The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17-70 - Resolutions - Approving Design Review Modifacation Revocation RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 A REQUEST TO REVOKE DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2016-00345, APPROVED IN ERROR ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016, FOR A REQUEST TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRC2007-00951 (PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.14-08) FOR THE BIANE WINERY, A COMPLEX COMPRISED OF FIFTEEN (15) BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AND THREE (3) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES LOCATED ON TWO (2) PARCELS WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 10.41 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN HERMOSA AND ARCHIBALD AVENUES; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 209-201-19 AND 20. A. Recitals. 1. Jary Cockroft, for Biane Family Properties, filed an application for the Design Review Modification Revocation DRC2017-00480, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Modification Revocation request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 22nd of January 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review DRC2007-00951, a request to modify the Biane Winery complex. 3. On the 9th day of November 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, a request to modify the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2007-00951. 4. Following the Planning Commission action it was determined that the approval of Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was in error and should have included an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 5. On the 28th day of June, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a public hearing for the item but because of an error in the public noticing, staff recommended and the Commission agreed that the item be continued to allow time for the item to be re-noticed to the July 26, 2017 meeting date. 6. On the 26th day of July 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 2 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 July 26, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the south side of Eighth Street west of Hermosa Avenue and is presently improved with the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres; and b. The subject property is located in the General Industrial (GI) District; and c. The property to the north is in the Low Medium (LM) Residential District and is developed with the Santa Fe Railway and residential development north of the tracks; and, the properties to the south, east, and west are in the General Industrial (GI) District and are developed with industrial and commercial buildings; and d. The applicant requested a modification to the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2007-00951; however, the modification to the applicable conditions requires an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and not only a revision to the projects conditions of approval. 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. Circumstances under which the entitlement or permit was granted have been changed by the applicant to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original permit can no longer be met. The circumstances under which the entitlement for Design Review DRC2007-00951 was granted have not been changed by the applicant; and b. The entitlement or permit was issued, in whole or in part, on the basis of a misrepresentation or omission of a material statement in the application, or in the applicant's testimony presented during the public hearing, for the entitlement or permit. The entitlement permitted under Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 was not issued on the basis of any misrepresentation by the applicant; and c. One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been substantially fulfilled or have been violated. Design Review DRC2007-00951 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. None of the applicable conditions of approval have been fulfilled, nor have they been violated; and d. The use or structure for which the permit was granted has ceased to exist or has lost its legal nonconforming use status. Use of the project site has not changed since Design Review DRC2007-00951 was approved and the site is not considered to be legal nonconforming; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 3 e. The improvement authorized in compliance with the permit is in violation of any code, law, ordinance, regulation, or statute. The approval of DRC2007-00951 included an environmental assessment with an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Because the two applicable conditions of approval were also mitigation measures of the project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration revising them required an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, not just a revision to the projects conditions of approval, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and f. The improvement/use allowed by the permit has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the manner of operation constitutes or is creating a public nuisance. The improvements permitted under Design Review DRC2007-00951 have not become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor has the manner of operation constituted or created a public nuisance. 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 22, 2014, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00951. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, which fulfill the requirements and findings for Section 17.14.110 Revocation, this Commission hereby approves the application to revoke Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345 subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) Design Review Modification DRC2016-00345, approved on November 9, 2016 through Planning Commission Resolution No. 16- 57, for a request to revise the conditions of approval for DRC2007-00951 (Planning Commission Resolution No.14-08) for the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2) parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues is revoked. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-70 DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION REVOCATION DRC2017-00480 (OF DRC2016-00345) — JARY COCKROFT FOR BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES July 26, 2017 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce urnett, ecretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 26th day of July 2017, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE