Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-11 - Supplemental ADesign Review DRC2014-00745 �. „ 11 11 long, iii iii ICI mmm®�. 6�_ 4 � •,� _ 4 9 4'1 II , Wo Project Overview • Applicant: D.R. Horton • Project: Design Review of 31 Single -Family Residences • Project Size: 6.5 Acres • Zoning: Low Medium (LM) Residential (4 — 8 DU per Acre) • Density: 6.5 Dwelling Units Per Acre • Related Cases: 1. Variance (DRC2016-00154) —To reduce setbacks on Lots 19 and 31 2. Minor Exception (DRC2016-00256) —To increase wall height 3_Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT18508) — PC Approved June 3, 2015 Project Overview Continued • Lot Size (5,000 square foot min.) - 5,025 square feet to 11,201 square feet • House Size - 2,437 to 2,967 square feet • Lot Coverage (60 percent max) - 30.8 to 58.7 percent • Compliance with Victoria Community Plan: The project complies with all related development requirements except for the setback reductions on Lots 19 and 31 • Architectural Styles - Spanish, Craftsman and Farmhouse Location �'♦ �� d' J1 �� 11'i �' D m CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Elevations Plan 1 Elevation A - Spanish Elevation C - Craftsman Elevation D - farmhouse Elevations Plan 2 Elevation A - Spanish Elevation C - Craftsman Elevation 0 - Farmhouse Elevations Plan 3 Elevation A - Spanish Elevation C - Craftsman Elevation D - Farmhouse Optional California Room Spanish Flevalion C - Crallsmau Elevation U - farmhouse Variance Lot 19 19 PLAN �10 Variance Lot 19 Variance Lot 31 !� - - - ---�_�_102.36' o � CD in -- ---- - T C6 _ +. CN - --- 20 Q NLn i r 6 0 913- -00t .shack rn, S4 N .9 T 4.65'- Minor Exception 97.8g aj I , 3 27, M - -ICJ 74, � r 1 s 1 I <1 28 a ' PLAN 3DR 1 i s 3 LU - ' 29 z eaor LU O I.. PLAN 31, 30 M Q / s , •`�� ,8. �gg� -1. i023g 31 = R Conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2015- 00975, Variance DRC2016-00154 and Minor Exception DRC2016-00256 through adoption of the Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. NINERm Olt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Description • Applicant: Foothill and East, LLC • Project: Design Mixed USE work/retail space Review and Tentative Tract Map for a 1. Development with 3,246 square feet • Project Size: 8.8 Acres of Land 190-unit of live- • General Plan Designation: Mixed Use (with approval of related GP Amendment) • Zoning: Existing - Community Commercial (CC) Proposed — Mixed Use • Density: 21.9 Dwelling Units Per Acre Project Overview • Location: Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard/East Avenue • Number of Residential Units: 190 Units - 69 One Bedroom Units - 107 Two Bedroom Units - 14 Three Bedroom Units • Live Work/Retail Space: 3,246 Square Feet • Number of Parking Spaces: Proposed - 384 Parking Spaces Required - 422 Parking Spaces -'y�'y�y�y� m� ,. �. < .. :" 'F ., ::.w+q' r �" ^ ,q., .: `uy. "*' ,...-m' ,W::::: ,.p�.ye n-.>s , ..Lea a ,'.t _S _ u � .. ,: Case Files • Development Code Amendment - DRC2014-01132 Zoning Map Amendment - DRC2014-01131 • Tentative Tract Map - SUBTT19945 • Design Review — DRC2014-01130 • Minor Exception - DRC2016-00169 • Tree Removal Permit - DRC2014-01134 • Uniform Sign Program - DRC2015-00318 Project Design • Contemporary Design • Two, three and four story buildings • Ground level units and the two-story units are accessed by private entrances at the street level • Upper floor units are accessed by common hallways, stairways and elevators • Direct access to front doors and private open space areas for ground floor units facing East Avenue and Foothill Boulevard • Parking is provided in enclosed garages, carports, open parking spaces and street parking • Approximately 55 parking spaces are provided within the utility easements re i A �x �, �'� � A� .FA �. 7�7tY 1 1 e • . � �A i �x a i u ►"' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r •iJ AL, ���I 1. - •- I'm 1 10.ril 01 _ n ■ ■I i►r'I^�111 i �. ■ .I I�h 171 1. I ��1� I ro 0 a {= L 1 A 1 -- 2 r mW i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SOUTH CLEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 1I�l Lr" I tI , rX1 ___ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA { IfPiYY!!IM.II i 1 f SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATON Recreational Amenities (5 Required) • A clubhouse/meeting room • Indoor fitness center • An outdoor entertainment area adjacent to the that includes a pool, spa, multiple covered and gathering areas and an outdoor kitchen area • A dog park • Tot lot • An open turf play area • Multiple courtyards with common seating areas clubhouse uncovered —1 T&L FJWW — Rfrlafc" r I" T L 11130 STA VdZT1 L-afist AFLA Clubhouse FFzc.&6T CZw-fwM — FLANrm 980 STATIONS — K; WADI! 5TV04TLFW 511WOV &PLUVWs"t AMA rtKGt 4 pm m;dm (IiAlE 4 5TOWr PAW BBC> 5rA1WH5 K, SHADI: STF"TLWE --- AFV, OF DAM PALMS 'clWats l.--. i .- Ir.. LINK 1� =11IMI H! H H: NONE MEN I ivl M S 11! IVA 0 SA 0 WILR lnsmanomon on NOME IMEMEMEMEM ME RMW Fitness Center TW -VIC --m t E5Frr-" All, ROOK li'd HJUW 7� 7 —7r KN� RCA'fK "OF LA Slide 15 VdZTI Van der Zwaag, Tabe, 5/9/2016 01, [ SC tWr; 4Pt4 FI NTR COI FL,-"lNlINGj TR= »T � AT ,'��A.PIIYARrl EHTRY BIKE LGG<ER MEN ME -2 ~ '— FLOOR ABOVE .FOTaROelF PRIVA.r,Y EoR +KAKT V. M; N ail b F p j� '-11111111 l;lll; ll' 11;;11;1�1 - ;11;;11,, 1 1�1P-!11 Parking Studies • A Parking Study was prepared which reviewed similar projects in Southern California and determined that adequate parking is provided for the following reasons: 1. Contributing factors to the overall reduction in parking demand are 1) the project is located adjacent to a transit stop, 2) secure bicycle storage is available, and 3) there is a mix of residential and commercial land uses which can support shared parking at various times of the day 2. The project will implement a parking management program that includes the use of parking permits and limitations on storage in the enclosed garages • A peer review of the parking study was prepared that determined that there may not be adequate parking in the evenings for both the commercial and residential uses in the evening hours and vehicles may overflow into the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. The peer review recommended that restrictions be placed on the types of tenants permitted within the commercial tenant spaces to reduce this potential conflict Parking Adequacy • The applicant has been in discussion with staff to permit on - street parking along the west side of East Avenue, which would provide up to 62 additional parking spaces • Staff is supportive of permitting on -street parking adjacent to the project site, as it will support the increased density necessary to make mixed use and transit oriented developments successful • With implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the parking study, there should be adequate on -site parking provided on the project site • More than adequate parking will be available with the approval of parking along East Avenue • If parking agreements cannot be obtained within the utility easements, the number of units will be reduced accordingly Parking Calculation of Bedrooms Number of Code Stanclard Required Covered Total Required Total Units Parking Parking Spaces Provided ParkingNumber Spaces: One Becroom Units 69 1.5 SpacesAUnit 69 spaces 104 spaces (1 Covered Space) Two Bedroom Units 1 `, 2.0 SpacesfUnit 107 spaces 214 spaces 1 Covered Space) Three Bedroom Unts 2.0 SpacesfUnit 28 spaces 28 spaces 14 (2 Covered Spaces) Retail Parking 1 space for each 250 square 13 spaces 3,246 feet of leasable area Guest Parking 190 1 per 3 units 62 Spaces Enclosed Garage Spaces 101 Carport Spaces 92 Total Covered Spaces (Garage and Carport) 204 193 Total Parking Spaces 422 384 Covered Parking Shortfall (-11) Parking Shortfall (38) Potential On -Street Parking Spaces 62 Development Code Amendment (non project specific) Amend Development Code Table 17.36.020-2 (Mixed Use Standards) to include the following two footnotes: 1. On project sites of 5 acres (net) or less, two or more housing types/product, such as detached and attached SFR; SFR and MFR; combinations of SFR, townhome, condominiums, and apartments; etc., shall satisfy the requirement for providing a combination of two or more uses (Footnote 8) 2. Subject to Planning Commission Review and Approval, Transit Oriented Developments within '/2 mile of a transit stop are exempt from meeting the minimum two land use requirement (Footnote 9) Development Code Amendment (project specific) • Amends Development Code Section 17.36.020 A and B, Figure 17.36.020-1 and Table 17.36.020-1, to add the project site to the Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts • Amends Figures 17.38.060-1 and 17.38.060-15, to change the project site from Community Commercial to Mixed Use, related to the proposed Zoning Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment Changes the zoning designation of the project site from Community Commercial (CC) to Mixed Use (MU), in accord with the Mixed Use (MU) General Plan Designation Minor Exception • Reduces the required 422 parking spaces by 38 parking spaces (9% deficiency) • Minor Exceptions permit up to a 25 percent reduction in the required on -site parking • The request is supported by staff as it has been demonstrated that adequate parking will be provided with the project specific design features, the implementation of a Parking Management Plan, and the availability of street parking Tree Removal Permit • A request to remove 184 eucalyptus trees • The 184 on -site eucalyptus trees are in poor condition due to pest infestation, lack of care and maintenance and other observed structural deficiencies • To offset the loss of the eucalyptus trees, the arborist report recommends planting 52 eucalyptus trees and 36 date palms • The landscap planting of a including the arborist report e plan submitted for the project includes the total of 267 new trees on the project site, 88 trees recommended for replacement by the Uniform Sign Program • Provides text and illustrations for the proposed project monumentation (La Mirage on Route 66), for the overall project signage and the wall signs for the commercial units • A monument sign is proposed at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue honoring "Historic Route 66" and includes the City Is name and logo • All signs conform to the Code for both size and quantity CDFW Comments • On April 20, 2016, a letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), raising concerns related to the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study • The letter raised questions related to the age of the Biological Survey, the potential of sensitive species to occur on the project site and the lack of trapping for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM) Response to CDFW Comments • In response, the applicant's biologist stated that the project site has been used as a commercial woodlot for over 80 years and that the habitat loss mitigation is not required for lands that have been used for agricultural purposes. The land adjacent to the project site have been trapped within the last 5 years with negative results for SBKR and LAPM • The applicant's biologist concluded that there is no potential for LAPM or SBKR to inhabit the site or for significant populations of Species of Concern to occur on site. She recommended that the site be surveyed for burrowing owls and nesting birds prior to grading and that wildlife exclusion fencing be installed • Staff concludes that with the additional documentation provided in the response letter and the implementation of the additional mitigation measures, that the issues raised by CDFW have been addressed and there is no evidence that the project will have a significant impact on the environment Conclusion • Adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19945, Development Review DRC2014-01130, Minor Exception DRC2016-00169, Tree Removal Permit DRC2014- 01134 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00318, approving these applications with Conditions of Approval • Adopt the Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment DRC2014-01132, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2014-01131 and recommend the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project. t • Change parcels; Planning Commission May 11,2016 General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00887 the land use designations of multiple • Revise/delete specific tables and figures; • Revise text associated with these specific tables and figures; and • Correct typographical errors and omissions. Background • May 19, 2010 - the City Council, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted the City's 2010 General Plan; • January 2015 - the City Council accepted Mixed - Use related goals; • August 12, 2015 - The Planning Commission recommended approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421, • The City Council, Planning Commission and Staff also participated in other studies and field activities relating to Mixed -Use development I San 6aune: Mcuru-•s ,' SAM 9GR NA-H I FIAL FOREST r S�J µL.LL � L. r I CITY OF UPLAND L Q IX 4 • A itID d m - l CITY OF _' - DNTARIO 1 il i '�� pt11F4 Cm O Apn, NAAe,wu¢s RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN I trM Use DeNgpwrtioivs wes,tre:N I Kyun(fl0 lMBB-Ho IliC YOC-" ^CHO Hpnl?1L woo. C' AW.NQA ' Coneneecul _ L'.a0-In FAR) `,x .Tm]fgnrepY1035-135 FAPl ' m '��VC,fineaey l0'SaSFARI o OF. � .. rANA uY -�M.ee w. Ie.zs-InFARi ,mceW P� lalo-owrwPl c allm�v!a 1m.50-owFwl iI �.I �!rw,wa,�ataw-owFAw w^ spas dl". I .] P�iNpAy lM1l-S11GYaEl 'mmulosN rumao- PWip F nlry FAR) CmoRepaW-C F IL.1C -aIO FAR) >aMs O MMI JSEAeeas � G e•s 2Am Cm Fcc IM,19 @IF'dn I.Rrta 4 f m11Yv ee ClreN .9re AG3Wdy I iezatGNa uea. I -- t3 ,m,gelWCieavvga CNme: sY 6. Fo:'r : 1} Ibp:tAp Ipq Q'Maya SeMNsatl Pays O FJnwaNvyxlW • i Ep:a.^ -i. a. _.tea p .eaev IFW SMm: ® pWtN F' © N4a 5tivX ® RqueG FSR II! B se Lapn —_� teVBmtlaY FletwiY - Sy�seA:KAa:ee Mats ... F _- i- WiervnYs WMt Pdilmal5 Na. t>f tlp�aF»sam4aa tlaagceaA:esx :ITY Of Q`+-:0':�Oa-pYUSa�Mui'OGmq/�sv,3N O NTANA Figure LU-?: Land Use Plan Wu Ma inp bM UK Cm ftltyp qk wJ McN+k/f1SMOQS RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL FLAN W.B ,•.. i l�ti Tl - a�-2�y 13i�7I=11 �ilh Eta—�_ FoothillSWC 1 Vineyard a14 [-111�e.� SEC Foothil and Haven 1'I n INK, °s 16 SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood _ L�1IC'r� 611�1 WyI �9 _ CJIIIKA is—.���,� 1,J�p`.�E IN _ c 7; 18�20 ... 1 1 • + �"• 1o-i�mntlnn • en . s ..:� •�• 19 1 g Foothill and 1 . :ems � �r�e ' =�y� •4 r. SEC Foothill and Eti AMW MIN JLmllippNWC Foothill1 East am �- ■ y �!dMixed Use Areas RANCHO CUCA MONGA GENERAL PLAN 10.23 General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00887 M Foothill Bct 7 ;r ONTARIO Proposed Mixed Use Area #14 �•�;,fir;o, i i �i , .s.. Foothill Boulevard d > a1 c _ v >1 n RANCHO CUC/1MONGA GENERAL PLAN -MatllMhws 2 is�0erl,IF�li Biw6 Mwa AYe1 �yy�y S Teo vbN s. FmY,I aw rbnoss eK a Cenc Awi r��Jif[pJVj�l�j+d^�.I'I s. FWi sw;ame.uw.a INe+rb� aw e. FBwIMYnelue Ztl MSNhNR 5[, I�r Fme i\C HO e. s.mnNxa, spr!<r+r sn.eR.lel \f0\GA a.Fwn.awaLk.cNa c.,...r C ro Na,v�Aw a m.m a s.. rs we9vn Gee�+r re.>/ waAeal a Fmeu awc„�a, wn�wsN rR wsmrcma runs dmnMsl ml SWC Foothill and Vineyard _ ® SEC Foothill and Haven 0 SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood mNWC Foothill and Etiwanda 0 NEC Foothill and Etiwanda ® SEC Foothill and Etiwanda �1 NWC Foothi and East Figure LU-3: Muted Use Areas LUT13 Proposed Mixed Use Area #15 , KaoGaMu gFootn pip ulevard `t YW o :a3a a, is x hlanOM U%4 CommunityApn. NNtak Nes RANCHO CU<AMGNGA GENERAL PLAN _ i6 F Car�.IFmfitl BNC 6Haw�AW 3. Fina Ysw Ii '' 4 .FmCnI tTW (MaROS.a Aw dfems Al: � S. FmNO pAE iArWp,tl Med HeO�W AKI 'r h O FmWAfAtl(ftNm:6Q aENmryve Ai 4 ]. F�&q 6ASp4n Me d�ae.:aere,sP�rcA�(s,e.,v,el�:iuo°ca C a FmrreNeda�.aaace�...( io. N,.mw..dw.m asu n.Nban Grtm�IBw�C.Jmaeal t c. Fmmm mwcw�,� a�.,st ,a MsmlCAlh iema(Ameu.,s s+el sin �sye.s —_ - ry pa,d.r • : FrRwy 1!' Foss PH. - s- Q. _ a ® SWC Foothill and Yneyard F SEC Foothill and Haven SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood .a 4 NWC Foothill and Etwanda NEC Foothill and Etiwanda »�n SEC Foothill and Etiwanda �i NWC Foothill and East Figure LU-3: D1ixed Use Areas LU-n Proposed Mixed Use Area #16 t S 1 Yy31 r J ,NAi, t Yi "�'" .. 11 _..._ Mdnoginq WA U4 Co ky DeYBA,o NisM*RC501V .�•,CHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN F r f I, y'.�L Miller Avenw 40 3 CeM1F�m�lA BNp fl HHn�Au� ��� {.FBM!Hertrosa Aye flCeTa Abe) SF- Nm BMiAtC✓IaMAYeB HMeun A.ti 9. FMM�A @M IHtlms Pu vtl Hmptl�re BI.I �.s evu a.aavaYlm A.- I�CHO 61MSMal /tm Rm 19uRNea 181 B. F hl! BM 5'Y+r CreM G�a�al C .iil0\G.j 19.H FUSCIwc�SSu •t Vhstem Gnenay!Bea Guc�Areal i_ oNdll BH3GJUnvly CJmR15! 4RMC Mil lIXn2 �AmeCystSM) .��' ease Layers _.__ wA. Scvuzy k' Ns F�A+py � R sve: umooa...ga sot.msn sawan an'Aaasw l- m SWC Foothill and Vineyard _ SEC Foothill and Haven I SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood NWC Foothill and Etiwanda 4DNEC Foothill and Etiwanda 4DSEC Foothill and Etiwanda �! NWC Foothill and East Figure LU-3 Mixed Use Areas W33 Proposed Mixed Use Areas #17, 18, and 19 T 441 ,p- s �t R, hell Boulevard_ Foot jjjAJL "�r ��a,, ` •per � 4 �wAe lbeArta 2 Tm Cenlr(FmNRIW aXa-m Mel t FmEi Blgp+®rtw Me 6Ce2c Mel S Fmli9W (NWNtl.WeB HeNvn tw, aF ae Ma,paM1ee A: R@am -FaeH BMa &MWfmAue RX00 a LarsRa�w'S°°'n`w�+"uYi'a.'iel t.%iA(O\G.\ Y Fmtli RlMaCen LrM CM1xrel C ,2. R3.awaA ,2. FVMR F�anew BAd'fuearWa O.areI SNe 13. H56x NG,Tl3 iitlll�'S!53+) 6nee Lnyas F� SWC Foothll and Vineyard SEC Foothll and Haven SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood NWC Foothill and Etwanda IDNEC Foothill and Etiwanda SEC Foothill and Etiwanda mNWC Foothll and East Figure LU-3: Mixed Use Areas •a,AAO Ua Con ftyD Sf", AM NifWk RmmoH - -_-+O CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN W23 Proposed Mixed Use Area #20 Y 40 Foothill+Bo u le'ta rd 4"pH1O RANCHO iO1MONGA E NERARaPLA RAN CNO COCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN M`w UzePmas t.VNaGahrs ,��` Tnwn Cevlet iF�il Bhada4rm Aue1 3TmaKm {. F V NY � Qlemes9 Me d feM Ae l 5. Fmli BIW �NdYNpMe6 fM�� 4w1 0. Fm,FA 9MINtlms My a l a4aryrsly<FI -Femaa ehe gld)n'lnAte &WKNIM®$pPXC RaiS4Nea lgJ o.Fme:e awaLr.