The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-02 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2004-00269, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 9.68 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-161-04. A. Recitals. 1. Lewis Investment Company filed an application for General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00269 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duty noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. 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 January 11, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 9.68 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as General Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Medium density Residential and is developed with apartment units. The property to the west is designated General Commercial and is under developed with a few single-family residences and a small business. The property to the east is designated Office and is vacant. The property to the south is designated general Commercial (currently vacant) and Low density Residential (developed with single-family residences); and C. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 DRC2004-00269 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January 11, 2006 Page 2 e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 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. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and C. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project which are listed as conditions of approval in the related subdivision and development review applications that were reviewed concurrently with this application. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c)of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole,the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d)of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2004-00269 subject to the following condition: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 DRC2004-00269 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY January 11, 2006 Page 3 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 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 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam S art, Chairman ATTEST: / Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 11th day of January 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McPHAI,L, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS , McNIEL --------------- ZlKIZ. ........... �nmmmg Rpm I MI. Nil* 00gq000[[��400000 r 04174QSIO Za4tb�000 ki�i<; '" ?•J 0000000000000 ,�' ,` 1• 0000000000000 j% ; rtiilii 400004000000 0 0000000000 o J:r:ryrtir:r 0 000000000 0 0 •rtifri1rtif r 00 r:r:r:s:r�r�r:i 0 00000000000 •r r�r�r r1r1rtir:} 0 0000000000 f1fLfljLfLfLflflftif 0 0000000000 0 000000000 .r}r1r}rlrLrlrLrLilrLr:r 0 000000000 jLj1f1f1f1f1f1f1f1f1ftiftif 4 00000000 •JLJLi1fL1LJ1l1fL'J1}:1:j:}:f .................. 1.1.1• •1.1.1.1 1f1jti•1.1• •L• 2.p L 1 L 1 L 1 L r•J•J J.J.J. r•r•J• J•J~ r•1•J•1111J }.} } • f y1.1• .1.1.1.1 1.1.5.1.1• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5.5.1.5.5• r•r•r •r• r•r•r•r•r• }.J.J.J•J•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• J L•L•1• 1•L•L•1•L• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1•L•1•L•1•L•L• r•r•r r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r L•L•1• •1.1.5.1 1.1.1.1.5• 1.5.1.5.1.5.1.1.5• • • 1• r•r•r r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• i ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r 5.5.1• •1.1.5• L•1.1•L•L• L• L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L L• ti• r•r•r r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• i• ?•r•r•r•J•r•r•r•r• r•r J 4.5.1• 1.1.5• 5.1.1.5.1• 1• 1.5.1.1.1.1.1.5.5 1• L• m r•r•r ?•r•r•r• r•f•r•r•r• r• ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r•r r 5.5.1• 1.5.1• 5.1.1.1.1• 1.1 1.5.1.1.1.1.1.5.5 L• 5• r•r•r r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• J•r ? 5.1.1• 1.1.1• 1.1.5.1.1• 1.1 1.5.1.5.1.1.1.1.1 1 5• 1•J•J•J• J•J•J•J•J• J•J• l•J•l•J•J•J•J•J•J• 1.1.1. 5.1.1.1.1. 1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. ?1 •?1• ? J L?1?1? ?1?1?1?• 1r.r.r.r.r• J.J• r.J.J•J.r.r.r•r.r• ?• •r. ? '-1 5.1.1.1• 5.1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• 1 5• r•r r r•r•r•r• r•r•r•r•r• r•r• ?•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r• r• •r• r 5.5.1• 1.1.5• 1.5.5.1.5• •5.1.1 1.1.5.1.1.1.5.1.5• 1 L• •r•r•r r•r•r•r• •r•r•r•r•r FOOTHILL 1.1• 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• J•J r•J•J• J•J•J•J J J f ? J•r•r 1 1 1• 5.1• 5 1 1 1.1.1.1.1 5.1.1• }•i•r r•r•r• }•i•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r : 4.5.5• 1.1• 1.1.1.1.1.5.1.1.5•L•1• J•J•J• •J•J•J•J•J•J•J•J•J•J•J r.r r.r.J.r1}}}:r1}}i}}::•1r:f:r1r 5.1.1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• . 1?5?1• ?5?5?1?5?5?1?1?L?L?1?1?L?1r1? : r•r• r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•J Lf1jti 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1• . :f1j:• 5.1.5• r•r•r 5.5.5• .. .. .. ':::. •r•r• 5.1.1• 0 SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LOW LOW MEDIUM 200 0 200 400 Feet ® MEDIUM 0 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 0 OFFICE ® FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORRIDOR ® PARK PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN