HomeMy WebLinkAbout91_005 PC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 91-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25607
TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 PARCELS AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ESTERO STREET AND ORMSBY
ROAD.
WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25607 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Pamel Map application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Pamel Map on January 7
and January 28, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied
said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes
the following findings:
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:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of
the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, 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 being considered or studied or which
will be studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is not a probability of substantial detriment to
or interference with the future adopted general plan if
the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan.
R:~kaul'xPC Resolution 91-005.doc
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.
C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP. However,
the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Tentative
Pamel Map (hereafter the "Property") is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to
wit:
(1) The Planning Commission finds, in denying the application that:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Tentative Parcel
Map No. 25607 proposed will not be consistent with
the general plan proposal which will be studied within
a reasonable time.
(b)
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan if
the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, any
subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made:
a)
That the proposed land division is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the proposed land
division is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is not
physically suitable for the type of development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of the
development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division or
proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially
and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division or the
type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
R:~kaul~°C Resolution 91-005.doc
2
g)
That the design of the proposed land division or the
type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through, or
use of, property within the proposed land division. A
land division may be approved if it is found that
alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent
to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or
to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in denying Tentative Parcel Map,
m, akes the following findings to wit:
a) There is a reasonable probability that this project
may be inconsistent with the General Plan being
prepared at this time. The project does not propose
the proper infrastructure for the proposed density
with use of subsurface sewage disposal and lack of
adequate paved access.
b)
The proposed use complies with State planning and
zoning law. The project conforms to the current
zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460,
Schedule G.
c)
The site is not suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of
the lot configurations, access, and density. The
project does not have appropriate off-site access and
does not provide sewer service.
d)
The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, due to the fact
that the site has been previously graded under
County approved grading permits.
e)
The design of the subdivision is consistent with the
State Map Act in regard to future passive energy
control opportunities. The lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
f)
All lots have access to existing and proposed
dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Estero Street,
although access through Ormsby and Santiago
Roads are not currently improved.
R:~kaul~PC Resolution 91-005.doc
3
g)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout are
such that they are not in conflict with easements for
access through or use of the property within the
proposed project as conditioned. The project will not
interfere with any easements.
h)
That said findings are supported by minutes, maps,
exhibits, and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference.
SECTION 2.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 1991
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 28th day of
January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Blair, Fahey, and Hoagland
Ford and Chairman Chiniaeff
None
R:Xkaul~C Resolution 91-005.doc
4