HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-81 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A
SECOND ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226, FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 265
LOTS ON 92.78 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(2-4 UNITS DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE NORTH ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, EAST OF
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0225-071-37,48 AND
50 AND 0225-081-08 AND 11.
A. Recitals.
1. BCA Development filed an application for a second time extension of previously
approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter
in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 24, 2002,this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 02-77,thereby approving
the application subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On July 13, 2005,this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 05-55,thereby approving
the application for a one-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits.
4. On August 23, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application for a second one-year time extension and
concluded said hearing on that date.
5. 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 August 23, 2006, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows.
a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 is in substantial
compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and
policies; and
b. Approval of the time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 will not cause
significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes,
and policies; and
C. Approval of time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226 is not likely to
cause public health and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-81
SUBTT16226 - BCA DEVELOPMENT
August 23, 2006
Page 2
d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance.
3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all
written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning
Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and
approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental
Impact Report(EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915)was prepared and certified by the County
of San Bernardino as a Master EIR for the University/Crest Planned Development in June 1991 and
in October 1999 the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified a supplement to the
EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) because of a revision to the University/Crest Planned
Development. In August 2001,the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address
issues associated with adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The Addendum
identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the previous
EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative
Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project
unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe
impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under
which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts;
or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than
previously considered; or(iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or
different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the second time extension
request, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have
not occurred, which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the
previously certified EIR. The site has been graded and portions of the site are under construction
consistent with the previously approved plans. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or
more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects
than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to
reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. No changes have been made to
the project and there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR.
C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission
concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to
CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the second time extension request for
SUBTT16226.
d. Pursuant to the requirements of California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5,the Planning Commission finds, based
on the Initial Study, the EIR, and considering the record as a whole,that there is no evidence before
the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based on substantial evidence, the Planning
Commission hereby makes a declaration rebutting the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
California Department of Fish and Game Regulation 753.5 (Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations Code, Section 753.5.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-81
SUBTT16226 - BCA DEVELOPMENT
August 23, 2006
Page 3
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2,and 3 above,this
Commission hereby grants a time extension for:
Tentative Map Applicant Expiration
SUBTT16226 BCA Development July 24, 2007
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above,
this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No.02-77 and
the Standard Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as
follows:
Planning Department
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 the 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 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: a V.,
Pam t art, Chairman
, p
ATTEST: R
�"^t� •
Troyer, AICP, Secretary
I,James R.Troyer,AICP, 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 23rd day of August 2006, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS