The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16-16 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 16-16 ' 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. Resos 16-16 1 F. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 2 in ' conjunction with the EIR and Addendum No. 1. G. On February 17, 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. 16-06 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. H. On March 8, 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. ' I. 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 Resos 16-16 2 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. Section 4. Mayor Naggar and Council Member Comerchero did not participate in the discussion of concerning Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 and abstained with respect to the action on this particular item. While neither has any ownership or investment interests in Europa Village Estates adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road at this location, it is an otherwise related entity to them as further described in the Staff Report PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of ' Temecula this 8th day of March, 2016. �� ichael S. Naggar, Mayor ATTE T: RandWohlrery Clerk [SEAL] 1 Resos 16-16 3 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. 16-16 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, McCracken, Rahn NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar R indi Johl, City Clerk 1 1 Resos 16-16 4 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 97121030) 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................... 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 1 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). 1 Final January 27, 2016 12- 9-97; 5:32PM;CILy 0f Temecula :9096946997 1 n ' a Q n h u a 2 q 3 n ,U 79 muRRiuA N T a SPRINGS ROAD rA q ARE1►f: ,; n m 0 _ to Il WAY l ' zz 11 o oll >q 3 A �I 9PC�Tq APO N A 15 R Il 1 VICINITY MAP ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN - EIR ' ® Clty of Temecula Figure 2 , 1 FIGURE 2-' 1 m m d a) V D B 1 m RUA ' Rn .•IZ 13 � .W _ WON <n I 1 ' .P. 11 0 ^�' ! NAP ' LAND USE 'ODF ACRES DENBI'Y UNITS }LY� O LOW MEDIUM RESlE RESIDENTMI L I., 11 1.) �RK�� „9 14 � I � LOW MEDIUM OENST RESIDENnAI lM 1918 A R 9S9 11,_8/ AM W NED DENSITY RES ISMMnaI M1 215 5) 122 ' W MED OENSITY RES IOu.W/Oa C.Kv.Nl M2 .9 RA 037 s.. 1.� E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 154 e. m E,HBCIRHOOD PARK NP 51 xwn X SPORTS PARK SP 19) _ rC ' PRIVATE MINI PARK MP ] a PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER RC 92 EDUCwiIONAL IStl1RdM BL 52 020 Ivwn , �PDBLI INSTITUTIONAL diN SWKoni P' 20 HABIiAI OBI 2027 1 FLOODCONTRIX OS2 091 I •1R LANDSCAPE SLOPESIM.nu1Mul.a MRP.sl OS9 212 PUBLIC STREETS RR A PRIVATE STREETS 9 R ' :HFNU 1U1Al. SMt 25 2015 \ i 25 m �� co Cnumv Bavna.N P.auvnn Rrry. L — '21 w�ou�i nwn 32 NRWs •A 15 wW.mw4-ufe en1 i.bGl.a in PW—KR Auras 19.20.w 21 AR,:w 1101nn o.nMnr Ixnnrtlaq •PIM—K,"..14 2n 21.39A ilne 999 AJI Nile I.v.minimum W..,i,.nnR IN PmOSny munaA.. ' ® T'KC .na lR Uro Ian...,w.Ao'nw IN 1n.1.ne WW 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 fled 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 E/R 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 Modred Building Item Description Permit Threshold Permit Threshold Responsibility Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 Complete Butterfield Stage Complete Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3 The City shall construct the 1 Acquire all right-of-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 1s'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 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. Traffic Signal, Road,and Intersection Several interrelated The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 2' Acquisition 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 1 st 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 1"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 1s'Building Permit. when the improvements are required to be the same time,and all The ultimate signal modif rations 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 26'"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 Butterfield Stage Road and the City Director of Public Works, and • Butterfie Mur Hot Springs Road shall not be an unreasonable time- 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. Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Several interrelated 1. Offsite Segment(Calle The current owners and 3' the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection 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 to issuance of the Is'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 The owners and developers of Phase 2 will be drainage,flood control, acquire any required regulatory agency permits/approvals on behalf impacts were already required, d behalf ri the City,to provide for bridge and intersection evaluated in the Draft EIR. all required engineering design, construction improvements necessary for of the City,together with the Santa q 9 9 9 P rY Only the responsibility for tans, CEQA analysis&processing, the roadway connection was Gertrudis Creek Channel P Y P 9. Y constructing the environmental mitigation measures, right-of- required to be completed Improvements downstream of the g g q " P existing culverts at Butterfield Stage improvements is changing. way acquisition, and to obtain all necessary prior it the 1 Building Road regulatory agency Resource Agency and Riverside County Flood Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Control and Water Conservation District Phase 2. permits/approvals as a package,to permits. Costs of design, mitigation, project allow for start of the City-sponsored 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-of-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 Page 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 Calle 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 Calls 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 1s`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 Page 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. Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Essentially the Thresholds, 1. The owners and developers of The current owners and 4. Improvements 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 1s'Building Permit Phase 2. in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Remaining CFD funds,after the funding of Butterfield Stage Road Phase 3, above the 2. The owners and developers of Security Amount determined by the City for Phase 2 shall make good faith Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol improvements efforts to acquire any required may be applied to Santa Gertrudis Creek regulatory agency permits/ channel improvements. approvals, together with the Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road Permanent Maintenance of the Santa to the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Gertrudis Creek Channel Improvements shall Connection regulatory agency be the responsibility of RCFCWCD. permits/approvals as a package, prior to issuance of the 200 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 obtaining 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 timeframe to allow Gertrudis 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 Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel sequential phases of 100 Building Improvements 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 Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 property the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road Connection 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. 5 Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements Several interrelated The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 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 1s`Building Permit in a Planning 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 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 1 s`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. Water Quality Improvement Plans(WQMP) Submittal of a WQMP to the The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 6' 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. Remaining Public Improvements& Completion of public The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 7' Landscaping—Me or Roadways 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 1sr Building Permit in each adjacent following major roadways: Planning Area and/or Tract Map. • Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Butterfield Stage Road • Roripaugh Valley Road("A"Street) • Fiesta Ranch Road("B"Street) • Nicolas Road • North Loop 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 comment prior to the 1�`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. 9. North and South Loop Roads—Complete Several interrelated The current owners and property The owners of Phase 2 ppy Engineering and Landscape Architectural Thresholds required 1. developers of Phase 2,with Design construction of North and shall complete engineering design of costs allocated as noted in Complete engineering and landscape South Loop Roads the North and South Loop Roads, item#18 herein below. architectural design as public roadways,with improvements prior to 1 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 to the issuance of the • traffic calming measures including design of the North and I"Building Permit 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. 10. 1. Prior to the issuance of the 1 st Snorts Park(PA 27)—Complete Design& Current Thresholds require The current owners and Construction and Maintenance Agreement 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 • water quality measures addressing Building Permit in Roripaugh Phase 2,the owners and 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 WQIV P Community Services and Public • 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 E/R 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. Private Recreation Center(PA 30)—Use Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and �' Analysis, Design Development, and completion of a private shall perform a recreational use analysis, developers of Phase 2,with Construction and Maintenance Agreement recreation center on design development, and submit to the costs allocated as noted in Perform a recreational use analysis to guide Planning 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 Pedestrian Bridge over Long Valley 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 Trail in PAs 19. 20. &21 —Design Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 Costs allocated in the future Development completion of the Multi-Use shall perform design development of the based on Planning Area Perform design development of the 15'wide Trail 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 1 s' will be borne 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- al the easterly Loop Road crossing and Use Trail shall be constructed prior to introduction of the Wine Country Sewer issuance of the 1s'Building 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 Long Valley Wash; Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan E/R 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 1s`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 AreafTrail 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 Plans 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 1s`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 Valley Road("A"Street)— 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 Road Improvements prior to the issuance of the 1s'Building Permit in PA Roripaugh Valley Road from Murrieta Hot • Prior to 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 1 5 Building Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Fiesta Ranch Road ("B"Street)Improvements Current Thresholds require The owners and developers of Phase 2 The current owners and 17. _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 1s' costs allocated as noted in Improvements from Nicolas Road to Permit in Roripaugh Ranch Building Permit in PA 12. item#18 herein below. Roripaugh Valley Road. Phase 2. 18 On-site and Off-site infrastructure Not Applicable Not Applicable As costs are incurred,The improvements and facilities—Proportional Owners of Phase 2 Property Cost Sharing. shall each pay their agreed upon proportional share of Owners of Phase 2 Property shall share the said approved costs. costs to complete the design, planning, government agency permit approvals, RVR's proportionate share construction and implementation of all of the shall be ninety percent On-site and Off-site infrastructure 9( 0%). improvements and facilities per the items above on a proportional basis. Wingsweep's proportionate share shall be ten percent RVR=Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC Final January 27, 2016 If Wit 4v R a r J. M r�` \r. /•C ,"� i�`�X I 1 f� �-Y• 1 Inert Map a Y w IY j /� Ka 1 A ®r. Fn 1 M 1_ SA .�. .-..., >,...� -,� , ..mR,x, I16.M.h.U.mJIn PA,rvs.R FIGURE �—� n0..aJ Vein BwmllaiJ Sa C.u_ E2,i nY nJ LaN4we ]I-WItnUWaiYmlml Ll SParl.Pt H+Jm CalleGmul va AMrr>M°ai 0.rYn pC.Wl.-U.Tra111n PA.M'O.R �Sla'Inyn..... . ayma 4uvulu Rai Oun. In lama Part lYA:'1-Clm .B `I.puYnfMaiymiurl hmmwananv Brailnl C.w1ufwnaol Ii PartrvRwe,ErNrwnwrFxllMa BulluliviJ lua'a R.uJ.PNw'r MaW°uucc Aya°an°Y T,W1 wPA11B i Lm8 Valln WaA Chlnl I:hnalc RanuLan CT:IPA-lU1 `A BunaafiaiJ SaYC 0..wJRMUnav hA^nmua, Ure Nlal)SU DSien MdAnml II..0.urryud VMla)Hwll'A'SImYI Mn S+a�F"HwJ 'A BrnufM SUYeHW Cmul MamaareAimaA Cml'IaaLnPrnano4 -B BUllal'IdI WYa'R.wll Hia,.lu I'Frda�MdRrw11 R'$bMl RrVJ R W.rrL,Hrwl I`Pwbmrar&Mtemv LOY VaIIa IlgmnMWr-CrYI1Mae K'a S BUnullalJ SUYe R.W BCalla TY•M Ly.RuaJ hry�rwm (.NP+ -U bulr LUyr HVJ .)A BMweM1°UB dim7A1 in M PA 19],f GmpaI MP�^anPrulNU Arnnl e wxmpulA mprrr.mrn,IKpMn Addendum,V¢: P I.ap.m...Yn efpMaa)IJMaawrmY Is 1lamv.m Waal Roripnaagh Ranch Spraipc Plan En,v.eanenml lmpner Repa, Sim IAprovanents rwn+�xm•m IRieerai�im�a..a...we umul 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 ' I Ynez Road at Winchester Road and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road Final January 27, 2016 Rorpaugh 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 ' G With 4-AA 2 ,500 F 14,000 C B. Intersection Comparison Butterfield Stage Road Winchester Road At At Rancho California Road Nicolas Road Year/Condition/Source' Delay sec LOS Delay sec LOS 2011 WCP TIA Existing Conditions(2009)(weekday, Table 5) >120 F >120 F General Plan Buildout no WCP, Scenario 3, Table 9 >120 F >120 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 Project Table 5-6 61.8 1 D 1 38.3 1 D ' Data Sources/Abbreviations ADT Avera e Daily Traffic LOS Level of Service A-F TIA Traffic Impact Assessment sec Seconds of Delay RSP Original Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan TIA prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 2001 WCP Wine Country Plan-TIA prepared by Fehr&Peers dated November 2011 Z 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 1 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 DER concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be significant (DER 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 qual;ty regulations which would help reduce both project and cumulative air pollutant emissions from dust control, etc. Noise. The DER concluded that the project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts(DER 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 DER concluded that project-level impacts would be significant(DER 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 bath 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 1 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 Element2 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 ' 2 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 1s`Operating Memorandum, October 21,2004 1 Amendment, February 14, 2006 2nd Operating Memorandum, March 21,2006 3`d Operating Memorandum,August 31, 2006 40 Operating Memorandum, March 6,2007 5' Operating Memorandum, October 26,2010 6'"Operating Memorandum,January 25,2011 Environmental Impact Rep,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 1 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 line Country Community Plan, Riverside County, CA. Fehr&Peers. November 2011. Final January 27, 2016 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan E/R 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 January 27, 2016 1 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX B RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT EIR (April 1, 2002) 1 Final January 27, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST 1 Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan E/R Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula ' APPENDIX C RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL EIR AND MMRP Final January 27, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan E/R Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula ' APPENDIX D RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 1 Final January 27, 2016 AVAILABLE FROM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA UPON REQUEST Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 2 City of Temecula APPENDIX E WINE COUNTRY EIR AND ORIGINAL RORIPAUGH EIR TRAFFIC STUDY EXCERPTS 1 Final January 27, 2016 Pl So i-MR j'�1 ,�, r�f�Ek � � •E �'a- S Y�... •':h L,+: I 1 •' ' 1 1 '1 Final Traffic Impact Study forthe one Co nary Communrfy P/an Poversrde Co ,. r t x s 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 Collector 2 10,400 11,700 13,000 Secondary 4 20,700 23,300 25,900 Major 4 27,300 30,700 34,100 Arlerial(3) 2 14,400 16,200 18,000 Arterial 4 28,700 32,300 35,900 Mountain Artenal(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 54,600 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 Freeway 4 61,200 68,900 76,500 Freeway 6 94,000 105,800 117,500 Freeway 8 128,400 144,500 160,500 Freeway 10 160,500 180,500 200,600 Ramp(4) 1 16,000 16,000 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 ACT values are based on the Riverside County General Plan and the Riverside County Congestion Management Program. (3) Two-lane roadways designated as future arterals 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 8 Peers and is unique to the future control along Rancho California Road. I i . .4. FEHRtPEERS Final Traffic Impact Study for the 4Vlne Counfry�Comrriumty F/an`Rrverstefe Gourldyx•' November 20111" ��". ,a1 • 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. 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 N/A 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 NIA N/A 4,316 C or Better Rancho California Road East of 1-15 8 1 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 FEHR ' PEERS ' 3" IR, w P { �t `wt3�K41i ' Final Traffic Impact Study for the lMnejCounfry GommunrtytPf�n RrveEsr e�` November 2011 ' F � TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS j Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS Volume LOS Butterfield Stage Road north of De Portola Road 4 11,881 C or Better 14,257 jarBetter er Butterfield Stage Road north of Rancho California Road 2 4,616 C or Better 5,539 er Butterfield Stage Road north of Temecula Parkway 3 13,061 C or Better 15,673 er Butterfield Stage Road south of Channel Street 4 10,257 C or Better 12,308 er Butterfield Stage Road south of La Serena Way 2 4,391 C or Better 5,269 er Butterfield Stage Road south of Pauba Road 4 9,458 C or Better 11,350 er Butterfield Stage Road south of Rancho California Road 4 9,903 C or Better 11,884 er Butterfield Stage Road south of Rancho Vista Road 4 10,168 C or Better 12,202 er Calls 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 i Meadows Parkway south of Pauba Road 4 11,395 C or Better 13,674 C or Better Meadows Parkway south of Rancho California Road 4 10,466 C or Better 12,559 C or Better i 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 1 7,570 C or Better 9,084 C or Better t � w � A S .1 ' u_ Final Tragic Impact Study for fhe Wine CountryCo m ndy PR veesr e S y November 2071 TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE:EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS 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 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 1 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/0 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 B 150,000 ' E 150,000 E 1-15 North of Rancho California Road Interchange 8 161,000 F 161,000 F 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 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 i FEHR�' PEERS ti � „ Final Traffic Impact Study for the Win Country Commun/ty Plarr�Rrvelsrda ountya G ' November 2011 TABLE 4 CONTINUED-ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE: EXISTING CONDITIONS Weekday Weekend Segment Lanes Volume LOS 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 Soule Fehr 6 Peers,2011 NIA-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 Dela LOS 1.Winchester Road at Nicolas Road Signalized >120 - _ F 2.Winchester Road at Margarita Road Signalized 112.6 F 3.Winchester Road at Ynez Road Signalized 403 D 4.Winchester Road at 1-15 NB Ramps Signalized 70.0 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 722 E. 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 56.6 E 19.Margarita Road at Pauba Road Signalized 41.9 D :.. i.� aft nx ov`x. '3a g4 FEHR, ' PEERS x4 N 4 ' Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wfne CounfryGommunrty P/arFfi Rwersrde O nA' ' r November 2011 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. Butterrield 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.Calls Contento at Rancho California Road SSSC 76.4 F 36, Calls Contento at Madera de Playa SSSC 9.4 A 37. Calls Contento at Pauba Road SSSC 9.7 A 38. Calls Contento at De Portola Road SSSC 8.6 A 39.Anza Road at Borel Road(future) AWS We n/a 40.Anza Road at Buck Road(future) AWS We 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 102 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 j 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 6 55. De Portola Road at Via De Oro SSSC 10.1 B a FEHRJ'PEERS BORE RD 1,60D 3 500 BUCK RD 5,0 NppyS W 2 900 P S 4 2 M�EpE P 3 A� 21M 3 tia �h'ry 6Po 1p 2 U 6ERENA WAY •p a N$ P714 1p,PD 4 ^�• 8400 q'1� •?1A•'!� MppfiN0E P1AYARD $ 2700 P P9 20 °0 1A• 0.D ] 79,600 a X1.6 9� x96 .... 34,100 24100 21 700 > la J 2 b 0 RARciiRANCHO l /\\\ VISTA RD 5,600 4 65� PP 6 �2 3 r ,y1 5 900 12 000 4, 2 4 � � A 6900 PAU RD BM Iy d s `b, O7p 2 g. 0 20,100 v � 'o pS PD Po- 16,5- 410D 4 0009 10.` 0 9 300 S' ps 4 h A Of, 000 2 4, Al p �?a 28 6 31.6 100 � p ..bb 36 500 3B 200 6 ]p Pktly 65� 4160 PM"N 4 L4LEfID �FD7ECU 2 71]00 4 10 4 ?q © xx,xxz t VoW�m1i x 'BUmpwalaM� m S b 2 �C xmro _.i M4w COU^nY 7b1YWry EXISTING CONDITIONS WEEKDAY ROADWAY SEGMENT F EH RJ'PEERS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND NUMBER OF LANES MGURE 2 15 ' Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Counfry Communrfy P1arRweYSrd Cdut C'. November2011 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 Leans 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 16,513 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 i 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 j 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 i 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 ° h y 1 Flnat Traffic Impact Study for Me Wine CountiyCommunity Plaff €imersl Doan O`A' November 2011 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 EIO Butterfield Stage Road(Feb.) 6 49,423 D 65,847 F Temecula Parkway E/O Butterfield Stage Road(Oct.) 6 49,436 D - `'65,863 F 1-15 South of SR 79 8 192,212 E x. 185,484 E 1-15 North of SR 79 8 :213,434 F 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 1-15 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 1055 E 13,962 C or Better 1-15 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 201354. F -' 18,711 -E 1-15 SB On-Ramp at Rancho California Road 1 14,012 C or Better 13,140 C or Better Sou o .Fehr 8 Peers,2011 WA-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 j 3.Winchester Road at Ynez Road Signalized 66A E j 4.Winchester Road at I-15 NB Ramps Signalized >120. F j 5.Winchester Road at 1-15 SB Ramps Signatized 48.3 D n FEHR�" KS tS``stb'F�` z t Final Traffic Impact Study for the Wr"ne Country Commun�Gy Plan Rry rsrde Ca November 2011 c n �x TABLE 9 CONTINUED-INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE:FUTURE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Intersection Control Delay 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.t IF 17. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road Signalized 89.61 F 18. Margarita Road at Rancho Vista Road Signalized M.7 F 19. Margarita Road at Pauba Road Signalized 104 7'- 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 36. Calls Contento at Madera de Playa Signalized Z9 A j 37.Calls 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 5 iY } FEHR�J' PEERS i Final Traffic Impact Study for the n 4y% A November2011 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 >12,0 rF - 47. Rancho California Road at Buck Road(future) AWS 55.4 F.' 48, Rancho California Road at Glen Oaks Road AWS 32.1,r: D 49. Rancho California Road at Monte De Oro Signalized 12.4 B 50. Los Caballos Road at Temecula Parkway Signalized 366 -.