Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2005-01002, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM OFFICE WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS (SUBAREA 4)TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS (SUBAREA 4) FOR 8.21 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0227-152-18 and 31. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application for Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted.a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment application and issued Resolution No. 06-28, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006 be approved. 3. 1:)n April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted ;, duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. 111 legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resoiution. NOVV, 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 April 12, 2006, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 8.21 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Office within the Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 4); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single-family dwelling units and is zoned Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); the properties to the south are zoned Industrial Park and are the site of the Aggazzotti home and former winery, a designated point of interest; the property to the east is designated Open Space and is a transmission corridor for Southern California Edison; and the property to the west is developed with various commercial uses and is zoned Community Commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-29 DRC2005-01002— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES April 12, 2006 Page 2 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 the surrounding development by providing opportunities for office, hospitality and commercial land uses that will provide support uses and services for the nearby Regionally-Related Commercial Districts located just east of the project site; and d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by allowing for commercial, hospitality, food, and office uses to be developed under one land use district utilizing master planning; and 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; conversely, the amendment will allow for office, retail, hospitality, and food uses to be integrated into a master planned development under one land use district. 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 as evidenced by its frontage on a public street and the evidence of similar uses existing in the immediate area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment, nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the existing commercial development and commercial activities in the immediate area; 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 recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, 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 that are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-29 DRC2005-01002 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES April 12, 2006 Page 3 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 conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3,and 4 above,this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, an amendment to the Development District Map to change approximately 8.21 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue from Office to Community Commercial within the Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 4) as described in the Resolution and shown as Exhibit A of the Draft City Council Ordinance by adoption of the Draft City Council Ordinance and including the condition shown below. Planning Department 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 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2006. PLANNING CC) MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam art, hairman 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 12th day of April 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-29 DRC2005-01002 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES April 12, 2006 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2005-01002, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAP FROM OFFICE WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS (SUBAREA 4) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICTS (SUBAREA 4) FOR 8.21 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0227-152-18 and 31. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application for Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment application and issued Resolution No. 06-28, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006 be approved. 3. April 12, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this application and recommended approval of this application by the adoption of Resolution No. 06-29. 4. On May 17, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the associated General Plan Amendment application and issued Resolution No. 06-28, approving the associated General Plan Amendment DRC2005-01006. 5. On May 17, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. , 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 17, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 8.21 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and is presently vacant. Said CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2005-01002 — CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES May 17, 2006 Page 2 property is currently designated as Office within the Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 4); and b. 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 the surrounding development by providing opportunities for office, hospitality, and commercial land uses that will provide support uses and services for the nearby Regionally-Related Commercial Districts located just east of the project site; and C. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element by allowing for commercial, hospitality, food, and office uses to be developed under one land use district utilizing master planning; and d. 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; conversely, the amendment will allow for office, retail, hospitality, and food uses to be integrated into a master planned development under one land use district. 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. The proposed 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 b. The proposed amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and the General Plan; and C. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. 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 City Council 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 City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2005-01002 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES May 17, 2006 Page 3 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 that are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council 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 City Council during the public hearing, the City Council 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 Council hereby approves Development District Amendment DRC2005-01002 to change the Development District from Office to Community Commercial within Foothill Boulevard Districts (Subarea 4) for the site identified in this Ordinance, as shown on Exhibit A of this Ordinance and including the condition shown below. Planning Department 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. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. O moo a � n < QN o I o — om 0O 1 J ! I . _ I i N 1 n CD _ �` i�4 I �r'•�, ,n� T.ov� Density =4 CID Community o ` O Y Commercial — '� -- ---. - - oln Corrix�ercia J ub Area j JI 'industrial Park � � � --- - -- - ---- - J ub Mea i7 bd' I Industrial Park �.. Sub CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA „�� p�"+, Aasoc area EnOl�ee s lno wcraew 1 GMDEN BUSINESS PARK —°�-- �'� SITE UTILIZA710N MAP