The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13-32 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 13-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00507, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEARS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00892,A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP 10 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 2.975 ACRES WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 6710 BERYL STREET, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BERYL STREET AND 19TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0202-461-62,63AND 65. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Jack Hall filed an application, DRC2013-00507, for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Development Review DRC2006-00892, 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 June 11, 2008, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 08-30,thereby approving Development Review DRC2006-00892 subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On July 24, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 24, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant does not propose any changes to the original project in conjunction with this time extension request; and b. The previously approved Development Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and C. The extension of the Development Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, or policies; and d. The extension of the Development Review approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-32 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00507—JACK HALL July 24, 2013 Page 2 e. There are two other time extensions associated with this project. An extension for Minor Exception DRC2008-00157 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00457. The new case numbers for these applications are DRC2013-00509 and DRC2013-00510 respectively; and f. The time 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")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in June 2008 in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2006-00892. 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 Time Extension 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 previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, 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. The applicant is requesting a time extension and is not proposing any changes to the project. 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 Time Extension DRC2013-00507 for Development Review DRC2006-00892. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,this Commission hereby extends the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2) years and modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 08-30 to read as follows: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval (Time Extension DRC2013-00507) for Development Review PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-32 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00507—JACK HALL July 24, 2013 Page 3 DRC2006-00892 and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in Standard Condition B.2 contained in Resolution No. 08-30 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2008. 2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The new expiration date for Development Review DRC2006-00892 is June 11, 2015. 3) Any requests for future time extensions shall be subject to the procedures, conditions, and findings asset forth in Section 17.14.090 of the Development Code. 4) All other conditions of approval, including all of the Standard/special conditions of approval of other City departments for Development Review DRC2006-00892 (Resolution 08-30) and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17769 (Resolution 08-29), shall apply. 5) Applicant shall complete all Special and Standard Conditions included in the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-01173, Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2006-00226 and Tentative Tract Map 17769 (Resolutions of Approval 06-01, 06-44 and 08-29)to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager prior to issuance of building permits for the construction of the 10 homes. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY:<q `a o S ✓ Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce B tt, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 24th day of July 2013, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