Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-04 CC OrdinanceORDINANCE NO. 13 -04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC" AND MAKE FINDINGS RELATED THERETO A. Intent of the Parties. 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula, at its meeting of December 17, 2002 approved the Ordinance and related Development Agreement entitled "Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC" ( "Development Agreement. ") The parties to the Agreement are the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC. This document addressed the comprehensive development of the real property described within it and established the opportunity for necessary amendments and extensions. Subsequently, the parties adopted the "First Amendment to Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC (Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan) on February 14, 2006. 2. The parties acknowledge that certain of the improvements contemplated in the Development Agreement have been commenced but are not complete and others have yet to be commenced. The Development Agreement is to lapse and terminate, by its own terms, prior to the completion of the desirable and beneficial improvements being completed. To allow the improvements to be completed the parties, including successors in interest, to the subject Development Agreement desire to extend the term of the Agreement. The parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement fifteen (15) years, for a total term of twenty -five (25) years. This additional term will allow for the completion of the improvements specified in the Specific Plan and all related land use entitlements. 3. All necessary and legally required prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance No. 13 -04 have occurred as required by law. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does ordain as follows: Section 1. In all respects as set forth in Part A, Intent of the Parties, which Part A is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. That certain Agreement entitled "Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC," as amended and interpreted, is hereby further amended by the Second Amendment to said Agreement, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto and which is hereby incorporated by reference. Ords 13 -04 Section 3. The City has reviewed the time extension of the Development Agreement, and the environmental impacts addressed in the Development Agreement's Initial Environmental Impact Report, all pursuant to and as required by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended and determined, pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that an addendum to the Initial Environmental Impact Report is the proper further environmental analysis required by CEQA. The City Council, based upon the substantial written and oral testimony set forth in the staff report, the Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit B and oral testimony from City staff and third parties, concludes that the Addendum attached as Exhibit B is the lawful and appropriate level of review under CEQA because: i. No substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions in the previous EIR and further, the time extension merely allows necessary improvements which serve as mitigation measures to be completed as planned; ii. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will result in or require major revisions to the previous EIR; iii. No new information of substantial importance has been identified subsequent to the certification of the previous EIR; iv. The Planning Commission and City Council have evaluated and considered the Addendum with the Final EIR and have done so prior to making a decision on the project and the Addendum has been attached to the Final EIR in the project's permanent file, which is publically available. V. The City Council has determined that the record, consisting of both written and oral testimony provides substantial evidence supporting the use of an addendum, pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the project consisting of the time extension of the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC as amended. Section 4. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and /or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. Ords 13 -04 2 1 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 23rd day of April, 2013. ATTEST: [SEAL] Ords 13 -04 Michalo. Naggar, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 13 -04 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 9t" day of April, 2013, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Roberts, Naggar NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Washington ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Ords 13 -04 4 Susan .Jones, MMC City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street. Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 -9033 Attn: City Clerk Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Code Section 27383 (Space above for recorder's use) SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC ( RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLANT This Second Amendment to Development Agreement is made and entered into as of , 2013, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ("City"), RORIPAUGH INVESTORS, III, LLC, RORIPAUGH VALLEY RESTORATION LLC, BHT - RORIPAUGH WB99, L.L.C., SUNWOOD RORIPAUGH RANCH LLC, WINGSWEEP CORPORATION, HRA RORIPAUGH 1, LLC, and HRA RORIPAUGH 2, LLC, (collectively "OWNER') pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article Xl, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Pursuant to said authority and in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Second Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Second Amendment is made with respect to the following purposes and facts which the parties agree to be true and correct: a. The Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC (also known as the "Preannexation and Development Agreement') was initially approved by Ordinance of the City Council on December 17, 2002 and recorded on January 9, 2003 as Document No. 2003 - 018567 in the Official Records of the County of Riverside ('Development Agreement "). The Development Agreement has been previously amended pursuant to the First Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the City of Temecula and Ashby USA, LLC, dated February 14, 2006. b. The real property which is subject to the Development Agreement ' and this Second Amendment is generally known as the Roripaugh Ranch Project and is II086- 0097 \1536593vI doc n i specifically described in Exhibit A to this Second Amendment and incorporated herein as though set forth in full ( "Property'). C. Portions of the Property have been sold to merchant builders who have taken their properties subject to the rights and obligations of the Development Agreement. The merchant builders were or are: DAVIDSON RORIPAUGH RANCH 122, LLC, a