HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-099 - Resolutions - APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP MODIFICATION NO. 16605M, DRC2012-00672... RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
MODIFICATION NO. 16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672,
VARIANCE DRC2016-00207 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-
00673, TO SUBDIVIDE 24.19 ACRES INTO 6 PARCELS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 175 ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS,
INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION, A
VARIANCE FOR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE HEIGHT AND A
REQUEST TO REMOVE 180 TREES IN THE MIXED USE (MU)
DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, BETWEEN RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND
PACIFIC ELECTRIC TRAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY; DENYING THE APPEAL;
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0207-101-13,
17, 24, 25, 31, 34, AND 41 AND 0207-112-09 AND 10.
A. Recitals.
1. Pacific Summit-Foothill, LLC,filed applications for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
Modification No. SUBTT16605M, Design Review DRC2012-00672, Variance DRC2016-00207
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2012-00673, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the above-referenced entitlements are referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 12th day of April, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution
No. 06-36, thereby approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16605, subject to specific conditions
and time limits.
3. The initial approval of SUBTT16605 was for a duration of 3 years, to expire on
April 12, 2009. The California State Legislature passed a series of Assembly/Senate Bills
automatically extending the approval period of various active tentative maps. SB 1185 extended
the approval period 1-year to April 12, 2010, AB 333 extended the approval period 2-years to
April 12, 2012, AB 208 extended the approval period 2-years to April 12, 2014, and AB 116
extended the approval period 2-years to April 12, 2016.
4. On the 23rd day of March, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution
No. 16-16, thereby approving DRC2015-01110 for a 1-year Time Extension for SUBTT16605 to
expire on April 12, 2017.
5. On the 26th day of April, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution
No. 17-28, thereby approving DRC2017-00249 for a 1-year Time Extension for SUBTT16605 to
expire on April 12, 2018.
6. On the 9th day of August 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Tentative Tract Map Modification
application in addition to the Design Review, Variance and Tree Removal applications and
continued them to the August 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 1 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 2
7. On the 23rd of August, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Tentative Tract Map Modification No.
SUBTT16605M, Design Review DRC2012-00672, Variance DRC2016-00207 and Tree Removal
Permit DRC2012-00673 and, following the conclusion thereof, issued Resolution Nos. 17-76, 17-
77, 17-78 and 17-79 respectively.
8. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 17-76, 17-
77, 17-78 and 17-79 was timely appealed to this Council.
9. On the 4th day of October, 2017, 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.
10. 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 City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 4, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
3. SUBTT16605M:
a. The project site contains approximately 24.19 acres of a generally irregular
configuration having a topography with a 30 percent or greater slope, located on the north side of
Foothill Boulevard, between Red Hill Country Club Drive and the Pacific Electric Trail, and is
presently vacant; and
b. The project site is located in the Mixed Use (MU) District; and
C. The property to the north contains Condominiums and single-family homes in the
Medium (M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Low (L) Residential District (2-
4 dwelling units per acre),the property to the south contains office, commercial, and condominium
uses in the Mixed Use (MU) District and Medium (M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), the property to the east contains the Route 66 Trailhead and condominiums in the Medium
(M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), the property to the west contains
commercial land uses in the Mixed Use (MU) District, and the proposed project surrounds the
Sycamore Inn Restaurant in the Mixed Use (MU) District; and
d. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into six (6)
lots for condominium purposes (175 units); and
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 2 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 3
e. The subdivision of the project site conforms to all applicable development
standards applicable to property in the Mixed Use (MU) District; and
f. The applicant has submitted applications related to the development of the
project site including: General Plan Amendment DRC2016-00206, Tentative Tract Modification
SUBTT16605M, Design Review DRC2012-00672, Variance DRC2016-00207, and Tree Removal
Permit DRC2012-00673 to allow for the subdivision and development of the project site; and
g. All lots will have access to a public right-of-way. Access to the project site will
be via Foothill Boulevard and will include all public right-of-way improvements including
pavement, sidewalk, curb, and gutter on the north side of Foothill Boulevard as well as all right-
of-way improvements on interior streets; and
h. The design or improvements of the tentative tract and proposed development,
variance and tree removal applications are consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,
and any applicable specific plans; and
i. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed and the
proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located; and
j. The design of the subdivision, development, variance and tree removal are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or
their habitat; and
k. The tentative tract, development, variance and tree removal applications are not
likely to cause serious public health problems; and
I. The design of the tentative tract nor the proposed development, variance or
related tree removal applications will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at
large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
4. Based upon all of the evidence in the record and the findings and conclusions set forth
above, this Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the
appeal, approving Tentative Tract Map Modification No. SUBTT16605M.
