The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About21-38 ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 21-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2020-439, A REQUEST TO OPERATE AN AUTO AND VEHICLE STORAGE USE WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 9910 6TH STREET; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0209-211-42 AND 43. A. Recitals. 1. Joonas Partanen with Brookfield Properties, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking, filed an application for the approval Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 4, 2021, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439, and made findings supporting that decision. 3. On May 12, 2021, Joonas Partanen with Brookfield Properties, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the application. 4. On June 9, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted this Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny the application and making the findings of support thereof. 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 June 9, 2021, including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant, Joonas Partanen, on behalf of H.E.R. Trucking Inc. is requesting to operate an Auto and Vehicle Storage facility at a 4.55 acre site which is improved with an existing 8,888 square foot industrial building within the General Industrial (GI) District at 9910 6th Street — APN: 0209-211-42 and 43. b. The Conditional Use Permit is for the storage of trucks and trailers consisting of a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' wide dry vans, and refrigerator trailers. c. The proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage facility proposes to operate 7 days a week, Monday to Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with truck trips occurring between 7:00 Exhibit E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-38 APPEAL DRC2021-00159 — Brookfield Properties June 9, 2021 Page 2 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The site will be used to park a fleet of 3-axle tractors, 53' dry vans, refrigerator trailers and storage containers. All equipment will be on site when off duty and only 50% of the fleet is on site. The maximum number of vehicles is anticipated to be approximately 70 tractor & trailers. No goods will be stored at the facility. d. A total of nine (9) parking spaces are required to meet the parking demand of trucking storage per Development Code Section 17.64. One (1) parking space is required per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet of tenant space. There are 11 parking spaces existing on site. 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. The proposed project is allowed within the applicable zoning district but does not comply with the applicable provisions of the general plan. The proposed project is permitted within the applicable zoning district upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with relevant technical development standards. However, the project does not comply with multiple goals and policies of the general plan. Specifically, the project does not comply with Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal Lu-1, Policy LU-1.1, Goal LU-6, and Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6,4 of the General Plan. Further, the project is not in compliance with Development Code Section 17.02.010.D, which requires that "use of land or buildings for which an application is required pursuant to this title is to be approved for processing unless it is consistent with the land use element of the general plan." As the project is inconsistent with the land use element of the general plan, the project is not in compliance with Development Code Section 17.02.010.D. b. The site is not physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use. The site is not suited forthe proposed Auto and Vehicle Storage use. The industrial neighborhood within which the project proposes to locate is comprised of a variety of industrial and commercial businesses including light and medium manufacturing, office, and specialized auto repair. A single- family residential neighborhood is located approximately 1,400 feet to the west. Notably, and immediately to the east of the project site, is an industrial park which contains a brewery (Rowdy's Brewery). Locating the proposed use immediately next to these types of uses creates conflicts which could include reduced air quality and noise. C. Granting the permit will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. The project will be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, orwelfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity in which the project is located. Economic development and land use policies contained within the general plan are intended to promote the public interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare. The project fails to meet numerous economic development and land use goals and policies as established in the general plan, namely, Goal ED-1, Policy ED-1.3, Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.1, Goal LU-6, and Policies LU-6.1 and LU-6.4. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the pproject is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CRQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) as a project that is disapproved by the City. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the Appeal of a Planning Director decision denying DRC2020-00439 and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 21-38 APPEAL DRC2021-00159 — Brookfield Properties June 9, 2021 Page 3 upholds the Planning Director's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit DRC2020-00439. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2021. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ya-vc— W Ton Guglielmo, Chairman ATTEST: &V-� , / ' L- Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary�� I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Plan�ning—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 9th day of June 2021, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GUGLIELMO, DOPP, WILLIAMS, MORALES NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA RECUSE: COMMISSIONERS: