The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-03 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING APPROVALOF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00270,A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS FOR 9.68 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWANDA,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF- APN: 1100-161-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for Development District Amendment DRC2004-00270, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 06-02 recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00269 be approved. 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 11, 2006 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 9.68 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda Avenue, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Community Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential and is developed with apartment units. The property to the west is designated General Commercial and is under developed with a few single-family residences and a small business. The property to the east is designated Office and is vacant. The property to the south is designated general Commercial (currently vacant) and Low Density Residential (developed with single-family residences); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-03 DRC2004-00270— LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January11, 2006 Page 2 C. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with the existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and C. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d)of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-03 DRC2004-00270 — LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January 11, 2006 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment DRC2004-00270 subject to the following condition: 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2006. PLANNING O MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pa tewart, Chairman ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11 th day of January 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, McNIEL DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2004-00270, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS FOR 9.68 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD EAST OF ETIWANDA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-04. A. Recitals. 1. On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development District Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 06-02, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Amendment. 2. On 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development District Amendment 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 9.68 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Etiwanda + Avenue, and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Community Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium Residential and is developed with apartment units. The property to the west is designated General Commercial and is under developed with a few single-family residences and a small business. The property to the east is designated Office and is vacant. The property to the south is designated general Commercial (currently vacant) and Low density Residential (developed with single-family residences); and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2004-00270— LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January 11, 2006 Page 2 C. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. The proposed Development District Amendment is within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and f. This amendment will not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and will not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Development District Amendment is hereby amended to change the Development District Map, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, this Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard'to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed below as conditions of approval. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In-considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2004-00270— LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January 11, 2006 Page 2 SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 1: yr1r •1r1J1f .1.1.1.1• r•r•r•r•r 1.1.1.1.1• r•r•f•r•r•r 1.1.1.1.1.1• r•r•r•f•r•r•r r~J1Jtir~r~J1r1r r.r:lyJ:l:1yJ:J1f .1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. •r•r•f.r•r.r•r.r•r .1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 1:1:tiftifyftilti:t:y:1: •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1•L•1.1.1.. .1• 1.1.1.1. .1. . .L. . .1.1.1 •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r.r.r•r.r.r .. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . t•1.1• .1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1. ...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.. .1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. . tr•r•r r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r •1.1• 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 1r•r•r }•r• . . r•r•r•r•r• ' r•r.r•r.r•r.r.r.r.r•r.r.r• r .1.1• 1.1.1.1.1• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• r•r•r r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• i.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r. 1.1.1• 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1. S• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. . r•r•r i•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r.r.r r r r r r r %' r 1.1.1• 1.1.1• 1.1.1.1.1• 5• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1 1• f•r•r r•r•r•r• f•r•r•J•f• }. r•r.r•r.r.r•r.r.r. i.r m 1'1'1' 1'1'1' 1'1'1'1'1' 1• .tifti•1.1.1.1.1.1.1 L• 5• r•r•r i•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• }. r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r r t•1.1• 1.1.1. 11.1.1.1.1. 5.1• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1. 5• l� r•r•r r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• l.r. r•r.r.r.r.r•f•r•f. r•r J Y t•1.1• 1.1.1. .1.1.1.1. 1.1 1.1.1.1.1•L•1.1.1 L 1• '^ }•r.r.r• r•r•r•r•r. r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r.r•r• r. •r. r Vr 1.1.1. 1.1.1.1.1. 1•L•L 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. L 1• r•r•i r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•r• r.f•r.r•r.r.r.r.r. r. •i. } L•1.1• 1.1.1. 1.1.1.1.1. 1•L•1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. L 1• r•r•r f•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r.r.r.r. f. •i. f 4f1f1f ftiftijl♦ tiftiftiflflj 1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• 1 1• ................... FOOTHILL 1.1• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. % r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r 1.1• 1•L•1•L•1.1.1•L•L•1•L• �� r1r1r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• f•r•J• r•r•r•l•r•r•r•r•r•r•r 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• > r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•f f1f1r1rtf~r1ryr1r~r"M,m 1r1f U co I IN FM>�� r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r 0 Subject Property PROPOSED ZONING 0 L LM 200 0 200 400 Feet M CC RRC 0 CO MOS . PROPOSED ZONING