Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBackgroundBACKGROUND REPORT Project History A Tentative Subdivision Map and Consistency Review were approved in 2006 for a 6- story 306-unit condominium building with 334 parking spaces and 3,800 square feet of commercial space. A subsequent approved design in 2008 reduced the project to four stories, 222 units, and 238 parking spaces. A Street Vacation was processed for the alley bisecting the property and for the southerly 40 feet of 15th Street. The overall right-of-way on 15th Street is 65 feet wide. The street vacation as sought would vacate 40 feet, leaving 25 feet for what was originally designed as a pedestrian walkway, or "paseo". The ordering of the vacation (the last step in the process) was conditioned to be done prior to recordation of the Final Map, which has not yet happened. The street vacation envisioned the paseo for pedestrian access to Kimball Park. Plans for the Paseo have dropped from the proposal, thus the area is proposed to continue as vehicular access. It should be noted that the potential (now proposed) construction of a new parking lot in Kimball Park drove discussions regarding the paseo/no-paseo design. The intent of vacating the 40 feet was to convert the remaining 25 feet to a paseo and to provide alternative parking measures (to replace displaced street parking) in the library parking lot. Although the paseo has been dropped from plans, the applicant has continued to show the 40-foot wide area to be vacated as being used for development, despite this resulting in the removal of street parking on 15th Street. Modification Proposal There are three sections to the requested modification that were presented to Planning Commission: Reduction of the scope of the project Omission/modification of conditions related to: • Paseo Plans. • Library Parking. • Public Art Program. • Green Design. • National City Transit Requirements. New conditions proposed by the applicant related to: • Parking lot construction (proposed Kimball Park lot). • Parking district/access to the future Kimball Park parking lot. • Removal of the skate park east of the project. Reduction of the scope of the project Since the original approval in 2006, the applicant has reduced the project scope due to changes in market conditions. The site has been reduced from 84,100 to 83,809 square feet due to a one -foot dedication on the north side of the project, which will be made to the City. The number of units has been reduced from 222 to 201 and the parking spaces have been reduced to 232 from 238 spaces. There is now only 2,600 square feet of commercial space proposed. The original design was for 6-story buildings; it is now proposed as a series of 4-story buildings. There are 5 buildings in total. The largest building, Building A, would occupy the front of the project site, spanning the entire frontage of National City Blvd. and about one-third of thel6th Street frontage. This building would consist of 51 residential units (12 one -bedroom; 9 one -bedroom plus den; 30 two -bedroom) on three levels above ground level parking, with a building height of 50-feet. Commercial lease area would be located along National City Boulevard and at the corner of 16th Street. Buildings B through E would be located parallel and east of Building A, spanning most of the property from north to south, and would also be three levels above ground level parking, with a building height of 50-feet. Each building would be separated from the others by vehicle access ways. There are four driveways proposed from 15th Street and two from 16th Street. The easterly driveway on 16th would be left in and right out only. The westerly driveway right out only. Building B would consist of 39 residential units (9 one -bedroom; 30 two -bedroom); Building C 45 units (12 one -bedroom; 12 one -bedroom plus den; 21 two -bedroom); and Building D 42 units (21 one -bedroom; 3 one -bedroom plus den; 18 two-bedroom).The smallest building, Building E, would consist of 24 units (18 one -bedroom; 6 one -bedroom plus den). Project amenities include a 2,270 square -foot interior resident common area located along National City Blvd. on the northwest corner of the building. Downtown Specific Plan Consistency The proposed development continues to be consistent with the land use regulations of the Downtown Specific Plan. The project falls within Development Zone 13, which allows civic uses or mid -rise residential uses. Permitted land uses for the zone include "mid -rise residential". The proposed project would achieve this land use objective. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of Development Zone 13, which allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 4:1 and a maximum height of 75- feet. The project totals 213,810 square feet in floor area, which is an FAR of 2.55:1 (the minimum required is 2:1). The tallest building would have a maximum height of 50 feet. The parking requirement for the project is 221 spaces based on the unit mix (bedrooms) and the floor area of the commercial space; the project would provide 227 spaces. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and determined that the project was consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. Street/Alley Vacation The original project included the vacation of 40 feet of the south side of 15th Street, and a pedestrian paseo occupying the remaining northerly 25 feet. The applicant is no longer proposing the paseo. This is mainly due to a proposed parking lot to be constructed in Kimball Park in 2015, which would gain access from East 15th Street. Plans now show the remaining 26 feet of right-of-way after the street and alley vacation (after the one -foot dedication back to the City) continuing to be used as a City street. Plans show 20 feet of vehicular access and a four -foot wide sidewalk on the south side of 15th Street. With this plan the sidewalk on the north side of 15th Street would be eliminated and the landscape area adjacent to the library parking lot cut back from eight feet to two feet. Analysis With a 20-foot street there would be no more room for on -street parking, although the future parking lot to be constructed in Kimball Park east of the project will provide approximately 52 parking spaces, which would accommodate the spaces lost. However, it is not appropriate to use parkland to make up for the loss of street parking. The original street vacation was based on the premise that the remainder of the street becomes public pedestrian access to the park. Now that this is no longer happening, the 40-foot vacation no longer serves a public amenity. Although the reduction in the project scope has reduced the number of units, the width of the project is still the same. Staff suggested the applicant increase the height and reduce the width of the proposal, thus reducing or avoiding the need for vacating 40 feet of 15th Street, thus allowing for the sidewalk on the north side of 15th Street to be maintained. However, the applicant stated that due to the proximity of the water table below the project and the type of construction then required to increase the height, added costs would make the project infeasible. Planning Commission discussed the street vacation and stated that street vacation was still warranted. Omission/modification of conditions The applicant is requesting to modify and/or remove five Conditions of Approval related to public improvements for the project. The original language of the conditions is set forth below. The requested changes are in italics. 4. Paseo Plans. The applicant shall submit paseo improvement plans for approval and shall install and construct all improvements pursuant to the approved plans prior to occupancy. The paseo shall be designed to allow ingress and egress of emergency, maintenance, and service vehicles to the adjacent park. Restroom facilities shall be provided if determined to be feasible and desirable by the City. The applicant is requesting this condition to be omitted due to construction of the parking lot in Kimball Park. Removal of the paseo condition appears reasonable, only if it is no longer part of the project. However, the intent of vacating 40 feet of 15t Street was to convert the remaining 25 feet to a edestrian walkway (paseo), not a street. Without reconsidering the street vacation, 15th Street would lose all street parking. However, as the Kimball Park Master Plan includes a 52-space parking lot, which would need to rely on 15th Street for access, it makes sense to omit the condition, notwithstanding the need to reassess the street vacation. Planning Commission discussed the proposal and agreed to remove the condition. 5. Library Parking. The applicant shall submit a parking plan for the adjacent library parking lot and shall install and construct all improvements pursuant to the approved plans prior to occupancy. The plans shall include a second driveway approach on National City Boulevard, and a redesign of the parking layout to create the maximum number of parking spaces feasible. The applicant is requesting this condition to be omitted due to the paseo no longer being part of their plan. If the paseo is no longer a part of the project, it also makes sense to delete this condition. Omission of this condition will also avoid disruption of the library parking lot. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and agreed to remove the condition. 9. Public Art Program. The applicant shall submit a public art program for approval and shall install, construct, or implement the approved public art program prior to occupancy. The applicant wishes to amend this condition to allow payment of an in -lieu fee rather than installation of public art. The applicant most recently proposed to pay an in -lieu fee rather than install an art component as part of the project, although at the Planning Commission the applicant stated that they would likely install a public art component. Most jurisdictions require that the applicant provide an art installation costing no less than a half -percent of the project valuation, or pay an in -lieu fee of no less than one percent of the project valuation. Although there is no formal policy in the City, staff has discussed similar percentages in the past and considers this a fair direction. The Condition has been modified to include an in -lieu fee of a half -percent. For reference, the Centro approval included a bond for the lighting of street trees during the holidays, and Harborview Condominiums were able to provide an augmented painted scheme; therefore, other projects have been granted alternative options and staff is in support of an in -lieu fee. The fee is anticipated to be used for an art installation within Kimball Park, although it could be for an alternative project within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and agreed to modify the condition. 10.Green Design. The applicant shall incorporate green design, energy efficiency, waste reduction, recycling, conservation, and sustainable design in the project to the maximum extent feasible. The applicant wishes to amend this condition so as to only require compliance with the requirements of the California Building Code. The applicant does not want this requirement to be mandatory. However, all construction projects are required to meet `Green' building standards per the California Building Code (CBC). Although the meaning of `Green Design' at the time of the original approval was likely different (outside normally required building code requirements), the new `Green' building standards that are part of the 2013 CBC would meet this requirement. The condition has been omitted as requested, although the project is still subject to CBC Green Codes. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and agreed to remove the condition. 