Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-052 - ResolutionsRESOLUTION NOT APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 96-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69. A. Recitals. 1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 96-16, recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A be denied; and on April 17, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public headng on April 17, 1996, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard and east of Spruce Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Area Specific Plan, Industrial Park; and Resolution No. 96-052 Page 2 The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated Industrial Park and a portion is developed. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant; and This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A.