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