�ca�ci.mi tt. IN C Wiuo�Gq w. N..atw..dcm.a,ssu n. x�t� ca+..r (Bea GtIN� aeai ,zFinaawa���m�se. is aae>mFKalmuaprtwOyrt5�tr1 �Leyeaa �— 5p�seJ4ilve —WW Fa e � C�FR WM h i mSWC Foothll and Vineyard SEC Foothill and Haven SEC Etiwanda and Candlewood mNWC Foothill and Etiwanda NEC Foothll and Etiwanda AA� SEC Foothll and Etiwanda NWC Foothll and East Figure LW: Mixed Use Areas W-a 'mxed Use- Haven Avenue and Church Street This 14.77-acre site, located on the south side of Church Street between Center Avenue and Haven Avenues, was once the location of a San Bernardino County Flood Control District retention basin (#10 on Figure LU-3). Deemed surplus due to drainage improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, it became available for private development. The site was recently developed, in part, with a multi -unit condominium complex located within the interior of the site and single-family residences lined along Center Avenue. The mixed use designation allows for future intensification, a broader mix cf land uses. o- rec elopment rabid i i i_!1 s..oGifos T_IJ_ i 11 I i 1 f'""_J Use: u_"""_ n..__... and Cl.... 4. C...__' C%'_ &6 Dorropt Ra%g *TAcpo..an Giro—rr_,fcic_ -A-.1 rl " i'!4cjiBv-.-e ' agc l» i G_9.c, " d m41.n1 nn.itc nr arr@ll �fP�fB 2 T-W net ed- f lro n:fa .r i e n side ed i with r h -Zoiqipy 4 gesj'4sptjg4IL26jUR3 4_IA diver wgg unit-sper re) Mixed Use: North -*vest corner of Etl«'anda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard This site of approximately 7 acres is comprised of 6 parcels and is located at the northv:est corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (#17 on Figure LU-3)_ The site is predominately vacant. but contains an existing non -conforming commercial structure. The intent of the mixed use designation is to allovfor the flexibility of land uses such as high density residential, live/work units. and commercial components. Commercial development should be oriented towards Foothill Boule%,ard with mufti -family units located near the site's interior. The high density, residential and live/work units will buffer the multi -family residential cle, elopment existing north of the site from future commercial uses. �lised L?se: Northeast corner of EtiR-anda avenue and Foothill Boulevard This site of approximately 6 acres is comprised of 3 parcels and is located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (#18 on Figure LU-3)_ This site is currently vacant, and existing multi -family developments are located to the north and east. The intent of the mixed use designation is to alloy: for the flexibility of land uses such as high density residential, livelwork units, and commercial components. Commercial development should be oriented towards Foothill Boulevard with mufti -family units located near the site's interior. The high density residential and live/work units will buffer the mufti -family residential development existing north and east of the site from future commercial uses. Environmental Assessment An Initial Study was prepared to identify potential environmental effects of the project; It was determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment; Staff prepared a Negative Declaration and circulated it for review; Environmental Assessment The City will conduct a project - environmental assessment on basis and the appropriate and site -specific a case -by -case environmental document will be prepared to address project - specific impacts; Staff prepared and recirculated a revised Negative Declaration. Conclusion Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council: a) adopt the Negative Declaration and b) approve General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00887