HomeMy WebLinkAbout92_036 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 92-36
A RF~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI,qSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PUBLIC USE
pERMIT NO. 5 PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A
WORSHIP CENTER AND A SUNDAY SCHOOL LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD
AND SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 922-140-010
WHEREAS, the New Community Lutheran Church filed Public Use Permit No. 5 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit apblication was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Public Use Permit on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the
Public Use Permit;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after having considered
all information presented, the Planning Commission denied said Public Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findim,s. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly inc6rporated 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:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
2. The planning agency f'mds, 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 tittle 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. Pursuant to Section 18.29(d), no public use permit may be granted unless the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
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.
D. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Public Use Permit makes the
following f'mdings, to wit:
1. Under the circumstances of this particular case, the proposed project will
be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community because:
a. The proposed project is not the proper use for the area because it
will negatively impact traffic in the area.
b. The proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding single
family dwellings because the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the visual and noise
impacts of the development.
S\$TAFFRPT\5PUP,PC 1 0
c. The proposed project will result in negative impacts due to the
number of churches/public uses in the immediate area.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with SWAP since the underlying
zone that is consistent with SWAP does not allow churches with a Public Use Permit if they are
detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
3. The proposed project does not conform to the logical development of its
proposed site, and is not compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding
property.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Not Applicable.
Section 3. Conditions. Not Applicable.
Section4. PASSED, APPROVED AND~ADO.~D this~ ~th ~ofOctober, 1992.
/ IJNDA L. FAI-I~Y
CHAIRMAN/
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 19th day of
October, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
CHINIAEFF, HOAGLAND,
BLAIR, FORD
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
S\STAFFRPT\SPUP. PC 1 1