REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMEBER 22, 2016

Transcription

1 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION V.B. EBBE VIDERIKSEN, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: SIJIFREDO M. FERNANDEZ JR.) Consideration of a one-year Time Extension for Tentative Tract No to subdivide 45-acres into twenty-seven (27) lots for single family residential purposes and seven (7) lettered open space lots located on the east side of Alessandro Road in Neighborhood 2 of Specific Plan No. 43. DATE: NOVEMEBER 22, 2016 Attachments: A. Environmental Development Extension Checklist B. Conditions of Approval C. Copy of Tentative Tract Map No PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval for a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map No The tentative tract map would to subdivide 45- acres into twenty-seven (27) lots for single family residential purposes and seven (7) lettered open space lots located on the east side of Alessandro Road in Neighborhood 2 of Specific Plan No. 43. The City Council approved the project along with a Specific Plan Amendment No. 43, Conditional Use Permit No. 941, Variance No. 755 the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study on February 3, Under Section of the State Subdivision Map Act, an approved tentative map generally expires within twenty-four (24) months of approval, unless a final map is recorded or an extension of time is granted. In addition, Section of the State Subdivision Map Act provides for statutory extensions for tentative tract maps provided the extensions do not exceed a total of six (6) years. It has been the policy of the City to only grant extensions by one year increments. Although the initial expiration date of the tentative parcel map was February 3, 2011, the map has not expired due to State legislation that automatically extended the life of all active maps at the time the legislation was chaptered into State law. A summary of the legislation and prior time extensions granted by the Planning Commission is provided below for reference: On February 3, 2009, the City Council approved Specific Plan No. 43 (Amendment No. 4), Tentative Tract Map 18560, Variance No. 755 and Conditional Use Permit No The associated Mitigated Negative Declaration

2 PAGE 2 and Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study are adopted on the same date. The initial expiration date was February 3, On July 15, 2009, Assembly Bill 333 was signed into law granting a two (2) year automatic extension to any Tentative Tract Map that had not expired and would expire prior to January 1, This automatically extended this project to February 3, On July 13, 2011, Assembly Bill 208 was signed into law granting a two (2) year automatic extension to any Tentative Tract Map that had not expired and would expire prior to January 1, This automatically extended this project to February 3, On July 11, 2013, Assembly Bill 116 was signed into law granting a two (2) year automatic extension to any Tentative Tract Map that had not expired. This automatically extended this project to February 3, For the Planning Commission s information, most recently AB 1303 was signed into law in October 2015 which granted a two (2) year extension of time to tentative maps that were approved on or after January 1, 2002, and not later than July 2013 that had not expired by the effective date of the legislation and are located within a county that meets specific socio-economic criteria, with thresholds pertaining to the county s mean household income, annual non-seasonal unemployment rate, and the poverty rate. Currently, San Bernardino County does not meet the mandated criteria. Therefore, the subject tentative parcel map did not qualify for this automatic extension due to AB The applicant requests the additional time to find another developer for the project, as their previous buyer fell out of escrow. The 2008 recession made development more challenging for several years. Section (C) of the Redlands Municipal Code (RMC) allows the Planning Commission to extend a tentative map for a period not to exceed six (6) years, not counting any State legislation that automatically extends the life of any active map. This will be the first request by the applicant. This extension would extend the life of the project one addition year to February 3, Under the State Subdivision Map Act, the tentative map has six additional years left to extend the map; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one year extension of time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Public Resources Code 15162(a) indicates that no subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared for a project when the following findings can be made: No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously

3 PAGE 3 identified significant effects; Substantial changes did not occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and No 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 MND was certified as complete shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND; Mitigation measures previously found not to 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 Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure. Staff has analyzed the existing conditions at the time the tentative map was approved compared to present conditions using Google Earth aerial imagery (2006 to present) and the City s aerial imagery ranging from 2011 to The topography and extent of development on the tentative map site remains unchanged. There have not been any changes to environmental conditions to the surrounding area, or the discovery of new significant environmental issues under which the project will be undertaken that would require major revisions of the previously adopted MND. Additionally, the parcels adjacent to the tentative map site also remain largely unchanged. Considering the lack of significant or substantial change in existing conditions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project requires no further environmental analysis. There have been no changes to the project and the project remains within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration originally approved. FISCAL IMPACT When approving a request for an extension of time, Section (B) of the Redlands Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission must make an additional finding with respect to the potential fiscal impact of any increases in applicable development fees which have occurred since the date of the approval of the tentative map. The subject entitlement has no vested rights to secure fees at the time of the initial approval. Thus, the subdivider will pay all applicable fees, including development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no

4 PAGE 4 fiscal impacts would result from an increase in applicable City development fees. The additional finding can be made. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one year time extension for the project, extending the expiration date to February 3, MOTIONS If the Planning Commission determines that staff s recommendation is appropriate, the following motions are recommended: 1. I move the extension of time for Tentative Tract No does not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. "I move that the Planning Commission approve a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No based on the following findings: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City s General Plan, Municipal Code, and Specific Plan No. 43. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Resource Preservation, and is in Sector 1 of the Southeast Area Plan and a zoning of Neighborhood 2 of Specific Plan No. 43 (Sunset Hills Specific Plan) and complies with all policies and programs, including density, prescribed by the land use designations in these documents; B. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The project site, which is located northeast of Sunset Hills Lane and Alessandro Road is physically suitable for the type of development. A slope analysis prepared for the project has identified that the site is large enough to accommodate twenty (27) units. Twenty seven (27) lots are proposed for the project in accordance with the amendment to Specific Plan No.43 (Ordinance No. 2714). On-site and off-site improvements proposed as part of the project s design will ensure the property is consistent with adjacent developments and mitigate potential impacts to traffic and other environmental factors to a less than significant level. C. The site is physically suitable for the density of the development. A slope analysis prepared for the project identifies acres within the 0 to 15% category, 5.10 acres within the 15 to 30% category and acres over 30%. Pursuant to the slope analysis the maximum density of the site is 27 units. The proposed project is to subdivide the site into twenty seven (27) number lots and seven (7) open space lots.

5 PAGE 5 D. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife. Pursuant to the Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as well as, the conditions of approval the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage; E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems. Furthermore, an environmental analysis has been completed and all potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a non-significant level; F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project will provide public streets and pedestrian access through the site that conforms to the requirements of the Sunset Hills Specific Plan; G. That pursuant to California Government Code Section , of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of The property is not under Williamson Act Contract. H. There are no potential impacts of any increases in applicable development fees which have occurred since the date of approval of the tentative map. The subject entitlement has no vested rights to secure fees at the time of the initial approval. Thus, the subdivider will pay all applicable fees, including development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, no fiscal impacts would result from an increase in applicable City development fees.