The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRoripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 EIR Addendum Number 3.pdf ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 97121030) �:�--- `�� `- �-�. _ - _�-- =_ -�-_ - �� -- �`- � � � �- .r- =��.e._�-�-- • �_� ��-�'� k�� -� ��y� -:.' - _ �,+��+ �� _ z �� r�- '.s.M - �-��`"e�-� �.�.�,-"'��,-..k�, � � :_ � - ..- _ �r _ s-��^'- � � °1— - . .� -.. '�- �1 . .. .. `�'� `� E`� 4 G'°"` �,-..w� SM.'�E � `i��_•r4 .,�=,- ��s- �•.�"`''�- _ -- • � �� +„^;� �.��;� . w : �_,. ."� . - �, ,,_ �� _ , � .. � _- � -- � � �� , . _� ,� �, _ „�'�� ,�-_�E ' "k„� �y � �. '` ¢-�. �r�- - _ __ . � � .__ , ,q� ,� - ��',�`�+� _'�es��.�"` , ' �� . ,�-. .., . . �-.�` _. - ��y�.`*sffi.. �. { .. i., '� --� . �'� '��:�-p; 7. 91 �' aT`�. �� - .�•'��+'��+,�� .ti�,' � _ .�� ,t•�'� `-_� - - -..-� �'�'-6�' y f�.,p . �h �� " . . _ , ' �-.. -: -.: , �'-' � ; ` �; �' � y �_ ' -�rr�t�� ', : �� y ,�' - - _ - �-_ . . � -�' ° ,�� ` ��` �- . �'� .� � � �� . .� _ _ �_� _ , i _ =� �. - �. ��-"'��.'�. � �� _ __ - �`��.,`-`� ��'-.-�.' '� ��_ - - ,� � . . . .�=��. �- :� u�-�"�� Prepared for: Scott Cooper City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 scott.cooper(c�temeculaca.gov Prepared by: Kent Norton, AICP LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 lowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 L S ,� December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... 1 A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 B. ADDENDUM DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 2 C. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 2 D. APPROVED PROJECT........................................................................................ 5 E. PREVIOUS OR RELATED ACTIVITY.................................................................. 5 F. ADDENDUM NO. 1 .............................................................................................. 6 G. ADDENDUM NO. 2 .............................................................................................. 6 H. PROPOSED ADDENDUM NO. 3 ......................................................................... 6 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 12 J. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 22 K. REFERENCES AND SOURCES........................................................................ 23 APPENDICES A. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN B. RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT EIR C. RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL EIR AND MMRP D. RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 2 E RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 1 F. WINE COUNTRY EIR AND ORIGINAL RORIPAUGH EIR TRAFFIC STUDY EXCERPTS G. ARBOR VISTA TRAFFIC STUDY H. CITY OF TEMECULA SUSTAINABILITY PLAN December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 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 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, and Addendum No. 1 was approved on April 23, 2013 (Resolution No. 13-04). 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. In March 2016, the City prepared Addendum No. 2 which modified 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 then 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. Addendum No. 2 addressed potential environmental impacts that would result from these requested infrastructure timing changes and was approved on March 22, 2016 (Resolution No. 16-02). The proposed EIR Addendum No. 3 analyzes a variety of proposed minor changes to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan land plan (i.e., Specific Plan Amendment No. 4) mainly in the form of creating smaller lots adjacent to the Loop Road in the southern portion of the site (i.e., valley neighborhoods comprising Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Planning Areas 13-33). Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 also allows for the development of multi- and single-family housing if the Temecula Valley Unified School District decides not to build the planned middle school or elementary school (Planning Areas 28 or 29). A General Plan Amendment to amend the existing General Plan Land Use designations for Phase 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to a Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) land use. This will allow the Specific Plan to defer to the provisions and restrictions of the Specific Plan. It is important to note that the overall number of units in the valley portion of the project (1,506) as well as the total number of units in the Roripaugh project (2,105) will not change, thus no new environmental impacts from the project are anticipated. The following analysis concludes that the proposed land use changes embodied in Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 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. With implementation of current development regulations and mitigation measures in the EIR, no revisions to the EIR are necessary and approval of this Addendum will fully comply with the CEQA requirements for this proposed action. 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 first 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 15-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 December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 2 extension was addressed in EIR Addendum No. 1, while EIR Addendum No. 2 in 2016 addressed slight modifications to 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). 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 minor land use modifications to the valley portion of the land use plan 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 (see Figure ES-3 below). 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 improvements installed, but no development has occurred on the site due to the economic downturn that started in 2007. December 4, 2017 Figure ES-3:Surrounding Land Use&Proposed Development Surrouncling Land Use & Proposed Dev�lopmerrY � : - I : �_::. ,. � . _.. . . � . ._.. , ; . , __ . ,--.. � ,.,. -� .• _ _. . ;_. . � ,__ " ;' „ I ; �._ �. � _ _ � � BOREI RD � �. / � COUN7YOF - '� � � � � � RtVERSiDE ' / ` ' � anrvcno eei.w v7srn ; �� ._.. . . .. .. , . . . .,. .i RESIDEM�IAL �� .,:. � , . _ ....._ y.<__... ,.-." OPEN SPAGE r _ y�,� � QT SPRfNGg � �� "�"�D�.r�r r��r.rr�� O�� 'J 'E--CITY LIMI75 � q , �Q : � '�� ... �' RESIDENTIAI� � RORIVAUGt/FtANCH ' � � � f� , e� � � � �� . � /�� : �t . . ' CALLECQNTENiQCOMb9UNITY . � . ..._ . . � �� . S p � —� RkSiDENTIAL � . . " '►„�f r��eO�'P �----� . VLSTA UEL MONTE .. � � � t � COMMUNITY � . . � � ..RESIDENTIAL . ;� -; �.,.�.. ; CiTY Lt� "�y _ : ,_. , _ , TE�lECULA �p �'y R�y\P �� P�F� � PNcN y � � ,",: �K � R � ; . .. . __ . .. u� .:': _ ..: . „:.. ' :� '� '..... .... Q� . ... . . \- � . . � . . � . . . . �" � � ' IZ�3r-1��t�,�;�lt 1��t��c°Id Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 9 , uL�� asfl 4�u��-7�p2sodo�� i �m�� w � �-•� — ��= �� s_ , — =� ac � _ , y� , i � � �xx �� ,gP �. __, �i _ �� e�� :� . �� A i .I _' \'_�__ _ y� � �� _ �R.. ..�qY"tl � I ms I � �Sy �� 9�e8 \/� / .a £� I I li � f�/ �� f= _ � � ��,:... I , r � l__ � � a� —�� —� — — — — , �� I g' ' � �� i; m q ' , , x �a�� `��i � _m i ' �� , � m��_ _ ae__�_ � ` � eA«B9`^%� ^'Y.^-f.�..l..-.e' '$, IGiI ¢I �.�i, yYY tl�� ti -.z o � � oo� I �� ; g E � ' x , r � .,, _ � A I s 3 z �� : � �� -� z ip d_. I �� a3ya .. I re 3� m_ . I _ _ °;$ �', 5 _.,'q � , I = I . � ❑0000�ouo��o�u �i � , ' ;; ��.� � � I � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 5 The RRSP was officially approved on March 25, 2003 but has been amended several times with the latest amended version approved on March 8, 2016. The DA was first approved on October 21, 2003 and subsequently amended on February 14, 2006, April 23, 2013, and most recently on March 22, 2016. In addition, there have been a number of "operating memoranda" for implementation of the DA by several specific builders, the last one being approved on August 12, 2014 (7th 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 original land plan for the RRSP is shown in SPA Figure 2-1 below. 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). A complete copy of the RRSP is included in Appendix A of this document, the 2nd Revised Draft EIR is included in Appendix B, and the Final EIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), is included in Appendix C of this document. The most recent circulated Draft EIR is dated April 1, 2002 and the Final EIR is dated September 26, 2002, although the Final EIR was certified in late December 2002 and the Notice of Determination for the EIR was filed on December 17, 2002. The March 2016 Addendum No. 2 to the EIR is attached as Appendix D, and the April 2013 Addendum No. 1 to the EIR is attached as Appendix E. E. PREVIOUS OR RELATED ACTIVITY The Specific Plan was first approved by the City Council on November 26, 2002. Land use and other changes to the Specific Plan were approved on January 11, 2005, as Amendment No. 1. On February 14, 2006, Amendment No. 2 was approved which changed the planned land use for Planning Area 33B from low density residential to a park and ride and trail head facility. Amendment No. 3 to the Specific Plan was approved on March 8, 2016, which incorporated changes made to the Development Agreement and modified the schedule and building permit thresholds for public improvements associated within Phase 2 of the Project. 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. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 6 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 extension was 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. (see below). 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 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. Addendum No. 1 (Appendix E) was approved on April 23, 2013 (Resolution No. 13-04), was not challenged, and is now final. G. ADDENDUM NO. 2 The EIR Addendum No. 2 slightly modified the implementation schedule of various required infrastructure improvements to better match the expected phasing of development based on current market conditions (Appendix D). Addendum No. 2 was approved on March 8, 2016 (Resolution No. 16), was not challenged, and is now final. H. PROPOSED ADDENDUM NO. 3 The EIR Addendum No. 3 addresses the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (SPA #4). Roripaugh Ranch Restoration, LLC and Wingsweep Corporation, collectively, are proposing revisions to the approved Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. SPA#4 proposes revisions to what is referred to as Phase 2 of the Project, which includes all of the Valley Neighborhood Planning Areas (13-33B) and Planning Areas 10, 11, and 12 of the Plateau Neighborhood. Note that the full text of the proposed RRSP Amendment No. 4 is included in Appendix A. The revised land plan and conceptual lotting plan proposed in SPA #4 and addressed in EIR Addendum No. 3 are shown in the two figures below. The changes proposed by SPA#4 are detailed below. By these changes, the applicants desire to: December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 7 Provide a greater variety and better mix of residential lot sizes. Allow for a mix of family-focused residential and age-qualified units. Improve and emphasize trails and connections throughout the community and beyond. Make Long Valley Wash a central open space amenity for the community. Update and improve the sports park development standards. Improve the circulation and visual appeal of the Loop Road. Make sure the landscaping, recreation centers, open space, streets and homes all work together to produce a quality, modern, master-planned community. Land Use Changes The proposed changes would decrease the number of very small residential lots, generally increase the lot sizes throughout the Plan, and are intended to provide a greater variety and mix of lot sizes. Planning Area boundaries have been slightly re-configured and re-numbered to accommodate these changes. These improvements to the Plan would be accomplished without significantly changing the nature of the boundary conditions. Large lots of one-half acre minimum would be maintained along the east perimeter, and large lots of 20,000 square feet would be maintained along the south perimeter. In both cases, the current lot depths for the perimeter lots would be maintained so the future homes would be built no closer to the adjacent, off-site properties than previously approved. In addition, the General Plan Amendment includes amending the existing General Plan Land Use designations for Phase 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to a Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) land use. The SPI land use will allow the Specific Plan to defer to the provisions and restrictions of the Specific Plan. A summary of the proposed number of units, lot size and densities, compared to the existing Specific Plan, is provided in Table A. Other notable changes in land use proposed by SPA#4 include: Allows age-qualified dwelling units in one or more of the planning areas. A minimum age 55 would be required to reside in these units, controlled by deed restriction. Provides a second private recreation center located in a new Planning Area, 23B, in addition to the currently approved private recreation center on Planning Area 30. Allows for the development of multi-family or single-family units on either or both of the Middle School and Elementary School sites, Planning Areas 28 and 29, should the Temecula Valley Unified School District determine not to construct one or both of the schools. The zoning code for these planning areas would be changed to MF, allowing a maximum density of 20 DUs per acre, consistent with the Medium Density Land Use Designation provided the following: 1. The School District has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning areas 28 or 29 as school sites; 2. The maximum density of dwelling units within any one, or both of the Planning Areas combined, is 20 DUs/AC (High Residential Designation); and 3. The total number of residential units for the entire project does not exceed 2,015. 4. Following approval of the Tentative Map, the project Developer has notified the School District and the Director of Community Development in writing of the Planning Areas and number of units the project Developer elects to develop for Age Qualified/Restricted residential use. 5. The project Developer files for a site development permit for residential use of either school site. The District and Project Developer may enter into a mitigation agreement for the School, establishing the Project Developer Fee and other obligations. The school mitigation agreement may allow for the mutually agreeable relocation of the school sites and adjustment of their boundaries. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 8 Table A: Proposed Land Use Changes (Valley Portion) Minimum Lot Land Use Acres Density(DU/AC) Size(square feet) Units PA (Zoning Code) Existing SPA#4 Existing SPA#4 Existing SPA#4 Existing SPA#4 10 Residential-Low 8.1 NC 1.7 NC 10,000 NC 14 NC Density Estates 12 Residential-Medium 2 16.4 16.0 8.3 NC 3,000 NC 136 NC 14 Residential-Medium 2 13.5 14.4 11.4 6.3 3,000 3.600 154 90 15 Residential-Medium 2 14.1 9.3 11.3 5.0 3,000 4,000 159 47 16A Residential-Low 28.4 16.8 5.1 4.0 5,000 5,500 145 67 Medium 16B Residential-Low 28.4 16.8 5.1 4.0 5,000 5,500 145 67 Medium 17A Residential-Low 40.2 34.0 4.3 3.6 6,000 NC 172 122 Medium 17B Residential-Low Included 7.9 Included 7.4 6,000 5,000 Included 37 Medium in 17A in 17A in 17A 18A Residential-Low 28.4 26.9 4.0 2.9 6,000 7,000 113 78 Medium 18B Residential-Low Included 6.3 Included 4.4 6,000 5,000 Included 28 Medium in 18A in 18A in 18A 18C Residential-Low Included 10.5 Included 3.8 6,000 5,400 Included 40 Medium in 18A in 18A in 18A 19 Residential-Low 31.2 15.8 1.0 1.1 20,000 0.5-acre 30 17 Medium 20A Residential-Low 30.3 12.2 1.0 2.4 20,000 5,400 30 29 Medium 20B Residential-Low Included 17.6 Included 1.4 20,000 20,000' Included 25 in 19A in 19A in 20A 21 Residential-Low 23.9 14.8 6.1 1.3 20,000 20,000 22 19 22 Residential-Medium 1 20.3 19.9 8.1 4.4 3,000 4,500 164 88 23A Residential-Medium 1 10.9 11.6 6.1 3.8 4,000 4,950 67 44 236 Park-Recr.Center Included 2.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA (private) in 23A 24 Residential-Low 10.6 20.4 5.2 3.6 4,000 5,400 55 74 Medium 28,29 Middle School 20.4 PI-Low Residential NA NA NA Up Elementary SchoolZ 32 12.2 Medium -MF to 334 Residential (20.0) 31A Residential-Medium 2 24.6 12.2 9.1 7.2 3,000 3,600 224 88 31B Residential-Medium 1 Included 14.2 Included 4.7 3,000 4,000 Included 67 in 19A in 19A in 31A 33A Residential-Low 11.8 10.3 Included 1.5 20,000 NC 15 NC in 31A TOTAL 344.73 344.33 3.43 3.43 NA NA 1,506Z 1,506z Source: City of Temecula Planning Department.August 7,2017(see Figures 3 and 4). AC=acres, DU=dwelling units,NA=Not Applicable, NC=No Change, PA=Planning Area,SPA=Specific Plan Amendment NOTES ' One-acre lots are currently required on the eastern and southern perimeters of Planning Areas 19, 20 and 21 and the western perimeter of Planning Area 33A only. Perimeter lot square footages are proposed to be reduced, but lot depths are not. One- acre perimeter lots are maintained in PA 33A. Z The underlying land use designation in Planning Areas 28 and 29 would be changed from Public Institutional with allowance for Low Medium Residential to Medium Residential-Multi-Family. Should the TVSD decide not to build one or both of the planned Middle School and Elementary School, the Developer may propose multi-family or single-family units up to a density of 20 DU/ac,as long as the overall total number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan does not exceed 2,015. 3 Differences in acreage result from more recent survey/mapping activities. Density calculations do not include Phase 1 planning areas or the non-residential uses/open space in Phase 2. December 4, 2017 Figure 2-1:Proposed Land Use Plan o Roripaugh Ranch � � 0 +g a PROPOSED �� J L1�ND USE PLAN �r � , c 7n s —' e BB Nf15 �98 NR$ �� J/A 19.OAC 18.BAC OSi � 90 5 � s.e nc �e i aCs e.a�'tic 2 � � qg OS2 LM '�2'� 700 UNITS � .2 98UMT5 f{.BAc%/ �� 18.SAG 1151lNIB fi 13 /9.9 AG 22.9 bC O31 P 180.7 AC $_1 e.0 i l pU�AC nc , / �)� 152AC 7B ` 7C = OSs te.�rac O5� U 1.B AC 12 17A LEGEND 3PB i55uNrts � izzu`MniTs LAHO 115E COOE ACFES ➢ENSfiY TOTAL T��HEADANU �6QqG r �q 3a.0,qC fIXl/AC7 I1NIT5 PpRKANDRI�E NI ayunrPB occ__ 2.1 AC �5 1 fla AC LO1lm�•� L 58.5 1.3 36 M1 �LON ESTATE LE B.7 1.7 14 ig � 4TUNITS LM 17� �Lbll-IIEPIUM un e�z.a �a 7,oah 8.9AG 97UNITS MEONN I1/ M1 55.0 4.� 199 3� B.g�PL 1A � �sB 10.OAC y��Re 0 AIEUIUM f21 M2 �7.6 BS 367 15UNRS M2 — 7.9AC 1� 5118TOT0.L 9oT.a 42� 1�691� �� NRS LM ia a ac �a und7s NON-� .� 28 ��B 26.4pC 0 NEI6HBOVtl100�COMMEftCEAt NC 152 MF � 0 Staio0L5� NF 3¢.5 E�M�� UNIT 27 iz.zac 31B s,3,�c 0 F7AE 57ATION SRE Pi 2A p � M� 0 PFIYRTE HECfiEATIOti RC 19.5 SPORTS PI1AK 6f UNIiS LJ PIIBLIC PANNS P 78S 21.�� (MI6DLESCHOOL} 31{1 142AC 0 FL00�LONTROL 052 75.] 4 20.4pC BBUNITS 0 HA8ITAT O51 Y93.B q 0 122qC (jN�W� jeC 0 LGNOSCdP€SLOPE 053 2tP 3 0 ROADNAYSs 48.5 (,;) W z5 �� OpE�q�p� t0 N� 1� n unrr SI�TOTAI 39T.7 � I � .�g � 15.BAC TaTAL Bo�.T� 2.5 2,d15� M1 RG 23A 74 UNRS 26 p$p FOOTNOTES: B6UNR3 zSnG µ� 20.9AC 2QA 8/�` 1.PLA4lNING ARERS ZONE�NULTI-FPMItY ATTAGHEO RES1�ENl[RL ARE � ' ��'9�' 46UNIT5 LM �ESIGNATEG FOR MIOVLE AM�ELEMENTAHY SCHOdL�E4ELOPMENT. W _ 11�.BY�AC1 _ �UMSS OPTION0.L Nt1LTI-FRH[LY RESI�Ei1T1AL IlSE MAY BE RLLOWEQ AT A LL ` i�� =yy — � �� MAXIMIIM RESIDENTIAI OENSIT7 20 OUTAC]N RGCOROAHGE W1TN A WGH 2OAC 21 18UNI1S �EHSITY RESi�EMTiAL 20HE�f51GNAT[ON.A TOTAL OF 9�0 ONELLMG Q ZOB �5�� IINITS AHE ALLOWEO Ffi0V10E�THE TOTAL NA%tNWM NL4JBER OF PWfLLING � �1'S�� 8� 77.6AG t1NfT5 MAY NOT E%CEEll 2015 ONELLINGS 11MIT5 FOR THIS SPEC6IC PV.N. LiOTAL AHEA OF HOA�KkYS IhCWUES 9fITH Pl19LlL ANU PR[VATE � (FXISrING STFEETS.FOA�fYA'/AEEA MAT OIFFER AfGHILY DEPFMOMG tJPON m FlRE VARIATIONS]N SlI6U]YISSON OESiGN. Sr/7TION1 3.IJINOR iCfiEdCE ODJl155YENT5 A11Y BE NG�E BETWEEN Pl'S�IIqUlG TTN WPLEMENTATIDN AN�F[NAL ENGII�ERIMC. � CITYlCDIINTY BOIIIN.ARY � 0 EkISTING SPECIi]C PLAN BOIlN01PV 0 PmE5TR1AH 6RIGCE J('J( PLAWNING ARE0.NIIMBER � � % LAWi IISE CODE %l1NIT5Nl1MBEiS OF fiESI�EMTIAL 11NlT5 f1YHERE APPLICA9LEl � X.%AG PLANPllNG ME4 SiZE(ACRE51 '� � � aso� o aso• soa� �o�,,, _ � Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 43 � . Pr o p o s e d MQ _ PROPOSED TRAIL �Rr�A��rSaRr � PA 10 FA 96 I N PA 13 C o n c e p t P I a n"GSR° °PE�SPA°E_ ,- _ _ . ,.�-�� _ a o '�° = - PRESERVED NATIVE EXISTING PARK - � � �- �, sqtir9 caEE� ��,� OPEN SPACE [ �eRraWois. PA 11 II�I cor.�nnEaicni I �y �Q 13 ,,,,� STREET TREES-TYP. �y�'P OPEMSPACE �-��3'� aa NEIGHBORHOOD �'��.'�"q�cn v.a��EVRfl ,+''J ��; ENTRY M4NUMENT �,�'w�»��»,�,,,� ; . ij�PA 12'`c"">"_l,�..+..�a� .�� +?J r -TYP 1 ❑'e� y�v�,�aaaa�+.>,a �� iao9a�a_— �� aJJi-� YF� i J� .� ;�'� 9 0 7J =1 x. a /i��' � a a aa z�'} ,�.� . ii JJ J _-'...-a^�'s'�....,-il�� qa�a �0 -�. f <as '� .�a oc�a 1.. ' � #� a� d a � >> � x''� � � �' d �_�"°.� PA3�q �a�a ��e;y �TRAIL(PERPEDESTRIAN � Passa— w;• a ;a ;a" �-- �•_�'" � ,';�' °° Qe $' ANDBICYCLE rnaK allo rzioE LL` r �+ a �'/ �.-�-�. � ,�' , PA 16A • �v �p..- .Q.. , 1 arnni�Hena .3a �''��a / � •+. an - a�.��rsa� r Jm a j�NP�iN�- s' a� qa 4_,.�.� ,.��.o,+}=,��,� � i,;�,� ,� il CiRCULAT / ao z�o, //'''� o.ss�z �° PA15 �i aa �s��o.,v��iaa � i ..�W� �' � N.�. � .�o. NP. Jd /� a� �Y- J� � d� ilaii`4if '! y�9a, J Y �, �J _ Y -��;._ � ;.,,.. - � �, . .�, � aa �y a d*" PA366 , + r��a' -� � � -' - '...1� �i . d.p� ] d�i 1aa.i-.1:1.�Y �vy • � COMMUNITY �SaO s$��_l��` ,� ! �� 4��a" ,yad��Q s�uy .r 3��3a.:�v.r#•�� PA176y�yJ�ri��ati PA16PA19 � ENTRY ' N��o . PA33A • a -••' ,a, a 3�.s=.=i '3�'a3� _ W � ,, MONUMENT r#� Pnia �'� � - " ,, �.+,� ' ,'� p, I �„ - , ,,.�a� '� �'' "O �.r+�-�� ,�d ,� ' HOA RECREATION .��,�,��' �J.:a,� NOR'� �,%�'� '�,�j . \ '. ia � CENTER(PER j�� +„� � —----` PA29 "PA31B '"+�� PA186�' a 3�-�..�.�<� � CONCEPTUAL ':SANtP cERTauo�s cREEK PA27 � � ,-s�` - � ' ,�"a � RECR TION MASTER ELEMENTARY SC'HOO� �'� � � l mf �a�s�d �~�a ,�7. i�o.� a �f� ° _ �� '�a,� /��,��3 �> �� .. � PLAN) SPORTS PARK � � �,,.'� s.e; Pa2& .,�",i�`rT'� ��•�'��+w°° �'.,��'�'sa'�Y nupo�esc�oo� �-.,�' r �a�ia b ��.a;i+�+ _-� � PA26, ��`� ! RFr-. �."�,�r��°PA��r�i��V . ��aar� � ��`� { o -- � ' a �r �-+f� A_ f �� . yd� �ii� � � �� " a'V FlOARECREATION � �°°�`' ' ' 'o��ia°� *�� _-�� y ,o a� sH a I '�-�r.