The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About91-082 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 91-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 29 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI- TENANT COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH AND SOUTH OF NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NUMBERS 911-150-027, 028, 029; 911-160-027, 029; 911-170-017; AND 919-350-053 WHEREAS, Wall Street Properties filed Plot Plan No. 29 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on June 17, 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 recommended approval of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on August 13, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. findings: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 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. Rcaoa 91-82 -1- (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 little or no 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. 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. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: general plan. (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 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 little or no 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. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: Resos 91-82 -2- a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 29 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with state law in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project is consistent with the existing Specific Plan land use designation for the site. c) The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws in that the proposed uses comply with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with state planning laws in that the Plot Plan complies with the standards of Ordinance 348 and conforms to the Specific Plan land use designation for the site. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patters, access, and intensity of use and compliance with the requirements of Ordinance 348 in that landscaping, circulation layout, site access, and parking are in conformance with applicable requirements. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare in that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures. f) The proposal, as designed and conditioned, 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 and will not result in adverse traffic or aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-or-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Reciprocal parking and access agreements are required. Rems 91-82 -3- h) The site is not subject to any significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated by the measures incorporated as Conditions of Approval. I) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. and environmental reference. j) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 29 for the operation and construction of Multi-Tenant Commercial Center located at the east side of Winchester Road north of Nicolas Road subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of August, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: [SEAL] Re~o~ 91-82 -4- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 91-82 was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of August, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Moore, Linderoans, Mufioz, Birdsall, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Resos 91-82 -5-