CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

4516 1/2 30th St.San Diego, CA • 92116

Prepared by:

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

TOD Feasibility Study

September • 2020

Prepared for:

1243 National City Blvd National City, CA • 91950

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay

TOD Feasibility Study Final Report September 2020

Citythinkers 24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay Page i TOD Feasibility Study

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Study Background and Purpose............................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Transit-Oriented Development & Smart Growth Infill Development ................................................ 5

2.1 Transit-Oriented Development ............................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Smart Growth & Infill Development ...................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Prevalent Site Features .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Candidate Opportunity Sites ............................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Construction Types .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.0 Development Prototypes .............................................................................................................. 17 4.1 Ribbon Screens ..................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Transition Blocks .................................................................................................................................. 18 4.3 Adaptive Reuse ..................................................................................................................................... 20 4.4 Pencil Towers........................................................................................................................................ 22 4.5 “Tiny Homes” & Bungalow Courts....................................................................................................... 23 4.6 Corner Infill ........................................................................................................................................... 24

5.0 Summary...................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendices

Appendix A – RED Office Prototype Financial Feasibility Analysis

Citythinkers 24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay Page ii TOD Feasibility Study

List of Tables Table 3-1 Prevalent Site Opportunities and Constraints....................................................................... 11 Table 3-2 Types of Construction ..........................................................................................................166

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Project Study Area .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-1 SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map – South County Subregional Map ............................. 7 Figure 3-1 Parcel Size ................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4-1 Ribbon Screen: Example Floor Plan, Section and Elevation ................................................. 17 Figure 4-2 Ribbon Screen: Example Site and “Walk-up” Example ........................................................ 18 Figure 4-3 Transition Block: Example Site Layout .................................................................................. 19 Figure 4-4 Transition Block: Typical Street View ..................................................................................... 19 Figure 4-5 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of a masonry warehouse for educational use .... 20 Figure 4-6 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of mechanic garage for grocery/ market ........... 21 Figure 4-7 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of mechanic garage for grocery/ market ........... 21 Figure 4-7 Pencil Towers: Conceptual 3D View showing how towers may be sited within block

development ........................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4-8 Bungalow Courts: Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................. 23 Figure 4-9 Corner Infill: Conceptual example of activated street corner ................................................ 24

Citythinkers 24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay Page 3 TOD Feasibility Study – Sept 2020

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Background and Purpose The City of National City is developing the 24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay (TODO) plan to strengthen the vision for the area surrounding the 24th Street Transit Center. A primary objective of the TODO plan is to achieve a better alignment between transit infrastructure and public realm enhancements and land uses in the area through Transit-Oriented Development and Smart Growth Infill Development. This TOD feasibility study includes a high-level evaluation of community facilities and amenities, infrastructure, and environmental constraints and identifies underutilized sites for potential smart growth, infill development. A separate financial analysis of the selected prototypes was developed by RED Office (Appendix A) to determine the viability of commercial, residential, industrial and/or mixed-use development. This study informs the planning process and provides an analysis of the development capacity and feasibility of representative sites in the study area. Development prototypes have been produced during this process and may be incorporated into the plan/ overlay as recommendations only, with implementation and zoning changes to follow the TODO Plan as part of a separate process. The primary goals of the TOD Feasibility study are to:

• Analyze physical conditions and constraints to transit-supportive land use for representative sites in the project area.

• Conduct a high-level evaluation of public facilities, infrastructure, and environmental constraints as they relate to identifying opportunities for development in the study area.

• Identify specific underutilized sites that may be suitable for redevelopment as model smart growth infill development projects in the study area.

• Conduct a select site analysis to determine potential commercial, residential, industrial and/or mixed-use development potential for key sites.

• Development of up to six (6) development prototypes for recommended use in the study area.

Several relevant documents, plans and reports include, overlap and impact the TODO study area. A list of recent and relevant documents is provided below. For a full document review and summary, please see the Mobility Existing Conditions Report, Appendix A, prepared by Chen Ryan Associates and dated May 2020:

• INTRA Connect (2020) • Downtown Specific Plan (2017) • National City SMART Foundation (2014) • Circulation Element from General Plan (2011, readopted 2012) • Westside Specific Plan (2010) • Bicycle Master Plan (2010) • Harbor District Specific Area (1998)

The TODO Study Area encompasses approximately 760 acres of existing developed land in the Southwest corner of the City of National City, bound by 8th Street to the north, SR-54 to the south, I-5 to the west and Highland Avenue to the east. A map of the study area is show in Figure 1-1 following this page.


Figure 1-1 Project Study Area


2.0 Transit-Oriented Development & Smart Growth Infill Development

2.1 Transit-Oriented Development

Transit-Oriented-Development (or “TOD”) is a planning concept that took root in the 1990’s and is now widely considered a best practice in the planning field, with multiple examples (both good and bad) across the state and the nation. TOD is premised on the notion that when new buildings, infrastructure and associate development are located at or near transit infrastructure, the social, economic, environmental and health benefits of that development are vastly increased over development that is disassociated with transit or not connected to transit. TOD is well documented in planning research1. Several decades of projects and research demonstrate a strong connection between transit ridership, health outcomes, environmental benefits and other positive outcomes associated with TOD. Moreover, TOD has become a guiding policy from the state to local level of government, and it is a fundamental goal of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) grant funding for the TODO Plan (see sandag.org: TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program).

In recent years, planners have expanded the scope of TOD to include Transit-Oriented Districts or Communities, which extend the concept of TOD to include a larger area, or district. A TOD Community stretches beyond the buildings and spaces immediately surrounding a transit station (as typically seen in Transit-Oriented Development) to encompass the wider areas that connect to transit. When we talk about a Transit-Oriented Community, we must also talk about connectivity and how through development and associated infrastructure we strengthen last mile connections to transit and deliver a mix of uses, services and community amenities to an area served by transit (San Diego Association of Governments, Transit Oriented Communities In The San Diego Region, 2014).

The TODO study area displays many of the characteristics desired to support a Transit-Oriented Development and Transit-Oriented Community. The existing grid network of streets and compact blocks and a network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in some areas of the study area support a walking environment. The area is served by light rail at the 24th Street station and multiple bus routes along major north-south and east-west corridors (such as National City Blvd. and Mile of Cars Way/24th Street). A mix of uses, from single-family to multi-family residential, commercial automotive, commercial retail,

1 A Selection of TOD Research: Communities Are Embracing Development Near Transit: A Snapshot of Transit-Oriented Development Support Across the United States By: AARP, Jana Lynott, Mariia Zimmerman, Patricia Happ. 2017

Hedonic Price Effects of Pedestrian- and Transit-Oriented Development By: Keith Bartholomew, Reid Ewing. JOURNAL OF PLANNING LITERATURE, 26(1): 18-34, 2011

Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded or Built Rail Transit Systems By: American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, Matthew Kahn. REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS, 35(2): 155-182, 2007

Does TOD Need the T? By: American Planning Association, Daniel Chatman. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 79(1): 17-31, 2013

TOD 101: Why Transit-Oriented Development and Why Now? By: Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2007

Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects By: Robert Cervero, Steven Murphy, Transportation Research Board.TCRP REPORT 102, 2004


industrial and institutional offer several opportunities for employment, housing, and retail. Existing zoning in select areas permits densities that support transit and enable new mixed-use development to occur.

However, more can be done to strengthen the connection between new development and transit in the area. Pedestrian safety can be vastly improved, particularly at key intersections in the study area (such as 18th and Highland or 24th and National City Blvd.). Land uses on and around the 24th Street Transit Station itself can support a greater mix and intensity of uses to leverage the infrastructure of the station and to bolster transit ridership. Investments in the area around the Paradise Creek and Paradise Creek Park might help make the creek and park accessible to a wider cross-section of the area and the city and provide a key open space connection between the transit station and the north side of the study area. Bicycle facilities on Hoover Avenue can close the missing link to the Bayshore Bikeway. And new development can establish a more active and positive frontage to the streets in the area, activating the public realm and providing “eyes on the street.” Together, these changes would help build a more cohesive and stronger relationship between development in the area and transit infrastructure, the transit station, and ultimately transit riders.

2.2 Smart Growth & Infill Development The City’s General Plan calls for Smart Growth consistent with statewide and regional transportation and planning goals and policies as a land use goal citywide (National City General Plan, Goal LU-1). Much of the TODO study area is categorized as a SANDAG Smart Growth Opportunity Area, which is an identified location within the region that can support Smart Growth and transportation investments. Smart Growth is another widespread planning concept that informs planning across all levels, from state to regional and local levels. A fundamental goal of Smart Growth is to promote infill development (or development in existing urban areas), where transit and community infrastructure investments can be focused to best serve existing populations and leverage the benefits of existing resources. Without continued infill development and revitalization of existing urban areas, greater pressure will be placed on development in the hinterland, where resources are lacking and new development puts a greater strain on municipal services (such as fire protection). The negative effects of urban expansion in outlying areas of our region, or Sprawl, is also well documented in planning literature. Among many consequences, sprawl development contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions, greater commuting times, environmental impacts to wildlife and increased fire risks. In recognition of this, state law (SB 375) requires that regional planning incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy which outlines how development and transportation work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support sustainable development.

In the 2004 Regional Comprehensive Plan, SANDAG established a Smart Growth Strategy that envisions growth and development of the San Diego region to be focused primarily in existing urban infill locations (2004 Regional Comprehensive Plan, SANDAG). This regional strategy maps areas where a high propensity for urban infill and Smart Growth development may occur. The potential for Smart Growth in and around the 24th St. Transit Center is among the strongest in the city. The TODO study area includes SANDAG designated Smart Growth Areas (SGA’s) NC 2, 3 and 8, which are intended to support Town Centers and Mixed-use Transit Corridors. Town Centers support low to mid-rise residential, office and commercial with some employment, drawing people from the immediate area. Mixed-use Transit Corridor Areas support concentrated residential and mixed-use development along a linear transit corridor with a variety of low-, mid- and high-rise buildings, with employment, commercial and retail businesses and drawing people from nearby communities (SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map, South County Subregion, 2016).


National City is located in the heart of our region, close to Downtown San Diego and South Bay employment centers, the Port of San Diego and Naval Base, and accessible by three highways and two light rail (MTS Trolley) stations at 8th St and 24th St. Employment in the area is also strong. Maps of the area demonstrate a high employment density in the area surrounding the 24th Street Transit Center (Chen Ryan Associates, TODO Existing Conditions Mobility Report, see figures 2-3 and 2-4). Data also shows a higher transit mode share for the city and study area, as compared to the rest of County. A higher transit share could be attributed to the several bus lines with high frequencies and presence of the Blue Line Trolley stop (24th Street Transit Center) within the study area, offering high quality connections to the greater region (Chen Ryan Associates Existing Conditions Report, Table 2-1). There also appears to be a strong jobs/housing balance in the area. Over half (51.3%) of study area residents are employed within 10-miles of the study area (mostly within the South Bay) and over two-thirds (67.9%) of people employed within the study area reside within 10-miles or less. This indicates that nearly all the employment and residential concentrations noted have great potential for commute trips via public transportation, and possibly bicycling or walking. Notably, except for the Kearny Mesa employment center, the Blue Line Trolley connects these areas to the study area. The trolley provides a frequent and high-quality transit option that is accessible at the 24th Street Transit Station within the study area. Encouraging more employment, educational and housing opportunities within the immediate area of the station, as well as ensuring station access is convenient and comfortable for study area residents and employees is one method to further encourage public transit commute trips and build upon a strong balance of land uses existing in the area.

Figure 2-1 displays the Sandag Smart Growth Concept Map for the South County subregion, which designates the area around the 24th Street Station as a “Town Center,” with mixed-use, high-density serving the immediate area (circled in red below).

Figure 2-1 SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map – South County Subregional Map

Source: SANDAG; www.sandag.org


3.0 Site Analysis Site feasibility testing helps us uncover the prevalent site features that exist in the study area today. Multiple sites in the study area exhibit a range of site characteristics, underlying zoning and environmental constraints and resulting scale impacts that must be evaluated when considering development potential. The following are some of the defining features used to evaluate site development opportunities in the TODO Study Area.

3.1 Prevalent Site Features Lot Size Lot and block patterns vary across the study area (see Existing Conditions Urban Form, dated 9-30-2019). In most instances, parcel and lot sizes are small, with a median parcel size below 15,000 square feet of area (see figure 3-1). The range in size spans from as small as 1,500 square feet to larger than an acre. Properties immediately surrounding the 24th Street Transit Station range in size from less than 2,500 sf to more than 4 acres. This range in lot size offers opportunities for a diversity of development scales, size and types, but it also creates constraints on development, as large lots are often required to accommodate higher densities and larger scale mixed-use development. Large lots are predominantly located in the area directly south of the transit center (along Hoover Ave.), where industrial and business park uses make up the majority of the existing development.

Lot size matters when considering the feasibility of urban infill and mixed-use development because lot width may affect street frontage and access to the site, lot depth impacts parking formats, and lot size influences access to natural light, ventilation, and views from inhabited spaces. The predominance of small lots in the study area indicate that either lot assembly will be required to deliver multi-family and mixed-use development of a scale and intensity that supports transit, or infill development will need to be at the scale of single-family residential. High land and construction costs create a disincentive to development of smaller-scale projects (particularly housing), as the costs to build cannot be easily spread across a small yield of dwelling units or leasable floor area without an increase in rents to make up the difference.

Access & Parking In general, development sites in the TODO study area offer good pedestrian and vehicle access. A compact grid network of streets and blocks - combined with alleys - facilitate access to and through blocks and lots. As they redevelop, larger sites (greater than 1 acre) may require new roadways, private drives and circulation paths to provide access to residential units, businesses, parking and other internal areas of the site. Several blocks in the Westside Specific Plan area have commercial and industrial buildings on corner lots. These lots tend to be larger than the single-family lots in the area and the location on the corner provides greater opportunity for redevelopment, giving these properties two frontages and therefore greater access and flexibility in building layout and design. Parking often drives development capacity on a site. Lot dimensions may facilitate or impede an efficient accommodation of parking on a site. Where sites have alley access, this facilitates parking access and may reduce the need for drive aisles and driveways, making parking layouts more efficient. Deep lots also enable parking to be located above-ground, located toward the rear of the lot. With enough lot depth, parking may be wrapped in the front with active spaces, creating a more engaging street presence.


Figure 3-1 displays existing parcel size categorized by small (less than 10,000 square feet), medium (10,000 – 50,000 square feet), and large (greater than 50,000 square feet). Most small and medium-sized parcels are located in the northern and eastern parts of the study area.

Figure 3-1 Parcel Size


Adjacencies When considering development of a site, adjacent uses, environmental features, landscape, and structures can heavily influence the viability of a development proposal. The physical context of the TODO study area varies vastly across different sites. In the Westside, the colocation of housing with commercial and industrial creates conditions where a warehouse or a mechanic shop sits just inches away from a single-family house. In the east side of the study area, parking lots face residential and multi-family is interspersed with single-family residential. The entire western and southern edges of the study area border interstate 5 and state route 54 highways. Properties along the Paradise Creek face natural open space and a new park and some sites south of 30th St. clear a view of the Sweetwater River Channel.

Development sites where proximity to adjacent uses and existing site elements result in potential negative impacts may require alleviating measures through site design, building design features and construction to address the impacts. For example, sites near flood prone areas may require significant sitework (such as mass grading and soil remediation) to address drainage concerns. Sites near highways may require additional sound attenuation measures and enhanced mechanical ventilation to meet building code standards and control for contaminants. Standardized plans and conventional development types may not work in these conditions, however, through creative and extraordinary site and building design and construction, development may still be feasible.

Topography & Soils Topography and soil conditions can also influence the feasibility of development, where based on existing site conditions, significant grading or soil remediation may be required. Site topography in the TODO study area is predominantly flat, with minor changes in grade elevation across most sites analyzed for development potential. Notable exceptions include sites along 16th and 18th Streets and sites south of 30th St., bordering the Sweetwater River, where drops in grade elevation contribute to flooding challenges in those areas. Sites near the Paradise Creek also have known sensitive soils, and remediation efforts performed by the City as part of the Paradise Creek Park Site include remediation and improvements to stormwater drainage and quality in the area.

Infrastructure Most of the study area falls within the Paradise Creek drainage basin, with portions to the north lying within the 7th St. Channel drainage basin and portions to the south within the Sweetwater drainage basin. Significant portions of the study area are within the 100-year and 500-year FEMA floodplain associated with the Paradise Creek and Sweetwater River. Flooding in the area is a known challenge, particularly in areas where the Paradise Creek crosses key intersections (such as Mile of Cars Way and Hoover Ave., National City Blvd. and 16th St and 18th St. and Roosevelt Ave). Water and sewer capacity for the area is sufficient to support existing and planned uses, however a Sewer Master Plan Update is underway and further analysis will need to be coordinated with the TODO plan and the Housing Element Update. The City has completed upgrades to sewer mains for several areas of the study area in recent years. Given these existing conditions, it is reasonable to anticipate that most infill development will tie in to existing facilities and will not require extensive offsite improvements, except perhaps for sites prone to flooding and within the 100 or 500-year floodplains may require significant grading, soil remediation and drainage design. Table 3-1 identifies prevalent site features and corresponding opportunities and constraints to consider for TOD development in the study area.


Table 3-1 Prevalent Site Opportunities and Constraints

Site Feature Opportunities Constraints

Lot Size

Deep lots provide opportunity for parking to be tucked behind active uses of the development fronting the street. Corner lots maximize frontage and facilitate access. Wide lots facilitate housing with dwelling units facing interior common open space and natural light and ventilation.

Small lots (less than 10,000 square feet) constrain multi-family and mixed-use development and may impede efficient layouts for parking and dwelling units. Large lots (greater than 1 acre) may require additional access drives and roadways to facilitate circulation and access through the site. The prevalence of small lots in the study area may require lot assembly, which can make new development costly and requires time.

Access & Parking

A street grid and compact blocks, combined with alleys, make the area accessible and well-connected. Parking access from alleys reduces the need for access aisles and provides design efficiencies.

Small and narrow lots constrain parking and may restrict access to vehicles, pedestrians, light, air and open space opportunities. Blocks without alley access may require a consolidation of lots or easements between adjacent parcels.

Adjacencies The mix of land uses in the area facilitate an active, 24/7 community that offers a range of neighborhood amenities within walking distance.

Sites near industrial and automotive uses may require extraordinary design and construction measures to address the impacts of adjacent uses.

Topography The relatively flat topography of the study area facilitates new development without significant grading and sitework.

Some sensitive areas in the study area may require grading, soil remediation and site improvements to address flooding and contamination (e.g. the Paradise Creek area, areas south of 30th St.).

Infrastructure

Infrastructure in the area generally supports new development, with minimal to no offsite improvements required to water, sewer, dry utilities and telecommunication facilities.

Storm drainage and water quality remain challenged by flooding of areas around the Paradise Creek.

3.2 Candidate Opportunity Sites A diversity of development opportunities are plausible for the TODO study area. As demonstrated above, properties in the TODO exhibit a range of site characteristics, they are of varying size and geometry and they represent varying constraints and opportunities. To assist in evaluating the opportunities, we have grouped sites by the following seven categories or groupings:

• Transit Station • Parking Lots • Infill Lots • Corner Lots • Large Lots • Warehouses • Paradise Creek Blocks


Transit Station We believe a higher and better use exists for the transit station site. Cities across the state and the country have embraced transit centers as active and vibrant places for a mix of uses, placemaking and higher density residential. An overriding principle in redevelopment of transit stations is the desire to achieve a greater synergy between activities associated with transit use and activities associated with a broader mix of uses, especially housing. In light of this and the state housing crisis, recent California laws require that transit agencies give consideration to housing uses on transit center sites. Given the current demand for housing, its proximity to major employment centers and its relative ease of access, the 24th Street Transit Station is a good candidate for evaluation. The site topography is relatively flat, it is well-served by bus routes, it connects well to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and it faces the Paradise Creek and Park. The National City Adult Education Center directly south of the site offers an existing active use that, coupled with other uses (such as housing, more educational uses, and retail), may help fulfill a greater development capacity of the site and bring “eyes” on the space for 24/7 activation. The transit center site may provide the ultimate TOD opportunity, with the ability to orient uses and buildings to the station and to capture transit riders as they arrive/depart the area with additional active uses. Other opportunities include the potential for a Public/Private Partnership with educational institutions (such as the Sweetwater Union School District, UCSD and trade schools) or with market rate and affordable housing developers, among other groups. As publicly owned land, the site may also be a good candidate for grants and subsidies to help finance new development. Some limitations of the site should be noted. Inasmuch as light rail and bus transit remains the primary use for the site, parking may need to be accommodated at a greater quantity than one may typically expect for other land uses (e.g. housing). New development on the parking lot may need to replace existing parking that may be lost to new buildings. This will put a cost burden on any site development proposal, as parking requires significant space and structured parking costs anywhere from $30,000 to as much as $75,000 per stall. A parking structure could serve the area well if it provides a buffer from the highway and a shared parking agreement or joint use of the structure is made available for the education center, housing, retail, office or other surrounding uses and buildings. Overhead high-tension powerlines that run along the trolley tracks may pose another constraint. Typically, development that has high occupant loads (such as housing) is required to set back from high-tension powerlines for safety precautions. Finally, any development proposed for the site will need to address the impacts from highway noise and contaminants, as this is an existing condition that has impacted the community negatively for decades.

Notwithstanding these constraints, TOD development on the transit site may help fulfill the city’s General Plan vision of the site as a major gateway to the city (National City General Plan Figure LU-5). With education


and a mix of supporting uses on and near the site, the 24th St. Station can also continue to grow as the city’s connection point to employment opportunities in the city, region and beyond.

Parking Lots Parking lots dominate the southwest quadrant of the TODO study area, with more than 50% of that area devoted to automobiles. Large expanses of paving contribute to the urban heat island effect and to significant increases in urban runoff (https://www.epa.gov/heatislands). Recent studies demonstrate that low-income communities of color are disproportionately affected by urban heat, which compound underlying medical conditions (often also attributable to their physical living environment). Moreover, large expanses of paved and undeveloped areas erode the walking environment. Inactive, visually barren, and unbuilt street edges increase perceived walking distances and encourage speeding, making the pedestrian environment less safe and unpleasant.

Parking lots also represent a significant amount of land area devoted to storage that might be made available for new development. Since lots are typically large in size and mass graded with minimal slopes to accommodate drainage, they make excellent sites for new development. Assuming the parking can be either eliminated, reduced, or replaced, new development does not need to displace existing viable commercial, industrial or residential uses on the site. A possibility also exists to line street frontages with new development, creating a more active and engaging street environment that supports all modes of transportation (walking, cycling, transit and cars). As the TODO area develops, parking lots may well be the first places that “fill in” with a mix of uses and spaces that complement existing uses and add new uses that the area needs. New buildings can treat stormwater and add greenspace and trees on-site, reducing the amount of impervious surfaces that currently dominate the area and contribute to the heat island effect. Vehicles can be tucked away, hidden behind new development, and buildings can approach the street, reclaiming streets as places for people, not just cars.

Infill Lots

Infill lots may be defined as properties of 20,000 square feet or smaller in size, surrounded on two or more sides with existing development. Access is often restricted to one street frontage and, in some instances, may include alley access. Infill lots pose several challenges to development, as site size, constrained access, parking and adjacent uses often restrict how much and what can be built on the site. However, the TODO study area contains several infill lots that present opportunities to increase small-scale residential, such as bungalow courts, duplex and fourplex, accessory dwelling units, townhomes and


even walk-up apartments. This two and three-story density fits well with the single-family scale of many single-family areas in the study area, and development at this scale can often result in a more diverse and rich tapestry of development than large-scale, monolithic development encompassing entire blocks. As mentioned in Section 3.1 above, development costs for small infill projects are not always lower than they are for large-scale projects, so the economics often create a disincentive to building small-scale, infill development, particularly in markets where high rents are not supported.

Corner Lots

With a street grid and a network of compact blocks, The TODO study area includes multiple corner lots. Corner lots offer excellent development potential because buildings can front on more than one street, giving the site multiple opportunities for pedestrian and vehicular access, natural light, ventilation and views. Corner lots are also attractive for commercial and mixed-use development, as a street corner provides maximum visibility and can often serve as a gateway marker to an area. Corner lots with existing aging and underperforming commercial and industrial uses may be good first candidates for TOD mixed-use development. Mixed-use and housing can offer a higher and better economic use of those sites in the long-term. Corner lots are often located at key intersections in the community. 18th St. is a pedestrian and bike corridor that connects residential neighborhoods to parks, schools and transit. As 18th St. crosses other corridors, such as Highland Ave., those corners serve as important community anchors. While existing zoning in most instances may allow mixed-use, the co-location of residential with auto-oriented uses should be considered and may present a challenge to corner lot development. The high speed, congestion and presence of automobile traffic on streets surrounding major corners lots of the study area should also be considered when evaluating the feasibility of development there.

Large lots

While small-scale infill development prevails in the areas north of the 24th Street Station, areas to the south are characterized by large lot development (see figure 3-1). Existing commercial and industrial uses include primarily warehousing and distribution centers, business park office uses, fitness related uses, and automotive supply and repair uses, with a few manufacturing uses (such as plastics, sandblasting, aircraft supply and military related supply uses). Auto dealerships along the National City Blvd. Mile of Cars and the National City Swap Meet make up another large section of large lots in the southern areas of the TODO. With lot sizes greater than 1 acre, these large lots may be considered attractive for large-scale


development of multi-family residential, mixed-use, commercial and additional industrial. However, from one-on-one interviews with property owners in the area, the prevailing opinion is that the existing commercial and industrial uses in the area (primarily along Hoover Ave.) are perceived as viable economic uses, and the near-term (and for some properties also mid-term) outlook for redevelopment is not strong in this area. The Swap Meet and Auto Dealerships also provide viable economic uses and tax revenue, making them less attractive for wholesale redevelopment and turnover to other uses. However, assuming a long-term outlook for automotive sales and the ability to achieve a greater compatibility between commercial and light industrial uses and residential uses, there is potential for a mix of uses to be introduced incrementally and deliberately over time to large lots in this area. The wholesale redevelopment of large parcels can often have unintended, negative consequences for an area, from gentrification and displacement to colocation challenges and impacts to hours of operation, truck circulation routes, noise, and other factors affecting the livability of the area. These impacts must be considered and may be addressed through design and thoughtful, incremental placement of uses in focused areas of the lot. If new uses are brought to large lots, they should be concentrated in areas away from the highway, heavy industry, and truck routes. Street and circulation improvements should be coordinated with private investments in large lots for maximum benefit to the larger area and community. A shared parking strategy should be explored to maximize the efficiency of existing parking and leverage existing resources.

Warehouses Both large and small infill lots in the TODO study area support warehouses of varying building types, sizes and uses. Industrial, premanufactured “Butler” buildings dot the area alongside concrete masonry and tilt-up concrete structures with varying businesses within their walls (from welding and plating to fitness and beauty studios). The impacts from colocation of warehouses adjacent to single-family homes is well documented in the Westside Specific Plan and remains an important and relevant concern for the study area. In 2011, the city commissioned a report that establishes a methodology for ranking non-conforming, polluting properties in the area2. This report was used as a basis for development of an Amortization Program to transition warehouse and industrial properties in the Westside Specific Plan area. While the City has an amortization program designed to phase out these businesses, only two businesses have successfully completed the amortization process, with one simply relocating to another location within the study area. This data demonstrates that land use and enforcement alone cannot solve the challenges of colocation of industrial with residential. Additional strategies are needed to work in hand with the amortization program. One bold, yet ill-defined, strategy that should be explored further is the adaptive reuse of warehouse buildings for at least three compatible and desirable commercial uses in the TODO study area: education and job training, small-scale mom and pop retail, and grocery. Current planning best practices advocate for land uses and transit-oriented development that results in greater access to healthy foods, health care, education and a mix of neighborhood serving uses. Adaptive reuse of warehouses can provide unique opportunities to fulfill these needs in the community at a scale that is consistent with the existing small, walkable, neighborhood scale of the area.

2 SRA/Vita Nuova, NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA Recommendations for Ranking Properties with Nonconforming Uses in the Westside Specific

Plan Area. 2011


Paradise Creek Blocks The Paradise Creek, Paradise Creek Educational Park and Paradise Creek Apartments together set the stage for development of a Paradise Creek Gateway District. Enhancements to this area form a beautiful and unique gateway to the city and to the 24th Street Transit Station. As a major open space connection, the creek links transit infrastructure, education, jobs, commerce and residents to the wider city, Kimball Park, Civic Center, the Sweetwater Marsh and San Diego Bay. Several properties alongside the Paradise Creek offer ripe opportunities for new investment in the area to support a greater mix of uses, pedestrian enhancements, green infrastructure, and public open spaces. Existing properties turn their back on the creek, neglect their environment and fail to maximize their potential to create a livable and highly connected neighborhood that embraces the restored creek as an important natural asset to the area. While direct frontages on the creek may not always be possible, all properties along the Paradise Creek should connect with the creek in a meaningful way. Moreover, the potential to stitch together existing and future land uses with the creek and transit infrastructure will reinforce a strong sense of place and continue to build an authentic identity for the area.

3.3 Construction Types TOD Feasibility is in large part determined by the type of construction anticipated for a development site. Because construction cost is a significant variable in a project’s feasibility, the type of construction of the development plays a key role, with some construction types consistently proven as more cost-effective than others. Most residential uses fall within wood construction, although concrete and steel are used for high-rise residential buildings. Wood framing is typically the most cost-effective type of construction, as it is an industry standard, it often requires a lower fire rating, and wood construction requires fewer specialized trades and skilled labor than concrete and steel construction. Concrete and steel material costs are also significantly higher than wood. Concrete and steel are often used for commercial, industrial and high-rise construction (buildings with a top floor plate height of 75 feet or taller, as defined by the California Building Code). When considering development feasibility, it is critical to understand when increases in density and height may also trigger a change in construction type, as this typically indicates a corresponding jump in costs and may significantly change the development financial model or “pro-forma” of the project. Table 3-2 outlines the standard construction types in the industry. Table 3-2 Types of Construction

Type Characteristics

V Primarily wood-frame construction limited to 4 stories/ 70 feet I or II Primarily concrete or steel; unlimited height for type I

III Wood, concrete, steel or other material; limited to 85 feet Modular Wood or steel; factory manufactured and shipped to a site

Source: California Building Code (2019)


4.0 Development Prototypes To evaluate the development feasibility of candidate sites described above, several development prototypes were used. The prototypes enumerated below represent a range of opportunities for the TODO study area and include a variety of building types and scales, from accessory dwelling units to bungalows, fourplexes, walk-up and mixed-use apartments, high-rises and one-story commercial buildings. In most instances, residential was considered the predominant land use, with commercial as secondary uses. The prototypes analyzed do not represent an exhaustive and comprehensive list of development opportunities, but a representative sample of potential development for the TODO area. For a more detailed design, analysis and financial proforma of the prototypes, see RED Office Report - Appendix A to this report.

4.1 Ribbon Screens Ribbon Screens are a mixed-use development prototype proposed for underused parking lots and wide landscaped setbacks fronting key streets in the study area. Where development of the street edge and activation of the public realm is desired, Ribbon Screens can instigate the transformation of key transportation corridors in the study area. This prototype can be deployed along wide stretches of street frontages to help screen parking lots, commercial, and industrial uses from the street. Ribbon screens work on “skinny” sites, with lot depths as shallow as 14 feet. They can variate in height, length and depth depending on site opportunities and neighborhood context. A “walk-up” model may include three stories with ground floor retail, shopkeeper units or live-work units. Parking is maintained in the rear of the lot, “tucked under” the building. In areas where noise and other impacts from the street and adjacent land uses are a concern, Ribbon Screen buildings may be designed with residential units facing inward and screened from the street, as shown on figures 4-1 and 4-2. As a near-term development prototype, Ribbon Screens provide activation and enhancement of the public realm with the addition of small-scale retail and housing, without displacing existing uses or precluding larger-scale infill development as uses and properties transition over the mid and long-term.

Key Issue: Affordability & Displacement

Ribbon Screens are designed to fit within the first 20 feet of the lot depth, in the place of landscaped setbacks, parking and vacant areas of the site fronting the street. In this way, this development prototype does not displace existing uses and buildings but adds new development potential incrementally. The Ribbon Screen prototype is one way to add much needed housing in the study area without displacing existing uses. Its compact footprint and ease of construction, along with smaller unit size, make this an affordable housing alternative to larger-scale monolithic development (see Appendix A for additional details).

Figure 4-1 Ribbon Screen: Example Floor Plan, Section and Elevation


Figure 4-2 Ribbon Screen: Example Site and “Walk-up” Example

4.2 Transition Blocks In an area with a great mix of land uses and building types, transitions are needed between intense uses (such as commercial automotive and industrial) and residential uses (especially single-family neighborhoods). Several blocks in the TODO study area include entire blocks of existing commercial automotive and light industrial uses that back up to single-family housing blocks. As those properties transition over time, opportunities exist to implement housing on the side of the property that faces existing residential, with buffers and screening that facilitate the transition from the commercial use to the new residential use and the residential street. These “transition blocks” accommodate multi-family residential of a scale and design that may be made consistent with the scale of the residential neighborhoods behind. By grouping units into four to eight-plex configurations facing courtyards, the scale and rhythm of development may mimic the existing single-family homes in the area. Buffers, setbacks, screening and landscape will be required between the new residential use and existing commercial uses while those uses transition over time to mixed-use and other uses (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4).

Key Issue: Buffers and Transitions

By building the rear portion of commercial blocks in the study area with multi-family residential, we provide a buffer and transition between the commercial uses and residential neighborhoods along major corridors of the study area (such as National City Blvd.) Transition Blocks stabilize eroding residential edges of the single-family neighborhoods in the study area and complete both sides of residential streets (such as A Street). This prototype anticipates four to eight-plex units oriented around courtyards. Parking access is provided from the rear of the site, creating an additional buffer to the adjacent commercial use with ample space for landscaped setbacks, screen walls and a row of trees to screen the new residential use (see Appendix A for additional details).


Figure 4-3 Transition Block: Example Site Layout

Figure 4-4 Transition Block: Typical Street View


4.3 Adaptive Reuse Adaptive reuse of industrial and commercial warehouses and structures is a development strategy that many cities have embraced in recent years. A wave of industrial warehouse conversions to loft apartments hit Downtown San Diego in the early 2000’s. The rapid proliferation of micro-breweries and the beer industry in San Diego saw a second wave of conversions in neighborhoods such as North Park, Barrio Logan, and across the county, from Downtown Vista, to Downtown Chula Vista, for example. In these examples, the transition in use was driven by market forces that puts pressure on gentrification of those neighborhoods. In the TODO study area, Adaptive Reuse has the potential to be more about community building. As a development strategy, it should respond less to market forces and more to facilitating compatible uses that provide many of the services neighborhoods lack. With this in mind, the prototypes shown below demonstrate the potential conversion of industrial and commercial buildings for education and job training, grocery and healthy foods, and small-scale retail uses (see Figures 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7).

Key Issue: Co-location

Adaptive Reuse is an attractive and viable alternative to full-scale demolition of non-conforming structures. In neighborhoods such as the Westside Specific Plan area or “Old Town National City,” the co-location of industrial uses next to residential is a persistent condition that contributes to ongoing impacts to the health and safety of residents and businesses in the area. While the Westside Specific Plan proposes sharp measures (such as the amortization of non-conforming uses), it focuses almost exclusively on land use as a solution. Land use changes can take decades. Adaptive Reuse can serve as an interim measure that can be implemented sooner (see Appendix A for additional details).

Education & Job Training

Figure 4-5 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of a masonry warehouse for educational use


Grocery Market

Figure 4-6 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of mechanic garage for grocery/ market

Small-Scale “Mom and Pop” Retail

Figure 4-7 Adaptive Reuse: 3D View showing reuse of mechanic garage for grocery/ market


4.4 Pencil Towers “Pencil” Towers were explored as a prototype to test their viability in the study area and compare the prototype to lower density models. High-rise residential towers rarely work financially in markets outside of Downtown San Diego or other employment centers, such as Mission Valley, Sorrento Valley and University City because the high costs of high-rise construction often require above market rents, putting most residential units in the luxury category. Current zoning in the TODO area does not support towers, with a maximum building height of 65 feet allowed. Nonetheless, it is a worthwhile exercise to study their potential for two reasons. First, the availability of land and its desirable location in the city and region make this prototype attractive in the long-term. Pencil Towers can be designed to fit comfortably within existing parking lots without displacing existing uses. They also work on larger lots when Ribbon Screens or other “phase 1” uses populate the block edges and towers are sited internal to the block. The compact floorplate, coupled with smaller units, enables a more efficient use of land and a greater concentration of residential density close to transit. Second, tradeoffs can be obtained in exchange for the additional height needed for towers. These may include the provision of more open space, public plazas, community spaces, affordable housing, and mixed-use (among other potential community benefits). The concentration of density in select areas of the TODO means more of the single-family residential areas can be protected from increased development pressures. A detailed financial analysis of Pencil Towers is provided in Appendix A – RED Report.

Key Issue: Open Space

“Pencil Towers” or high-rise buildings with a limited footprint and small floorplates offer the opportunity to preserve open spaces on a site for public and recreational use. By building vertically instead of horizontally, less surface area of a site is covered by buildings and may be used for green/ open space areas. Aside from the Paradise Creek and Paradise Creek Educational Park, the TODO study area lacks greenspace and recreation area. Given the cost and time required to deliver public parks, the provision of greenspace within private development may be a viable alternative if that space is made available to the greater public as well as to residents of the development. Open space and landscaped areas of a site may also serve a dual function as buffers and screening of residential uses from existing commercial and industrial uses (see Appendix A for additional details).

Figure 4-7 Pencil Towers: Conceptual 3D View showing how towers may be sited within block development


4.5 “Tiny Homes” & Bungalow Courts The “Tiny Home” concept has gained popularity in the last decade, especially among millennials craving an urban lifestyle and greater choice. Loosely defined as homes under 500 square feet and often associated with small lots or split lots, Tiny Homes offer economy, sustainable living and a greater connection to community by giving young professionals and families greater choices in housing location, size and cost (Anne Wyatt, Planning, February 2016). Because they are small, may be factory built, and come in various styles, Tiny Homes can easily fit, unnoticed within the side and back yards of single-family neighborhoods. While size excludes families, this prototype may serve the needs of seniors, students and single military personnel in the TODO area.

Similar and perhaps more efficient, Bungalow Courts are a proven housing typology from the early 20th century that consists of six to as much as twelve attached or detached “bungalows or cottages” arranged along an internal paseo or landscaped court, typically all fitting within a standard single-family lot or combination of two or more single-family lots. Bungalow Courts offer a “single-family lifestyle,” with separated, individual units with private yards and porches, yet in a communal arrangement with shared access and a common courtyard or paseo (see Figure 4-8).

Recent state legislation and corresponding local programs have renewed a focus on Accessory Dwelling Units or Second Units as one way to help address our affordable housing crisis through small-scale densification of primarily single-family neighborhoods. Accessory Dwelling Units advance the city’s growth and policies by accommodating new housing units while preserving the character of existing neighborhoods, allowing efficient use of the city's existing housing stock and infrastructure. They provide housing options and choices that respond to varying income levels, changing household sizes and lifestyle needs. Adding Tiny Homes and Bungalow Courts to this mix will further these goals and provide greater diversity of housing stock that is compatible and “right sized” for existing infill neighborhoods.

Key Issue: Right-Sizing Infill Development

Tiny Homes and Bungalow Courts offer the advantage of greater density without the visual and scale impacts. Since dwelling units are often single-story and may be detached, they can easily match the scale and size of surrounding single-family homes. In a compact configuration and with reduced setbacks, as much as eight to ten bungalows may fit within a standard 7,450 square foot site (See Figure 4-8 below). This is a density of more than 50 dwelling units per acre. While such a density is often associated with multi-story apartment buildings, with this prototype, the height does not need to exceed two stories.

Figure 4-8 Bungalow Courts: Conceptual Site Plan


4.6 Corner Infill Street corners are a terrible thing to waste. This is why one of the prototypes includes Corner Infill development, which looks at opportunities across multiple intersections of the TODO study area and identifies design and development opportunities to enhance and mark the corner with active and vibrant uses, attractive features and greater intensity of building massing and forms to really celebrate corners in the area. As mentioned in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 above, access to a site is a critical development feature and corners provide excellent access, as they enable a project to have two street frontages and great visibility. While all of the development prototypes discussed here work on street corner lots, our focus here is on Corner Infill development for some of the major mixed-use corridors, such as Highland Avenue, 18th St. and 24th St. For these areas, opportunities exist to mark the street corners with active ground floor uses (such as retail), a corner plaza or widened sidewalk, greater transparency with storefronts and breezeways and distinct architectural forms (such as chamfers, rounded corners, vertical elements or marquee signs). The building typology explored here is “stacked flats,” with ground floor commercial uses and residential above. The format is similar to the Ribbon Screens prototype, but located on more compact and contained corner sites where two frontages must be addressed.

Key Issue: Strengthening Neighborhood Nodes

Corner Infill emphasizes the street corner as a neighborhood node, a focal point of intensity, vibrancy, activation and gathering. While several intersections in the TODO study area function as key nodes, their vibrancy stems primarily from automobile traffic, not pedestrian activation. Corner Infill development has the potential to strengthen these nodes as pedestrian spaces, drawing from surrounding single-family neighborhoods to the west and east. Special design features and community amenities should be considered in the development of these nodes.

Figure 4-9 Corner Infill: Conceptual example of activated street corner


5.0 Summary Planning policy from the State to regional and local level establishes a sound foundation for support of transit-oriented development in the TODO study area. The TODO study area lies within a Sandag Smart Growth Area and several policies in the City of National City General Plan, the San Diego Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Westside Specific Plan support transit-oriented development and mixed-use. Analysis of TOD feasibility reveals key site characteristics, considerations, and opportunities for transit-supportive land uses and development in the TODO study area. Among several, the site features that stand out include excellent access, a variety of parcel sizes, a mix of adjacencies, challenges with flooding, and adequate infrastructure. Development constraints include a prevalence of small lot sizes, parking, construction costs, and persistent co-location challenges, among others. By identifying the main site opportunities and plausible prototypes for sites in the study area, we uncover potential design strategies, land use options, and development concepts for further consideration in the planning process. Consistent with these goals and policies, transit-oriented development in the study area should result in growth patterns that support transit infrastructure and greater pedestrian and bike connectivity. Challenges related to co-location, affordability, gentrification and displacement in the area should be addressed in this process and may require land use policies and design strategies. The prototypes proposed in this analysis are developed with the explicit goal that future investment in the area meet those challenges and begin to address them in a direct way.

Appendix APROTOTYPE Financial Feasibility Analysis

THEREDOFFICE

Contents 24th street TODO

ExpandedTrolleyStop

TargetedSmallInfillProjects

BufferPropertySites

GrannyFlats

RibbonBuildings

IndustrialParksResidentialOverlay

ParkingPrototype

TheSpiralGarage

TownandCountry

FinancialViability

HousingPrototypes

RibbonBuildingsPencilTowersBufferBuildingsTargetedInfillandAdaptiveReuseAccessoryDwellingUnitsTypicalMiddledensityDevelopmentmodels

DemographicsandMarketAnalysisAppendix.Prospectus8thandBtargetmarket,careofAndrewMalickPhillipMolnar,SanDiegoAveragerentstrendsBBGInc.,Access,LandUse,CBRE,47764thAveappraisalMay2020,Covidwarningstatement.

24thSt.TransitOrientedDevelopmentOverlay.The prototypes presented are individual building blocks of the precise planning presented in this study. The different types visualize physical solutions to the set of interests each particular overlay site presents. All the types propose housing carefully integrated into the existing city fabric. In the industrial park, housing added creates new mixed-use pedestrian places. In the residential neighborhoods it edifies eroding edges preserving the existing single-family neighborhoods.

INTRODUCTION Expanded Trolley Stop At the very heart of our considerations to create pedestrian places inNational City is the SanDiego Trolley. Dense housing near the transitstopsassuresalladvantagesfromthehugepublicexpendituretocreatethetransitsystemarerealized.Thisstudyproposestheclosingof22ndstreet at the intersection of Wilson into an expanded trolley stopdevelopmentsite,allowing thehousingelement tobe located500 feetfromthefreeway.A larger mixed-use housing project might expand the nearbyeducationalcomplexes,whileprovidingacommunity-parkinggaragetosupport surrounding development. Therewould be enough room fortheTrolleyStoptoinclude:

• 200housingunitson22ndstreetandwrappingtheWilsonsideofthegarage.• 500carsinacommunitygaragethatbuffersthehousingfromthefreeway• 50,000sq.ft.ofeducationalfacilitiesfocusedonandactivatingacentralgalleria

Housing couldbedeveloped on the road rightofway in a“bridge building” with grand arches framing views of thecreek and surroundings enhancing the power of the openspace.Northfacingplazaporchescouldhousearestaurantand café fronting the Park. The project would providefunding for the removal of the22nd street landbridge andculvertandtherestorationofthenaturalcreekecology.

#1 TARGETED INFILL BUILDINGS

Small infill sites abutting the Trolley Stop could be included in the development as individual projects by small developers. The community parking garage makes possible a cluster of these independent infill buildings on lots too small to develop good ground floor uses if parking is provided on site. Pictured are particular infill lots on Wilson, with various programs. We don’t imagine a prototypical building in this case, since each could have a different program and even height. Our interest is in a street wall. These lots should have zero foot interior side yards. Parking variances should be granted developers of these sites to allow the no parking option.

Building like the blue one pictured here could mitigate between the cluster of taller new buildings at the trolley stop and the one story houses further North on Wilson. Perhaps this Southerly entrance to Old Town could be marked with a gateway.

The Northern tip of Paradise Creek along 18th street has numerous infill sites that could make connections continuing up Hoover and on to Kimball Park. Other pocket clusters could be encouraged near Highland and 24th.

These sites typically have reusable single story industrial buildings that are suitable for adaptive reuse. Often they have parking lots that with better mobility could be given up for on grade building expansion. The new buildings should include apartments on the upper stories while including ground floor uses that activate the street. Clusters of these buildings could begin a street wall enhancing the walking experience and better integrating mixed uses into the Eastern residential streets and the historic neighborhood on the West Side.

# 2 Ribbon Buildings ThesethinBuildingsareproposedonthelandscapestripsandstreetyardsetbacks.Sotheydon’tchangetheunderlyingexistinguse.WetargetHooverand22ndstreetasprimarypedestriancorridorswherewehopetobuildcompleteurbanroomswithbuildingsofequalscaleanduseonbothsidesofthestreet.Addinganinitialhousingoverlaytotheexistingconditionaccomplishesshortandlongtermgoals.RibbonBuildingscanscreenandenhancethenon-conformingusesinaninterimperiod.Theirsmallfootprintaddshousingwithoutsacrificingexistinglandusages.Thesmallerinvestmentcanexploreanddemonstrateviabilityinstigatingdevelopmentofpropertiesbeingheldforfuturedevelopment.

RibbonBuildingsinstigatedevelopment

Ourmainhopewiththeribbonbuildingsistoinitiatesomehousinginanurbansettingsoon.Soonistheoperativeword.TheBosaandFentonholdingstogethercouldjumpsstartanewNationalCitywith housing focused on connected urban spaces near the transit stop. Both properties arefunctioningrealestatewithoutafinancialclockpressingfutureprojectsforward.Waitinguntilthetime is right to scrape and rethink the area leaves National City fixed in the status quo.Intermediatedevelopmentaccelerates thepotentialcompanyreturnsand the investors,NationalCity,andtheNavywin.TheRibbonbuildingscharmisthattheydevelopthecorridorsofconnectivitywithoutprecludingfutureaddeddensification.Byplacingthinbuildingson the landscapestripsfrontingHooverand22nd street anewplace is begunwithout sacrificing the existingviableusesor themuch largerfuturedream.

