Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-13 - Supplemental APlanning Commission April 13, 2016 Applicant SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.) Proposed Project Description 1. Amend the 2010 General Plan; 2. Amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Specific Plan ("Empire Lakes Specific Plan"); and 3. Amend the Development Code +ex" � C Planning Commission April 13, 2016 Proposed Project Description These amendments are requested in order to allow the applicant to replace the Empire Lakes Golf Course with a new mixed use, transit - oriented, high density development project. The overall presentation Lakes". project will be referred to in this as "Planning Area 1" or "Empire BNSFIMetrolink Rail Line` ' t� d 4 L. l 1 Empire Lakes Specific Plan !FlFr r fi r r a1�u ae ,F 4th Street- _ . F•y! u� :� ,W q l y� _ty ' It p F.y.- �► I _ - $'"w ,. B Y- R�__ 1500feet NSFIMetroli nk ail Lin a r ry Metrolink Station " W, " Industrial Offices �" t - Empire Lakes _ Acacia Street d Golf Course 7th Street acres - Logistics and _; -F - d 160 t Manufacturing KIM c Multi -Family' Apartment — J d Complex V Vft 6th Stree# 5100 feet 1800 feet 6th Street Industrial Officesf I ;* J Multi -Family a ; ;3 Apartment y t ComplexME 4-�—: _.A-- •- 4th th Street- R I 440feet , - ...�q� t�.its.' 4 ;.�°�L yr• N�f ,. , �rF -BNSF/Metroln ,I - Acacia Street-! it 1 _6th Street._ d a c > Industrial Park II� 4th•Street- yJ7lr er �J�r'� esr' 6th Street ,Q Q ' a IhdLJstrial Utica Ave. �� N Cn .. CD CD CD s M" Jl� r Cl) AA J L� V-11, ---i f Milliken Ave =� r---------� ,n Specific Plan Background 1. The Specific Plan was approved and Final EIR was certified by the City Council in June 1994. 2. Amendments to the Specific Plan: • 11/2000 — SP Amendment 00-01, Ord. #638; • 05/2001 — SP Amendment 00-04, Ord. #656; • 09/2002 — SP Amendment DRC2002-00464, Ord. #690; and • 06/2003 — SP Amendment DRC2003-00255, Ord. #714 Regulatory and Policy Background 1. 2010 General Plan — Land use designations for several parcels changed to "Mixed Use". • Generally grouped in "Mixed Use Areas" at various locations in the City as shown in Figure LU-3 of the General Plan; • A total of thirteen (13) Mixed Use Areas and include the existing apartment complexes located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. Regulatory and Policy Background 2. 2015 Council Goals • A24 — Objective: address 1) mixed use, high density, transit oriented development (TOD), and 2) underperforming or under-utilized areas; • A25 — Objective: review the zoning districts and evaluate creating overlays or specific plans that will create districts to revitalize underperforming or underutilized areas. Regulatory and Policy Background 3. 2015 Mixed Use Development Standards • Development Code Amendment for incorporating development standards for density, building height, parking, setbacks, etc. • Applies to mixed use development; • Adopted in October 2015 Studies and Field Activities 1. 06/2013 — Foothill Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study; 2. 10/2013 — Design Tour; 3. 02/2015 — Economic Development Strategic Plan; and 4. 03/2016 Oriented Report Metrolink Station and Transit - Development (TOD) Feasibility City's Development Goals 1. Plan for in -fill development while connecting land use and transportation modes; 2. Encourage in -fill development to maximize efficient use of infrastructure and address housing demand; 3. Sustainable development that emphasizes accessibility where the activities people use frequently are located in close proximity; •,!. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA City's Development Goals 4. Support the development of housing for the widest variety of household types and needs; 5. Strive to have a healthy community - a "Healthy City" - by minimizing traffic and enhancing opportunities to walk, bike, and use transit, air pollution Review Timeline • Submittal of Application - 01/08/2015 • Public Scoping Meeting - 06/10/2015 • Planning Commission Workshop - 11/10/2015 • Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) available for public review - 11/10/2015 to 12/24/2015 Review Timeline • Four Community Meetings - 12/10/20159 01 /14/2016, 01 /21 /2016, and 01 /28/2016 • Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - 04/01 /2016 • Planning Commission Public Hearing - 04/13/2016 • City Council Public Hearing - TBD General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 1. Change the land use subject property from "Mixed Use"; designation of the "Open Space" to 2. Revise Figures LU-2 (Land Use Plan) and LU-3 (Mixed Use Areas); and 3. Revise/delete text that refers site as a golf course and development characteristics Specific Plan area. to the project describes the within the 1 t i j san Gaenu Mombna Lana Uve OoiputipN a 11N BFOP Np.R D,NO N A I I uc2.) _ _ 1 - uesum KoalN.o-revs) C["Z:.jtj ,NCHO -i 1 Nyli1N 0-]OL Jnc�l ,Mo" o aeYron- t ¢ FaRI r — CvrvNy Cnmiwaw,O N]3 OFJRI L i—MMCamcmI N35-6EFM¢ 1NY OF Yf101h! Sn / yr. - YPSS Oo I TANK Me]{Nf ro15. r.o FaP1 N+wrn ` NM J� rt ) I MNW 'zreuNw—r pm-om Fury -o.w ru¢ iJ —.J {ilw�#R 'vI xEawwAy'�u.m Faouy cw.anepwui ro_ao-,RFAR) nzlFw) 7 ,: - Ylre lheMas oN, .-raorrmaa NarwnA.e iR-¢er awaNwNur sane ray crtr of �.1-.' _ I i nwrYaa Hw.aAar taieNa tal UPLAND ra-+�a-�•-ai+• _ rr ltaYMN drweruea 0um iR r yJ� Sf�4�NM aCMW a.el ,r.�dCi�.Vaa N ! rr-wtA.ea.r.av,.n aFrosraoaan.q.ce..NaN ' ' � -r. N . TF'� i�r Dwl.Iwaa ruMa.e Yl WiMga Aa. • J fl �� - DnMa la.mN a.e PaAa 0 %///// Nwa�w..,aorer O ear..rw snug .� : ,r'ar y_;-jEp-suiMUN Ama O A.v NOa sam �y� • ahr.RlT © N®n sam C~ zr9'g a � C ,�� _ �— I ® naoaam rNx ni fiY BaNaY FleM/ r M'N—aya rbb AMaLs — NY IO YRa aNq Yap.tl �aNq YUppaerp / ICr TYOF brm RNb Marn4aN5wraoie GaYKav Nr _ F pp F I FONTANA sl -Y 'p CITY OF N ONTAR.o �/ ! - 1� Figure LU.2: Q a ass as — Land Use Plan AMAO¢Or,.I/af. (pNaNWN' DaNRA.. NNfdN NHp. RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN W-n P0.NCeJ0 CU CnMONGA GENERAL PLAN WZl Mired Use: Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub -Area 18) This area is bounded on the south by 4'" Street. on the east by Milliken Avenue. on the north by the railroad, and on the west by Utica Street (#8 on Figure LU-3). The development is entirely built out. It surrounds an 18-hole golf course and includes the Metrolink Station off Milliken Avenue. The Industrial Area Specific Plan (Empire Lakes) Mixed Use area reflects the mixed land use approved under the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The intent of the Mixed Use designation is to: • Promote planning flexibility to achieve more creative and imaginative employment -generating designs • Integrate a wider range of retail commercial, service commercial, recreation, and office uses within this industrial area of the City • Allow for the sensitive inclusion of high -density residential development that offers high -quality multi -unit condominiums and apartments for employees desiring housing close to work and transit Table LU-9 specifies the uses and range of development allowed. Table LU-9: Mixed Use: Industrial Area Specific Plan/Subarea 1S creage Range Estimated "Most rage Densit Case" 00011y ,r;&,res; Dwe I I i ng 1i�nits (du) Commercial — retail, service commercial, tourist commercial, 15%-25% 34-57 acres 40 acres office (commercial and professional) Office —professional. medical 40%-60% 90-136 acres 110.5 acres corporate offices Public/Quasi-Public/Recreation 7.5% 16.5 ac 16.5 acres 25-50 acres (N 50 acres Q Residential 11%-22% 27.75 du/acre 27.75 du/acre' 694 to 1.388 du 1,388 du ROW — Metrolink Parking 4.5% 10.3 ac 10.3 acres Totals 100% 227 acres 227 acres Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015=00040 1. Revise or delete existing text and graphics in Sections 1 through 6 of the existing Specific Plan document; 2. Re -designate Planning Area 1A/1 B, and part of Planning Area 3 as Planning Area 1 (PA1); and 3. Incorporate document guidelines . _n inn 71_ into the existing Specific design/technical standards for development within PA1 Plan and (new Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 1. Revise text and graphics that apply to the existing Specific Plan so that they reflect the amended Specific Plan. 2 In addition, apply only incorporated. a new land to Planning use table Area 1 that will will be BNSF/Metrolink U Lsnu 61n Street F" v 4 � a 4 --' 4tn Street Intent • As proposed, "Empire Lakes" will be a mixed use, transit -oriented, high density development with residential and non-residential uses. • The density will be relatively higher than the density of a conventional residential subdivision. • The mixed use characteristics are intended to encourage walking and bicycling, reduce automobile use, and facilitate the use of Metrolink. Placetypes Transit (T) — transit -oriented services, 25,000 square feet (maximum) of non-residential uses; Mixed Use (MU) — medium to high residential (14-55 du/acre) and 110,000 feet (maximum) of non-residential uses; density square Urban Neighborhood (UN) — high density residential (24-80 du/acre); Placetypes Core Living (CL) - medium to high density residential (18-35 du/acre); Village Neighborhood (VN) - medium to high density residential (16-28 du/acre); and Recreation (REC) - common private and public recreation amenities. BNSF/Metrolink Rail Linw{ e �'- Metmllnk Son Bernardino 11Z -- - ^may nes Rol ho '.• i - ua cucamonyo t ,.N.c Nu Stotbn mu � uu 1 L a NL n's'ax 1 Q YK eN r l Acacia Street N19 7th Street "' 1!K a Ff ♦ K/ jt\ N 9 L \ fJJ♦ .. •emu • ..... _ _. _ � - qe \ ! T x. North f �ly — • 1i NIf- ; UIbm Plaza .sthe rest _ ^�.ornr- A Street, - 1 m d s c 14 °EC ISOUGh l VN \ \ ai' VI Z ♦ 1 •1 ? - \\ \ \ tans GbILIJL LEj9M M. [: Md - -i+ rr MondUe (MU) 1 � x .My�+�++ {_" • \ \ Uronn Nag,Ecrnm (LN) .- Qw T sit VbR`NegNE[ihxd NN:, Y - - IQ `i� Ml wrootvnrFE.^I _ F Y�'t Ga? �I tLIF 1 re14 Si ..•Y4^�. euvc Ml uerh 4th Street- .. _�.. ' ..i, irr�:R � `• .ac 7 .: Y _. r; r-I/ii� o' • s^� �w � = w Metrolink San Bernardino Line i i • f^ t •'fTTRTf •flTfl;TT rITTf7T71TI � TTI • l • • • • • 14P, • • 444,• • • r4 I I• i I I • i • • i,�,�,r i i � NUruh McCrolinW Prj ncho Cucamonga SGaGion rth Str*et UrL•7n Plaza Et7h strwt Transit (T) 1.2 25,000(3) Mixed Use (MU) 2.7 3.0 75,000 combined 14-40 35-55 0 0 108 164 Urban Neighborhood (UN) 20.1 24-80 483 1,611 Core Living (CL) 26.2 18-35 472 918 Village Neighborhood (VN) 12.6 16-28 201 352 ■■■■■■■■■■i9ltwtiP6SYhiP{ 6m6.'6 mmmlQ4W0■■11467i9m■■■)sLSz■■■s3mlill • Net Developable Minimum Required(')/ a Maximum Permitted Non -Developable Recreation (REC) including Urban Plazas 65.9 3.9 100,000 (4) 24.2 30.4 1,594 ■ 2,000 0 MWD Easement OS 1.4 Roads/Misc. OS 12.1 Non -Developable Subtotal 16.2 (4) - Gross Developable Minimum Required(')/ Maximum Permitted 82.0 100,000 19.4 - 24.4 1,594 2,000 qv-aJag Uav figjeAp nw = (03H)UOVIDOa06b (NA) Poc;1jo44f�ON --16QI{IA (Nn) FDO4D9L'ION uvgJn (nw) ean pew v4 6' yFjf �fla�� d/00-7/L'itl �� � NA 7rmq IZ- 3v at is NA 48-5 J srKf i� ono _ zwfflaoilh 2WAZ nw Ol WO at kL ar IVCL NA 14 -S ,7r+rq wit :Tr u a NA 91-S vm "i :pY aG4 VL-S South of 6th Street Placetypes 7AcresO) *- Effi Maximu -. -. m Mixed Use (MU) 2.9 35,000 14-40 0 115 Core Living (CL) 14.1 18-35 254 493 Village Neighborhood (VN) 50.0 16-28 800 1,400 Potential Subtotal 67.0 35,000 15.7 - 30.0 1,053 2,008 Net Developable Minimum Re%ired{'�/ Maximum Permitted 67.0 35,000 15.8 21.7 1,056 1 450' Non-Developalble Recreation (REC) 4.3 (4) Roads/Mist. OS 7.1 Non -Developable Subtotal 11.4 (4) Gross Developable Minimum Required(')/ Maximum Permitted 78.4 35,000 13-5 - 18.5 1,056 1,450 Placetypes Non- Residential Permitted DensitX Max SF Mixed Use (MU) 2.9 35,000 14-40 0 115 Core Living (CL) 14.1 18-35 254 493 Village Neighborhood (VN) 50.0 16-28 800 1,400 i i4l,40 1 1 Net Developable Minimum Required(')/ Maximum Permitted 67.0 35 000 15.8 21.7 1 056 1 450 D- - .... - Recreation (REC) 4.3 (4) Roads/Misc.OS 7.1 - Non -Developable Subtotal 11.4 (4) Gross Developable Minimum Required(')/ Maximum Permitted 78.4 35,000 13.5 - 18.5 1,056 1,450 ■ Minimum Required SF North of 6th Street ■ ■ Minimum Required SF South of 6th Street ■ ■ ■ 0 mum Gross Developable Minimum Required(')/ Gross PAI Total 20,000(5) 20,000(5) Consistent with underlying Platetype 132.8 220,000 20.0 - 26.0 2,650 3,450 160.4 220,000 16.5 - 21.5 2,650 3,450 Development Mix • Housing types will include apartments, condominiums, and single-family residences; • Designed for entry level homebuyers, individuals `downsizing' to smaller homes, and seniors; • A combination of "for rent" and "for sale"; • Sold or leased at market rates — no subsidized housing is proposed nor required. Development Mix • 2,650 — 3,450 residential dwelling units; • Up to 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses; • Residential and up to 50,000 SF of non- residential within the Mixed Use Overlay ow I vl¢ctyc`-� Lc#M TMR. IT Urban Nar3�Enntt•] Cctt lYlrg �0.j Vlibpe Neg�bmMr� hcreaEbn(RECI OMU oerhy an sense ta-• a -a-•- �-� 7xC Metrolink N`2 N-12\ Station N-1 �Nl N-4 N-5 ,�j. N-10=- 7th Street AM- Wri* - 1 '_. 71h Street N-6 �C' N-9 1 • N-7 • N-8 N-14 WN-45 "jw — bth Street • S-14 rg23, S-22 s-1s S-,6 s-nZS--20' '\r , S-18 Note: Figure 519' not to scale. 41h Street Figure 7.17: Setback Locations Legend Boundary Setbacks /PAI �) 10 feet minimum L a • • • • • 0 2 feet minimum RA.I P.;nht-of-Way Setbacks 0 10 feet minimum [ L4 J • • • • • 0 5 feet minimum 0 " 0 feet minimum rJ 5 feet minimum j ® 5 feet minimum Circulation • Street network — A combination of public and private streets; • General layout — All streets will be required to be in a grid pattern; • Curvilinear streets will not be permitted; • Cul-de-sacs only will be permitted in limited circumstances. Urban edge .long community plaza pocking screened behind buildings r� building breaks occur II every 300. to 4SOA.., i)c'• l N/// /I � Architecture define. pedestrian realm •od..mid -black — farr..nerKvny t. multiple parcels Conti...... free, edge ue.ted by b.ildi.g placement; buildings b.nt or side onto the Vine Connected patcl.wia. network Circulation - The Vine • Primary Street within Empire Lakes; • Uninterrupted connection between 4th Street and the Metrolink station; • 60 feet in width, one lane in each direction, with bicycle lane and sidewalks of about 11 feet in width on both sides. Table Top Pedestrlan Crossing 3rd Place Space Plaza Residential or Mixed Use Overlay Development Tree Well Private Polio 3rd Place Gathering Space Pedestrian roulabon Poch 3rrd Place Space Plaza Grand Paseo Residential or, Mi>ed Use Overlay Development 3rd Place Gathering Space 'edestrian Diraulatlon 'ath ,Metrolfnk Station �'lx. 7th $mo wpEb„D,,-9:9a Byuod ®uv7 , RIP+�d 4 ai6 �' PtiWI [w .za and vo C} Irk wU*A L"ff- -- SPM Adam' PAX& PId4J Parking Requirements B. Minimum Requirements All development within PAI, regardless of land use or density, are subject to the requirements of Section A of Table 7.6: Parking Standards. Residential -only development of any density providing parking consistent with Table I Z64.050-1 of the City's Development Code is not required to prepare a parking demand study. Non-residential development is subject to Table I Z64.050-1 of the City's Development Code. Residential development of 30 units/acre or less shall provide parking consistent with the number of parking spaces required by Table 17.64.050-1 of the City's Development Code, unless parking reductions are permitted pursuant to the provisions herein. Section B parking requirements of Table 7.6: Parking Standards are intended to serve as a baseline for parking provisions for higher density housing (residential development greater than 30 units/acre) and development in the MU and Mixed Use Overlay; a parking demand study shall be prepared to justify or modify this baseline requirement. Parking Requirements Table 7.6: Parkina Standards Space types qualifying as "required unit parking" Single -Car Garaget3� Two -Car Side -by -Side Garaget"I Two -Car Tandem Goragel't01 Standard Head -In Space Parallel Space Driveway Depth/Setback to Garage Door Residential Required Unit Parking Single -car garages, tandem spaces, two -car garages, car lifts, on -street or off -sheer parking permitted to satisfy requirements; 10 feet x 19 feet 19 feet x 19 feet 10 feet x 39 feet (permitted if both spaces are assigned to the some unit) 9 feet x 18 feet; 16 foot depth permitted with 2-foot planting area overhang, OR 17-foot depth permitted with 1-foot planting area overhang 8 feet x 24 feet From Private Drive Aisle or Alley (as measured from back of ROW) 2-5 feet or > 18 feet 2-5 feet or > 18 feet Table 17.64.050-1 of the City's Development Code Parking Requirements Unit Required Unit Parking": Studio Table 17.64.050-1 of the City's Code 1 Bedroom 1.3 spaces/unit, (may be an enclosed space) 1 space/unit, (may be an enclosed space) 2 Bedrooms CO3 Bedrooms 2 spaces/unit (with 1 enclosed space) 1.5 spaces/unit (with 1 enclosed space) 4 or More Bedrooms •ffi D Live/Work & Shopkeeper Units(2) As required based on bedroom count Varies Age-Qualified/Senior Units 1 space/unit cRequired Guest Parkingm d Residential 1 space/4 unitst21 1 space/5 units(2) Live/Work 1 space/2 units 1.5 spaces/unit Age-Qualified/Senior Units 1 space/10 units Bicycle -Residential None Per CALGreen standardswhere applicable Bicycle - Non -Residential Per CALGreen standards Joint Use Public Facility • The proposed project includes a "Joint Use Public Facility" • Provide library, community, and police services for the residents of Empire Lakes; • Required mitigation in the EIR to address the increase in demand for these public services; • Floor area will be up to 25,000 square feet. Potential Ernployment—, F—Transit t� North a I I MPtrolink. San Bernardino Line H i I..-t4-H Fti H FH h,letrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station Urban Plaza b'YN Srmv Publicly Maintained Features C. OperaClon and MainCenance oP Public Faciltiea Public facilities are planned for public maintenance by either the City, CFD, or by the appropriate utility service provider. These public facilities include but are not limited to the following: • Public streets (including the pedestrian realm walkway with tree wells). • Public traffic signals and traffic control signs. • Public on -site water facilities, sewer facilities, and drainage facilities within public streets. • Street lighting within public rights -of -way. • Water quality facilities for treatment of flows in public streets. Privately Maintained Features D. 1 is Uv°vi ici 5 �-f ` F i vp. '-i `uq Uvvi iCf 'b PrivaCe Property Owner MainCenance: One or more associations may be established for the maintenance of private common area improvements. Private improvements to be maintained by the association(s) may include but are not limited to the following private facilities: • Private streets, and drive aisles. • Traffic control signs. • Open space areas, the Ion, and multiuse trails. • Detention and water quality treatment facilities not located in public streets. 0 Private sewer, storm drains and water systems. Privately Maintained Features • Parks and recreational facilities. • Walkways, entries and signage, and paseos. • Community theme walls and fencing. • Courts, parkways, and landscaping within the residential areas. • Common area facing wall surfaces, and internal slopes fronting streets. • Common area landscaping and lighting. Grading and Phasing (Phase 1) E nnir s�� Grading and Phasing (Phase 2) Grading and Phasing (Phase 3) Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis • Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates and submitted on March 31, 2016; • Prepared at the request of the pubic and the Planning Commission during the Public Scoping Meeting on June 10, 2015; • Analyzes the economic and fiscal impacts of the project and three alternatives to the project. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 1. The project as proposed by the applicant (with a maximum of 3,450 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); 2. A "lower density" alternative (with a maximum of 2,650 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 3. A "higher density" alternative (with a maximum of 4,000 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); and 4. A "no project" alternative (with the private golf course remaining as is) Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Alternative Annual Revenue Annual (Cost) Net Benefit or Cost Proposed Project $294409017 $199669184 $4739833 Lower Density $291369190 $1,5529117 $5849073 Higher Density $295739718 $29245,459 $3285259 No Project $99319 $45215 $5,104 Public Comments • Public scoping meeting (06110/2015); • Planning Commission workshop (11/10/2015); • Four community meetings conducted by the Applicant; Written correspondence (~71 emails/letters); "Save Empire Lakes Golf Course" Petition (1025 signatures) Public Comments • Loss of a recreational amenity; • Loss of an open space resource; • Air Quality • Traffic impacts; • Demand for public services; Public Comments • Noise • Increase in water use; • Suitability of the proposed project; • Public notification s.i 5 1 ■ - .f - w 'r'I�■Cw- --- �— p- ��R�11��RIM r.—���wili�JG.� � rr��ti.,�s `'`�hmlmllmilL�l�Itinp�N.!!�i�C��ns =re�E IIIIIIIIII mnnnra. —� ■ �r �� - rT- _iJA�.`v° . 1 • .. ����3!Il■1_I■� 1!N■� rI,. of ONTARI6 i -1 1 3 1'L�ll RcVl: 7� L[[1 [ •• +k�' Open Space and __ , } "°• Conservation Plan Rerours [onurvoaw RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN RC-5 Water Supply Assessment by CVWD — February 23, 2016 The Empire Lakes Golf Course currently uses approximately 577 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water and approximately 2.0 AFY of potable water. With the redevelopment of the site, it is estimated that the new irrigation/recycled water demand would drop to approximately 30 AFY and a total estimated potable water demand for the Project would increase to approximately 1,446 AFY. Staff has reviewed the WSA and concurs with its conclusion that the total projected water supplies available to the District during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years over the next 20-year projection are sufficient to meet the projected water demands of the proposed Empire Lakes Project, in addition to the District's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. Correspondence from Cucamonga School District This letter is in reference to the Empire Lakes Project Proposal, which is located within the boundaries of Cucamonga School District As a result of the proposed project, the district contracted with the Dolinka Group, LLC and Decisionlnsite Enrollment Specialists to study the impact of the proposed development on student enrollment, current student housing capacity and projected facility needs. Based on the study information and information received from the Lewis Management Corporation, the school district will be able to accommodate the number of projected students from the development with some modification to existing facilities and a small boundary change. Correspondence from Cucamonga School District The district Is studying the expansion of classrooms at one of the elementary schools, the addition of a new building at the middle school, which includes the expansion of classrooms, and a boundary change which will redirect new students in that area from THE ONTARIO CENTER SCHOOL to Cucamonga Elementary School. The district is currently investigating the different options that are available and potentially available to finance the expansion of our facilities. Examples of possible funding sources Include developer fees, including the special tax assessment, the possibility of a state facility bond, local one-time funds available to the district, and a CFD or mitigation agreement with the Lewis Management Corporation. We anticipate that both the necessary modifications to the two facilities and the boundary change are very possible and will coincide with modernization of the two facilities that was already planned. Please let me know if you need further information or have any questions. Public Notification • Newspaper advertising; • Notice of Filing signs (15); • Mailed notices to owners of property and business (within the City) located within 1,000 feet of the Specific Plan planning area; • Emails to individuals who have contacted the City and/or attended the Community Meetings; Public Notification • Social media; • City website created for this project ("Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project"); • Direct mailings to the tenants of "Ironwood at Empire Lakes" and "Village at the Green" apartment complexes • Copy of public notice sent to management of "Reserve at Empire Lakes" Environmental Assessment • Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the amendments to the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Development Code. • A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study on April 27, 2015. The comment period ended on the date of the Public Scoping meeting on June 10, 2015. Environmental Assessment The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2015. On November 10, 2015, the Draft EIR for the amendments to the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Development Code was released for the 45-day review period, which ended on December 24, 2015. Environmental Assessment A Mitigation monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. Environmental Assessment The EIR concluded that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, air quality impacts, impact to the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan, noise impacts, population and housing growth, and traffic impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant. Therefore the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA. Staff Recommended Revisions • Pedestrian crossings; • Gates and fences; • Joint Use Public Facility; • Completion of The Vine during Phase 1; • Circulation Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20150410083); and Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending the City Council approve each of the following: • General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114; • Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 (with Staff recommended 11 revisions/amendments; and Development Code Amendment 00115 DRC2015-