Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92_037 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 92-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY QF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF Planning Application No. 92L0013 (Dev_~opment Agreement) SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 3, THE FIRST EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182, AMFANDMENT NO. 3, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24184, AMENDMENT NO. 3, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24185, AMENDMENT NO. 3, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24186, AMENDMENT NO. 5, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24187, AMENDMENT NO. 3, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188, AMI~NDMENT NO. 3 (EAST SIDE MAPS), AND CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM TO EIR NO. 235; TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD, TO COLLECT DEVELOPMENT FEES, RECEIVE CREDIT FOR QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS BY DEVELOPING AND DEDICATING PUBLIC PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, AND THE TIMING OF IMPROVEMENTS; AN AMENDMENT TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 TO ADD AN EIGHT ACRE PARK TO PLANNING AREA 6, TO MAKE THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE EAST SIDE MAPS AND TO MAKE ALL THE SECTIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER; TO CREATE 443 SINGLE FAMILy RESIDENTIAL, 21 OPEN SPACE AND 4 MULTIFAMILy LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182, AMENDMENT NO. 3), 198 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 12 OPEN SPACE LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24814, AMENDMENT NO. 3), 351 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 18 OPEN SPACE LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24185, AlVlENDMENT NO. 3), 445 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 14 OPEN SPACE AND ! ELEMI~NTARY SCHOOL LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24186, AMENDMENT NO 5), 363 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 10 OPEN SPACE LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24187, AMENDMENT NO. 3), 351 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 26 OPEN SPACE, 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LOTS (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188, AMENDMENT NO. 3) AND TO CERTIFY AN ADDENDUM TO EIR NO. 235 DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE EAST SIDE MAPS. WHEREAS, The Bedford Development Corporation filed Planning Application No. 92- 0013 (Development Agreement) Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3, The First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182, Amendment No. 3, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184, Amendment No. 3, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24185, Amendment No. 3, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186, Amendment No. 5, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24187, Amendment No. 3, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 3 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; S\STAFFRP~24182ALL.PC 1 2 WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the tune and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHr~REAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on November 16, 1992, at which tune interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said applications; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following f'mdings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: general plan. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the 2. The planning agency f'mds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal be'rog considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no probab'flity of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ulthnately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. S\STAFFRPT~24182ALL. PC 1 3 C. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said applications makes the following findings, to wit: Planning Application No. 92-0013 (Development Agreement) 1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. 2. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General Plan proposal presently being considered, since the project will be compatible with surrounding uses and will carry out the policies intended for the General Plan. 3. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, since this project will not have a negative impact on the surrounding uses. 4. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 5. The environmental impacts of the agreement have been reviewed and all measures deemed feasible to mitigate adverse impacts thereof have been incorporated into the City approvals for the project. These impacts have been found not to be different from those impacts identified in F_IR No. 235. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 1. There is a reasonable probability that Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the subject request is consistent with the SWAP Designation of Specific Plan and is in substantial conformance with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2. 2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that approval of such an amendment will ensure orderly development of the area and the significant environmental impacts have been mitigated. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses of schools and single family residential since it is separated by wide streets with substantial landscaping to reduce the visual impacts and other impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2. 5. The project will have a positive impact on the surrounding land uses since it is introducing an additional new park to the area. 6. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are very minor and do not change the total number of units or the overall intensity of the development. East Side Maps (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182, A~nendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184, Amendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24185, Amendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186, Amendment No. 5; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24187, Amendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 3) 1. There is a reasonable probability that the East Side Maps will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as conditioned, conforms with existing applicable city zoning ordinances and development standards. Furthermore, the proposed density of the project is consistent with the future General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Public Institutional. 2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan, since the surrounding land uses are single family dwellings, schools and vacant land. 3. The proposed use or action as conditioned complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). 4. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of its action upon the housing needs of the region and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Gov. Cod Section 66412.3) and finds that the project density is consistent with SWAP and the future General Plan. Additionally, it will provide more diversity in the housing type available to the residents of the City of Temecula. 5. The proposed project will not result in discharge of waste into the existing sewer system that is in violation of the requirements as set out in Section 13,000 et seq. of the California Water Code since the project has been conditioned to comply with Eastern Municipal Water District's requirements. 6. The design of the subdivisions provide to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision (Gov. Code Section 66473.1) by limiting the height of the future structures to 40 feet and requiring setbacks according to the R-1 standards. as conditioned. The project has acceptable access by means of dedicated right-of-way and S\STAFFRPT\24182ALL,PC 1 5 8. The project is consistent with the intent of the original project approved by the County of Riverside. 9. The maps are consistent with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3. 10. Said Findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. D. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the East Side Maps are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Addendum to Environmental lsnpact Report No. 235 The Addendum was prepared since the proposed project does not change any of the impacts ident'died in ~ No. 235. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An addendum has been prepared for this project which ident'rfied no addit'lonai impacts as a result of the changes in the project. Therefore, staff has recommended Certification of the Addendum to EIR No. 235. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Agreement 92-0013, Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 3, First Extensions of Time for the East Side Maps (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24182, Amendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184, Amendment No. 3; Vest'mg Tentative Tract Map No. 24185, Amendment No. 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186, Amendment No. 5; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24187, Amendment No. 3 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24188, Amendment No. 3 located to the south of Pauba Road, north of State Highway 79, west of Butterf'leld Stage Road and east of Margarita Road subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. S\STAFFRPT~24182ALL.PC 1 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of November 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: I~ITH A 2-2 VOTE ON DENSITY IN PA 6 NOES: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: BLAIR, FORD, HOAGLAND, FAHE¥.v ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIO/~II~_~~ GAqO( THORNHILL SECRETARY S\STAFFRPT~24182ALL.~C 1 7