Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-241 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 00-241 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING APPEALS OF A CITY PLANNER DETERMINATION THAT NO SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NECESSARY AND APPROVING MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 FOR FINAL TRACT 14771,A DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR 40 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 25.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND NORTH OF RINGSTEM DRIVE IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT(LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE),AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1074-511-27 THROUGH 31 AND 1074-621-01 THROUGH 35. A. RECITALS. 1. The Heights at Haven View Estates filed an application for the approval of Modification to Development Review 98-13, as described in the title of this Resolution. The modifications involve a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, providing retaining walls directly north of the channel, and the elimination of grading north of the project. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 1998,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga reviewed Development Review 98-13, and following the conclusion of their review, adopted Resolution 98-56, by which the Commission determined that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 3. That decision by the Planning Commission was timely appealed to the City Council. 4. On the 18th day of November 1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied the appeal of Development Review 98-13, and affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission to find that no subsequent environmental review was necessary for the project and approved the project. 5. On the 22nd day of August 2000, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing on the application, and following the close of the hearing, adopted Resolutions 00-17 and 00-18, making environmental findings and approving the application. 6. The decisions made by said City Planner on the application were timely appealed to the Planning Commission. Resolution No. 00-241 Page 2 of 9 7. On the 27th day of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a public hearing on the appeal,and following the close of the hearing, adopted Resolutions 00-102 and 00-103, making environmental findings and upholding the decision of the City Planner. 8. The decisions made by said Planning Commission on the application were timely appealed to the City Council. 9. On the 15th day of November 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public 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 City Council during the above-referenced meeting on November 15, 2000, including but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting, and the contents of City Planner Resolutions 00-17 and 00-18,minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolutions 00-102 and 00-103, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner of Tackstem Street and Ringstem Drive,with a street frontage of 1,020 feet along Tackstem Street and 1,360 feet along Ringstem Drive, and is presently vacant; and b. The property is bordered on the north by property owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, on the east by property owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the properties to the south and west consist of vacant and developed single- family residential land; and c. The application contemplates a revision to the approved grading plan for Development Review 98-13. Revisions to the proposed project will reduce the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the project site (along the rear of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 33, 34, and 35), revise the base elevation and design of the channel along the north boundary of the tract, provide retaining walls directly north of the channel, and eliminate off-site grading north of the project. Resolution No. 00-241 Page 3 of 9 3. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)establishes requirements and procedures for evaluating potential environmental impacts resulting from development of a project. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes specific criteria for determining when subsequent environmental review of a project is required. The following addresses Section 15162 and the substantial evidence to support the Council's determinations as to whether a new EIR,a new Negative Declaration,or other environmental document is required in this matter. a. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Proposed revisions that reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts. Reducing the height of the slope will result in a slight increase in the amount of grading; however, as with the prior approval, the cut and fill of the project grading is designed to balance. Revising the design of the channel will not change its capacity. Proposed changes to the design of the project will not affect the majority of the project, including street designs, pad elevations, and equestrian trails. These are not substantial changes in the proposed project because the minimal amount of proposed grading, because of the relatively insignificant changes to the channel design, and the minimal changes to the project's design. Without any substantial changes in the project that would result in new or severe environmental impacts, major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval would not be required at this time. Y) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were evaluated under the Negative Declaration approved Resolution No. 00-241 Page 4 of 9 with the subdivision of the property. The proposed revisions will not change the number of homes or their general location within the tract. Characteristics of the surrounding properties have not changed significantly since the tract was approved; the property to the north and east is vacant,and the property to the south and west contains residential lots, many of which have been developed with custom and semi-custom homes. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken does not result in the involvement of new or significant environmental effects or the increase in the severity of significant effects. 'I New information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. Although the minor revision to the project design includes various retaining walls north of the channel not contemplated in the original design of the project, the walls are designed to be consistent with the use of retaining walls in other areas of the tract, to comply with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance, and as required by the Design Review Committee, the walls will be provided with landscaping to soften their appearance. In addition, assertions regarding the capacity of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and related facilities do not show that the project would have one or more effects not previously considered. Resolution No. 00-241 Page 5 of 9 e) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will not have significant effects more severe than shown in the previous Negative Declaration. The proposed project provides for the development of 40 homes within the area of Tract 14771 that were contemplated under review of the 1990 Negative Declaration. Both the original design of the project and the proposed revision provide improvements that include a slope adjacent to the rear of the lots along the northern boundary of the tract and the installation of a channel for the drainage area south of the Deer Creek Detention Basin and the northern boundary of the tract. The changes in the channel design will have minimal impacts to grading, water flow, and aesthetics. These changes are not resulting in significant effects substantially more severe than shown in the 1990 Negative Declaration. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, but the project proponents decline to adopt. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect the Conditions of Approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. ') Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and will result in a project that is substantially similar to the currently approved project. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were considerably different from those previously analyzed. The project applicant designed improvements Resolution No. 00-241 Page 6 of 9 to reflect the Conditions of Approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). b. Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or nor further documentation. The current application to reduce the height of the slope adjacent to the rear of lots along the northern boundary of the tract, reduce the base elevation of the channel, and eliminate the need to grade off-site are changes that will reduce project related impacts, and does not result in new or more severe environmental impacts that would require major revisions to the Negative Declaration adopted at the time of subdivision approval. The project applicant designed improvements to reflect the Conditions of Approval imposed on the subdivision of Tract 14771. There were no new mitigation measures conditioned on the approval of Development Review 98-13. Consequently, the lead environmental agency has determined that no further environmental documentation is required. 4. Based on the findings specified above and on all evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing,the City Council finds that none of the criteria in Section 15162 of the State for California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requiring subsequent environmental review exist or are present with respect to the application forthe modification to the Development/Design Review application. Therefore,the City Council finds that no subsequent environmental review of the project is required and that this determination is the independent judgment of the City Council. 5. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced meeting on November 15, 2000, including but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced City Planner meeting,and the contents of City Planner Resolutions 00-17 and 00-18, minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolutions 00-102 and 00-103, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project is located in the Very Low Residential District and because of the slope of the site, it is also subject to the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The development of 40 homes on 25.35 acres is consistent with the Very Low Residential District, and the project was designed to comply with all applicable provisions of the Hillside Resolution No. 00-241 Page 7 of 9 Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the grading plan were designed to be consistent with the originally approved project and to comply with the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and c. The proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project was designed to comply with the building and grading provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The minor revisions to the conceptually approved project that include a reduction in the overall height of the slope along the northern portion of the site, a revision to the base elevation and design of the channel along the northern boundary of the tract, and providing retaining walls directly north of the channel are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and d. The minor revisions to the proposed design,together with the conditions applicable thereto will not be detrimental to the public health safety, or PP P Y. welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The effects of these changes on the homes in the approved tract as well as properties adjacent thereto, have been evaluated and found to be insignificant, and e. The Hillside Development Ordinance requires that retaining walls are limited to a maximum height of 3 feet. When additional retaining height is necessary, an additional retaining wall may be utilized, however, the walls shall be separated by minimum of 3 feet. The applicant designed the retaining walls on the north side of the channel to be in conformance with these requirements by providing 2 retaining walls up to a maximum height of 3 feet and separated by a minimum of 3 feet. The design of these retaining walls is in conformance with the provisions of the Development Code and the Hillside Development Ordinance. 6. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3,4,and 5 above, the City Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division: 1) All Conditions of Approval, as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 98-55 and City Council Resolution 98-178, shall apply. 2) The retaining walls north of the channel shall be provided with a split face block finish. 3) Landscaping shall be provided between terraced retaining walls north of the channel. The landscaping shall be shown on the final Landscape and Irrigation Plans and shall be installed prior to completion of the project. 4) This approval does not preclude the developer from proceeding in accordance with the original grading design, approved with Development Review 98-13, if Resolution No. 00-241 Page 8 of 9 approval is obtained from the property to the north for that purpose. 5) Modification to Development Review 98-13 shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. Engineering Division: 1) A permit from San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required.Any redesign required in obtaining the permits shall be resolved and approved prior to starting work. 2) The approved Final Drainage Study shall be updated to address the alternate channel design. The Secretary to the City Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15`h day of November 2000. AYES: Alexander, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Biane illiam . Alexander, Mayor ATTEST: ebra J. Ad s, CMC, City Clerk Resolution No. 00-241 Page 9 of 9 I, DEBRA J.ADAMS,CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,California,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 15'" day of November 2000. Executed this 16`h day of November, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Ada CMC, City Clerk