��. >3=� � �3- � r� � �x' � �,� . �, LONG VAf�LEY WASH CONC PTl1AL ' `D�G L�Eyww U I s� �+,'�� = r� ��` _ �� ,� �- � ^;r J4};� '� ° vr -'�'� "� - .a* � ,'; ° w CHANNELMITIGATIOM `? »..�_ RECREATION ` �-- �' -�� ,a _—�„ _ -- a J,,;�,3a �.,;,�� ,, _ •.., � �. ,�,F_ -- ,,. d � -�- P,a iac WATEfi QUALITY BASIN- MASTERPLAN) _ . ��.�, } , ,� _�'r1 �,�� PA24 �� j:'d� _ I - .�� „ r y �. , s; a� � _ Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 11 Changes to Circulation, Trails, and Bikeways Changes are proposed to the Circulation, Trails, and Bikeways Master Plans. Loop Road is slightly realigned, and would now be dedicated a public roadway in its entirety. The gated entries along Loop Road are removed and three round-a-bouts are planned at key locations to facilitate traffic movement and safety. Loop Road provides for 6'-wide sidewalks on both sides and a 10'-wide decomposed granite (DG) trail along on the entire length, within a 77- foot wide public ROW. Interior Local Streets would be revised to comply with updated fire safety requirements and would be allowed as either public or private roads, at the developer's option. Private streets would be provided in Planning Areas 31A and 31 B. No street improvements covered by a Community Facilities District (CFD)will be affected by these potential changes. Changes to Circulation, Trails, and Bikeways (cont'd) Changes proposed for the trail system include emphasizing the Long Valley Wash Trail as a project amenity open to the public, rather than open only to residents, providing both a 12-foot wide asphalt surface to be used for maintenance vehicles as well as bicycles and pedestrians, and a 4-foot wide DG surface. This trail will now connect to the perimeter multi-use trail along the south and east perimeter of the Project site. Proposes to add a trail within City-owned open space in Planning Area 13, contingent upon negotiations with the current preserve manager, the Center for Natural Lands Management. Update to Public Sports Park Amenities and Design The Sports Park Master Plan has been updated to reflect enhancements agreed to in the updated Development Agreement, as well as additional amenities requested by the Community Services Department over the last several months of discussions. The additional facilities requested by staff, which will be included in the SPA are: A maintenance building and storage yard patterned after newer City parks and located for better maintenance access. Enlarged baseball fields with bigger infields and concrete bleachers. Additional bathrooms, more centrally located. Additional parking spaces. A two-story concessions/staff office with an elevator, to allow staff views of the fields from the office. Long Valley Wash Improvements SPA #4 documents design changes in the construction of Long Valley Wash as a regional flood control channel. Rather than being concrete lined over its entirety, the channel will be mostly vegetated, with stabilization structures interspersed along the wash. This would improve the visual appeal, reduce the amount of maintenance required, and accentuate Long Valley Wash as a central public amenity for the community. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 12 Design Guidelines The major elements of the Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines are maintained for the Valley Neighborhood Planning Areas and Planning Areas 10, 11, and 12 within the Plateau Neighborhood. The fourteen different approved architectural styles are maintained for single-family development and new design guidelines including, architectural styles, for the potential multi-family development in Planning Areas 28 and 29 are added. The new multi-family architectural styles are the same as those approved for the single family development, but will be adapted for multi-family development, incorporating the primary style elements of each architectural style. Minor changes and updates are proposed throughout the Guidelines to bring landscaping and other standards into conformance with current City standards, or to reflect the changes in proposed streets and other facilities. The architectural guidelines would allow for more flexibility in the selection of approved architectural styles by eliminating the requirement that the specified design groups of approved architectural styles be used for each Planning Area. The Director of Community Development would continue to have review and approval authority over the architectural product to insure conformance to the Specific Plan and submittal and review requirements are maintained. Update to Landscape Architecture Master Plan The Landscape Master Plan and Guidelines would be updated to conform to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the City Development Codes for residential, commercial, and open space and recreational areas. Landscape concepts and plant palettes for parkways, medians and other public areas are proposed to maintain consistency with the architectural guidelines, adjacent roadways and Wine Country community to the east. Update to Stormwater Quality Measures SPA #4 accommodates new provisions for stormwater quality and treatment in compliance with the current and upcoming regional and municipality requirements. All Planning Areas are redesigned to provide each with access to water quality basin(s) for the treatment of stormwater runoff, improving stormwater quality within the Project and to downstream properties. Key Elements Not Changing Key elements of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan remain in place. These include: The number of dwelling units would remain unchanged; There would be no reduction or revision to any of the remaining required public improvements; and The separation between proposed homes along the Project boundary with offsite, existing homes would be unchanged and the character of the boundary condition would remain as planned. I. 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); � Ynez Road at Winchester Road and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 13 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 does not increase the overall unit count of the projectand does not result in any physical changes to the environment that were not already anticipated or analyzed of the EIR. 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 to address the proposed land use changes in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (SPA#4)(i.e., EIR Addendum No. 3). SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOUND IN ORIGINAL EIR 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 SPA#4 and Addendum No. 3 would not change these conclusions. Traffic. The FEIR determined the project-level and cumulative impacts in this regard to be significant (FEIR pages ES-6 and 3-97). Based on the proposed land use changes and the fact the total number of residential units is not changing, impacts from traffic from occupancy of the project under Addendum No. 3 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 mitigation identified in the original EIR. This conclusion is supported by two more recent comprehensive traffic impact studies prepared for the Wine Country Community Plan prepared by Fehr and Peers for Riverside County in 2011 (Appendix F) and the Arbor Vista project prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan for the City of Temecula in 2014 (Appendix G). The Wine Country Community Plan (WCCP)traffic 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 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. On March 11, 2014 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the WCCP for the unincorporated land east of the Roripaugh Ranch property. The EIR for the WCCP (SCH# 2009121076) included a cumulative traffic study with its EIR that took into account the delayed development within the Roripaugh Ranch project. The WCCP traffic study included the Roripaugh Ranch in its cumulative projects list for estimating future traffic impacts. The City determined in 2016 that RRSP EIR Addendum No. 2, both in terms of the extensions of deadlines and the re-ordering of improvements, December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 14 would not alter the WCCP traffic study conclusions, and constructing the planned improvements later in the future, and would still be implemented with development as it occurred, and would not create any new or significantly different impacts than those identified in the original Roripaugh EIR. According to the WCCP traffic study, future development within the RRSP was also consistent with the traffic projections and roadway network outlined in the County's TUMF program and as evaluated in the Wine Country Community Plan traffic study and EIR (see Appendix E). Table B: Comparison of EIR Traffic Studies—Original Roripaugh Project to Wine Country Plan A. Roadway Segment Comparison Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California Road North of West of Rancho California Road Butterfield Stage Road Year/Condition/Source' ADT LOS ADT LOS 2011 WCP TIA Existing Conditions (2009)(weekday, Table 4) 4,616 C 14,132 C General Plan Buildout no WCP, Scenario 3, Table 8) 13,516 C 17,374 C 2001 RSP TIA Existing Conditions (2000)(Exhibit 3-7) 200 A 11,300 A Year 2003 With Project(Exhibit 4-W) 200 A 12,500 A Year 2007 With Project(Exhibit 4-Y) 8,800 C 19,400 C GP Buildout Without Project(Exhibit 4-Z) 26,400 F 11,600 C GP Buildout With Project (Exhibit 4-AA) 32,500 F 14,000 C B. Intersection Comparison Butterfield Stage Road Winchester Road At At Rancho California Road Nicolas Road Year/Condition/Source' Delay (sec) LOS Dela (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 Pro�ect Table 5-6 61.8 D 38.3 D � Data Sources/Abbreviations ADT Average Dail Traffic LOS Level of Service A-F TIA Traffic Im act Assessment sec Seconds of Delay RSP Ori inal Rori au h Ranch S ecific Plan TIA re ared b Urban Crossroads dated November 2001 WCP Wine Countr Plan -TIA re ared b Fehr&Peers dated November 2011 2 Estimated from WCP TIA Table 1, Intersection and Roadway Segment LOS Criteria. Segments noting LOS C are actually LOS C or better December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 15 In 2014 the Arbor Vista Cluster Residential project was approved by the City of Temecula just south of Nicolas Road and southwest of the valley portion of the Roripaugh Ranch project (i.e., Planning Commission approved the project on May 21, 2014 and the City Council approved it on August 12, 2014). It entailed the construction of 83 single family residential units on 73 acres. Tables C through F summarize the potential traffic impacts identified in the traffic study under cumulative and horizon year (2035) conditions. The results of this more recent traffic study are consistent with those of the original Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (RRSP) traffic study in that the same intersections and roadways were determined to have significant traffic impacts in the future, even with planned improvements, would be significant. At the time of approval of the RRSP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these project-related traffic impacts. Table C: Arbor Vista Cumulative Traffic Impacts-Area Intersections Peak Delay Project- Delay Intersection Control' Hour (sec) LOSZ Induced Delay Significant? 1.Winchester Rd./Margarita Rd. Signal AM 48.4 D 8.2 sec No PM 91.7 F 25.5 sec Yes 2.Winchester Rd./Roripaugh Signal AM 20.2 C 1.0 sec No Rd. PM 14.7 B 2.3 sec No 3.Winchster Rd./Nicolas Rd. Signal AM 233.9 F 54.1 sec Yes PM 188.6 F 62.8 sec Yes 4. Nicolas Rd./Temecula Town Signal AM 14.7 B 1.6 sec No Center Entrance PM 20.6 C 3.4 sec No 5. Nicolas Rd./N. General Signal AM 12.5 B 1.7 sec No Kearn Rd. PM 14.9 B 2.8 sec No 6. Nicolas Rd./Via Lobo Rd. OWSC AM 24.0 C 9.7 sec No PM 32.2 D 16.4 sec No 7. Nicolas Rd./Joseph Rd. OWSC AM 84.0 F 64.7 sec Yes PM 203.3 F 176.0 sec Yes 8. Nicolas Rd./Calle Medusa TWSC AM 60.1 F 44.8 sec Yes PM 183.8 F 163.7 sec Yes 9. Nicolas Rd./Butterfield Stage DNE -- -- -- -- -- Rd. -- -- -- -- -- Source: Table 10-1, Cumulative Conditions Intersection Operations, LLG 2014 sec=seconds � OWSC=One-Way Stop Control,TWSC-Two-Way Stop Control, DNE=Did Not Evaluate Z Based on Opening Year plus Project plus Cumulative Projects(LOS=Level of Service) December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 16 Table D: Arbor Vista Cumulative Traffic Impacts- Roadway Links Peak Speed Project-Induced Decrease Roadway Link Direction' Hour (mph) LOSZ Speed Decrease Significant? Winchester Road Margarita Rd. to Roripaugh Rd. NB AM 20.8 D 1.0 mph No PM 24.5 C 2.8 mph No SB AM 18.5 D 1.8 mph No PM 12.3 F 0.5 mph No Roripaugh Rd. to Nicolas Rd. NB AM 18.0 D 0.1 mph No PM 6.2 F 0.0 mph No SB AM 30.6 B 1.8 mph No PM 27.5 C 0.0 m h No Nicolas Road Winchester Rd. to Temecula EB AM 19.7 D 0.0 mph No Town Center Entrance PM 19.1 D 0.4 mph No WB AM 6.6 F 0.0 mph No PM 7.2 F 0.0 mph No Temecula Town Center EB AM 34.0 B 1.5 mph No Entrance to N. General Kearny PM 34.9 B 1.2 mph No Rd. WB AM 31.2 B 0.1 mph No PM 31.8 B 0.1 mph No Source: Table 10-2, Cumulative Conditions Roadway Link Operations,LLG 2014 mph=miles per hour � NB=Northbound,SB=Southbound, EB=Eastbound,WB=Westbound 2 Based on Opening Year plus Project plus Cumulative Projects(LOS=Level of Service) Table E: Arbor Vista Horizon Year(2035) Traffic Impacts -Area Intersections Peak Delay Project- Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec) LOS' Induced Delay Significant? 1.Winchester Rd./Margarita Rd. Signal AM 41.2 D 0.5 sec No PM 56.9 E 0.8 sec No 2.Winchester Rd./Roripaugh Signal AM 27.0 C 0.5 sec No Rd. PM 11.7 B 0.5 sec No 3.Winchster Rd./Nicolas Rd. Signal AM 87.7 F 1.9 sec No PM 158.3 F 6.4 sec Yes 4. Nicolas Rd./Temecula Town Signal AM 55.6 E 0.1 sec No Center Entrance PM 100.8 F 2.1 sec Yes 5. Nicolas Rd./N. General Signal AM 55.5 E 0.4 sec No Kearny Rd. PM 57.3 E 0.2 sec No 6. Nicolas Rd./Via Lobo Rd. Signal AM 6.8 A 0.1 sec No PM 6.5 A 0.3 sec No 7. Nicolas Rd./Joseph Rd. Signal AM 10.0 A 0.4 sec No PM 8.7 A 0.2 sec No 8. Nicolas Rd./Calle Medusa Signal AM 7.7 A 0.1 sec No PM 8.3 A 0.3 sec No 9. Nicolas Rd./Butterfield Stage Signal 28.9 C 0.1 sec No Rd. 36.0 D 0.1 sec No Source: Table 11-1, General Plan(Year 2035)Intersection Operations,LLG 2014 sec=seconds � Based on Opening Year plus Project plus Cumulative Projects(LOS=Level of Service) December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 17 Table F: Arbor Vista Horizon Year(2035) Traffic Impacts- Roadway Links Peak Speed Project-Induced Decrease Roadway Link Direction' Hour (mph) LOSZ Speed Decrease Significant? Winchester Road Margarita Rd. to Roripaugh Rd. NB AM 18.5 D 0.2 mph No PM 31.3 B 0.4 mph No SB AM 20.3 D 0.1 mph No PM 16.4 E 0.0 mph No Roripaugh Rd. to Nicolas Rd. NB AM 19.0 D 0.0 mph No PM 9.2 F 0.4 mph No SB AM 30.3 B 0.0 mph No PM 35.7 A 0.0 m h No Nicolas Road Winchester Rd. to Temecula EB AM 17.2 D 0.0 mph No Town Center Entrance PM 13.8 E 0.0 mph No WB AM 6.6 F 0.0 mph No PM 8.6 F 0.4 mph No Temecula Town Center EB AM 29.3 B 0.0 mph No Entrance to N. General Kearny PM 32.9 B 0.0 mph No Rd. WB AM 25.8 C 0.2 mph No PM 28.8 B 0.4 mph No Source: Table 11-2, General Plan(Year 2035)Roadway Link Operations, LLG 2014 mph=miles per hour ' NB=Northbound,SB=Southbound, EB=Eastbound,WB=Westbound Z Based on Opening Year plus Project plus Cumulative Projects(LOS=Level of Service) One of the proposed land use changes is in Planning Areas 28 and 29 from Elementary and Middle Schools to Low Medium Residential (32 acres with up to 334 units as shown in Table A). Table G below shows the trip generation for the proposed residential uses would produce approximately 25 percent less traffic during peak hours and approximately 6 percent less overall traffic compared to the two proposed schools. While most of the traffic reduction would be experienced on local streets (i.e., those closest to the schools and within the valley portion of the project) for the most part, there would also be incremental reductions in external trips coming from areas adjacent to but outside of the Roripaugh project, depending on the ultimate attendance boundaries of the two schools. Table G: Trip Generation Comparison of Planning Areas 28 and 29 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Total Trip Generation Rates Low Medium Residential (ITE 210) 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 Elementary School (ITE 520) 0.25 0.20 0.45 0.13 0.15 0.28 1.29 Middle School (ITE 522) 0.30 0.34 0.54 0.08 0.08 0.16 1.62 Trips from Existinq Land Uses Elementary School (750 students) 188 150 338 98 113 210 968 Middle School (1,500 students) 450 510 675 120 120 240 2,430 Total Schools 638 660 1,013 218 333 450 3,398 Trips from Proposed Land Uses LM Residential (334 units) 63 187 250 210 124 334 3,180 Difference Convert from Schools to Residential -608 -473 -763 -8 -209 -116 -218 -95% -72% -25% -4% -63% -26% -6% Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation(9 Edition,2016) ' worst case assumption is minimum enrollment,more likely enrollments would be 800-1000 students for elementary school and 2,000 students for the middle school which would generate even more total traffic and traffic during both peak hours. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 18 The City Council previously determined that the extended DA and revised improvement schedule approved under EIR Addenda No. 1 and No. 2 would still allow for the efficient implementation of the various road and intersection improvements identified in the EIR and DA 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. Therefore, all of the improvements outlined in the original EIR would be implemented as documented in the previous EIR Addenda No. 1 and No. 2. The proposed land use changes outlined in EIR Addendum No. 3 may result in some minor changes in traffic volumes on internal streets in the valley portion of the Roripaugh project as development occurs, however, long-term traffic generation by the project at buildout, both internal and external to the project, will remain equivalent or less than that identified in the original traffic study. Therefore, the proposed land use plan changes outlined in Addendum No. 3 do not alter the significance conclusions or mitigation of the EIR, and are equivalent to those outlined in the EIR and the two previously approved EIR Addenda. Air Quality. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be significant(FEIR 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 Addenda No. 1 and No. 2 extended the DA and extended the beginning and or timing of ultimate impacts of air emissions from project construction and occupancy into the future. Under these Addenda, all of the planned improvements 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). The planned land use changes under EIR Addendum No. 3 would not change the overall number of units within the project, thus the total estimated vehicular trips and the estimated air pollutant emissions would not increase (i.e., see analysis associated with Table G for trip generation comparison of schools versus residential uses). For these reasons, emissions from project construction and operation would be equal to or better than those estimated in the original EIR. 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 for cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of SPA #4 does not represent a substantial change from the impacts identified in the EIR, and new development would be required to implement current air quality regulations which would help reduce both project and cumulative air pollutant emissions from dust, vehicular emissions, etc. Noise. The FEIR concluded that the project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts (FEIR 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 was modified to better track actual development of the project under current market conditions. SPA #4 proposes various minor land use changes, primarily in the sizes of certain lots, but the overall number of residential units in the RRSP would not change (i.e., 2,015 units for the entire project of which 1,506 units are within the valley portion of the project). The Wine Country and Arbor Vista traffic studies discussed above indicate that area traffic would be similar to that originally projected under the original Roripaugh EIR (see Appendices E and F), so traffic-related noise would also be equal or less than outlined in the original EIR. Therefore, these minor land use changes do not represent a substantial change from the impacts, mitigation, or conclusions identified in the EIR. Aesthetics. The FEIR concluded that project-level impacts would be significant (FEIR pages ES-11 and 3- 219). Most of the project impacts would occur as identified in the EIR, including views changing and December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 19 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 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. Table A shows a number of changes to Planning Areas 19-21 (in the original plan) - the new plan changes Planning Areas 18-21 along the southeastern and southern boundaries of the RRSP, plus the west side of Planning Area 22 facing Butterfield Stage Road just south of Long Valley Wash. These planning areas are adjacent to rural residential areas. The proposed land use changes would maintain rural size lots (approx. 20,000 square feet) adjacent to the eastern and southern site boundaries and existing rural land uses, while creating smaller lots further west closer to the loop road in the "valley neighborhood" portion of the project. The rest of the proposed land use changes are "internal" to the RRSP property and would not result in significant changes in short-or long-term views from surrounding land uses different than those identified and analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required or needed as a result of the land use changes proposed under SPA#4 and EIR Addendum No. 3. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOUND IN ORIGINAL EIR Noise. The FEIR concluded that project-level impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-8 and 3-165). Direct noise impacts both from construction and occupancy of the project have not occurred yet, but would be similar to those impacts identified in the EIR. The Wine Country traffic study discussed above indicates that area traffic would be equal or less than that originally projected under the original Roripaugh EIR (see Appendix E), so traffic-related noise would also be equal or less than outlined in the original EIR. Because the total number of residential units of the RRSP would remain the same, approval of Addendum No. 3 would not result in any project-related noise impacts that are more severe than those identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts and mitigation for Addendum No. 3 are similar to that outlined in the EIR(i.e., less than significant with mitigation). 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 City Council determined that changes to the DA and infrastructure implementation schedule 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 were required or proposed as part of EIR Addenda No. 1 or No. 2. The proposed land use changes under EIR Addendum No. 3 would not result in substantial changes to air pollutant emissions identified in the EIR (see analysis above). In addition, the City adopted a Sustainability Plan on June 22, 2010 (i.e., the equivalent of a Climate Action Plan or CAP) to address and control greenhouse gas emissions from activities within the City, including new development(Appendix G). New residential construction within the RRSP, including those changes outlined in EIR Addendum No. 3, would be required to be consistent with the City's Sustainability Plan and would therefore be considered to be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-5 and 3-54). The site has already been rough graded, and the approved 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 the approved EIR Addendum No. 2 will still tie planned improvements to new development, so the conclusions of the EIR remain unchanged relative to drainage and water quality for EIR Addenda No. 1 and No. 2. Addendum No. 3 proposes changes to RRSP land use plan, mainly the lot sizes and locations in Planning Areas 14 through 24, 28-29, 31, and 33 in the "valley neighborhood" portion of the December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 20 specific plan. These changes would maintain larger lots along the perimeter of the project while decreasing the lot sizes of the planning areas adjacent to the loop road. No changes to Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash are proposed, and the previous Figure 4 (conceptual lotting plan) shows the locations of various water quality basins in these areas.The project would still require regulatory permitting from various resource agencies in charge of water quality (and biological resources) such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the minor land use changes proposed under SPA#4 and evaluated in EIR Addendum No. 3 will not result in any drainage or water quality impacts substantially different than those identified in the EIR, and no additional mitigation is required. Biological Resources. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-7 and 3-140). Impacts to biological resources of the proposed land use changed under Addendum No. 3 would be essentially 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. SPA #4 would provide additional trails in the upland (northern) portion of Planning Area 13 if feasible, but these are not expected to significantly impact the biological resources in that Planning Area associated with Santa Gertrudis Creek. The roadway/intersection improvements and overall improvements to the creek would still be made prior to completion of the Roripaugh project as outlined in the original EIR and as approved under EIR Addenda No. 1 and No. 2. Due to the disturbed nature of the Phase 2 planned development area (i.e., valley neighborhood area or Planning Areas 14 through 33), the proposed land use changes (mainly in the size of various lots) would not result in any new of substantially increased impacts to biological resources, including along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 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 (i.e., as approved under Addendum No. 2). Implementation of Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 and EIR Addendum No. 3 would therefore not change the conclusions of the EIR, nor would they require additional mitigation. Scientific Resources. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR 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 land use plan as outlined in Addendum No. 3 would not affect impacts or mitigation identified for archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources. Regarding tribal cultural resources, City staff conducted consultation with local Native American tribal groups/representatives. Letters requesting consultation under SB 18 were sent out May 26, 2017 while letters requesting consultation under AB 52 were sent out August 21, 2017. During those periods, no tribal groups expressed interest in consulting with the City on this project. Geology and Soils. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR 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, the City Council determined that minor changes to the infrastructure implementation schedule approved 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. Future development under the land use plan changes outlined in SPA #4 and Addendum No. 3 would also be subject to these mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts would still be less than significant and no new mitigation is required for Addendum No. 3. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 21 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-8 and 3-147). Future development of the site under the RRSP would result in the same number of units, same general 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 regarding hazards and hazardous materials. For these reasons, there would be no significant effects related to these issues by making minor changes to the land use plan relative to lot sizes and locations under the proposed under SPA#4 and EIR Addendum No. 3. Land Use and Planning. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-4 and 3-15). The revised land use plan would not alter the ultimate number or density of planned uses, although the sizes of various lots and density of some planning areas would be altered from the existing plan. SPA#4 allows age-qualified dwelling units in one or more of the planning areas. A minimum age 55 would be required to reside in these units, controlled by deed restriction. This could act to incrementally reduce impacts related to increased population and related noise, traffic, air quality, etc. but it is overly speculative to estimate the degree to which this could occur. In addition, SPA #4 provides a second private recreation center located in a new Planning Area, 23B, in addition to the currently approved private recreation center on Planning Area 30. This would help reduce potential impacts on existing and future planned recreational facilities both within and outside of the RRSP. Finally, SPA#4 allows for possible conversion of one or both of the school sites (Planning Areas 28-29) if the local school district does not need one or both of them for schools, which would result in a maximum of 334 additional units. However, the overall total number of units within the RRSP (2,015) or the number of units within the valley portion of the project (1,506 units) would not change even with conversion of one or both school sites. The revised land use plan would also have the same circulation network. Future development would still occur on the Roripaugh Ranch site generally 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 land use plan would have no demonstrable adverse effect on either land use or planning impacts of the project. Under approved EIR Addenda No. 1 and 2, the addition of new houses and residents to the City would occur at a later time than identified in the EIR, but the magnitude of these impacts were determined to be equivalent to those identified in the EIR. The current City General Plan and Housing Elementz took into account the housing that would occur when the RRSP is built. The proposed SPA#4 and EIR Addendum No. 3 would not change the overall number and general location of residential units, although in a number of areas lot sizes will be decreasing which will help keep future units more affordable. Therefore, SPA#4 and Addendum No. 3 will not have any significant adverse effects on population or housing and no mitigation is required. Public Services. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-9, 3-173, 3-175, 3-178, 3-180, 3-185, 3-187, 3-188, 3-189, and 3- 190). Under EIR Addenda No. 1 and 2, the City concluded that service impacts identified in the EIR would still occur, but begin at a later time and extend into the future. At that time, the City determined that no substantial changes were envisioned compared to the impacts identified in the EIR, and the fire station outlined in the then current DA had already been built. The land use changes proposed under SPA #4 would not result in any increase in the total number of residential units in the project. In addition, SPA #4 allows for possible conversion of one or both of the school sites (Planning Areas 28-29) if the local school district does not need one or both of them for schools, however, the overall total number of units within the RRSP (2,015) or the number of units within the valley portion of the project(1,506 units)would not change even with conversion of one or both school sites. In addition, SPA #4 provides a second private recreation center located in a new Planning Area, 23B, in addition to the currently approved private recreation center on Planning Area 30. It 2 Published September 2009 for period July 1,2008 to June 30,2014 December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 22 could also provide additional trails around the project perimeter and in the northern portion of Planning Area 13 if the City determined their construction was feasible, but this would be in addition to the original trail network outlined in the RRSP. These would help reduce potential impacts on existing and future planned recreational facilities both within and outside of the RRSP. Therefore, anticipated impacts to public services are considered to be equivalent to those identified in the EIR, and no additional mitigation is required. Utilities. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-10, 3-197, 3-200, 3-201, 3-203, 3-205, and 3-207).The utility impacts identified in the EIR would still occur, but begin at a later time and extend into the future. No substantial changes in the total number of residential units are proposed which would result in no substantial increase in the overall demand for utilities would occur compared to the impacts identified in the EIR, including the conversion of school facilities to residential uses (see previous discussion related to traffic and Table G). It is possible that internal service lines, pipelines, etc. may be modified based on the location of lots under the revised land use plan. Similarly, the proposed changes to the RRSP land use plan under Addendum No. 3 would not significantly change the anticipated overall impacts or recommended mitigation measures in the EIR relative to utilities. Mineral and Forest Resources. The FEIR concluded that project-level and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (FEIR pages ES-4 and 3-15). The site does not contain these resources so they are unaffected by internal changes in land uses within the planning areas as proposed under SPA#4. J. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on available information and the analysis presented in Section I, making the proposed minor changes to the land use plan for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, as outlined in Section H and Table A above, would not increase the severity or extent of any of the identified impacts, would not create any new impacts, and would not require any new or modified mitigation measures identified in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR, and development within Phase 2 would still be required to implement the improvements identified in the EIR and current City development regulations (e.g., Sustainability Plan). With implementation of current development regulations and mitigation measures in the EIR, no revisions to the EIR are necessary and approval of this Addendum will fully comply with the CEQA requirements for this proposed action. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula Page 23 K. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Development Aqreement 1S`Operating Memorandum, October 21, 2004 1 S`Amendment, February 14, 2006 2�d Operating Memorandum, March 21, 2006 3�d Operating Memorandum,August 31, 2006 4`h Operating Memorandum, March 6, 2007 5`h Operating Memorandum, October 26, 2010 6`h Operating Memorandum, January 25, 2011 2nd Amendment, April 23, 2013 7`n Operating Memorandum,August 12, 2014 3rd Amendment, March 22, 2016 Environmental Impact Report Draft Environmental lmpact 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 23, 2013 (Resolution 13-04). Addendum No. 2, Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, City of Temecula.Approved by City Council on March 22, 2016 (Resolution 16-02) 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, January 11, 2005 (Resolution 05-08). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 2, February 28, 2006 (Resolution 06-02). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3, March 8, 2016 (Resolution No. 16-17). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 4, Draft July 28, 2017. Wine Countrv Communitv Plan Traffic Impact Study for the Wine Country Community Plan, Riverside County, CA. Fehr&Peers. November 2011. Arbor Vista Project Final Traffic Impact Analysis,Arbor Vista Cluster Residential, City of Temecula. February 5, 2014. Citv of Temecula Sustainability Plan, June 22, 2010. December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX A RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Revised RRSP Land Use Plan Revised Conceptual Lotting Plan (Valley Portion) Specific Plan Amendment No. 4 (Draft July 28, 2017) December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX B RORIPAUGH RANCH DRAFT EIR (April 1, 2002) December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX C RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL EIR AND MMRP December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX D RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 2 December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX E RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR ADDENDUM NO. 1 December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX F WINE COUNTRY EIR AND ORIGINAL RORIPAUGH EIR TRAFFIC STUDY EXCERPTS December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX G ARBOR VISTA TRAFFIC STUDY December 4, 2017 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR Addendum No. 3 City of Temecula APPENDIX H CITY OF TEMECULA SUSTAINABILITY PLAN December 4, 2017