HomeMy WebLinkAbout96_036 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 96-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0106 (ZONING
AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219) AMENDING
PLANNING AREAS 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 27, 28, 29, 36 AND 37 OF
PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN
ORDINANCE AND ADDING PLANNING AREAS 38 AND 39
TO THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND
SPECIFIC PLAN ORDINANCE, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST
OF MARGARITA ROAD, SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND
WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 950.020.001 THROUGH
950-020-004, 950-020-009 THROUGH 950-020-025, 950-020-
027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 THROUGH 955-030-004 AND
955-030-006 THROUGH 955-030-011
WHEREAS, Newland Associates fried Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning
Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WIIE~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0106
(Zoning Amendment, Specific PlanNo. 219) on November 18, 1996, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either
in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
R:\STAFFRPT~106PA96.1~21 12/2/96 lab
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning
Apph'cation No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan No. 219), makes the following
findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan
No. 219) is consistent with the City's General Plan, due to the fact that the subject request is in
substantial conformance with the proposed General Plan I_and Use Plan amendment and the
Village Center Overlay amendment.
3. Specific Plan No. 219 for development of Paloma del Sol was incorporated
into Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
KRDC, Inc. And Meas Homes ("Development Agreement"), the predecessor-in-interest to
Newland Assoc'kates, Applicant for Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 5. The Development
Agreement was approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula and recorded on February
18, 1993 ("Effective Date") in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
The applicant and the City have agreed to include certain standards in the
Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 pertaining to the Village Center Design Guidelines and roadway
cross-sections which are now requirements of the City's current General Plan but were not
included as part of the General Plan in effect when the Development Agreement was recorded.
These agreed upon standards are:
A. The Applicant has added Design Guidelines in Section IV of Spec'rile
Plan 219 entitled 7). Village Center Design Guidelines".
B. The Applicant has amended the '~Arterial Highway' and "Major
Road"cross-sections on Figures 5A and 5B of Specific Plan 219 to conform to the City's General
Plan ~Arterial Highway ~ and 'Major Road'' cross-sections. The City further finds that the
applicant's acceptance of the City's General Plan "Axterial Highway" and "Major Highway" cross-
sections is based on certain understandings and arrangements reached with the City whereby any
costs of implementation will be reimbursed to the Applicant.
C. The Applicant has amended the 7-1ighway 79" cross-section on
Figure 5B of Specific Plan 219 to increase paved area and to reduce the parkway area in
accordance with current State of California criteria.
4. The City Council finds and determines that the changes to the existing
development approvals for Paloma del Sol proposed in Specific Plan 219, Amendment No. 5, are
deemed to be "minor" as defined in Section 14.3 of the Development Agreement and do not
require an amendment to the Development Agreement. The City finds and determines that by
R:\STAFFRPT~ 106PA96 .PC1 12/2/96
accepting the City's new General Plan standards of development as set forth in this Section, the
Applicant has not waived any of its vested development rights under the Development Agreement.
5. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project consists
of the modification to an existing Specific Plan, with an overall reduction in density. Ultimate
development of the site will be consistent and compatible with the existing land use in the area.
6. The proposal 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, due to the
fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219.
7. The changes proposed in the approved Specific Plan are minor and do not
increase the impacts associated with the development or the overall intensity of the development
as analyzed in Environmental Impact Report 235. The mitigation measures prepared for this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be applied to this project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula General plan EIR was
certified on November 9, 1993. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 was prepared for Specific
Plan No. 219 and was certified by the County Board of Supervisors. It has been eight (8) years
since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. In addition, an Addendum to that
EIR was prepared in 1992 for Amendment No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Based upon
this information, it is Staff's opinion that due to the scope (a decrease in the overall density of the
project) of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment, there will be no effect
on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the
project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the
project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to
circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in
the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and
complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further
environmental analysis is required. The Commission hereby determines that the project is
consistent with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific
Plan No. 219) on property generally located north of SR79 South, east of Meadows Parkway
(north) and Margarita Road (south), south of Pauba Road and west of Butterfield Stage Road and
known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 950-020-001 through 950-020-004, 950-020-009 through
950-020-025, 950-020-027, 950-020-029, 955-030-002 through 955-030-004 and 955-030-006
through 955-030-011, subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
R:\STAFFRlYI~106PA96.PC1 12~2/96 Idb
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1996.
Li~da Fahey, C~airm~n
./
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 18th day of
November, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
NOF__3: 0
ABSENT: 0
5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: FAHEY, MILLER, SLAVEN,
SOLTYSIAK, WEBSTER
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE