Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-057 CC Resolution- RESOLUTION NO. 91-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 54 MULTIPLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 in accordance with the Riverside County I.and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; W-}IEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Tract Map on June 11, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WItlgRF_AS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council denied said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council 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 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 generalplan. (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 with a reasonable time. (b) There is not a probability of substantial detriment to or Reso 91-57 -1- interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. 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 Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Tentative Tract Map (hereafter the "Property") is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to wit: (1) The City Council finds, in denying the application that: (a) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is a 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. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, any subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: general and specific plans. (a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. © That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. (e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of R¢~o 91-57 -2- improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will 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 for use will be provided and that they will be substanti~ly equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. The subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Council in denying the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings: (a) The proposed tract map not will have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. environmental impacts. impacts. (A) The tract map has been reviewed for possible The project has been conditioned to mitigate possible environmental 2. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project does not provide a transition density from the multiple family projects to the west to the single family to the east. 3. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan in that the project would set a precedence regarding transition densities. 4. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. 5. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. (A) The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 20 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The amount of grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. 6. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 91-57 -3- (A) An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. 7. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. (A) Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential. 8. All lots have acceptable ace. ess to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The proposed internal public streets connect to Margarita Road, a dedicated and maintained public road. 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. (A) The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and City codes for subdivision development. 10. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project does not provide adequate recreational facilities for the proposed density, the grading is inappropriate, adequate buffering is not provided for the single family residential projects to the east, and increased traffic and public service demand will have a cumulative negative impact on the area. 11. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 12. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 for the subdivision of a 20.8 acre parcel into 54 multiple family lots located on the south side of Margarita Road 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road based on the above findings. Re~o 91-57 DENIFaD AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATrEST: Greek, City Clerk (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 1 lth day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall $ '.'6reek, City Reso 91-57 -5-