On January 15, 2019, the City Council initiated Zone Change No. ZC 19-01 in response to a request by the applicant to rezone the subject property from Commercial Industrial (C-M) to Planned Community (PC), and the applicant subsequently submitted applications for approval of Planned Community Master Plan No. PCMP 19-01 (“Master Plan”), and Development Agreement No. 19-01 (“Development Agreement”) for development of a 5-story building with 114 workforce residential units. Work then begun on an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
On January 28, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Project and the Final EIR, and the Planning Commission continued the hearing until February 25, 2020.
On February 25, 2020, the Commission reviewed additional information provided by Staff, received additional public testimony, closed the public hearing, and continued its deliberations until March 23, 2020. The Commission also directed Staff to prepare a draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval to address several remaining issues/concerns. Correspondence received since the February 25, 2020 meeting have been included as Attachment 5 to this report.
The Commission’s March 23, 2020 meeting was later canceled due to the current COVID-19 emergency. The City therefore re-noticed this matter for an additional public hearing before the Commission.
1. Final Environmental Impact Report.
The Final EIR for the Project complies with all of the requirements of CEQA and addresses all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. It also includes a Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (“MMRP”) (see Attachments 11 & 12 to the January 28, 2020 Staff Report) that specifies the timing and oversight responsibilities for all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Because the Final EIR finds that the Project will have significant unavoidable impacts (i.e., significant impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated), a Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”) is also included with the Final EIR. The SOC lists several community benefits from the Project; including but not limited to provision of affordable housing and a $10,000 contribution toward traffic improvements that equates to the Project’s fair share toward improvements at three intersections the the EIR finds will be significantly and unavoidably impacted by the Project.
The draft resolution prepared for the Commission’s consideration, if adopted, would recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the MMRP and SOC.
2. Zone Change
The subject property is currently zoned Industrial, which does not allow for the proposed development of high-density workforce housing. The applicant has requested the zoning designation be changed to Planned Community, which would allow for development consistent with an approved Planned Community Master Plan.
The following findings must be made before the approval of any zone change:
1. The Zone Change is in conformity with the General Plan;
2. The subject property is suitable for the development in the Planned Community Zone under the proposed Planned Community Master Plan, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses and other considerations; and
3. The proposed change of zone is not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent zone.
The draft resolution prepared for the Commission’s consideration, if adopted, would recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zone change based on these findings and facts about the Project in the record.
3. Planned Community Master Plan
The proposed Planned Community Master Plan sets forth the site-specific development standards, property management, and implementation requirements for the proposed high-density workforce housing project consisting of approximately 114 studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom rental units on the subject 1.01-acre parcel.
The following findings must be made before approval of the Planned Community Master Plan:
1. The Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The Master Plan is consistent with the Brea Envisions Community Strategic Plan.
3. The Master Plan 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. The properties included in the Master Plan are suitable for the proposed uses, in terms of access, size, their relationship to adjacent properties and similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations.
5. The Master Plan is in the best interest of the city as a whole.
The draft resolution prepared for the Commission’s consideration, if adopted, would recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Master Plan based on these findings and facts about the Project in the record.
Based on the Commission’s previous discussions, it appears that parking and noise are the key remaining issues relevant to whether these findings can be made.
Parking:
As proposed, the Project would provide 118 parking spaces on-site as set forth in the following table:
Table 1 – Proposed Parking
The proposed parking would represent a departure from the City’s past practices but the City also has never considered any comparable high-density workforce housing project. Staff is therefore recommending the Commission review the proposed conditions of approval outlined later in this report for consideration and incorporation into the resolution.
The primary concern expressed at the Commission’s prior meetings is whether there will be sufficient overflow parking for guests. In staff’s opinion, the Commission has three basic options in this regard: (1) accept the parking as proposed, which would mean accepting potential overflow parking on neighboring streets; (2) accept the parking as proposed, but impose conditions to accommodate some or all of the potential overflow; and (3) reject the parking as proposed, which might mean recommending that the Project be denied unless it is revised to provide additional guest parking on-site. The Commission could also recommend that the Project be denied without condition.
Each of these options is discussed below, but regardless of which is chosen, staff is recommending including a condition of approval to require a Parking Management Plan so that the City can continue to monitor the parking situation on site after it is built. The applicant would be required to monitor the on and off-site parking demands within one year of reaching 50% occupancy and continuously for a determined amount of time. The monitoring would identify the actual on-site and off-site parking demand and the efficacy of the parking strategies and Parking Management Plan. Staff would then review the information and determine if additional requirements would be appropriate. Such a condition is included in the draft resolution prepared for the Commission’s consideration. [Proposed condition of approval “g.”]
Option 1: Accept the parking as proposed; unregulated overflow of guest parking.
Under this option, guests traveling by car would likely park as needed on the neighboring streets when and where permitted. Overnight parking is not currently permitted on Mercury Lane. This option would be subject to some or all of the following additional conditions:
a. Requiring approval of a separate amendment to the City’s Overnight Parking Permit Policy and Procedure Manual to allow use of overnight parking permits on neighboring streets that are not zoned for and occupied as residential use. [Proposed condition of approval “g.viii.”]
It should be noted that if the Commission approves this option, the project would be subject to City’s Overnight Parking Permit Policy and Procedure Manual and would potentially allow for 1 parking permit per unit.
Option 2: Accept guest and overflow parking as proposed, with modifications.
Under this option, guests traveling by car would park as needed on the neighboring streets and/or other locations subject to some or all of the following additional conditions:
a. Requiring approval of a separate amendment to the City’s Overnight Parking Permit Policy and Procedure Manual to allow use of overnight parking permits on neighboring streets that are not zoned for and occupied as residential use. [Proposed condition of approval “g.viii.”]
This condition could also include a requirement that the applicant actively manage or coordinate the availability of parking permits for residents to ensure their proper use. The number of permissible permits that could be issued for the project could also be capped. [Proposed condition of approval “g.viii.”]
b. Requiring the applicant to secure an agreement with the City for the dedicated use of the City’s west Downtown parking structure for a specific number of guest vehicles. The number proposed in the draft conditions of approval would be capped at 15, but the Commission could require fewer or more. [Proposed condition of approval “g.vii.”]
One obstacle to this condition is the current lack of pedestrian amenities between the Project site and the west Downtown parking structure. The applicant has agreed pursuant to the Development agreement to contribute $80,000 for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. It is unknown at this time, however, when and if these improvements would be completed, so the proposed condition “g.vii.” specifies that use of the parking structure could not take place until they are completed.
c. Require the Project to employ alternative transportation and parking strategies to reduce demand, including such things as parking cash-outs and car-share/ vanpool/ride-share/bike-share programs. [Proposed condition of approval “g.vi.”]
d. Require the project to include on-site parking for bicycles to encourage bicycling as an alternative to automobile travel. The number proposed in the draft conditions of approval would be 114, but the Commission could require fewer or more. The draft condition would also allow the applicant reduce the number of bicycle spaces and repurpose the space if justified by future changes in transportation options or parking needs. [Proposed condition of approval “h.”]
The Commission may also suggest other conditions, but the staff would need further direction to prepare the necessary language for inclusion in the Commission’s recommendation.
Option 3: Reject the parking as proposed unless Project is revised to provide additional guest parking on-site.
Under this option, the Commission would recommend denying the Project unless it is redesigned to accommodate adequate guest parking on-site.
Noise:
Because the Project would introduce residential uses to an area where none currently exist, there is concern that it will both subject residents to undue noise impacts from existing uses. Although this is not recognized as an environmental impact for CEQA purposes, it is still something the Commission can address as a matter of land use planning. Furthermore, because the City’s noise standards are based on the perceivable noise experienced on residential properties, there is additional concern the Project will subject existing uses to noise standards they are not currently required to meet.
Option 1: Accept noise conditions as proposed.
Under this option, both residents and the neighboring uses would have to accept the Project noise conditions. This would mean that residents might have to accept a certain amount of noise above what is typical of other residential areas of the City; although the City’s existing noise standards would still apply. It would also mean that neighboring uses might need to alter their practices if it turns out they exceed the noise standards relative to the new residential use.
Option 2: Accept noise conditions as proposed, with modifications.
Under this option, the Commission could recommend conditions of approval to address potential noise concerns, which could include one or both of the following:
a. Require additional sound-dampening measures be included in the construction of the project. [No proposed condition has been prepared; further direction from the Commission would be required.]
b. Require the Master Plan to be amended to designate the subject property as a non-residential use for purposes of the City’s noise standards. [Proposed condition of approval “i.”]
4. Development Agreement
The Municipal Code requires a development agreement for every Planned Community Master Pan to provide the community and applicants the assurance that the proposed development, and its associated community benefits, will be realized by granting the applicant vested rights to develop in accordance with the approved plan.
The decision to approve the Development Agreement ultimately belongs to the City Council, so the key issue for the Commission is whether to recommend approval based on the community benefits that are currently part of the proposed agreement. As proposed, these include:
a. 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 would be reserved at or below low-income thresholds (as defined by state law) for a minimum of 55 years.
- Six (6) units would have rents of not more than $1,295
- Six (6) units would have rents of not more than $1,395
- Six (6) units would have rents of not more than $1,495
- Six (6) units would have rents not more than $1,595 and
- A total of fifty-six (56) units would have rents not more than $1,695 and would remain between the low to moderate income threshold (as defined by state law) with an ability to increase rents up to a maximum of 3% annually for a period of 40 years.
b. Contribution of video surveillance hardware and software to serve traffic circulation and public safety goals for the project area ($10,000).
c. Contribution towards future improvements to Imperial Highway ($10,000), which would be a fair share contribution to mitigation measures that are deemed infeasible in the Final EIR because of Caltrans’ jurisdiction over Imperial Highway.
d. Contributions towards sidewalk and bike lane improvements on Mercury Lane ($80,000).
e. 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.
f. 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.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Commission accept further testimony during the public hearing and then consider whether to adopt the proposed resolution. Given the Commission’s prior discussion, staff believes the key remaining issues are guest parking and noise compatibility, which are addressed in proposed conditions of approval “g”, “h” and “i”.
|