5. Design Review DRC2012-00672:
a. The proposed project will be a gated community with 1 vehicle entrance on
Foothill Boulevard, located west of the Sycamore Inn restaurant, and 1 Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) gate on Red Hill Country Club Drive; and
b. The proposed project density is 7.23 dwelling units per acre; and
c. The application contemplates the development of 44 two- and three-story
condominium buildings for the development of 175 attached dwelling units; and
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 3 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 4
d. The 175 units are provided throughout the project site in 44 individual buildings,
each containing between 3 and 6 residential units. Units are provided in either a two-story or
three-story building complex. There are 26 two-story units, 29 feet tall, with units ranging in size
from 1,296 square feet to 1,701 square feet and 18 three-story units, 35 feet tall,with units ranging
in size from 1,672 square feet to 2,108 square feet; and
e. The proposed unit mix will consist of 28 two-bedroom units(at 1,296 square feet),
119 three-bedroom units (ranging in size from 1,540 square feet to 2,108 square feet) and 28
four-bedroom units (ranging in size from 1,976 square feet to 1,995 square feet). The 9 live/work
units include 2 two-bedroom units (with 1,531 square feet of living area and 249 square feet of
commercial floor area) and 7 three-bedroom units (ranging in size from 1,782 square feet to 1,916
square feet of living area and 249 square feet of commercial floor area); and
f. Proposed architectural styles include Santa Barbara and Provence, and include
360 degree architectural elements such as: tile roofs, stucco finish, multi-paned windows, metal
balconies, wood shutters, and additional architectural embellishments; and
g. A total of 9 live/work units are provided adjacent to the Foothill Boulevard
driveway, with adjacent parking and pedestrian access; and
h. Parking for the project site is provided in two-car garages for each unit, providing
350 parking spaces, 9 parking spaces for the live/work units, and 130 open parking spaces; and
i. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
j. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
k. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code; and
I. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
6. Based upon all of the evidence in the record and the findings and conclusions set forth
above, this Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the
appeal, approving Design Review DRC2012-00672.
7. Variance DRC2016-00207:
a. Approximately half of the project site is located within the Hillside Overlay District
of the Zoning Map, of which the Development Code establishes building envelopes and maximum
building height for properties located in hillside areas. Hillside Development criteria, Section
17.122.020(D)(e) of the Development Code, establishes a 30-foot maximum building height for
all structures located in the Hillside Overlay District; and
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 4 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 5
b. The applicant is proposing a total of 44 condominium units including 26 two-story
tri-plex units up to a maximum of 29 feet in height, and 18 three-story four-, five-, and six-plex
units up to a maximum of 35 feet in height; and
c. Roughly half of the three-story units are located within the Hillside Overlay
District and exceed the allowable maximum 30-foot building height; and
d. The project site contains approximately 24.19 acres of a generally irregular
configuration having a topography with a 30 percent or greater slope, located on the north side of
Foothill Boulevard, between Red Hill Country Club Drive and the Pacific Electric Trail, and is
presently vacant; and
e. The project site is located in the Mixed Use (MU) District; and
f. The property to the north contains Condominiums and single-family homes in the
Medium (M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Low (L) Residential District (2-
4 dwelling units per acre),the property to the south contains office, commercial, and condominium
uses in the Mixed Use (MU) District and Medium (M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre), the property to the east contains the Route 66 Trailhead and condominiums in the Medium
(M) Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), the property to the west contains
commercial land uses in the Mixed Use (MU) District, and the proposed project surrounds the
Sycamore Inn Restaurant in the Mixed Use (MU) District; and
g. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code; and
h. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same district; and
i. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district; and
j. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and
k. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
8. Based upon all of the evidence in the record and the findings and conclusions set forth
above, this Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the
appeal, approving Variance DRC2016-00207.