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 273 ' PD ' 57. De Portola Road at Camino del Vino SSSC 14 3 B 58. De Portola Road at Pauba Road SSSC 404 E 59. Pauba Road at Los Caballos Road SSSC 9.8 A 60. Pauba Road at Temecula Parkway I 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. i rZ"ip i FEHRtPEER5 SOREL RDA:2.900 .. . s...,, . . r 19 009 RD 18 . e 0904 ^� 200 Sp1� "'iFOEp�, 7000 ti �Po . 4 LA SEREN4 WAY �DEPIAVAfSD ✓ �s m Ni PN10E-0.0 5�7 d >♦ 9 J�6 8280D 42300 330pp y, 21 700 r "D.�` �Q 6 4' 21.400 11200 23 600 '� > PA 4 30.800 °. Tj r pr m', 2 1 9, >� 21.000 i �Q' m p�pWlSWJ'' 4 42.9tl0 6 -. + p, 9.2 36200 - 6 a16 9 aPOp FUTURE(CUMULATIVE)NO PROJECT CONDITIONS WEEKDAY ROADWAY SEGMENT —mil 'PEERS. - - - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND NUMBER OF LANES n w.w k++.wo.waxec,+�.vwory.. - FIGURE!' .. S7 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. PnFESSio 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 �oecOTT rF Irvine, CA 92606 4 0 m No.C 2 John Kain, A.I.C.P. '. Scott Sato, P.E. n Tom Huang, EIT Original Submittal May 25, 1999 City Screencheck Revised May 18, 2001 ' Revised November 26,2001 i i 00044-08 1 , JK:SS:TH:ko EXHIBIT4-W ' YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT ' AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) N �¢ 4 a C I POURROY RD. MUR RIEi 1 1 > ~ 3 _ . f-I- 7 "' w.��---t-------- I SPRINGY A Hp 14.. v 7 Or j J l i 34.7 R N 1.7 s — r' 1 1 II---------, f� SITE i CALLE �W W� E� �� 1 DEL LAGO � n 1 'p;l ) —�� ♦ I S' d ----- ' •_U1( 4, tAS aO �o z ' -------'--- i N1CO 1.9 1 vi 1 ry 74.7 0 i 7o2rE CALLE C14APOS I 4j`%70 , 0;S N.GENERAL ,a KEARNY RD. o� 7 3' 8.5 91 d S13 0.GP'a1143 S3 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. H �6 OVERLAND DR. moo,jP 269 r+ NC Z3. %EADOWSPKWY. 31 d 6.6 i LEGEND: 66.6-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) �j RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia•00044:25 � �~ 4-30 ' EXHIBIT 4-Y YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ,n ALP' Pq/y o A ui Q D h Q G ;POURROY RD.�n mu N Z \I� SDR1NGq HO1 3s9 m o O 3 mow_5 -___-_---I 191 M Q = �I� 12b f14.4 - Zjl_________i 12.6;_SITE ' CALLE N $i DEL LAGO ♦ I 0 6 0.6 �� I b. s K0 ti I16 �o 10 y CALLE CHAPOS �3 'AO 0 ry� a 'L_A SEREN_A i� WY. % L 8] � ♦0 N.GENERAL 9? 9 q KEARNY RD. ' 6.7 �ry3 S 139 N a P S) Q1GPRL UTTERFIEID STAGE RD. 0 OVERLAND DR. a N 42.0 N HCN FADOWS PKWY. ' Ln o a•{e a S 76.1 ' LEGEND: 75.6-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5) I` 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia.00044:27 U�B 4-33 EXHIBIT 4-Z ' GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) , 1 r H ; 1P Pq�n 1 r A m �a ry a p i POURROY\RD.1N MURplE D Z SPRINGST4 NO1 a3.8 c O Q ---------I ad � 616 R N 33y �-> 40.3 II-------- r SITE CALLE N WI DEL LAGO L`+CA(t Iti--__--_—_ % ^nj h CALLE CHAPOS ti• I LA SERE NA � �` a �9 N.GENERAL b ^ KEARNY RD. +I� 9 .0 8.4 9 %3 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. , i OVERLAND DR. AN 1 T 34.7 N RC T•�' EADOWS PKWY. L 4f l 6.0 r i r LEGEND: 66.0+VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5) i r RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:28 U jEBAft 4-34 EXHIBIT 4-AA ' GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT i AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) i M r 'INN Poi c i ry 2 ^ q ri N N j POURROY RD.1 1n 2 G 1 �.In Im M R(ETA '1 1 C ; u32 �_^ 1 SPRIpG� R NO s9' 0 39S g s - ��;�33.H 33 3351 f46.7 =1'---------1 ) ,SITE 1 1 i CALLE wl 11 DELLAGO I �n 11.6 1 I TD �� 50 '�i N1C 15 4 � i o s •v0.9 O 1 a 1yr / b CALLE CHAPOS Im 7`FNl ' LASERENA '1'---wy. H 1 ,11 a' ;.9 o N.GENERAL 91 11 i O ?S% , q,? KEARNY RD. .e, 0.3 ,SS 90 11a li / t !rP Q'O N ��1F0 76y BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. i O OVERLAND DR. W N 36.3 N RANCr` 19 EADOWS PKWY. O p�S u• QS J 7.5 ,i 1 LEGEND: , 67.3-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000•S) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00041:29 i 4-36 i I ■ ' TABLE S•S ' INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT CONDiTIOAS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- I WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. 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)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 a 0 g 0 3 1 0 J2» 21.0 13.6 C B 1.215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: ' • Mumeta Hot Springs Rd. E TS 0 g 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 1 5.8 12.7 A 8 1-15 Fwy.SS Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 ; 0 4 1» 0 q 1» 29.5 •5 C F ' • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 111 3 1» 0 1» 17.5 41.1 8 D IA Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 L 20.1 C F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5>> 11.3 16.8 B B , nez Rd.(NS)at: Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 b 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 F F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 1 2 3 » 2 1>> 3 48.6 51.6 D O 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 - O F ! La Serene Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 D 0 2 0 1 18.3 28.9 B C Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 11, 2 2 1> 46.3 49.4 D 0 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» g 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 26.7 311 C C , Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at: • Le Serena Wy.(EW) M 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 70 7.3 A A • Rancho California Rd. EW S 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1. 2 1 44.5 34.4 0 C Pourroy Rd.INS)at • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW T 0 0 0 0 1> 2 0 0 29.5 28.4 C C Butterfield Stage Rd,(NS)al: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) 3 0 0 2 1» 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 25.5 22.2 C C • Nicolas Rd.(EW) T,T3^ 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 15.9 20.7 B C , Calls 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) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 27.8 38.1 C D • Rancho California Rd. EW S 1 2 0 1 1 0 9 _ 0 1 2 0 32.5 3Z3 C D alb Contenlo(NS)at: , • Rancho Cdifomia Rd. EVy CS" 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 15.4[16 8 C C t II anmq W riled Inal imtxwartvru nave aeon mmlmded b/IM Oily d 7emecda and Caftmm a11he Studs•Iona inlenMian. Throe , aciational lams have than assumed ror within Ihe lam mnAglaaliona with imorevenwris. a when is ngm Ium C designaled,gN lam can either b ahead a Vbinped. TO function IS a tight turn bon , InHe mIN to aVAideM Wign for fight IVrnl/y venide)to IA W I dAlde the ItleVgn iMS L-lea:T=Tlvmgh;R•Right:»•Five Ripon Turm>•Right I"OvensR I•UM Intp V ement s Delay and level of service cAvlated usiW tM following analysis software:Tana,Varaw 7.1.0607(1999). i Per the 1991 Highway Cappdy IWnval,overall swage inNmadbn debt and IevN of service an stvavn Ia inbrsaaiom wrath laec signalaaA weY Sloe mrelC4 Fwimemedbmwitha slmatvopmnhd,the ' delay and level of service far the wool indvidwl ftgvom"I(a me/emants sharing a slnple brae)are shown. 4 TS •Traffic Signal ' CSS•Crass sliest SIW ' 5' •Adbacrial Gomial Plan analfsisof br 40.MUm servke levels along SR-79in this vionily dim Tememb Valley Mat is mrKmy tarp mmuped by Ion City ofTemenaa. `r24 E:WWOtsi00001-1N0.141WawN0(1D444)M-05aIS155 ' i t i TABLE 5.3(CONT•D) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES - I - NORTH- :SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY': .LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE' , TRAFFIC. . , „ INTERSECTION CONTROL' L.. T R L T R L T R' L T R AM PM AM PM e - hwhester Rd.(NS)at: Murdeta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS P 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 30.5 47.3:' C D S Nicolas Rd (EW). ' -W itlwut Improvemehls TS 1 3 1 1'3 1 1 1., 0 1 A 1 71.9 83.6 E F -With l rovemints TS 1 3 i> 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 39.9 41.4 D O N.General Neamy Rd.(NS)ac a Nicolas Rd.(EW):... _ -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 '1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 —4 -1 F F •With a rovrmlenls- TS 0 : 1 1 0 1 0 11 2 S.1 1 2 1 11 3 8.6 8 1 A o Meadows Pkwy INS)at _ •.La Serens Wy.(EW).- CSS 1 0 1 -0 0 0 0 2 h1 1 '2- 0 15.5 13.8 C B ' I Rm tp Cal torofa Rd: EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 '2 1 1 2 '. 1 50.1 41,6 ? O .D Butterfield Stops Rd (NS)al: y ' _ RarxM1O Cagtom!a Rd.'(EW) I •Without Improvemcnls CSS 0 / 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 — — F F With ftnnprovements 6 TS 0. 1 0. 0 1 0 0 1 ''1 0 1 0 12.4 -.11,018 8: ells Confemo(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd.JEW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 -0 0 1 0. W.5 i3.4 C C i 1 rY4wna!IWlkansawgnP4 Va brr onaAwbatrlpW VUOSpxL io Mabnn aM1y4 can hnaewanW beAkM4 wNnb 1 ryw a+wa v.nnw ro vaw>t wnavb m.u.agn mw -. .' I+LKT•Ihpeh:garapnn»+Frw Wyq TUn;>.W01i TUn Ovanip:J�MVava'�MI+. . a dNaY ane 4vel damxm oloAiM Vip euf dkrWNanalYfb wewam'Traph,VMabr)IaE01(leaal.-Falb tiq)ltldiraY CapauY I , Mewl wevtl avrpa aYweaNm aetayiM MvM Ol aenlw am alVMlry Ftaeatlkru wih kalllatiprmlval vraY akp catial Fa - - tleaaeulan+win ribs saw4>tap emvd:Via 4ebYarW 4w4ASab ry UrwvatYW.dMngwnwii(v nwvamaafsbM1gasNda .' .. i - W+a)am srorr r3 T •Tmft 9pW iCSS•Cws Sb Slap _aImasMim tAnbala,aa1iY Mpn.law o/Sarvlm r I UlUelmswpo'eEmNroouaawz.misJ .. ." I { 1 5-13 I TABLE 54(CONTDY .. INTERSECTION ANALYSISFOR YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS iINTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST= WEST- DELAY- LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND, BOUND BOUND (SECS.1 SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R 1,L T R L T R L T -.R AM PM 'AM 'PM Winchester Rd.INS)al: .. Mueleta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 -3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 29.7 52.0 C D Nlcolss Rd.(EW) F Wi01Dal lmprovernents TS 1 3 1"' 1 3 1 1 '1' 0 1 '1 1.. . 2 _ ..F F. -Witl1 rovemema TS 2 3 11 -2 "3 1 1 1 :- 0 1 ,.1. 414 48.7 'D D.: N.General Kearny Rd.INS)N: • Nicdas Rd.(EW) -WlNpa anDrovemenN CSS 0" 1 1 0 A 0 1 2 :. 1 1 2 1 — — F F -WIthM manta TS 0.. 1 1 .'0 1 0 11 2 1 1 2 .A 10.Il 84 IB A - Meadows Pkwy:INS)a. • La Serena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 :0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0_ 17.2 15.9 C C • Rancho California Rd. TS 2 2 1 0 2 �2 1 1 2 - 1, 1 2 1 52.9 38.5 D D BuOemeld Stage Rd::(NS)at • Rancho California Rd.