Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-205 - Resolutions RESOI/]I~ONNO. 91-205 A RESOLLH~ON OF THE CITY OOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO ~, CALIFORNIA, D~gYING EITWANDA SP~JIFIC PLAN ~ 91-03, SUBAREA 1, TO AMEND THE EITWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FRC~ M~DIUH RESID~TU/AL (8-14 UW~.LTNG UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW M~Di-t~ RESID~fIAL (4-8 DWq~,T.TNG UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 27.89 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORPHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) ~Y, ON THE EAST BY ~ AV~R~3E AND EXISTING LOW EXIS~fNG OC~ DESI~ LAND BORDERING X~.T, i~-' 227-211-02, 04, 05, 09, 10, 15~ 20~ AND 29 A. Recitals. (i) ~ne City of Rancho Cucamonga ba~ filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 28, 1991, the Planning C~m,,~ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and denial by the adoption of Resolution No. 91-127 and also issued Resolution No. 91-126, reo~m~~ to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 91-02B, Subarea 3, be denied. (iii) On November 20, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follc~s: 1. ~nis Council 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 Council during the above-referenced public hearing on November 20, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Subarea 1 of the application applies to approximately 27.89 acres of land, basically a triangular configuration, bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Etiwanda Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south by Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FSP) Regional Related C~tmercial and C~u,~nity C~,~tercial designated land bordering Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "Al," and is Resolution No. 91-205 Page 2 presently underdeveloped with a single family residence in the northeastern portion. Said properties are currently designated as Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and (b) The property to the northwest of the subject site is designated freeway and is the Ontario (I-15) Freeway. The properties to the east are designated Low Medium Residential and are underdeveloped with single family residences and on the opposite side of Etiw-~nd__a Avenue it is designated Medium Residential. Tne properties to the south are designated FSP Regional Related Ccmm~_rcial and C~,,,~nity C~m,ercial and are partially developed with mixed business activities. (c) ~ amendment may conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and may not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and (d) ~%is amendment may not prc~ote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and (e) ~nis amendment would not be materially injurious or detri- mental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surr~ properties, but land use ~tibilities may result. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the properties located in Subarea 1 of the application are not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district and are incompatible with existing and adjacent land use designations as evidenced by the site's being bordered on the northwest by the 1-15 freeway; and (b) ~nat the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the findings and conclusions listed in Parts I and II of the Initial Environmental Study, but that land use ~tibilities may result; and (c) That the proposed amendment may not be in conformance with the General Plan and the Etiwand~_~_ Specific Plan due to the potential of establishing incc~patible land use relationships with single family uses and significant vehicular traffic of the adjacent freeway. 4. ~his C~ncil hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in c~liance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. However, this Council does not authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration because the land use change may not promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Resolution No. 91-205 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby resolves that on the 20th day of Novemg~_r 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denies Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 91-03, Subarea 1. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASS~D, APPROVED, and ADO~ this 20th day of November, 1991. AYES: Alexander, Buquet, Stout, Williams, Wright NOES: None ABSENT: None Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ~e~r~ J. ~ ,m~7~ity Clerk - I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution w~s duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonqa, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of November, 1991. Executed this 21st day of Nov~, 1991 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Ada~, city Clerk Resolution No. 91-205 Page 4 --, :_ .... '' L . . -- --__ VL : .' - .' VL ', .' I Amendments 91-03 i Fo=thitl Blvd. S~ec;fic Plan Ame.~mentt 91-02 LM - Oiltri=t Delignltion PROP(RTI[S CURRENTLY DES;MATED MEDIUM ~[SIOEHTIAL (8-14 OlELLING CONSID(RATION FOR REDESIGNAT~ON TO LOI W[OIUW (~-~ OIELLING UNIT~ PER ACRE) OR LM ~ I ' ESPA Subarea Not - FSPA Subere~