9. Tree Removal Permit DRC2012-00673:
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 5 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 6
a. The trees are not designated as historically significant; and
b. The trees are not noted in any Specific Plan/Community Plan or condition of
approval; and
c. The applicant has submitted an arborist report assessing the health of the
individual trees. The Arborist Report (Jim Borer, August 2012) evaluated a total of 198 trees on
the project site. Of those 198 trees, 64 meet Development Code criteria to be classified as
Heritage Trees, and 18 of those Heritage Trees are recommended for preservation. The 180
trees not identified by the Arborist Report as suitable for preservation are considered over-mature,
have poor growth character, have advanced decay, some are dead or are in poor general health;
many of these trees have further declined in health due to the prolonged effects of the drought.
Additionally, several trees, although in good health, their location conflicts with proposed
improvements and the applicant proposes to remove these trees; and
d. It is necessary to remove the trees in order to construct improvements which
allow economic enjoyment of the property; and
e. There are a significant number of trees existing in the neighborhood; the removal
does not affect the established character of the area; and
f. It is necessary to remove the trees to construct required improvements within the
public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way; and
g. The trees cannot be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or relocation
rather than removal; however, 2 trees (Borer Report, Trees No. 76 and 175) may be suitable
candidates for relocation; and
h. The trees do not constitute a significant natural resource of the City; and
i. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
j. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Municipal Code and
the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
k. The proposed project is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
I. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
10. Based upon all of the evidence in the record and the findings and conclusions set forth
in paragraphs above, this Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and
denies the appeal, approving Tree Removal Permit DRC2012-00673.
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 6 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 7
11. 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 through
10 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
12. 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. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with
the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project
would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public
comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
A comment letter was received from the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) on July 27, 2017 in response to the circulated IS/MND. The only comment
CDFW had was in relation to the possible Jurisdictional Waters on the project site. The applicant
and their biologists prepared a Jurisdictional Delineation to address CDFW's comments. The
Jurisdictional Delineation determined that jurisdictional waters were not present on the project
site, but recommended compliance with the CDFW recommended mitigation measure prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The Biological Resources section of the IS/MND, was revised to
include a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide proof to the City that the
Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Agreement) process has been concluded.
According to CEQA Section 15073.5(a), recirculation of a negative declaration is
required prior to its adoption when it has been substantially revised after public notice of its
availability has been given pursuant to Section 15072. Furthermore, CEQA Section 15073.5(b)
states, "a "substantial revision" of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) a new avoidable
significant effect is identified and mitigation measure or project revisions must be added in order
to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) the lead agency determines that the proposed
mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance
and new measures or revisions must be required." Here, either the CDFW will determine that
notification under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code is required for the project, or they will
require the applicant obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement. The IS/MND was revised to
include a discussion of the Jurisdictional Delineation for the project site and a mitigation measure
requiring a Streambed Alteration Agreement was added to the MND and the project conditions of
approval. The addition of a condition of approval requiring a Streambed Alteration Agreement is
not considered substantial evidence in light of the whole record that cannot be mitigated.
Therefore, the Streambed Alteration Agreement mitigation measure is not a substantial revision
to the MND, and recirculation of the MND is not required; and
b. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 7 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 8
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record
before it,finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that
the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
Council. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
C. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the
mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project; and
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the City Council's decision is based is the City Planner of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
13. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 12
above, this Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and denies the
appeal, approving Tentative Tract Map Modification No. SUBTT16605M, Design Review
DRC2012-00672, Variance DRC2016-00207 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2012-00673
subject to each and every condition set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 17-76,
17-77, 17-78 and 17-79 shall apply as if set forth herein in full.
14. This Council hereby provides notice to Mr. Hank Stoy and Pacific Summit-Foothill,
LLC, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must
be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
15. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to
the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Hank Stoy and Pacific Summit-Foothill, LLC, at the
address identified in City records.
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 8 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17-099
APPEAL OF SUBTT16605M, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2012-00672, VARIANCE DRC2016-00207,
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2012-00673— HANK STOY
October 4, 2017
Page 9
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October 2017.
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
1-447,
1
ice C. Reynolds, Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 4th
day of October 2017.
AYES: Kennedy, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: Alexander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Executed this 5th day of October 2017 at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
07,V,L I-i . 'f t'(-.624 'n P W"�
J e C. Reynolds, Cler
Resolution No. 17-099 - Page 9 of 9