HomeMy WebLinkAbout06_002 PC Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT
PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN"
OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO
STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH,
APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.
959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007
. THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-o462)
WHEREAS, Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (UHS), filed
Planning Application Nos. PA04-0462, General Plan Amendment; PA05-0302, Zone
Change to PDO-9 (Planned Development Overlay-9); PA04-0463 Conditional Use
Permit and Development Plan; and PA04-0571, Tentative Parcel Map in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which
applications are hereby incorporated by reference, for the property consisting of
approximately 35.31 acres generally located on the north side of Highway 79 South,
approximately 70 feet west of Margarita Road, known as Assessors Parcel No(s). 959-
080-001 through 959-080-004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010 ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project was processed including, but not limited to, public notice
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on April 6, 2005, at
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition
to this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on testimony presented by the
general public, determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required for
this Project; and .
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2005, a scoping session was held before the Planning
Commission to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the Environmental
Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality
R:\City Council Agenda Manager\2006\012406\Regionai Hospital OriginallHospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Raso GP.DOC
Act Guidelines and circulated for public review from September 28, 2005 through
October 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Project on November 16,
2005, and again on January 5, 2006 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did
testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 06-01
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Project and approve a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findin\Js. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of
the Application makes the following findings:
A. The amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial,
public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," "a City of diversified development character
where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban
development (Goal 2)," and "A City which is compatible and coordinated regional land
use patterns (Goal 8)." The Project provides a regional use that is needed in the
community and surrounding region. There is currently a lack of medical treatment
facilities in the community capable of providing adequate medical care for the general
population. The Project integrates public medical facilities necessary for the demand of
the current and future population. The Project is situated adjacent to residential uses
and a State highway. The Project has been designed to mitigate various potentially
significant impacts via an environmental assessment in which circulation, noise, light
and glare, biological and air quality has been reviewed the conditioned so the project
can co-exist with the surrounding rural residential area. The Project is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Professional Office (PO) designation, which allows low
and mid rise structures that provide uses such as community facilities. In addition, the
. Project is consistent with the development standards of the Development Code and
associated Planned Development Overlay (PDO-9), including setbacks, parking,
landscaping, lighting, lot coverage and height. The site is therefore properly planned
and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the proposed use. The
Project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
R:ICity Council Agenda Managerl2006\0124061Reglonal Hospital Origlnal\Hospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso GP.DOC
B. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the character of the
surrounding area. The amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The Project
allowed by the amendment is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and as designed and conditioned the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures
because there was an initial study prepared, which identified potentially significant
environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program was adopted that mitigates
potentially significant impacts such as traffic, air quality, noise, light and glare, and
biological to a less than significant level. For example, access points have been
designed to reduce the amount of traffic leaving the project site towards residential
areas by eliminating left turn options and focusing the primary access points along the
State highway. Additional landscaping and berming are included in the conditions of
approval to screen the height and reduce noise. The tallest buildings were relocated
closer to the State highway, away from the residential area to reduce the appearance of
the height; this will also reduce the noise from the emergency room area. Sound
blankets are required during initial grading and construction activities to mitigate
construction noise. There are conditions in place requiring helicopters arriving and
leaving the project site to utilize commercial and the State highway corridor rather,than
residential areas. Emergency vehicles are required to turn off sirens no less than 1A
mile from the project site. The project is a conditionally permitted use as has been
designed and conditioned (including mitigation measures) in manner that will reduce
any potentially significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The building and
the site are designed to respect the surrounding area and uses and therefore will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The nature of the Project allowed by the amendment is not detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Project is a 320-bed
hospital and a helipad. The nature of this use, as conditioned, is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community because the Project is providing a
service that is needed in the community and region and it has been designed to
minimize any adverse impacts, including health, safety and general welfare to the
surrounding community. The Project will actually contribute to the long term viability
and longevity of the community by providing additional medical care facilities. In
addition, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the California Office of Statewide
Health and Planning Development (OSHPOD) as well as the City of Temecula Building
Department and Fire Department will review the construction plans for compliance with
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
D. The heliport is consistent with the requirements described in subsection 2
and 3 of Section 17.10.020.P City of Temecula Development Code. The proposed
helipad facility is consistent with the requirements described in Section 17.10.020.P of
the City of Temecula Development Code, including setbacks from parks, school and
residentially zoned parcels. .
R:ICity Council Agenda Manager\2006\012406\Regional Hospital OriginallHospital Staff Report and ResosIPC Reso GP.DOC
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission for the City of
Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to remove the eight (8) subject parcels of the
Project from the Z2 Overlay designation and corresponding height restriction for the site
located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 700 feet west of
Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 959-080-001 through 959-080-
004 and 959-080-007 through 959-080-010, as shown on attached Exhibit "A".
. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January
2006.
)p~
DaVid Mathewson, Chairman
ATTEST:
7),IIn~ ~)L./
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 06-02 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of
January, 2006 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Mathewson,
Telesio
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
?lf21h.~- /t"~~
15ebbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IClty Council Agenda Manager\2006\012406\Reglonal Hospital Origlna~Hospital Staff Report and ResoslPC Reso GP.DOC