HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-33 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 13-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TIME EXTENSION
DRC2013-00509, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN
EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2)
YEARS FOR MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2008-00157, A REQUEST TO
INCREASE THE PERMITTED WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET 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, DRC2013-00509, for the extension of the duration of
the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Minor Exception DRC2008-00157,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. 08-29,thereby approving
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17769 subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. The Minor Exception was previously approved as Planning Condition 1 of Resolution
No. 08-29 for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17769.
4. 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.
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 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 Minor Exception is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
C. The extension of the Minor Exception approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, or policies;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-33
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00509—JACK HALL
July 24, 2013
Page 2
d. The extension of the Minor Exception approval will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
e. The Minor Exception was previously approved as Planning Condition 1 of
Resolution No. 08-29 for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17769; and
f. There are two other time extensions associated with this project. An extension for
Development Review DRC2006-00892 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00457. The case
numbers for these applications are DRC2013-00507 and DRC2013-00510 respectively; and
g. 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 Minor Exception DRC2008-00157. 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 underwhich 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 DRC2013-00509 for the
Minor Exception DRC2008-00157.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-33
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00509—JACK HALL
July 24, 2013
Page 3
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. 08-29 to read as follows:
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval
(Time Extension DRC2013-00509)for Minor Exception DRC2008-00157
and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in
Standard Condition B.2 contained in Resolution No. 08-29 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 Minor Exception DRC2008-00157 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. 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:
Frances Howdyshell, iChhairman_. i
ATTEST:
Candyce Bbniett, 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
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE