Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-06-14 - Supplementals
Design Review DRC2015=00991 Wecare Dialysis Center Planning Commission June 14, 2017 Slaw, E I DRc2o is- ooj 9 j Location Map 3 Site Utilization Map DRC2015-00991 Project Site ❑d `7 Design Review DRC2015-00991 • Application proposes the development of a medical office building totaling 10,912 square feet on 1.13 acres. • The design provides floor area for 2 tenants, including: • A primary 8,505 square foot dialysis center, and • A subtenant at 2,407 square feet. • The design provides 1 point for driveway access — off of Grove Avenue located in the southwest corner of the project site. • A total of 57 parking spaces are provided for employees and customers. • Landscape coverage is provided at 16.56 percent of the project site. Site Plan Design Review DRC2015-00991 • Proposed building will be of a contemporary design with wood framed construction. Elevations will consist of a primary red brick element with white brick accent stripes, stucco, aluminum metal roof, and aluminum store front windows. • The building is situated in the northeastern corner of the project site, with parking areas to the south and east. • Pedestrian access to the building will be through entrances located on the south side of the building. • Project was designed to meet all applicable development standards of the General Commercial (GC) District. Elevations WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION loom EAST ELEVATION Building Materials UJ C MATERIAL LEGEND Q1 RED BRICK ❑2 WHITE BRICK NO PACIFIC SAND STUCCO © SILVER GREY STUCCO ® BRUSH STAINLESS STEEL © WOODEN DOOR STOREFRONT Floor Plan Grading Plan 11 I � P EARTH WORK: '•'".t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA � o r ° r r o ° • o ° 0°•888 ° ° II II Y •NY r_ • Y M F Y • M Landscape Plan V.r W� �WM��" • " N . NN• NF N,F N M F Environmental Review • Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects), and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff determined the project to be a Class 32 exemption and characterized the project to be an in -fill development. The project involves development within city limits on no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Additionally, approval of the project will would not result in any significant effect relating to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2015-00991 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. I)irPr-tnr'-q R • 31 11 Irl OIL•� , jr oil '�` •,.� `�% 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Background • Prior to 2012, the City had no regulations for haunted houses. • The 2012 Development Code Update: New requirement for haunted houses in commercial areas to obtain a Temporary Use Permit. • Since 2012, haunted houses have largely been residential instead of commercial. Lightly -decorated homes serving their local neighborhoods. • Since 2012, Planning, Fire, Building & Safety & Community Improvements have worked with haunted house owners to ensure safety of the community. Background • Haunted houses in the residential areas have become more popular and commercial, charging fees and developing a regional draw with the help of social media. • Staff has received complaints regarding a number of these haunted houses since 2016. • Staff believes that additional regulations are warranted to ensure that commercial haunted houses impacts are mitigated. • Staff would like Planning Commission's direction and feedback regarding the regulation of haunted houses. Pathway 1 Retain Development Code as Existing • The Development Code require that all haunted houses obtain a Temporary Use Permit. No specific regulations to specify what haunted houses may or may not do. • Staff would use the Temporary Use Permit process to enforce standards on a case -by -case basis to ensure that haunted houses do not become a nuisance. • Staff would generally review the sites for safety, parking, noise, trash, etc. • Haunted houses allowed in all districts in the City. Pathway 2 Prohibit Haunted Houses in Residential Areas • Similar to Pathway 1, staff would use the Temporary Use Permit process to enforce standards on a case -by -case basis. • Modify the Development Code to allow haunted houses in commercial areas only. Pathway 2 - Code Modification Prohibit Haunted Houses in Residential Areas • Modify Development Code section 17.104.020 (A)(2): Entertainment and assembly events, including carnivals, circuses, concerts, fairs, festivals, food events, fundraisers, commercial haunted houses, outdoor entertainment/sporting events, and similar events designed to attract large crowds and that are held either on private or public property when not otherwise part of or consistent with a permitted use (e.g., race at a raceway). • Add Development Code section 17.104.040 (L): Haunted Houses. All haunted house events shall be located in commercial and industrial districts. Pathway 3 Establish New Regulations for Haunted Houses in Residential & Commercial Districts • Staff will draft new standards to regulate all haunted houses in the City and present it to Planning Commission under a Development Code Amendment. • Staff would use the Temporary Use Permit process in conjunction with the new regulations to review haunted houses. • Pending approval of both the Planning Commission and City Council, the standards would be codified in the Development Code. • Haunted houses allowed in all districts in the City. Pathway 3 — Separating Commercial and Residential Haunted House Establish New Regulations for Haunted Houses in Residential & Commercial Districts • Prohibit commercial haunted houses from residential areas and from properties adjacent to residential homes. • Residential haunted houses allowed to operate without a Temporary Use Permit. Planning, Fire & Community Improvements would continue to work with operators to ensure public safety. • Different thresholds for separating commercial and residential haunted houses: • Whether they collect a fee/donation prior to entry • The level of sophistication of the haunted house • The days/hours in which a haunted house operates Pathway 3 - Potential Residential Haunted House Regulations • Limiting the haunted houses from operating outside the hours of 3pm-10pm on the day of Halloween. • Ensuring that sidewalks and public right-of-ways are free from obstruction at all times. • Restricting the sale of food unless they have a Home Occupation Permit for the sale of cottage foods. • Obtain all permits from Building & Safety/Fire Department prior to any modifications made to the home or other structures onsite. Pathway 3 - Potential Commercial Haunted House Regulations • Ensuring that sidewalks and public right-of-ways are free from obstruction at all times unless a permit for street closure is filed with the Engineering Department. • Obtain all permits from Building & Safety/Fire Department prior to construction of any new structures or any modifications to existing facilities. • Provide a parking plan showing adequate parking will be provided. • Provide a security plan (security personnel, cameras, etc.) to ensure safety of visiting residents. • Provide a refugee and debris removal plan. • Obtain a business license with the City. • Limiting the days/hours in which commercial haunted houses may operate. 1. 2 All Pathways Retain Development Code as Existing Prohibit Haunted Houses in Residential Areas 3. Establish New Regulations for Haunted Houses in Residential & Commercial Districts Other Departments • Fire Department — Rob Ball, Fire Marshall • Community Improvements — Jana Cook, Community Improvement Manager Conclusion Staff has presented the Planning Commission with a number of different pathways in regards to the future regulation of haunted houses in the City. Staff requests the Planning policy direction for the City's houses in the future. Commission's provide handling of haunted Planning Commission June 14, 2017 Applicant Golden Meadowland, LLC & Ranch Haven, LLC Project Description A request for a one-year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072) located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at northeast corner of Wilson Avenue 11nA r-:+iIAin nAn D%ior%i in j_-T .• I L ) --", uu-T30 Project Site Wifson AVeRHe-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ti D5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Map Timeline Approving Approval/Extension Approval Expiration Authority Type Period Approval Date Date Tentative Tract Map City Council Approval 3 Years June 16, 2004 June 16, 2007 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 13, 2007 June 16, 2008 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year May 28, 2008 June 16, 2009 Senate Bill 1185 Automatic Extension 1 Year June 16, 2009 June 16, 2010 Assembly Bill 333 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2010 June 16, 2012 Assembly Bill 208 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2012 June 16, 2014 Assembly Bill 116 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2014 June 16, 2016 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 22, 2016 June 16, 2017 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 14, 2017 June 16, 2018 Environmental Review & Recommendation • The City certified an EIR on June 16, 2004. • Per CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required with this action, unless: • Substantial changes are proposed with new or more severe impacts • Substantial changes have occurred which create new or more severe impacts • New information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts • Additional or different mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts • No changes to the map are proposed. • "ESA found no substantial changes that have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts and no new substantial information indicates the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed". • Staff recommends approval of Time Extension DRC2017-00430, by adoption of the attached Resolution. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042 Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377 ---------------- L IC-VV) � S - C 9 PKC2o 16-003'77 Project Overview • Applicant: Newland Homes • Project: Subdivide 18.2 Acres into 26 Single -Family Lots Hillside Design Review of 26 Single -Family Residences • Zoning: Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 DU per Acre) • Density: 1.43 Dwelling Units Per Acre • Related Cases: 1. Variance DRC2016-00748 — Lot Depth for Lots 11 - 15 2. Variance DRC2017-00014 — Reduce Rear Yard Setback on Lot 16 3. Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376 — Remove 7 Trees Project Overview (Continued) • Lot Size- - 20,000 to 33,473 sf (20,000 square foot min.) - 23,773 square feet average (22,500 square feet req.) • House Sizes: - Single -Story (Plan 1) - 3,689 sf livable + 493 sf casita + 643 sf garage - Two -Story (Plan 2) - 4,413 sf livable + 521 sf casita + 643 sf garage - Two -Story (Plan 3) — 4,977 sf livable + 453 sf casita + 643 sf garage • 9 Single -Story Plans (25 Percent Required (7 Plans Required) • Lot Coverage (25 percent max) -12.4 to 24.9 percent • Architectural Styles — Spanish Colonial, Country Cottage and Italian Farmhouse r » CTP ucam nga Lanai 8 ,r 0 it �_ � �-� A'Ei1[� 4oft _ w ,Illsid R� 1huI,rt- I:fl:<d;. rJ (_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA =i Front Elevations Plan 1 PLAN 1 - FRONT 9 SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 1 - FRONT COUNTRY COTTAGE t t .: 6 PLAN 1 - FROWa ITALIAN FARMHOUSE .o, 14 Front Elevations Plan 2 PLAN 2 - FRONT10 SPANISH COLONIAL PLAN 2 - FRONT � COUNTRY COTTAGE PLAN 2 - FRONT ITALIAN FARMHOUSE Front Elevations Plan 3 PLAN 3 • FRO\ I �PANISH COLONIAL PLAN 3 • FRONT PLAN 3 - FRONT COUNTRY COTTAGE ITALIAN FARMHOUSE 144 • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Variance Lot 16 23 = Foot Rear Yard Reduction —. I Design Review Committee • Project Reviewed and Approved by DRC on March 141 2017. • Committee made positive comments regarding project layout and the design of the houses. • Committee asked if the project provided adequate area for horse corrals which complied with 70 - foot separation requirement • Staff stated that each lot included either a 24 foot X 24 foot or 12 foot X 48 foot corral area that complied with separation requirement. Design Review Committee (continued) • Resident asked why the project did not provide a looping equestrian trail. • Staff stated that the stream that crosses the project site restricted the provision for a continuous trail along the south property line. • Resident asked whether the applicant could provide a equestrian trail along east project boundary. • Applicant stated that they would research to see if it was possible to provide a reduced width trail. Trails Advisory Committee • Reviewed and approved project on April 12, 2017. • Asked if a small bridge should be constructed over an existing drainage facility on subdivision to the east. • Committee determined that they could not require applicant to construct off -site improvements on private property. • Trail configuration along east project boundary. • Committee determined that the best alternative was a 4 - foot wide sidewalk along with an 8 - foot wide equestrian trail. Trails Advisory Committee (continued) • Asked if high lot coverage on several lots would prevent constructing covered corral areas. • Applicant informed committee that each lot would be able to, at minimum, provide a 200 square foot corral area. The committee found that size acceptable. • Location of trail gates adjacent to horse corrals. • Applicant agreed to relocate gates. Updated plans show relocated gate layout which do not conflict with corral areas. n u CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Letter from Alta Loma Riding Club C. Asked if density was calculated from gross lot size. R. Density based on gross lot size. C. Asked if a slope density analysis was performed. R. Slope density analysis included on plans. C. Asked if project adhered to the requirements of the Equestrian Overlay - Lack of looping trail. R. Project provides trail access to each flat padded corral areas that comply Alta Loma Riding Club (continued) C. Asked if project adhered to requirement of the hillside overlay. R. Grading similar to surrounding lots and designed to reduce necessity for import/export of soil and retaining walls. C. That the project only provided a single point of access which limits emergency access. R. Access reviewed and approved by Fire Services. Site surrounded by existing development and will provide landscaping in conformance with High Severity Zone. Slope Density and Earth Work SLOPE DENSITY ANALYSIS SLOPE MEASUREMENT ARCRES OF LAND (GROSS) CAPACITY RATIO ADJUSTED NET BUILDABLE (AREAx CAPACITY RATIO UNDER 10% 17.23 1.000 17.23 10-14.9% 0 0.750 0 15-19.9% 0 0.500 0 20-24.9% 0 0.250 0 25-29.9% 0 0.025 0 +30% 0.24 0.000 0 STREAM BED 0.72 0.000 0 TOTAL 17.23 (2 DWELLING UNIT/ACRE) x NET (17.23) = 34 UNITS MAX RAW EARTHWORK CUT 59,395 CY FILL 59,225 CY NET 170 CY EXPORT MAX CUT 17.4 FT MAX FILL 18.2 FT AVERAGE CUT 4.8 FT AVERAGE FILL 4.8 FT Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning following actions: • Adopt the attached Mitigated environmental impacts. Commission take the Negative Declaration of • Approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20042, Hillside Design Review DRC2016-00377, Variance DRC2016- 00748, Variance DRC2017-00014 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2016-00376 I y zIto I 1 I I�i I�' , 'ram �'J1 r,F�b �`• f'r���. '� A �',�` i ' '��':. r x CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Summary • Applicant: DR Horton, Inc. • Project Description: A request for site plan and architectural review of mixed use project consisting 380 residential units, a 71 room hotel and two restaurant buildings totaling 12,000 square feet. • Project Size: 28.4 acres of Land • General Plan Designation: Mixed Use (MU) • Zoning: Regionally Related Office/Commercial (Victoria Community Plan) • Density : 15.3 dwelling units per acre 0- C Project Site Entitlement Applications • Victoria Community Plan Amendment — DRC2016-00452 • Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762 • Tentative Tract Map — SUBTT20032 • Design Review — DRC2016-00450 • Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449 (Type 70 ABC License) • Minor Exception — DRC2016-00508 (Wall Height) • Uniform Sign Program — DRC2016-00451 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �i�fv Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016=00452 History/Background: • Victoria Community Plan: adopted in 1981 - Mixed Use not included as a land use category • Initial land use designation: logical location for retail near the regional mall • Site was designated for Mixed Use starting with 2001 General Plan adoption • Evaluated and remained Mixed Use in the 2010 General Plan adoption • Current Designation of Regionally Related Office Commercial s+t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • *i Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016=00452 Zone change will implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Vertical consistency with the current General Plan. • Implement Land Use Policy Goal LU-1.1: Project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding development through site planning and density transition. • Implement Land Use Policy Goal LU-1.6: Project incorporates small detached and attached housing product in a manner that is complimentary to existing development. • Implement Land Use Policy Goal LU-2.1: Project is designed as mixed use project that offers pedestrian and trail connections, and proximity to transit routes. • Results fiscally sustainable project to the City: cost of public services vs. revenues. Tentative Parcel Map 19762 and Tentative Tract Map 20032 • Parcel Map (real property) • 4 parcels: hotel, two restaurants and remainder for the residential area Tract Map (condominiums) • 380 residential units (329 attached and 51 single-family attached) • Provides for market rate ownership opportunities Tentative Parcel Map 19762 i t" w ue wo e 74 NMI � 1 - IYIMII R pYj -K_ • 1 I � r • I e � � 1 • 1 L ' ' 1 r r � 1 w r 1 �" 4 Design Review DRC2016=00450 • Overarching goal: create a mixed use project that is unique with higher density that provides interconnectivity and walkable connections • Use of paseos, social nodes and gathering areas of different design and scale. • Primary plaza in the residential area features raised stage, seat walls and outdoor area that can host various community events. • Plaza at the corner of Day Creek and Base Line features outdoor seating with shade, decorative pacing, overhead trellis and a central fountain. Design Review DRC2016=00450 d ad �ddddd J d ✓ 'y ✓ ���'iy �iasrRT.�'?�*-;.• � - '� fly �. jj +r ] 1 off G7�*°rvi;r�t----------------------------- Residential Product Villaqe A: Three floor plans featuring two or three bedrooms that range from 1,279 square feet to 1,474 square feet with a two -car garage (conventional or tandem). Villaqe B: Features two or three bedrooms that range from 1,549 square feet to 1,862 square feet with all units having a conventional (side -by -side) two -car garage. Villaqe C: Largest of the rowhome concept and is designed with two or three bedrooms that range from 1,854 square feet to 2,202 square feet with all units having a conventional two -car garage. Villaqe D: Single-family detached condominiums. All two-story, range from 2,177 square feet to 2,333 square feet, are designed with either 4 or 5 bedrooms and include conventional two car garages. { Or do 16 ae `Ji1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -a: :a: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA man __ elms '' : CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA :: Fes.. w+w w• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - t. ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • } ' Wl ALL m- mwt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Landscape/Amenities • 9 amenities are provided (6 passive and 3 active) • Passive amenities: The passive amenities are designed for sitting, reading, conversation and outdoor eating. • Two plazas • Three outdoor seating/lounge areas • One paseo with a connecting walkway trail near the core of the project that links one plaza and one seating area/tot lot • Active amenities: • Pool, spa, bbq and cabana area • Linear park • Double bocce ball court Landscape 1 _e----,-- --- - 4i } PARK r=n+ - ! ; MIENN/1l a'kUtJ INAN LMAS ABM . a C TOTIAT RECREATION AREA I.ANOSCAf rit 1 �R 1 J 1 ` I ... -------------- 1 d PgixR=cue evens : Ii'. � BViSECUE AAEA6 4- COWIERCIM PLAZA i ii -.»..» ..». • .....yAd i 1 1� 1 i , 3 - ROCCE BALL r _{l 1 W COURTS 1 ++i 1d2i At las i R J 1 1 � 1 .% .-J' OW' '.9J F bi♦ 1 -'-�b a� �1 - OUTDOOR - 9 J LII .3 AREA 1 1 AREA �: I � i.. ai J DAY CREEK BOULEVARD Linear Park • Linear Park • Accessible to public/privately maintained • Open turf areas for low intensity activities (badminton, frisbee, volleyball) • Bocce ball, shaded areas with game tables, native garden area • Park plan reviewed by Police and will have cameras that connect to PVSN) .mrnw•iw. om.