17. National City Transit Requirements. The applicant shall comply with all National City Transit requirements, including the listed requirements. a) Evaluate the installation of a new bus stop along National City Boulevard near the intersection of 14th Street (Library) or other nearby locations with a shelter, benches, route map and trash containers. This shelter should include an electrical lighting component and at least two CCTV security cameras with a direct feed to NCPD. b) Include this stop (and project) in any evaluation of a Green Car -Community circulator shuttle operation such as under consideration with Revolution R2 (Constellation Property Group) S-2006-6/DSP-2005-1 and Centro (Constellation Property Group) S-2006-6/DSP-2005-1. c) The developer should bear all associated costs to implement any Transit recommendations. d) Submit the plans to MTS Planner Mike Daney (mike.daney@sdmts.com)for his review and comments. The applicant wishes to delete this condition as National City Transit no longer exists. This condition was implemented when the City's transit service was provided by National City Transit. This condition contains no language specifically requiring action by an individual applicant, but rather a collective study of whether there would be need for a local shuttle service between major population centers (individual downtown projects). In the event that multiple large condo towers are constructed and occupied, a shuttle service would be beneficial and potentially needed. Although only a handful of major projects have been realized (Centro, Harborview Condominiums, Bayview Towers), in the event previously -approved Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) condo projects are constructed, the same transit needs will still need to be addressed. However, staff will reassess the need for additional transit at that time and coordinate with MTS (Metropolitan Transit System). Planning Commission concurred with this analysis and agreed to remove the condition. New conditions proposed by the applicant The applicant presented a request for three additional conditions as follows: 1. The City of National City shall install and construct parking in Kimball Park East of the project. The parking lot will consist of approximately 52 spaces. Analysis As previously mentioned, the City will be building a 52-space parking lot in Kimball Park east of the project area. The applicant had previously offered to construct the parking lot, but the City will be doing so. Seeing as the City is proposing to construct the parking lot as part of the Kimball Park Master Plan, there is no need for such a condition. Moreover, it would not be appropriate to place such a condition on the City, as the City is not the applicant. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis. No condition was added. 2. The City of National City will initiate an off hour permit parking program for tenants at Park Lofts for library and/or park area parking and for the other future apartment lots owned in National City by Paradise Creek Holding Corporation and Library Village South Inc. Park Lofts will require approximately 204 permits with an annual fee of approximately $14 per year. Please see EXHIBIT A for sample permit program. Analysis The applicant has expressed the need for additional parking and is seeking an after- hours shared parking agreement for the Kimball Park Parking Lot (when the parking lot is not being utilized). In exchange for such an agreement, the applicant is offering $100,000 towards the parking lot improvements and any additional park amenities. This would be in addition to any development impact fees. However, current Municipal Codes do not allow for public access to parks after 9 p.m.; therefore, no shared parking scenario can be guaranteed at this time and is not included in this permit. Moreover, the applicant would need to initiate a permit parking program, not the City. Staff has concerns related to the shared parking program. Currently, after hours parking is not permitted by the Code. Importantly, the project as designed meets on -site parking requirements and the City Engineer has determined there is sufficient on -street parking available to meet demands. Moreover, there are legal concerns to discuss. Lastly, the policy question remains as to whether the City seeks to have such shared uses of its public park land. A parking lot for the benefit of people using and enjoying Kimball Park is an acceptable use of park property. Generally speaking, permissible park uses are those which offer the public opportunities for relaxation, recreation, educational and/or cultural enrichment, exercise, pleasure, entertainment, and refreshment. The issue here is whether the use of a parking lot in Kimball Park by certain residents of a private development is a permissible use of park land. The case law does not squarely address this question. It does, however, provide guidance in determining what constitutes permissible uses. It is questionable whether the applicant's use would be a permissible use of parkland. In determining whether a use is a proper park use, the primary question is "whether the use in a particular case, and for a designated purpose, is consistent or inconsistent with park purposes." Slavich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 303 (1927) (emphasis added); Wattson v. Eldridge, 207 Cal. 314, 320 (1929). A use which would be inconsistent with park purposes or which would unreasonably interfere with the public's enjoyment of the park is impermissible. Simons v. City of Los Angeles, 63 Cal. App. 3d 455, 470 (1976). When analyzing whether a particular use unreasonably interferes with the public's free use and enjoyment of a park, courts tend to focus on three factors: (1) the amount of space occupied by the use relative to the size of the park; (2), the location of the use in the park; and (3) the duration of the use. In City and County of San Francisco v. Linares, 16 Cal. 2d 441 (1940) the court found that the temporary suspension of park surface use for ten months and permanent installation of entrance and exit for underground public parking which occupied six and one-half percent of the park was an insignificant interference with park use. In this instance, the applicant is seeking to use the parking lot at a time when the park is closed to the public. Courts have held that a use on dedicated park land may not exclude members of the public. San Vicente Nursery School v. County of Los Angeles, 147 Cal.App.2d 79, 85 (1956). The court in San Vicente held that the exclusive use of the building and adjacent facilities in a park by a private group constituted an illegal diversion of the Park. The court found that there was an unreasonable exclusion of other members of the public because the primary purpose of the exclusive use was to benefit a limited number people and that such exclusive use by a private group was not a public use or public purpose. Accordingly, that particular use of the park did not contribute to the enjoyment of the park by other members of the public, but detracted from such enjoyment. In this instance, the exclusion would be during hours the park is closed. Uses of parkland that are incidental to park uses, such as those that facilitate or enhance the public's enjoyment of the park, have been upheld. Abbot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles, 223 Cal. App. 2d 668, 675 (1963). Accordingly, one looks at whether the use at night detracts or impacts the public's enjoyment of the park. Arguments can be made both ways: that the use is not consistent with park purposes; or, the Park is closed overnight so the private use does not detract from the enjoyment of Kimball Park by members of the public. As discussed above, the determination of whether a use is a permissible park use is determined on a case -by -case basis. A court will look to see if, in this particular case, the exclusive use of the parking lot by the residents of the Project, even if just overnight, is consistent with park purposes. The risk free approach is to not allow the exclusive use of the parking lot. If the City does decide to allow the exclusive use, the legal risk could be reduced by allowing the Project residents to use the parking lot only when the Park is closed; from 9:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. It should be noted that the applicant is amenable to non- exclusive use of the parking lot. In other words, the applicant has indicated they are amenable to just having access to use the parking lot after hours without it being exclusive to their residents. Whether this is practical is another matter. In regard to whether this reduces the concern of inconsistent use with park purposes, the case law does not definitively answer this question. In the event that the Planning Commission and/or City Council decide to pursue a shared parking scenario, the operation and enforcement of such an agreement would need to be vetted through appropriate channels. Issues needing to be satisfied would include (but not be limited to) the following: • Any shared parking use would not be exclusive (public purpose as a park shall be maintained). • A Code Amendment initiated and processed by the applicant related to parking lot access after posted no public access hours. • Funds deposited to cover staff time and materials related to processing the Code Amendment. • Consistency with the City's Parking Permit Policy. • Consistency with any potential Parking Management Plan or Parking District in place or expected at that time. • An acceptable plan and ongoing funding source for operation and enforcement. • A usage fee for use of the parking lot. • Defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City with relation to non-public use of the park. • If subject to challenge, vacation of use of the parking lot after hours subject to court order or within 30 days, whichever is sooner. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis. The applicant agreed to remove this request and pursue possible parking solutions as outlined in the Downtown Specific Plan. 3. The City of National City will remove the skate park east of the project as soon as reasonably practical after building permits are pulled for the project. The applicant would like assurances that the skate park east of the project site will be removed prior to occupancy of the building. They are asking that it be removed within 8 months of building permits being issued. The City has financing in place and is in the process of awarding a contract for the construction of the parking lot, which is expected to begin construction in the summer of 2015. Given that the parking lot will be where the skate park is currently located, no condition is needed. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to place such a condition on the City. Planning Commission concurred with this analysis. No condition was added. Summary In an effort to move forward with the Park Lofts project, the applicant has reduced the scope of their project, requested modification/omission/addition of conditions of approval. With staff input, the proposed changes recommended by the Planning Commission still meet the intent of the original approval. Additionally, granting of the modifications will allow for the applicants to pursue a project that has been approved for some time. In addition, the project continues to be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and will provide for redevelopment of an under-utilized property. The project will, in turn, provide market -rate housing opportunities and jobs to the area. There is, however, still a concern regarding the continued use of the southerly 40 feet of 15th Street, now that the paseo has been omitted from the design.