(EW) •Without anOrovemeras CSS 0` 1 D 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 01 F F •Wall lm myeinenta 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 .1 0 1 0 18.2 28.9 B C cage.Cerdemo(NS)at- •-Rancho California Rd. EW CBS 0'' 1 0 0: .1 0 0 1 :.;=0 0 1 0 24.8 C C tN1wn-ADM can Y4rpvred,Me 4v an Wwra>bgMVUnsip4 TO asrsutin aT>r4N UnwweiaemW arWMee wNkb 4#A, ."NM bbawl.4"the tmois4 ... 'C•LM[T•T4vyp R•Rldr<»•FtM RIy�IThq>•Rlata TUnOwrYIX1Si^Rawead ' a Ddayrdbvel d"rAM ahuWM a N the fd*"ww"saf4 T45k V-skv 7.5.1015WN), Perth,taint Koh yDapedy AWUr-wnrswsasenerrerLn 4eayenQ'YwdeanlNn�nw�b Mn�dbr.ia bel5e abrrlVtlway Yte mmaL Fv N4nraaw wmlaPSS rbadstrq va0d,ew OT4yvrelMdar..trab Re wuYNNdW moirnRttWmow�W SwNaarew. 1 TS .Teak Siawr ' •IwNWlm Un4w DWy Nph Lw dSa>tm F. ' " uur�onvJ mof-ooat?aaora`eruNaaonwowaaa.wl5+ .' 5-19 1 TABLE 5-6 - INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES.- ' NORTH- SOUTH, EAST, WEST- , DELAY' LEVEL OF ..'BOUND -.BOUND `..BOUN BOUND (SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' C. T R. L T R L T., PM AM PM. 1.215 Fwy.SO Ramps INS)at - • Murrleta,Hot5 do sRd. EW -TS -0. 0 0 0 0. 3. 1 0. .1>a 23.5 16.9 C .B.. 1-215 Fwy.NS Ramps(NS)at: - • Murrieta.Hot Springs.Rd EW TS -0 0:.0 0 0 3 1» 0 3 1 5.8 15.0 A B 1.15 Fwy.SO Ramps,INS)at •Winchester Rd.(EW) TO 0 0 0 2 0 0 . 4 1>i 0. 4 1» 32.7 'e C F • Rancho California Rd: EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 3 J» O 3 J» 16.1 42.0 8 0 1-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at •.Winchester Rd.(EW) TS1.5 0 15 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 a -]» 21.6 C F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1.5- 0 1.5 0 0 - 0 0 3 '.1» 0X3.5:1.5» 11:8 17.9 B 8 Ynez Rd.(NS)at • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 ".2 1> j 2 A j 2.5 1.5> j 3 0 ' ' F F Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 1 2 3 1>> 2 ,� » 3 50.9 52.7 D 'D Margarita Rd.(NS).aC.' • 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 7 1> 2 2'g j 3 'V 2 3 - :1 473 ' ' D F • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0' 0 0 0 2 0 1 20.5 278 B C •Rancho Calitorimiand.(EW) TS •2- '2-.3 1 IZ -. 2 1> 2 2_"1> X49.3 52.1 I. -0:.. Winchester Rd.(NS)at • Murrieta Not Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 .4 1 2 0 1 2 3 1 2 ,� :0 47.5 55.0 D D - '- • Nicolas Rd. EW TS » . 4 1 1 1 > 1 L 54.1 38.3 D D N.General Keerny:Rd.INS)at }: ' i Nicolas Rd. EW 75 0 1 1 0 1.. 0 1 2 �'1 1 2 1 36.7 36.0 O D- ' ;.-d-..,See Pkwy.(NS)al: � • La Serena Wy.(EW) � 1 -0 1 0 0 0 0 T" '1 1 2 0 7.1 74 A A ` • Rancho California Rd. EW TO 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 7 1 2 1 44.9 36.9 0 D 9117roy.Rd-(NS)at - MurrieW Hot Springs Rd: EW 1 1 1 1> :1 1 1 4296 544 D D - ' Project Entrance(NS)al ' •.Mir, pring,Rd. EW ' TS 1. 0 1 1 . 0 2_ 0 121 241 B C Butterfield.Stage Rd.(NS)at: _ • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) _T2 j 0 0 2 1» j 0 1-> 0 0 0 44.8 46.7 D D • Nicolas Rd.(EW) N 2 ,:a 0 2 2' 1 2 1 '1 1 1 "1> 39.5 46.1 C D - Carle Chepos(EW) 'TS 1 2 1. .1. a 1„ 1, 1 0. 1 1 0 50.137.2 D ,C La Setena Wy.(EWI., IS I Z 1 I a ' 0 j 1:1_.0 1 1 +,0 29.3 57,4 C -D ; - - Rando.Califomie Rd. EW '-TS 0 .,0 :0 .0 34.6 51!6 C1. D , Cape Contento(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd.:(EW) CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 15.8 17.3 C C ' It should W nod Nat impro"imms saw been malrudad by the Ciy of Tamea4a and Caniani at the sit*area intersections. Thee: additional lens haw been acwwsed for wilhln the lane edrlgg time win winvommem d When a right cum is oesigroma.Ne lam cart NNar he singed or vr!slMap.to Nrcnon ae a Fight cum lam ihen must ba wlsoanl widh for dp/a namirp vMidesblM•nl Orlsids lha Nreuphlahes ' L:Lea:T.Through:R.Righl ».Free Rpht Tum,>•Righl Tum dartap:1.Lam Impm ement g Delay and knot of service olaulaled wing the rdbwng waysis sothmm Tnmc,Version 7 5.1015 rziioc. Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,menu average b himamion dNay and level dsarvics are shorn for _ nlarseUkdM VnN halfi vgnal daaway stop mdrd Fa mnnaabrowrN Ues aeeel abp mhtrot,Na ,' delay ano lava)or ssrvxa for the worslnawid.1..runt I.mwerMras thadng avngle nM)am shown. _ TS -Tnnlc Slgmi CSS•cf.Street Stop' s• •Adddgnat0ane21 Plan aroly�is tllprpaartn MUn xrvice laysb along SR-79 inch vitlwry dNe Temecula Vaday lWilit.01),ownco dudadby the City dlemKda. C:�DaialwprhvNlpaarl:itnN000JO-0ot9-0S,ab1}a - , 5-28 E ' EXHIBIT 3-F ' EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) N n > 'POURROY D 2 6 R k5 H n )6 O S y s � \ - -------"1 -ter 6tt t 2.9 0�1----- SITE ' EL LLE - Wt L� DEL LAGO s ro 114 i .: :°y�,. ' ry wry CALLE CHAPOS <tiTO n 1 \ \ N.GENERAL 45 ,..-, j • O� tiq a KEARNY RD. Y 47.4 63 W aRa e m ao• ,�+3. UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 'O \ 'OVERLAND..DR. N . 23.6 NCA X93 MEADOWS PKWY. .4 ,.. •Oo i .o LEGEND- 90.0-VEHICLES.PER DAY(1000'S) r RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Cal'ttomia•00044:14 Magi � 3`10 }