Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-33 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 92-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE 46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WltEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County l_and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 28, 1992, at which time interested persons have an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council heating, the Council approved said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372; 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 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 Rems 92-33 -1- requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general 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 Time Extension 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general 2. The Planning Commission rinds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this ritle, each of the following: a. There is reasonable probability that the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 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 Resos 92-33 -2- 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. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: 1. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. 5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not 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 judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction. E. The Council, in recommending approval of the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. There is a reasonable probability that this project 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 project is consistent with existing site development Resos 92-33 -3- standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. 2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. 3. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as 'allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. 5. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. 6. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. 7. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. 8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Meadows Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 9. 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 projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 92-33 10. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. F. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION Ill, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 2. g~nvironmental Com01iance. 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 mitgafion measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46.9 acres into a 66 lot condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions: Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988. City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated November 4, 1991. City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated Februaxy 25, 1992 deleting Condition No. 2. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEI~ this 28th day of April, 1992. ATTEST: reek, City Clerk [SEAL] Resos 92-33 -5- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 28th day of April 1992 by the following vote of the Council: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz Reso~ 92-33 -6-