Print Back to Calendar Return
  Agenda Item   11.    
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: 01/28/2020  

Subject:
ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 19-01, PLANNED COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN NO. PCMP 19-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA 19-01, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. FEIR 19-01 FOR THE MERCURY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MERCURY LANE AND BERRY STREET.
REQUEST
APPLICANT REQUEST
The applicant is requesting the following: 
  • Change the land use and zoning from industrial to residential (Planned Community)
  • A high density work force housing project allowing approximately 114 studio, one bedroom and two bedroom rental units located on a 1.01 acre parcel.
  • A Planned Community Master Plan setting the development standards, property management, and implementation for the Mercury Residential Development project.
  • A Development Agreement encompassing the community benefits for the Mercury Residential development project.
  • A Final EIR inclusive of all environmental analysis, mitigation measures and findings to address environmental impacts for the residential project.
 
The City has not had the benefit of the Planned Community process in recent history and the recent updates and refinement to this section of the Code presents new and different information and processes for which this application is the first of its kind. This report will outline the request, present data and analyze the information available to date to provide context and guidance for the Commission to consider. 
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of Mercury Lane and Berry Street (See Attachment 1 & 2 – Vicinity Map & Technical Background).  The property has a General Plan designation of Light Industrial and is zoned C-M, Commercial Industrial. The property is currently vacant, adjacent to the Downtown and is surrounded by industrial uses (see Figure 1 – Map). 



The project proposes to change the land use designation and zoning to allow residential in a historically industrial area.  The high density residential apartment complex would include the construction of a 5-story building, 68-feet in height on a 1.01 acre parcel (See Attachment 5 – Plans).  The property owner has a vision for a private approach to affordable housing.  The project proposes to provide 114 multifamily residential apartments.  The units range in size from studios (452-596 square feet), one bedrooms (651-675 square feet) and 2 bedrooms (1,111 square feet).  The project identifies these apartments as “workforce” units due to their proximity to major employment centers: Mercury Insurance, Downtown businesses and adjacent commercial and industrial uses. The applicant has also built into the project a plan to offer and maintain affordable rents based on the design, location, size and management of the complex. 
 
KEY QUESTIONS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
There are several questions related to this development request for the Planning Commission to consider and provide direction to Staff prior to this request moving forward.  The following information is not intended to answer the questions for the Commission but rather to provide context, background and technical detail to assist the Commission in their consideration. 
  1.  Change of Zone:  Should the land use pattern change in this specific area of the City from Industrial to Residential?
The property is currently vacant and is zoned C-M, Commercial Industrial. The site is accessed by Berry Street and Mercury Lane and is located in a thriving industrial area with large industrial businesses located to the north, east and west and industrial condominium located across the flood control channel northeast of the project.  Directly south of the site is a major employer, Mercury Insurance.  The property is adjacent to Downtown Brea and a pedestrian and vehicle bridge connects the Mercury Lane corridor to the west parking structure. However, given the current industrial neighborhood and limited public awareness of this access, this connection is not highly utilized.  The City recently completed improvement of The Tracks along the flood control channel (northeast of the project which has led to more attention of this connection and corridor). 
General Plan & Housing Element 
The City revitalized its Downtown including commercial and residential uses both vertically and horizontally.  The update to the General Plan in 2003, included goals, policies and direction to encourage residential/commercial mixed use in select locations of the Downtown and on larger underutilized sites in the City.  The General Plan recognized the key role that mixed use and high-density development could play in helping to address Brea’s housing needs in supply, type and affordability.  The direction to locate housing in proximity to jobs, services and transit was determined to serve to implement Brea’s goals for sustainability and provide jobs housing balance. 
In 2013, the City updated and adopted the Housing Element for the 2014-2021 planning period.  The Housing Element is the key policy document on housing issues within the City.  It provides policies and programs that address issues such as balance of employment and housing, increasing housing affordability and providing opportunity sites for new housing as Brea’s population grows. 
The subject area is not an opportunity site.  However, the City adopted Policy/Program 9, Mixed Use/High Density Opportunity Sites, which focused on potential opportunity sites that could be studied for further mixed used and/or high-density housing.  The Mercury Lane corridor, along with 3 other areas – see Figure 2 - was identified as a potential opportunity area due to its proximity and access to the Downtown and major employment centers. 




Affordable/Workforce Housing
A key goal of the General Plan and Housing Element is to provide housing options for all income levels.  As our population continues to grow, the Federal and State government have continued to mandate requirements and initiate policies to help achieve diverse housing for all income levels (e.g.  Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations, Accessory Dwelling Units, etc.).  Brea’s strives to meet these goals and has worked to be in compliance with all State and Federal mandates.  However, with the elimination of Redevelopment, no city-owned property, limited funding and the continued rising cost of land and construction, impedes progress and compliance for all cities.
Brea has historically always provided for the RHNA allocations in total number of units during each Housing cycle but the City has struggled to meet the requirement for the number of units at each affordable income category.  The City has policies, programs and code requirements to work towards this goal, including the Inclusionary Ordinance which requires projects greater than twenty (20) units to provide a minimum of 10% affordable units.  The City has partnered with land owners/developers through Development Agreements and Specific Plans to achieve deeper levels of affordability and more units than the minimum required.  Recent projects that have provided affordable housing at low, very low, or extremely low-income levels include the Birch Hills Apartment (under La Floresta) and Bonterra Apartments (under Blackstone).  Recent projects that have constructed affordable units at moderate levels include Central Park Village and Summerwind.   Although development projects have provided for their affordable requirement, they typically only meet the moderate income level without City assistance with funding, donating land or other concessions.  While the City needs units at this moderate level the challenge is to provide housing for lower income levels. 
Brea Envisions
In 2017 the City completed the Brea Envisions process.  Led by a citizen committee, the effort culminated in delivery of the Brea Envisions Community Strategic Plan. The recent update to the PC Zone requirements include findings for consistency with the Brea Envision Community Strategic Plan.  The following values and initiatives are highlighted from this Plan for your consideration: 
Value:  Balanced and Responsible Growth
Initiative 3:  Enhance and promote pedestrian friendly development throughout our community and within the public spaces. 
Promote the Tracks at Brea as an alternative pathway through the community.
Design and develop a plan for additional, safe public pathways for pedestrians and cycling in zoning and development decisions.
Initiative 4:  Maintain a consistent and acceptable balance of both residential and commercial/industrial development. 
Promote and implement progressive solutions to balance commercial/industrial and residential development.  This could involve creation of development zones in the City that would encourage and allow for different uses within each zone. 
Value:   Workforce Housing Opportunities
Initiative 1:  City and community planning will promote higher density living and mixed affordable housing where appropriate for the existing neighborhood. 
Staying within public standards and guidelines, planning and development will account for and promote workforce housing solutions at every opportunity. 
Value:  Healthy, Active & Pedestrian Friendly Community
Initiative 2:  Promote a walkable community.
Develop and promote safe sidewalks and bike lanes. 
 
  1.  Planned Community Master Plan: Is this project appropriate for development at this location, in this manner?  Does the Commission have enough information in order to consider making the supporting findings? 
In order to approve the zone change from Industrial to the PC zone the Commission must make all of the following findings.  The Planned Community Master Plan:
  1. is consistent with the General Plan, inclusive of any amendments proposed and approved as part of the application for the Planned Community Master Plan;
  2. is consistent with the Brea Envisions Community Strategic Plan;
  3. would provide for an innovative development in an area of the City that presents unique planning challenges due to considerations such as geography, topography, and changing patterns of development not otherwise addressed by the City's existing zoning rules;
  4. includes properties suitable for the uses specified therein, in terms of access, size, their relationship to adjacent properties and similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the City Council; and
  5. is in the best interest of the City as a whole.
Planned Community (PC) Zone
The PC zoning district code was adopted in or around 1968 with the following description and purpose:
“The purpose of this zone is to encourage, preserve and improve the health, safety and general welfare of the community by encouraging the use of contemporary land planning principles. The provisions of this zone are intended to allow diversification of uses, use relationships and heights of buildings, and open spaces in planned building groups while ensuring compliance with the spirit and intent of the zoning code and the City’s adopted General Plan.”
On January 15, 2019, the City Council considered and adopted an update to the zoning district language, processes and procedures to align the code with contemporary planning practices and provide needed structure to the process.  In October 2018, the City Council took the first step in the new PC process to initiate consideration of an amendment to the boundaries of the PC Zone for the Mercury Residential project.  It is important to state that the Council’s decision to initiate the boundary amendment for this project does not approve or even endorse the project.  It merely indicates the Council is willing to consider the project pending its full review and study.
Council members had concerns or questions related to:  the workforce housing designation, workforce housing in general, current zoning, sound mitigation, accessibility, connectivity, implications for adjacent businesses parking, potential for additional housing development in the area, outreach to promote the workforce living to the surrounding businesses, design and community benefits.  
Since January of last year, the applicant has been working to develop the content of the Master Plan (see Attachment 4) and all related studies including the Environmental Impact Report (see Attachments 11, 12, 13).  Key Elements to the Master Plan include:  Land Use, Circulation, Population, and Public Services and Facilities.  Critical to the Plan is a requirement for the developer to provide for public outreach.  The following provides an overview and summary of the proposed Master Plan. 
 
LAND USE ELEMENT
Workforce Housing
The Planned Community Master Plan (PCMP) indicates the Mercury development is affordable “due to its thoughtful and efficient design.   The unit sizes, vehicle parking, bicycle parking and shared common open space and amenities result in fewer construction costs and more affordable rents.”
The intention of the project is to provide housing for individuals that work in Brea.  Rents are generally targeted for, but not limited to workers earning between 20 to 51 dollars per hour.  Ninety-one units will be identified with a local preference for individuals that work in Brea.  This local preference will be used for tenant selection and to create a waiting list.  Marketing for unit availability will be through Brea businesses.
The cornerstone of this project is the affordability of the units.  The total number of units for the project is 114.  Eleven units will be reserved at or below low-income thresholds, as defined by State law, this is the portion of the project intended to meet the applicant’s 10 percent inclusionary requirement.  However, as previously mentioned it is typical for this 10 percent allocation to be at moderate rather than the proposed low designation.  Additionally, 80 units will maintain rents between $1300 to $1695 per month (an exact allocation is outlined in the Community Benefits section below).  These units will remain between the low to moderate income thresholds, as defined by State law, with an ability to increase rents a maximum of 4% annually for a period of 25 years.
 
Development Standards
Approval of a project in the PC zone requires the Commission to find the Master Plan provides appropriate alternative standards.  To provide context and comparison to the Zoning Code, Table 1 outlines the proposed development standards in the most comparable zones available.
 
Table 1 - Development Standards
  Mercury PCMP MU-I
(standalone residential)
R-3
High Density Residential
Minimum Lot/Project Size 1 acre 2500sf 10,000 square feet
Minimum Parcel Depth 120-feet none 120-feet
Minimum Parcel Width (corner lot) 85-feet none 85-feet
Maximum Density 114du/acre 12.1 to 50 du/acre 12.1-24.89 du/acre
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.0 3.0 n/a
Building Setbacks
Front
Side (interior)
Side (street)
Rear
 
10-feet
10-feet
10-feet
10-feet
 
 
 
15-feet
5-feet
15-feet
5-feet
*Note – structures located on Birch Street & Brea Blvd – no minimum setback required
 
15-feet
7 ½ - 10 feet
10-feet
15- 20 feet
 
Maximum Lot Coverage 80% n/a 60%
Maximum Height 68-feet 100-feet 75-feet
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
Bachelor /Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
 
450sf
595sf
800sf
none  
450sf
650 sf
800 sf
Minimum Private Open Space Per Unit  
none
75sf 200sf total outdoor living space per du
* Not more than 50% of the total sq.ft. can be used for common open space
Minimum Common Space Per Unit 75sf 100sf
 
Density
The project proposes a density of 114 dwelling units to the acre.   Density for the various zones are outlined in Table 1.  Mixed Use zones provide the ability to calculate density across an entire project.  Recent examples including The Pearl at La Floresta and Brea Place at the Hines Development calculate residential density calculated across the whole of the project total acreage rather than solely the parcel the residential project is built within.  Comparing this project to a standalone mixed-use residential development is not truly analogous given a traditional mixed-use project typically incorporates multiple parcels.   
 
Architecture, Floor Plan, and Amenities
The project is proposed to be a 5-story building with 2 levels of above ground parking and 3 levels of residential units designed around a courtyard.  The project’s architectural design is of modern, Art Deco style incorporating a sand plaster finish and metal elements including awnings, balconies, railing and siding.  The color palette includes classic hues of sand, taupe, green, silver and gold.   To provide visual interest, break up massing, and to provide pedestrian level architecture, the building features column details and alternate color along the base of the building, a decorative stair case, metal siding along the corner and fin details along the top of the building. 
Units range in size from 452 square feet for a studio up to 1,111 square feet for a 2 bedroom unit.  The project features a center courtyard and includes cantilevered seatwalls, seating and gathering areas, accent wall with outdoor TV, fireplace, table, hammocks/daybeds, tennis, water feature and BBQs.  Another key amenity is the corner rooftop terrace with additional café table seating, community tables, sectional seating and a BBQ.  A fitness room and flex room is also provided on-site.  The flex room could be used as office space and/or a gathering space for residents. 
 
Parking
Parking is provided by a ground level parking structure accessed along Mercury Lane.  The structure provides for a total of 118 parking stalls and 114 bicycle parking stalls.  A loading zone for tenants moving in and/or rideshare is provided directly in front of the project along Mercury Lane.  The project proposes alternative standards for parking under the PCMP.  A parking study was prepared by the applicant (Attachment 6) and peer reviewed by the City’s Parking Engineering Consultant – Gibson Transportation (Attachment 7).  The code requirements and recommendations by the consultant are outlined in Table 2. 
The applicant also provides a number of parking strategies within their study to address their proposal for alternative parking standards.  This includes:
  • The size of the units and the affordable nature of the project,
  • Proximity and access to Downtown Brea and other major employment centers.
  • Connections to Downtown Brea and employment centers could be accessed by multiple transportation options:  walking, bicycle, rideshare, motor vehicles and buses.
  • The project provides a secure bicycle storage room which could accommodate 114 bicycles (or a bike space per unit).
  • Sidewalk and landscape improvements along the project frontage.
  • The applicant’s study also recognizes the need for a Parking Management Plan  and offers various options that could be included within the plan.
Table 2 – Parking
 
Residential Unit
 
Mercury PCMP
 
Zoning Code
Parking Consultant
Recommendation
Studio 1 stall 1.5 stall  
 
1.56 to 1.87 spaces
One Bedroom 1 stall 1.75 stalls
Two Bedroom 2 stalls 2 stalls
Guest 0 on-site
 
Note: Guests may park on street or in West Downtown Parking Structure
0.2 per unit
Size
Standard
Compact
Max. Compact Allowed w/CUP
Tandem
 
9 ½ x 19
8 x 16
30%
9 ½ x 19
(only for 6 spaces)
 
 
 
9 ½ x 19
8 x 16
30%
Not Permitted
N/A
Required # of Spaces  
118
 
202
 
178 to 213
 
The City’s parking consultant recommends a higher parking ratio for the project.  Table 2a outlines the various projects, the comparative ratios and how guest parking functions.  The consultant also provides the following strategies that could be incorporated as conditions for the project:
  • Accommodation of any remaining parking could be considered off-site as a reserved area in the west Downtown Garage or by other arrangements with adjacent property owners.
  • The applicant should provide a monitoring report of the on and off-site parking demands within one year of reaching a threshold of occupancy. The applicant should remain accessible to the City for the purposes of collecting data on the project or when a complaint threshold is met. The monitoring would identify the actual on-site and off-site residential parking demand and the efficacy of the trip/parking reducing measures to be implemented by the project.
  • Provide a Parking Management Plan that clearly identifies how proposed strategies will be formulated into the project and how they will be used to prevent impacts to the neighbors and adjacent property owners.    The plan should provide provisions and solutions in the case any monitoring reveals the project’s parking demand consistently exceeds the parking supply (e.g. secure additional parking to meet demand). 
 

  • Table 2a – Parking Ratios by Project
    Project Parking Ratio per Unit Type Parking Ratio per Unit Guest Parking
    Location
    Brea Place Studio   1.0
    1bdrm   1.5
    2bdrm   2.0
    Guest    0.24
     
    1.85
    Parking Garage, overflow office parking garage
    The Pearl at La Floresta 1bdrm    1.0
    2bdrm    1.5
    Live/Work  2.0
    Guest     0.10
     
    1.75
    Parking Garage, private streets
    The Pointe at Olen Pointe 1bdrm    1.0
    2bdrm    2.0
    Guest    0.25
     
    2.06
    Parking Garage, overflow surface lot
    Downtown Lofts Loft       1 1.22 Downtown Parking Garages
    Calligraphy at CPV 1bdrm    1.0
    2bdrm    2.0
    3bdrm    2.0
    Guest    0.25
     
    1.75
     
    Parking Garage
The City has approved alternate parking standards for projects and has considered varying parking strategies to address potential impacts.  A few key differences exist with the other projects such as availability of additional on-street parking, private streets, and single ownership of a project area.  Each project has unique parking management depending on site specific issues. The Commission will need to determine if the proposed strategies will be sufficient to support the project.  Or if additional conditions should be considered to address any impacts that may occur.
 
Noise:  A Noise Study was prepared for the project (see Attachment 8 – Noise Study) and was reviewed by the Building Official.  The study concluded that the existing outdoor noise levels at the project site fall within the “Normally Unacceptable” range for multi-family uses under the General Plan’s Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.  However, with adequate building design and insulation interior noise levels can be reduced to meet the requirements.  The study makes a number of recommendations related to construction and design that should be incorporated and memorialized into any conditions for the project.  Additional strategies to ensure that noise levels remain appropriate for the development could include additional testing once the project is completed to ensure it meets the recommendations in the report. 
 
Community Outreach:  A key component of the PC zone is community outreach.  The code requires that the applicant provide a plan for engaging in public outreach with a cross-section of residents, businesses, and other community stakeholders.  The applicant has outlined their Public Outreach Plan in Appendix A of the PCMP. It is Staff’s understanding, the applicant met with several of the adjacent property/business owners as well as other major employers within the City.  The applicant’s team also held a community open house and provided a scaled project model for viewing with the Brea Chamber of Commerce’s office and other locations.  Staff also received letters as part of the environmental process, from various agencies, residents, and adjacent property owners, which can be reviewed within the FEIR and also received a letter opposing the project from Pacific Plastics.  A letter was also provided to the Planning Commission from a resident in support of the project. See Attachment 9 – Submitted Correspondence.
 
  1. Community BenefitsAre the Community Benefits appropriate and sufficient to support the proposed Planned Community Master Plan?
As part of the request for a PC Zone,  a Development Agreement is required.  Although the specific deal points and negotiations of the Development Agreement are solely between the City Council and the Developer it is an important aspect of the project as proposed. A Fiscal Impact Study was prepared for the project, see Attachment 10.
It is important for the Planning Commission to receive the following for information purposes only rather than part of their oversight or discretionary review.  Unlike Conditions of Approval, community benefits do not  have to directly correlate or have a nexus to  the project and can range from monetary contributions to physical improvements to anecdotal benefits.  The Development Agreement is in draft form and is under continued review and negotiation with the City Council.  Key deal points the Developer is proposing are as follows: 
  • Revitalization and use of a vacant site consistent with state, regional, and local long-term goals to provide additional housing opportunities and affordable housing. Eleven (11) units will be reserved at or below low-income thresholds (as defined by state law) for a minimum of 55 years and six (6) units will have rents of not more than $1,295, six (6) units will have rents of not more than $1,395, six (6) units shall have rents of not more than $1,495, six (6) units shall have rents not more than $1,595 and fifty-six (56) units shall not have rents not more than $1,695 and will remain between the low to moderate income threshold (as defined by state law) with an ability to increase rents a maximum of 4% annually for a period of 25 years.
  • Contribution of video surveillance hardware and software to serve traffic circulation and public safety goals for the project area ($10,000).
  • Contribution towards future improvements to Imperial Highway ($10,000)
  • Contributions towards sidewalk and bike lane improvements on Mercury Lane ($16,000).
  • Contribution towards the use and maintenance costs of the City’s West Downtown Parking Garage.  Tenants may elect to utilize the West Downtown parking garage for guest parking and will pay $25 per space, per month towards said use.  The annual payments will be used towards the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the parking garage. 
  • Alternative transportation options in the City through creation of a car-share and bike-share program to serve the project and provide local shuttle or similar system.
 
  1. Environmental:  Can you recommend certification of Final EIR 19-01 ?  Certification of the FEIR does not necessitate approval of the project itself—rather it is specific to the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the document.
The DEIR No. EIR 19-01 was circulated for a 45-day public comment period commencing on July 24, 2019.   During the public review period, Staff received 9 comment letters and emails. The comments and responses are memorialized in the Draft Final EIR (Attachment 12). 
The Draft EIR examined the Mercury Residential project in the context of several issue areas.  These areas included aesthetics, biological resources, grading and air quality impacts, geology, hazards, hydrology, traffic/circulation, land use, noise, public services, recreation, utilities, cultural resources, cumulative impacts and growth-inducing impacts.  The analysis and the supporting documentation can be found in the DEIR, which the Commission received back in
August 2019.  In addition to identifying where significant impacts could occur, the DEIR discusses appropriate mitigation measures that would eliminate or minimize the impacts.
 
EIR Response to Comments
Each of the comment letters and emails have been addressed and responded to in the “Response to Comments” (RTC) section in the Final EIR.  Per CEQA requirements, the City sent the Response to Comments document to various resource and public agencies on November 4, 2020.  In all, the City directly responded to 9 commenters including resource and public agencies that had commented on the DEIR.  To date, the City has not received further questions or comments from any of the public agencies with respect to the FEIR. This delivery timing exceeds the minimum requirements of CEQA which requires that only public agencies be provided responses a minimum of 10 days prior to any final action on the proposed project.  The comments and their responses are an integral part of the Final EIR that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to acting on the discretionary applications of the project. 
 
Mitigation and Monitoring Program
A Mitigation and Monitoring Program is included the Draft Final EIR (See Attachment 13).  It complies with CEQA requirements to specify the required timing and City staff oversight responsibilities to ensure the successful implementation of all the mitigation measures identified in the Draft Final EIR. 
 
Do the project benefits override the identified unavoidable environmental impacts to justify adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)?  In order to recommend approval of the various project entitlements an SOC must also be adopted, requiring findings of public benefits.  Details regarding an SOC are provided later in this report. 
The EIR found significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation (traffic) – See Attachment 13.   Three of the studied intersections (Intersection #10 - Berry/Imperial, Intersection #11 – Brea/Imperial, Intersection #13 – SR-57SB Ramp/Imperial) were found to a cumulative significant impact.  It should be noted that all the intersections are along Imperial Highway.  Applicable mitigation measures would provide improvements to the intersections however Imperial Highway is within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, and not the City.  Implementation of mitigation/improvements is not guaranteed as they are subject to Caltrans review and approval.  In addition, Caltrans has no mechanism by which projects can contribute fair share fees to offset impacts.      Approval of the project will require that the Planning Commission recommend to Council a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the EIR certification.  In considering the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the decision makers are asked to weigh the public benefits that will be derived as a result of the project against any significant unavoidable adverse impacts. 
The applicant proposes to contribute $10,000 towards traffic improvements.  This amount would equate to the projects fair share contribution towards the necessary improvements for all three intersections.  Staff will need Commission direction regarding project benefits the Commission feels are appropriate for an SOC should it be your desire to consider any such adoption.  Direction should be provided during the Commission’s deliberations portion of the public hearing.
 
CONCLUSION
In order to consider these questions and provide direction to Staff, the Planning Commission would open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the project applicant, receive public comment, close public comment and initiate deliberations.  The result of this action will be to provide staff direction specifically related to the proposed entitlement actions and the outlined key policy issues.  The Commission would then, continue the hearing to a date certain and direct staff to return a report and, as appropriate, draft resolution(s) for the Commission’s consideration, consistent with your policy direction.  
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Jennifer A. Lilley, AICP, City Planner
Prepared by: Maribeth Tinio, Senior Planner
 
  
Attachments
1. Technical Background
2. Vicinity Map
3. Public Hearing Notice
4.The Mercury Planned Community Master Plan
5. Project Plans
6. Parking Study prepared by the Applicant
7. Gibson Transportation Peer Review of the Parking Study
8. Noise Study September 2019
9. Submitted Correspondence
10. Fiscal Impact Study
11. Draft EIR Volume 1
12. Draft EIR Volume 2
13. Final EIR
14. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
15. Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved