crossing of Long Valley Wash may only be accomplished at the easterly Loop Road crossing and introduction of the Wine Country Sewer provides additional opportunity for alternate trail alignment. Design development shall include: • measures to screen onsite and offsite homes from the trail on an "as-needed" basis; • measures to provide for safe crossing at the easterly Loop Road crossing of Long Valley Wash; • consideration of connection to properties to the east at Calle Contento, in the alignment of the Wine Country Sewer, as opposed to an alignment through Planning Area 19 to connect to Planning Area 13; • consideration of any potential connection of the trail alignment through Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to properties to the south, or to the west across Butterfield Stage Road, or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities required to be constructed in Planning Area 33B. If safe and reasonably useful connections from Planning Area 21 and Planning Area 22 to such properties or to the Equestrian and Trailhead Facilities cannot be expected, then alternate alignments, such as trail crossing facilities at Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and/or use of the multi-use trails in Long Valley Wash shall be considered in the design development instead; 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 25 + a Phasing Plan for construction of the multi-use trail in segments to allow for its early construction as well as orderly development of Roripaugh Ranch Phase I1 Owners of Phase 11 Property shall submit design development to the Community Development Director for approval. Permanent maintenance of the Multi-Use Trail shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall perform design development of the Multi-Use Trail and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to issuance of the l" building permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11. The Multi-Use Trail may be constructed in phases, in accordance with the approved Design. In each Planning Area, the Multi-Use Trail shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 1St building permit (excluding Model Home permits) in the Planning Area. C. Responsibility. Costs allocated in the future based on Planning Area ownership (i.e. trail costs within each Planning Area will be borne by the owner of that Planning Area). 14. Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, Trailhead in Planning Area 33B A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete design and construct the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities, in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City. Permanent maintenance of and providing utilities for the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities, and Trailhead in Planning Area 33B shall be the responsibility of the Roripaugh Ranch Phase 11 HOA, or as determined in the Landscape Maintenance Master Plans. Maintenance of the sites for Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities and the facilities during construction shall be the responsibility of the Owners of Phase 1I. B. Building Permit Release Schedule, The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall complete design and construct the Park-n-Ride, Equestrian Facilities and Trailhead Facilities in accordance with the approved Multi-Use Trail design development and the requirements of the City, prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, 31 and 33A. Prior to issuance of the 1 st building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 thru 23, 31 and 33A, the Owners of Phase 11 Property shall also complete 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 26 the design and construction of the portion of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the MWD easement, including necessary temporary turn-around geometries to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The design and construction of this portion of Nicolas Road must be coordinated and consistent with the engineering design and construction of Nicolas Road (Item#3 of this Attachment 5-A). C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. 15. Fire Protection Plans A. Description of Public Improvement. Submit plans for structural protection from vegetation fires to the City of Temecula Fire Department. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. Owners of Phase II Property shall each submit a Fire Protection Plan for their respective areas for approval by the City of Temecula Fire Department prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract/Parcel Map in each of their respective ownerships. C. Resoonsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, individually by Planning Area. 16. Roripaugh Valley Road ("A" Street)—Complete Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. Roripaugh Valley Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the access for the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6) shall be installed prior to the acceptance of the Neighborhood Park by the City. B. Building Permit Release Schedule. If not already completed with the construction of the Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6), Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Roripaugh Valley Road Improvements prior to the issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 11. C. Responsibility. Owners of Phase II Property, with costs allocated as noted in item#18 herein below. IT Fiesta Ranch Road ("B" Street) Improvements —Complete Improvements A. Description of Public Improvement. Complete construction of Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements from Nicolas Road to Roripaugh Valley Road. 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 27 B. Building Permit Release Schedule. The Owners of Phase II Property shall complete the Fiesta Ranch Road Improvements prior to issuance of the 1St building permit in Planning Area 12. C. Responsibility+. Owners of Phase 11 Property, with costs allocated as noted in item #18 herein below. 18. On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities— Proportional Cost Sharing. A. Description of Public Improvement. Owners of Phase 11 Property shall share the costs to complete the design, planning, government agency permit approvals, construction and implementation of all of the On-site and Off-site infrastructure improvements and facilities per the items above on a proportional basis. B. Building_Permit.Release Schedule. Not Applicable. C. Responsibiliiy. As costs are incurred, The Owners of Phase 11 Property shall each pay their agreed upon proportional share of said approved costs. RVR's proportionate share shall be ninety percent (90%). Wingsweep's proportionate share shall be ten percent (10%). 11086-0097\1902902v4.doc 1-25-2016 28 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing ".. .1989` .. A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: PA14-0051 and PA15-1664 Applicant: Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation Proposal: A Development Agreement Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the modification of timing requirements for various improvements required by the existing approvals for the Phase 2 area of Roripaugh Ranch. The proposed modifications would not change the improvements required of the Phase 2 builders, but would affect the timing of construction for certain improvements. The proposed amendment to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan includes only those changes necessary for consistency between the Development Agreement and Specific Plan with regard to timing requirements for improvement construction. Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment based on a completed EIR Addendum. As a result, the Planning Commission will take action on a recommendation that the City Council adopt an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum in compliance with Section 15164 Case Planner: Stuart Fisk, (951) 506-5159 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: February 17, 2016 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. U ■�+�w��. /-1W r NO sa+4r"Gs RE) Project Site _ KYL D GAMIN...IEL0 kI EFER-RD , C� LOOP RD LP�RD NOR w `u AFT p{ SOUTH LOOP RD p 500 1.000 �GIRASO CONTE��O Fe Notice of Public Hearing The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.