•urs. .:•.rrealn•uswru YIM/11(Oa � �NIYrYt�.E� —� ���` 16Si. wufr.Vn .... ,� _ •�NIOt.RNYLLi IYHWn4 •� Conditional Use Permit DRC2016- 00449 Type 70 ABC License: • Authorizes the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises to the establishment's overnight occupancy guests for their invitees. • Type of license is common and accepted business practice for hotels. • Request is compatible with the hospitality use. Minor Exception DRC2016=00508 Minor Exception request to include walls that are over the 6-foot maximum height limit. Supporting findings: 1) an approximate 4-5 foot grade differential that consists from an upslope condition that occurs along the project's west boundary. 2) the necessity to lower pad elevations because of the elevation control point of the south edge in order minimize neighborhood. in some areas by up to 4.5 feet matching the existing grade along visual impacts to the existing Uniform Sign Program DRC2016- 00451 • Commercial signage: The monument signs (one on Day Creek and one on Base Line) are designed to match stucco color and texture of the hotel and restaurant buildings. • Each restaurant includes provisions for two wall signs, all of which are compliant with the area and quantity requirements. • Residential project identification signs: The project includes a 6-foot high project identification sign at the primary entry off Day Creek Boulevard. • The sign will have adjacent landscaping, and is designed with pinned steel letters attached to 24" x 48" stone/tile veneer walls. • Illumination will be backlit and the height and sign area meet the Code requirements. Parking Number of Number Code Standard Required Total Required Total Bedrooms of Units Covered Parking Spaces Provided Parking Parking Spaces Two Bedroom 94 2 Spaces/Unit 94 spaces 188 188 Units 1 Gara a or Carport) Three Bedroom SPACES Units 235 /UNIT 235 470 470 (2 in Garage or Carport) Single Family • CAiz 51 G,\ 102 spaces 102 102 RA GL Guest Parking 235 1 per 3 units 127 142 Subtotal: Residential Parking 887 902 Surplus +15 Hotel (71 rooms) 73 73 Two Restaurants (12,000 sq. ft total) 120 120 Subtotal: Commercial 193 193 Surplus/deficit 0 Totals 1,080 1,095 Surplus/deficit +15 A Shared Parking EXHIBtT 1; SHARED PANXING MAP 4"N j7 A LEGEND: - ID ILITI4 I Community Meetings • Goal: Transparency and opportunity for questions and input • 3 community meetings held • Key issues raised: • Viability and land use of hotel • Adequate on site parking • Density of project: 15.3 units/acre • Privacy concerns along south side for existing neighborhood • Incorporation of native plant materials and large canopy trees Community Meetings • Revisions made in response to community input: • Lowering of unit count from 392 to 380 • Reduction in number of units along southern edge (14 to 5) • Detached condos along southern edge re -plotted from side - on to rear -on • Design and inclusion of linear park • Reduction in massing of rowhomes along Day Creek • Landscape palette: native plant garden in linear park and use of Coast Live Oaks and California Sycamores CEQA: Biological Impacts Fiscal Impact Analysis Scenario 1: No zone change, and developing the site under the existing zoning, floor area Ratios with a 163,350 square feet of commercial use and 392,000 square feet of office use. • For Scenario 1, it is estimated that a proposed retail/office project would generate $788,000 in annual reoccurring revenue and $334,000 in reoccurring costs, resulting in a net fiscal positive impact to the City of $454,000. Scenario 2: Proposed mixed use project by DR Horton. For Scenario 2, it is estimated that the proposed mixed use project would generate $691,000 in annual reoccurring revenue and $215,000 in reoccurring costs, resulting in a net fiscal positive impact to the City of $476,000. Recommended Actions Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions: • Recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts. • Recommend that the City Council approve Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2016-00452. • Contingent upon City Council adoption of and MND and approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment to change the zoning to Mixed Use, approve: • Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19762 • Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20032 • Design Review DRC2016-00450 • Conditional Use Permit DRC2016-00449 • Minor Exception DRC2016-00508 • Uniform Sign Program DRC2016-00451 /�GO 2'Z 60/ / PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-64 TIME EXTENSION DRC2017-00430 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 14, 2017 Page 2 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on June 14, 2017, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 7 parcels of approximately 150.79 acres located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; and b. The project is adjacent to the south and west by single-family residences and is adjacent to the north and east by vacant undeveloped land; and C. The zoning of the subject property is Very -Low Residential District and Low Residential District. The zoning of the properties to the north and west are within the Low Residential District. The Zoning of the property to the east is within the Very -Low Residential District. The Zoning of the properties to the south are within the Very -Low Residential District. The subject property and properties to the north, east and west are within the North Etiwanda Specific Plan. The properties to the south are within the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and e. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 complies with the density requirements specified within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). The ENSP requires the density within any residential district to be determined through the residential land development/design review process and public hearings as described in the Development Code in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential developments; existing or proposed. The Tentative Tract Map includes 358 lots for single-family residential development and is consistent with the existing residential development to the west and northwest as well as the previously approved subdivisions to the north and southeast. The northern portion of SUBTT16072 includes 167 lots on 56.61 acres with a density of 2.95 dwelling units per acre. The southern portion of the project includes 191 lots on 65.71 acres at a density of 2.92 dwelling units per acre. The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre. The gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre; and f. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 is consistent with the density provisions of the General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very Low Residential (1-2 dwelling units per \ acre) as averaged across the project site (as described in subsection e. above). Furthermore, development across the entire project results in less development than what would otherwise be allowed under the General Plan based on the permitted densities; and g. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 complies with the density requirements specified within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). The ENSP requires the density within any residential district to be determined through the residential land development/design review process and public hearings as described in the Development Code in order to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential developments; existing or proposed. The Tentative Tract Map includes 358 lots for single-family residential development and is JE L/ )�e Corcl Co, 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino. CA 92415-0835 1 Phone: 909.387.8109 Fax: 909.387.7876 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY June 12, 2017 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Donald Granger, Senior Planner Planning Department P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91729 Department of Public Works • Flood Control • Operations • Solid Waste Management • Surveyor • Transportation Gerry Newcombe Director File: 10(ENV)-4.01 RE: CEQA — NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DAY CREEK SQUARE PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Mr. Granger: Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project. We received this request on May 4, 2017 and pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. We are aware there may be storm drains in and around the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. When planning for or altering existing or future storm drains, be advised that the Project is subject to the Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) project #2 dated March 1969. Please refer to this plan as a guideline for drainage in the area and is available in the San Bernardino County Flood Control District's (District) office. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Fam in the Flood Control Planning Division at 909-387-8120. Permits/Operations Support Division (Melissa Walker. Chief, 909-387-7995); Since this project is near the District's Channel Creek facility, any work affecting the right-of-way would need a Flood Control Permit. If these permits are required, their necessity and any impacts associated with the construction should be addressed in the IS/MND. Environmental Manaeement Division (Patrick Ezie Planner III 909-387-1865)• Page 33 of the Biological Technical Report (report) states, "The habitat at the Project site has been disturbed over the years, such that the site is dominated by California buckwheat, giving the site the appearance of alluvial scrub vegetation in an earlier stage of ecological succession." The quality of the vegetation community should not be downgraded based on disturbance. Exhibit 4 within the same document identifies the majority of the area (25.48 acres) as Buckwheat scrub and the smaller north western corner of the project site as Disturbed Buckwheat Scrub (2.96), no mention of the larger swaths of buckwheat scrub as being disturbed. When describing a "disturbed" site such as RAFSS as perhaps lowering the intrinsic value of the habitat, be reminded that RAFSS by its very nature is disturbed. The fact that it is disturbed only adds to its health. EMD recommends re -writing both this portion of the report and the IS/MND to properly reflect the quality of habitat that exists on -site. 2. The report is not consistent in its description of the vegetation classification on the project site. Page 18 of the Biological Technical Report, first complete paragraph, describes the vegetation as "a scrub vegetation community dominated by California buckwheat". It continues to state "Buckwheat scrub is a sub association of Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS), which is an inland type of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)". The next sentence states there were "several mature individuals of scalebroom". Scalebroom is an indicator species for Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and a distinctive species between RAFSS and CSS. The report confirms this when discussing "the only dominant species that has a strong fidelity to alluvial scrub is scalebroom, which generally is regarded as an indicator of RAFSS". The vegetation within the project site is RAFSS and thus EMD recommends that both the report and the IS/MND be revised to address its impacts comprehensively, including mitigation and minimization measures to account for the loss of this habitat. 3. Page 19 of the report declares the project site's vegetation as "remnant" RAFSS; however, this does not negate that it is still a State -designated S-1.1 plant community. EMD recommends that both the report, and the IS/MND, should be revised to identify necessary mitigation measures for the project's impacts to RAFSS. We respectfully request to be included on the circulation list for all project notices, public reviews, or public hearings. In closing, I would like to thank you again for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project. Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above. Sincerely, Mic el R. Perry Su rvising Planner Environmental Management MRP:PE:kl -'I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUN 13 2017 June 7, 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING Planning/Historic Preservation Commission ATT: Donald Granger 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Commissioners, As a longtime Rancho Cucamonga business owner, I wish to communicate my strong support for the proposed Day Creek Square Project which is being considered by the Commission at your June 14°i meeting. The boutique hotel amenity that is provided by the Day Creek Square Project will generate needed tourism revenues to help maintain the high level of community services that Rancho Cucamonga provides to residents. This new master -planned mixed use neighborhood will also be very attractive for millenials and young families who are seeking convenient walking access to shops and restaurants. It represents the high standards of planning innovation that has made Rancho Cucamonga such a dynamic and successful community. I urge you to approve the Day Creek Square Project on June 14°i and request that my letter of support be submitted as part of the official record. Thank you. Sincerely, 4Sr IC vin Brown, . 10844 Edison Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 June 2, 2017 Planning Department c/o Donald Granger, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91716 Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUN 12 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING I am disheartened to learn that the proposed Day Creek Square project will permanently remove Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) from its 28.4 acre site. This RAFSS is considered by our state to be a sensitive and declining habitat that is home to a variety of native wildlife species including birds, which I particularly adore. As a result, I ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga require DR Horton, the developer of this project, to mitigate for the loss of this RAFSS as per the conservation goals of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan, which includes preserving "sensitive habitats" (Chapter 6, Page RC-7). An example of mitigation for the loss of RAFSS would be to require the Day Creek Square project to 1) include native alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation throughout its landscaping, and 2) extend the length of its proposed linear park to connect with the planned city bike path along the Day Creek Drainage. According to rp esent plans, this 63 ft. wide parkway on the southern edge of the site will not extend to the far west edge of the project site. Such a connection between the linear park and future bike path should provide a corridor for wildlife, such as birds, between native habitat that still exists along Day Creek Drainage and any native vegetation that may be included in the parkway or other parts of the development. A more significant mitigation for the loss of this RAFSS habitat would be to require the developer to contribute to funds to help 1) restore alluvial fan sage scrub in present conservation areas, or 2) acquire proposed conservation areas that would protect alluvial fan sage scrub, or 3) do both. Present conservation areas include the North Etiwanda Preserve, and proposed conservation areas include those discussed in the Ranch Cucamonga 2010 General Plan (Chapter 6, Page RC-4). Thank you for considering the preservation of such an invaluable native plant community. Sincerely, ,z,v� a - Grace Aguiar 1371Bowen St. Upland, CA 91786 60/c d 6��7 June 14, 2017 Planning Department c/o Donald Granger, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA JUN 14 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING As an avid birder and current president of the Pomona Valley Audubon Society, I recognize that without native plant communities, we will have no native birds. That's why I was particularly disheartened to learn that the proposed Day Creek Square project will permanently remove Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) from its 28.4 acre site with no mitigation for the removal. The state of California considers RAFSS a sensitive and declining habitat that is home to a variety of native wildlife species, including birds, which deserve our protection. Therefore,) ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga require the developer, D.R. Horton, to mitigate for the loss of this RAFSS as per the conservation goals of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan, which includes preserving "sensitive habitats" (Chapter 6, Page RC-7). This is not about being anti -development, it's about smart development. For example, mitigation for the loss of RAFSS could be as simple as requiring the project to include native alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation throughout its landscaping, and (even smarter) to extend the length of its proposed linear park to connect with the planned city bike path along the Day Creek Drainage. Present plans show this 63 foot -wide parkway on the southern edge of the site will not extend to the far west edge of the project site. Such a connection between the linear park and future bike path should provide a corridor for wildlife, such as birds, between native habitat that still exists along Day Creek Drainage and any native vegetation that may be included in the parkway or other parts of the development. More significant mitigation for the loss of this RAFSS habitat would be to require the D.R. Horton to contribute funds to help 1) restore alluvial fan sage scrub in present conservation areas, or 2) acquire proposed conservation areas that would protect alluvial fan sage scrub, or 3) do both. Present conservation areas include the North Etiwanda Preserve, and proposed conservation areas include those discussed in the Ranch Cucamonga 2010 General Plan (Chapter 6, Page RC-4). Thank you for considering the preservation of such an invaluable native plant community and the wildlife that live there. Sincerely, Tina Stoner 8823 Coca Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 icc 0// WALTON 874 N. 10th Ave. • Upland, Califomia 91786 • (909)949-7483 • notlaw_17@msn.com June 14, 2017 Planning Department ;y c/o Donald Granger, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUN 14 2017 RECEIVED - PLANNING Once again, I am a local wildlife biologist who is concerned about the loss of native California vegetative communities and open space in our foothill communities. Below I am providing some supplemental comments to my original comments regarding the Day Creek Square project that I wrote on April 11, 2017. First of all, I am very pleased to hear that the plans for Day Creek Square will likely be incorporating native alluvial fan sage scrub vegetation and more native large -canopy trees, like oaks, into its landscaping plans. However, I am still asking Rancho Cucamonga to require more significant mitigation for the loss of about 24 acres of Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub habitat (RAFSS) at this project site as per the conservation goals of the "Rancho Cucamonga (RC) 2010 General Plan" (Chapter. 6, Page RC-7). As I had discussed in my previous letter, the loss of this RAFSS habitat could be significantly mitigated by requiring the developer to contribute to funds to help 1) restore/protect alluvial fan sage scrub in present conservation areas, or 2) acquire proposed conservation areas that would protect alluvial fan sage scrub, or 3) do both. Present conservation areas include the North Etiwanda Preserve, and proposed conservation areas include those discussed in the "RC 2010 General Plan" (Chapter 6, Page RC-4). I am asking for more significant mitigation because I disagree with the Initial Study's conclusion (page 40) that the Day Creek Square (DCS) project site "does not have long-term conservation value as RAFSS and loss of vegetation at this site would not have a substantial adverse effect on remaining functional RAFSS." Whether or not this RAFSS has `long-term conservation value" this habitat still has present value for the species that currently occupy it or have the potential to occupy it in the near future. The "Biological Technical Report for the DCS Project" (appendices A and B) reported over thirty native plant species, and over twenty-five reptiles, birds, and mammals that presently occupy the site. Because reported surveys were limited to just a few days, one would expect to find even more native species with additional surveys conducted on the project site. The "DCS Initial Study" (page 26) for this project even states that this RAFSS could still provide potential habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl, which are both federal and state special -status species. &- / 0 -16 A At present, this RAFSS on the DCS project site also provides a haven and/or stepping stone for wildlife, like native birds and insects, that fly to and use native habitat throughout the region. Thus, this patch of RAFSS could be essential for the survival and long-term conservation of RAFSS, other sensitive habitats, or even agricultural crops elsewhere in our foothills that rely on such animals for seed dispersal and pollination. Secondly, I am very happy to hear that Rancho Cucamonga will be requiring pedestrian access from Day Creek Square to the planned Day Creek Bike Trail near the southwest corner of the Day Creek Square project site. However, I would still like Rancho Cucamonga to require the linear park on the south end of the project to extend entirely to the western edge of the project site for the following reasons. 