California limited liability company; TANAMERA/RORIPAUGH, LLC, a California limited liability company, TANAMERA/RORIPAUGH ll, LLC, a California limited liability company, and TRADITIONS AT RORIPAUGH, LLC, a California limited liability company ( "Merchant Builders "). OWNER warrants and represents to the City that all persons who have an ownership interest or other interest in the Property have executed it as a parry or have signed the Consent and Subordination attached hereto and, further, no other persons are required to approve this Second Amendment. d. It is the intent of the parties in entering into this Second Amendment to the Development Agreement that the Development Agreement, as amended and interpreted, not lapse on the date defined in the Agreement but instead be extended for a fifteen (15) year term so that the Owner and its agents can complete the required public improvements and construct a beneficial addition to the City of Temecula, pursuant to the entitlements incorporated into the Development Agreement. In furtherance of this intent: (i) The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on March 20, 2013 and by Resolution No. 13 -06 recommended to the City Council that this Second Amendment be approved. Temecula proposed follows: (ii) On _ held a duly noticed public Second Amendment. and adopted on hearing o Ordinance _, the City Council of the City of n the proposed Addendum and the No. introduced on approved this Second Amendment. Section 2.3 of the Development Agreement shall be amended to read as "2.3 Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall continue for a twenty-five (25) year term from the Commencement Date unless terminated pursuant to this Agreement. The parties agree that the date of November 25, 2028 shall be the date upon which this Agreement terminates, unless extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Unless terminated pursuant to Section 2.4, or extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. on the twenty-fifth (251h) anniversary after the Commencement Date. The final day of this Agreement's regulation of the Property shall change subject to and upon the facts and terms relating to a specific extension(s), force majeure, revision(s), and termination provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction takes any action that stay or delays the Effective Date, and subsequently enters after all appeals or time to appeal have been exhausted, a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of 11086- 0097 \1536593vLdoc the City Council of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be deemed to have no force or effect upon either party. 3. Except as specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. 4. This Second Amendment contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, concerning the subject matter hereof. 5. This Second Amendment shall not be effective and shall not be recorded until such time as each owner of the Property has duly executed this Second Amendment to Development Agreement and all persons with an interest in the Property, or holding a deed of trust in the Property or a portion of the Property, have duly executed the Consent and Subordination attached hereto. [SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW] 1 1086-0097\1 53 6593 vl.doc ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Covenant as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation Michael S. Naggar Mayor Attest: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Approved As to Form: ' Peter M. Thorson City Attorney i m 11086 -0097\ 153659M.doc 4 ' RORIPAUGH INVESTORS III, LLC A Delaware limited liability company Bv: James H. Hunter Its: Manager By: Its: Donald R. Faye Authorized Signer RORIPAUGH VALLEY RESTORATION LLC A Delaware limited liability company By: Ken Kraemer Its: Operating Manager BHT - RORIPAUGH WB99, L.L.C. A Delaware limited liability company By: BHT Investors, L.L.C., A Delaware limited liability company, Sole Member HT Investment Partners, L.L.C., A Delaware limited liability company, Managing Member By: Highridge BHT, L.L.C., A Delaware limited liability company, Managing Member By: Highridge Asset Management, L.L.C. A Delaware limited liability company, Manager By: Highridge Management, Inc. A California corporation, Managing Member By: Name: Title: 1 1086-0097\1 5365 93 vl.doc 5 ' SUNWOOD RORIPAUGH RANCH LLC, A Delaware limited liability company By: SUNWOOD AND ASSOCIATES LLC, A Delaware limited company, its Manager By: Name: Its: Executive Vice President By: Name: Its: Executive Vice President WINGSWEEP CORPORATION, A California corporation By: HUNTER RA, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, its Manager :2 James H. Hunter, Manager 1 1086-0097\1 536593vI.doc 6 By: Name: Title: HRA RORIPAUGH 1, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company By: HRA RORIPAUGH HOLDING COMPANY 1 LLC, A Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: HRA RORIPAUGH MANAGEMENT, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: Name: Its: Member By Name: Its: Member By: HUNTER RA, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, its Manager :2 James H. Hunter, Manager 1 1086-0097\1 536593vI.doc 6 ' HRA RORIPAUGH 2, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company iJ F�ji By: HRA RORIPAUGH HOLDING COMPANY 1 LLC, A Delaware limited liability company, its Manager By: HRA RORIPAUGH MANAGEMENT, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company, its Manager am Name: Its: Member Name: Its: Member By: HUNTER RA, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, its Manager 11086- 0097 \1536593vl.doc By: James H. Hunter, Manager Eli LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1. ('Lender) holds a security interest in a portion of the Property described in the Second Amendment to Development Agreement set forth above between Ashby USA, LLC, a California limited liability company ('Owner'), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation ('City'). 2. Lender acknowledges that the Development Agreement and the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement are integral parts of the Owner's land use entitlements for the Property and provide significant benefits to the Owner and to the Property as well as vesting Owner's land use entitlements pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. 3. In consideration of the rights and benefits conferred upon the Owner by the terms of the Development Agreement and the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement and in recognition of the accrual of those benefits to the Lender in the event Lender takes possession of the Property, Lender hereby consents to the Development Agreement and the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement and their recordation and further agrees that Lender's interests in the Property are subject to, and made subordinate to, the rights and interests of the City as set forth in the Development Agreement and the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement, 4. The City agrees to provide notice of any default to Lender pursuant to Section 10 of the Development Agreement at the following address: IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Lender has executed this Consent and Subordination as of 2013. 11086- 0097 \1536593v1.doc Lender: Name: Title: Name: Title: ADDENDUM TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA (SCHS 97121030) Prepared by: Kent Norton, AICP LSA Associates, Inc. 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California 92507 L S A March 5, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES A. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN B. SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR C. SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR AND MMRP L i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................... : ....................................................................... 1 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1 B. ADDENDUM DOCUMENTATION ..................................................... ..............................1 C. PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................... ..............................2 D. APPROVED PROJECT ..................................................................... ..............................2 E. PREVIOUS OR RELATED ACTIVITY ..................................:............ ...................:..........5 F. PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................:........ ..............................5 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................... ............................... .........6 H. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... ..............................8 I. REFERENCES AND SOURCES ....................................................... ..............................9 APPENDICES A. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN B. SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR C. SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR AND MMRP L i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 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. Section 6 of the Sixth Operating Memorandum further clarified that the Development Agreement continues through November 25, 2013. The City has decided to prepare an Addendum to that EIR for a proposed 15 -year extension to the Development Agreement from 2013 to 2028. This action will not create or result in any new or different environmental impacts identified in the EIR, and is needed to continue implementation of the Specific Plan, Community Facilities District, and planned improvements for the Roripaugh project. The site has already been rough graded and a number of permanent improvements have already been installed, including roads, retaining walls, and a recreation center in the Panhandle area. Extension of the development agreement will allow for completion of necessary infrastructure improvements associated with the Roripaugh project. 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 current DA was authorized for a 10- year period which is set to expire November 25, 2013. The City desires to extend the life of the DA to assure that the identified improvements are constructed in an efficient and equitable fashion by local developers as development occurs after 2013. 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: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; 2. 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 3. 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 a 15 -year time extension of 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 (2003) 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 December 17, 2002 and most recently amended on February 14, 2006. However, there have been a number of "operating memoranda" for implementation of the DA by several speck builders, the last one being approved on January 25, 2011 (6t' 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 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 2"d 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 on December 17, 2002. 1 ..J L7 12- 9 -97: 6= 32PM:cicy 04 Temecula :9096946477 a la/ 17 1 I� VICINITY MAP RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN = EIR City of Temecula Figure 2 i i i i i ■ v 1 FIGURE 2 -1 Ii i ITK IC 13 os1 , ,neAC i I ! r,iu s.17dY + 32 Nolen A 15' wide muIt-%v !ra,I is localed in Pla^nmg Areas 19. 20 and 21 adla -M tone P+ooeny bound- ' Plannnlg Areas 15 20,71 33A and 33B vnll nave : acre mm,mum loz adjacent 10 the orooeny eounCary and 12 acre minimum bis adjacent to the 1 acre 10114 C6 ,: C`. co ; Q.. O 2 12 LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS O LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 1076 1 1 17 LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LA, . 194 B 4 A 939 Q MED DENSITY RES IStandaM) Ml 21 5 5 7 122 O MED. DENSITY RES (Clustered Courtvardl M2 BB o 9 a 937 i ® NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 154 ® NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 51 ® SPORTS PARK Sr 19 7 i E9 PRIVATE MINI PARK Q PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER MP RC 3 92 ® EDUCATIONAL(Scnools l 51,52 320 ® PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (Fm Sabon) PI 20 , HABITAT OS1 202 7 ® FLOOD CONTROL OS2 39'. i nu I� LANDSCAPE SLOPES (Malactun c Sloped 053 212 PUBLIC STREETS 354 PRIVATE STREETS 98 iGRAND TOTAL 304 7 2,5 2.015 ( i LE — G'N1C -htl B-rdary I " " PeCeslnan Bnd9e Ii i ITK IC 13 os1 , ,neAC i I ! r,iu s.17dY + 32 Nolen A 15' wide muIt-%v !ra,I is localed in Pla^nmg Areas 19. 20 and 21 adla -M tone P+ooeny bound- ' Plannnlg Areas 15 20,71 33A and 33B vnll nave : acre mm,mum loz adjacent 10 the orooeny eounCary and 12 acre minimum bis adjacent to the 1 acre 10114 C6 ,: C`. co ; Q.. O 2 12 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 March 25, 2003. 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 of 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 January 2013, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors was still reviewing its 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 with its EIR that accounts for delayed development within the Roripaugh Ranch project. At this point, the DA is scheduled to expire November 25, 2013. 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. A7:Z67191 *1111I_T01 11 Is] The City and the developers involved in various portions of the Roripaugh Ranch project (e.g., Van Daele, Standard Pacific, KB Homes) have 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 current DA. The current DA is scheduled to expire in November 25 2013, and the new DA would run through 2028. No physical aspects of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project are proposed to change as a result of this action. It will 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 those specific fee items exempted by the DA, including the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Western Riverside County, and the County's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The RRSP EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts as a result of development of the proposed project (DEIR Sections 3.0 and 6.2): 1. Agriculture — loss of prime soils and locally important farmland (project and cumulative); 2. Traffic — two local intersections (Ynez Road at Winchester Road and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road) 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 (DEIR 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 extends the time needed to complete proposed infrastructure in support of new development. 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 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 (DEIR 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. 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 extension of the DA would extend the beginning and ultimate effect of those impacts into the future. This does not represent a substantial change from the impacts identified in the EIR. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors is still reviewing its Temecula Valley Wine Country Community Plan for the unincorporated land east of the Roripaugh Ranch property. This EIR (SCH# 2009121076) includes a cumulative traffic study with its EIR that accounts for delayed development within the Roripaugh Ranch project. Future development within the RRSP is consistent with the roadway network outlined in the County's TUMF program. New development under the RRSP would be required to implement current Conditions of Approval (COAs) similar to development elsewhere in the City, except for items included in the current DA. The extended DA would allow for the efficient implementation of the various road and intersection improvements identified in the DA for 15 years through 2028. Air Quality. The DEIR concluded that project -level and cumulative impacts would be significant (DEIR pages ES -6 and 3 -115). Impacts from air quality, both short-term from construction and long -term from occupancy of the project, have not occurred yet, except for rough grading the site. Extension of the DA would extend the beginning and ultimate impacts of air emissions from project construction and occupancy into the future. All of this work would occur beyond 2012, which means actual emissions would likely be equivalent or lower than estimated in the EIR due to improved fleet emission controls and upgraded fuel standards. This does not represent a substantial change from the impacts identified in the EIR. New development would be required to implement current air quality regulations and City Conditions of Approval (COAs) which would help reduce air pollutant emissions from dust control, etc. Noise. The DEIR concluded that the project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts (DEIR pages ES -8 and 3 -165). Long -term noise impacts have not occurred yet, but would be similar to those impacts identified in the EIR once the project is built out. Extension of the DA would 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. Aesthetics. The DEIR concluded that project -level impacts would be significant (DEIR pages ES- 11 and 3 -219). Most of the project impacts would occur as identified in the EIR, including views changing and additional skyglow as development occurs. Most of the site is not visible to the public from existing roadways or from existing residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area, other than along Calle Contento to the 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. No additional mitigation is required or needed as a result of the DA extension. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Noise. The DEIR concluded that project -level impacts would be less than significant with mitigation (DEIR pages ES -8 and 3 -165). Direct noise impacts both from construction and occupancy of the project have not occurred yet, but would be similar to those impacts identified in the EIR. Extension of the DA would 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, extending the DA 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 the DA extension action. 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 would allow 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. 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. No new mitigation is needed. 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. 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. There would be no significant effects related to geologic or soils constraints by extending the DA. 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 impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as identified in the EIR. Future uses would be subject to the same mitigation and the latest Conditions of Approval from the City regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There would be no significant effects related to these issues by extending the DA. 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). 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. Implementation of an extended DA would have no effect on either land use or planning impacts of the project other than allowing for more effective construction of planned improvements 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 Element, which was published September 2009 for the period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014, took into account the housing that would occur when the RRSP is built. There would be no significant effects on population and housing by extending the DA. 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 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. 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 an extension of the DA. H. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on available information and the analysis presented in Section G, extending the Development Agreement 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. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are necessary, and approval of this addendum will fully comply with the CEQA requirements for this proposed action. I. REFERENCES AND SOURCES Development Agreement 1 Operating Memorandum, October 21, 2004 1 Amendment, February 147 2006 2:1" Operating Memorandum, March 21. 2006 3`1 Operating Memorandum. AUgust 31, 2006 ,:V' Operating Merl1orandum, March 6, 2007 5 "' Operating Memorandum, October 26, 2010 6 "' Operating Memorandum. January 25. 2011 Environmental Impact Report 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. June 8, 2008. 2"d 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 Speck Plan, City of Temecula. The Keith Companies. September 26, 2002. Specific Plan Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Keith Companies. March 25, 2003. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 1, Matthew Fagan Consulting Services, December 2004. 10