Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95_009 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 95-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF: THE ANNEXATION REQUEST BY JOHNSON RANCH (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0183) PROPOSING ANNEXATION OF 1,761 ACRES WITHIN THE SPltFRE OF INFLUENCE OF CITY OF TEMECULA; ** THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ~L~MFNTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0185) TO IMPLEMENT THE JOHNSON RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; THE CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-R) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93- 0181); THE JOHNSON RANCH SPECIleIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA93-0184) PROPOSING ZONING, LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 4,969 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, 442 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 35 ACRES OF VILLAGE CENTER INCLUDING 281 MULTI FAMILY UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE USES ON 20 ACRES, 68 ACRES OF PARKS AND 50 ACRES OF SCHOOL FACILITIES; PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-210-047, 914-210-051, 914-240-001, 914-240-003, 914-240- 004 AND 914-320-003. WHEREAS, Johnson Machinery Co. filed the Johnson Ranch Annexation, General ?lan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Specific ?lan in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; W'I~REAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; R:~TAFFRlrI~OHNSONI.RES 6~26~96 klb WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on April 17, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WltEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said applications; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending denial of said application makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 2. The project density is not consistent with the surrounding areas. 3. The mitigation measures of the project do not adequately mitigate the impacts of the project. 4. The benefits of the project does not outweigh the project's unmitigated significant environmental impacts. Section 2. l~nvironmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project. An Environmental Impact Report (PA93-0180) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the following: Noise, Air Quality, Wildlife and Vegetation, Land Use and Population and Housing. The Planning Commission does not agree with the findings of the Statements of Overriding Considerations prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the DEIR, an Addendum EIR was prepared for the project. This Addendum analyzed the "revised project" impacts and introduced new mitigation measures as a result of the revision in the project Land Use Plan and in response to public comments during the 45 day public review period. Therefore, Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the Draft EIR, the Addendum, the Technical Appendices, the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations. R:~STAFFRPT~OHN~ONI.RES 6/26/96 Idb Section 3. ~ That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of the Johnson Ranch Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, and Specific Plan (Planning Application No. PA93- 0184, PA93-0181, PA93-0183, and PA93-0185) located on the northeast comer of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPT.~. L7th day of April, 1995. 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 17th day of April, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 3 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: FAHEY, SLAVEN, FORD WEBSTER BLAIR SECRETARY R:\STAFFRFI~OHISISON1 .R~ 6/26/96 lab