1) This park extension would help prevent flooding by providing more area for the infiltration of storm water, especially since this area is close to potential overflow from the Day Creek Channel and because there are no designated open spaces for water infiltration directly up slope from this site. 2) Such a connection between the linear park and future bike path should provide a corridor for wildlife between native habitat that still exists along Day Creek Channel and any native vegetation that may be included in the parkway or other parts of the development. 3) A longer park would provide additional connectivity throughout DCS for pedestrians. 4) Lastly, extending this parkway to the west would also provide a buffer between walkers and residences for any future increase in pedestrian traffic in southwest corner of DCS after the Day Creek Bike Trail has been opened. Several Rancho Cucamonga (RC) citizens and I have questioned why the proposed Iinear park does not extend all the way westward to the future bike trail. RC City responded by saying that the police department believes that this southwest corner, without through traffic, will become a magnet for riffraff. I understand their concern, but the project design could be modified to allow for pedestrian through traffic in that southwest corner and, thus, minimize any safety concerns. For example, if the five houses west of the linear park were removed and replaced with park area, the entrances to the high density housing to the north could face southward toward the extended park area. Another possible idea would be to open each back patio of this high density housing with a gate to this park area so that residents have immediate access to this area and, thus, could keep a better eye out on this area. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 6 0 Natasha Walton, M.S. • State of California — Natural Resources Age DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIF Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0167 www.wildlife.ca.clov June 14, 2017 Sent via email Mr. Donald Granger City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 donald.aranaer0)citvofrc. us Subject: Initial Study with Proposed Day Creek Square Project Re602X C.-'t DMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Of, C\� 0� �Pe1CN 01A TV 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration State Clearinghouse No. 2017051019 Dear Mr. Granger: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study (IS) and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Day Creek Square Project (project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2017051019]. The Department is responding to the IS/MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 at seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). The project proposes the development of 380 residential units, a hotel, and two restaurants on 28.4 acres located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino; within Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 1090-331-05. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources); and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP Program). The Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Rancho Conserving Caftfornia's Wi(fffe Since 1870 �F/--/(./, Mitigated Negative Declaration Day Creek Square Project SCH No. 2017051019 Page 2 Cucamonga (City; the CEQA lead agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. Biological Resources and Impacts Following review of the IS and MND, the Department is concerned by the lack of feasible mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant impacts, and/or mitigate significant impacts to declining natural vegetation communities and species of special concern within the City of Rancho Cucamonga's sphere of influence. We offer the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City in adequately identifying and mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources: Special Status Wildlife Species The IS identifies that two special -status small mammals (desert woodrat and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse) were detected during trapping surveys of the project site and that the project will remove habitat supporting these species. The IS (Page 24) also states that "...the project will remove habitat with the potential to support several... special -status reptiles, including coast horned lizard, orangethroat whiptail, rosy boa, red diamond rattlesnake, and silvery legless lizard." For both taxonomic groups the IS concludes (Page 24) that "...due to [the] relatively small size and the general isolation of the site, and the relatively low sensitivity of these species, the loss of habitat at the property would not have a substantial, adverse effect on these species. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant and would not require mitigation..." The Department disagrees with these findings and the City's determination that impacts will be less than significant (and therefore no mitigation is required). Based on cumulative impacts within the immediate vicinity of this project site (APN 1089-031-37 [10.18 acres], and 1089-031-36 [4 acres] located north of the project site are both proposed for development), the Department considers the removal of 28.4 acres of habitat supporting these species of special concern to be a significant impact. The IS argues that loss of habitat at the property would not have a substantial, adverse effect on these species, but fails to appropriately articulate how this conclusion was rJached, or what supporting data was used to reach this determination. Given that 100 percent of the habitat onsite will be removed to accommodate the project, how is it possible that impacts to the species of special concern found onsite will not be significant? Continuing loss of natural habitat within the City have isolated remaining populations of non-vagile species of special concern making it almost impossible for individuals to relocate out of harm's way and avoid take. The IS also appears to argue that because small mammals were detected in "low numbers," the importance of the species presence is somehow diminished. The Department finds considerable fault with this argument given that only a very small portion of the project site was trapped (the northwest corner), yet trapping yielded the presence of five small mammal species (two Mitigated Negative Declaration Day Creek Square Project SCH No. 2017051019 Page 3 of which are species of special concern) and 40 small mammals were captured (with a capture rate of approximately 4 percent). Given the continuing loss of natural habitat, and further isolation of remaining areas of natural habitat, within the City, the Department argues that any impact to natural habitat supporting species of special concern is a significant impact warranting appropriate compensatory mitigation. Alluvial Scrub Habitat The Biological Technical Report and IS fail to provide a consistent determination of the vegetation community found on site. The IS identifies that presence of scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum) within the project site, and further states that (Page 39) "what remains onsite essentially functions as Riversidean sage scrub" despite also characterizing the vegetation as "buckwheat scrub." The Biological Technical Report also states that scalebroom is "...generally regarded as an indicator of RAFSS [Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub]." The vegetation community found onsite is a Lepidospartum alliance, and the IS should be revised to reflect this. Scale broom scrub has an overall rarity ranking of G3 S3, with some associations within the scale broom scrub alliance (i.e., Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) being listed as rare as G1 S1.1. No compensatory mitigation for the loss of this habitat is provided in the CEQA document; further, the Biological Technical Report (Page 19) attempts to invalidate and/or diminish the significance of the projects' impacts to RAFSS: stating that the vegetation is "remnant." The Department considers all associations with state ranks of S1-S3 to be highly imperiled. Further, the Department considers the removal of up to 25.48 acres of RAFSS to be a significant impact. Mitigation The Department is concerned by the cumulative impacts to Lepidospartum alliance habitat and associated species assemblages within the City's sphere of influence. Urban development has resulted in alluvial sage scrub to become eliminated or isolated to stands along streams and outwashes on major alluvial fans throughout much of Rancho Cucamonga. However, even degraded or isolated patches of alluvial scrub vegetation still retain a distinct characteristic given their relation to flood -deposited alluvia and the species associated with this habitat type. This project highlights this fact. In order to reduce the impacts to species of special concern and alluvial fan scale broom scrub to a level that is less than significant, the Department recommends that the City require the project proponent to purchase, conserve in perpetuity, and enhance/restore similar habitat within the watershed. While the amount (acreage) of habitat that is appropriate will vary based on the location of the proposed mitigation area and the amount and type of enhancement and/or restoration proposed, the proposed mitigation area should, at a minimum, support a similar diversity and abundance of species as the project site. Because of the rarity of RAFSS, the Department Mitigated Negative Declaration Day Creek Square Project SCH No. 2017051019 Page 4 recommends that the project be mitigated at no less than a ratio of 3:1 (compensatory mitigation acreage: impact acreage). Note that a higher ratio may be warranted if the proposed mitigation site requires little enhancement, is located far away from the project site (i.e., within a separate watershed), is not occupied by or available to special status species, and/or possesses other attributes that diminish its long-term conservation value. The Department is available to assist the City in evaluating the proposed mitigation prior to adoption of the MND. Department Conclusions and Further Coordination The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for the Day Creek Square Project (SCH No. 2017051049), and we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga address the Department's comments and concerns prior to adoption of the MND. If you should have any questions pertaining to the comments provided in this letter, please contact Joanna Gibson at (909) 987-7449 or at 6oanna.aibson aOwildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Nional air anager 6-r-6'c /iW %eecaKo4 CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING At its regular meeting held on June 14, 2017, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission continued the following item to its meeting to be held on June 28, 2017. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20105 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. —A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 82 acres into five (5) parcels located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 6th Street, south of the Metrolink/BNSF rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues - APN: 0209-272-20. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said continuance was passed by the following vote: Ayes: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY Noes: NONE Absent: MACIAS Abstain: NONE Date: June 15, 2017 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Lois J. Schrader, declare as follows I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on June 14, 2017, said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE shown above; and that on June 15, 2017, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door in which said meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on June 15, 2017, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Lois J. S ader Planning Commission Secretary CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING At its regular meeting held on June 14, 2017, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission continued the following item(s) to its meeting to be held on June 28, 2017. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20073 — LEWIS MANAGEMENT CORP. — A review of a proposed subdivision of a property of about 84 acres into twenty-seven (27) parcels and one (1) lettered lot located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues -APNs: 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Pre - Application Review DRC2017-00170. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on May 18, 2016 in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Said continuance was passed by the following vote: Ayes: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY Noes: NONE Absent: MACIAS Abstain: NONE Date: June 15, 2017 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Lois J. Schrader, declare as follows I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; that at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on June 14, 2017, said public hearing was opened and continued to the time and place specified in the NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE shown above; and that on June 15, 2017, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., a copy of said notice was posted in a conspicuous place near the door in which said meeting was held. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on June 15, 2017, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Lois J. S rader Planning Commission Secretary