Built example

The RED office recently completed a 20’ wide micro loft project demonstrating the viability of narrow buildings. The Abpopa, pictures here, contains 25 expectantly lofty apartments only nine feet wide.

.

Ribbon buildings can be different heights and widths depending on the opportunity. Designs can be as thin as 14 feet.

Awalkupheightisillustratedhere.AlthoughtheRibbonbuildingscanbesixstoriesandhaveelevators,shorterbuildingsmayhavethesameimmediateimpact,jumpstartingthedevelopmentofthepedestriancityspaceswechampion.Thesectionillustratedhasampleoutdoorspaceonthepenthouselevelwhereprivateterracesandcommonpatioswouldprovideexteriorspaceintheunusualmixed-useenvironment.Groundflooruseswouldhaveexceptionalstreetexposurepershopsquarefootage.

Ribbon Buildings Build a street scape Ground floors contain entry lobbies, stoops and opportunities for small enterprises like cafes, juice bars and home offices (above).

Pictured to the right in green is the Bosa property lined with ribbon buildings that mirror the Paradise Creek Apartments completing both sides of 22nd street and making a pedestrian place on Hoover Street. The ribbon buildings would be initial instigations beginning the process of renewal. Further development is added as the neighborhood demand and price point grows.

1 2

34

4

Ribbon Buildings make the Industrial Park’s Residential Overlay

● Adds housing within walking distance of the trolley stop ● Creates a pedestrian city space along Hoover.

Each situation is different, but most all the industrial parks offer this opportunity. Large landscape strips and buildings, often set back behind front yard parking lots, provide sites for Ribbon Buildings. We even go so far as to imagine housing added over the drive thru restaurant on Hoover at the shopping center. A connection across 24th St. would tie the Hoover Street string of mixed-use buildings to the trolley stop and other pedestrian places we hope to connect.

Adding Town and Country street parking can replace any lost where Ribbon Buildings touch down to provide ground level uses. Developments could widen the street and relocate the cycle tracks where required. In addition structured parking could be added if deemed necessary.

.

A café could fill a sidewalk bulb out.

Existing Buildings could be expanded out to the street below the Ribbon Buildings.

RibbonscouldfloatoverthelandscapestripsalongHooverallowingtheparkinglotstoremainalongwithvisibilitythrutotheexistingbusinesses,oralongbarcouldfitundertheRibbonbuildingonly,andsometimeswheretheindustrialparkbuildingshavesmallsetbacks,theexistingbusinesseswouldpeekthrutothestreet.

.

Rearloadingandaccessaremaintained

#3 The Spiral Garage

These 120-foot wide above grade parking garages fit into typical light industrial parking lots. They can spiral up to any height or parking ratio. Although the ground levels will require some separation walls, little parking is lost. Once above the ground level, they are very efficient. The garages could be inserted while maintaining the existing land usages to provide parking for added residential development where surface parking, and increased mobility do not meet the need.

Thesegaragesfitbetweentheexistingbuildingswithoutdisturbingtherearaccesstothelightindustrialspaces.

Onlyafewspacesarelosttotheinitialramp

# 4 PENCIL TOWERS An increased height limit allowing housing towers should reward developers who jumpstart the renewal with Ribbon Buildings. Where existing uses are maintained, we propose a prototype pencil tower with a small floor plate suitable to fit between industrial park buildings.

Pencil Towers located on open sites within the working industrial parks or office and educational complex have an additional advantage in that they will be separated by comfortable distances. Unlike dense urban models where towers are most often too close together, the windows in these small floor plate buildings would be hundreds of feet apart, an ample distance for privacy while enjoying city and bay views. Their separation also prevents the more Westerly towers from blocking the view opportunity from the 2nd and 3rd tier properties located further to the East. The wide separations allow unhindered views between the towers. We imagine that this degree of development may in fact be the climatic stage, at least into the for-seeable future. The existing light industrial base perfectly located adjacent to High way 5 remains, an important component of a modern Car City. At the same time a Pedestrian City co exists woven among the tilt ups and storage parking lots. National City would have vital walk-able spaces that are only supportable by dense market rate and affordable housing.

Additional Pencil Tower opportunities exist on properties adjacent to the 22nd street pedestrian corridor. Towers here have the same advantage as the industrial parks and educational complex sites. A Mile of Cars Dealership near the pedestrian corridor of 22nd street could build dense housing by adding a pencil tower and spiral garage while maintaining their existing operations. Perhaps the tower could be an amazing beacon with suitable graphics visible at the scale of the automobile or even a new vertical sales garage like a “Pez” dispenser one might see in Japan. In keeping with the idea to maximize the pedestrians on 22nd street thus assuring the street’s vibrancy, we suggest if not to late, that the National City Park Apartments locate their proposed tower closer to 22nd street. Pictured is a kind of hybrid prototype, an 8 story Ribbon/Tower Building hovering over the existing 60-foot parking lot at the Westerly edge of the property. Even the Paradise Creek Apartments have two pencil tower sites if not room for a parking garage. Perhaps the synergy of this possibility would help achieve the Transit Stop that would include a community parking garage.

# 5 BUFFER PROPERTY SITES

● Stabilize eroding residential edges by completing street spaces. ● Complete both sides of interface streets with residential uses. ● Edify the commercial residential edge to protect single-family homes.

A and B Avenues on the East side of the Mile of Cars are the front lines of parking lot encroachments into the single family neighborhoods to the East. We propose a number of development scenarios where this frontage is edified with buildings that mediate these conflicting uses.

Streets like this (below) illus- trate the lost property value buffer residences suffer in proximity to auto maintenance and storage facilities and with the uncertainty of future encroaching developments.

Some interfaces are handled simply and well where the auto uses orient to the West rather than toward the East and the single-family homes. In this case, pictured at right, a hedge on the blank wall goes a long way toward solving the issue.

Ideally development on both sides of the street could mirror the other. Illustrated is a buffer prototype that puts a row of four unit houses on top of the auto yard. The house’s back yards could be separated from the auto parking below with wide planters and carefully considered view lines. The street would be whole and neighborhood beyond stabilized.

Where the neighborhood is multi-family, the buffer building could be taller.

These buffer sites vary. At 26th street some far encroaching parking lots should be developed as medium density housing in keeping with the density of adjacent multi-family residences.

Pictured is a stabilized residential / auto interface, where carefully oriented buildings define the intersections of competing land uses. Pictured at left is one of many middle density housing models where courtyards enhance private spaces.

6- 4 unit houses mimic the neighbors to the East ,

# 6 Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Houses

● Provide affordable housing ● Provide subsidies to existing home-owners ● Provide opportunities for multi-generational families ● Help achieve environmental goals thru added density

These tiny houses could be as small as illustrated here only 250 square feet, or as large as allowed with typical ordinances. This larger size could be split into a number of “out” buildings as long as only one new kitchen is added.

These small buildings should be allowed to sit right on the property lines, and 8 foot fences should be allowed to maximize the value of exterior spaces.

Property owners should be able to not only rent but sell their tiny houses, fully participating in the real estate economy. Narrow parcels or flag lots, with smaller minimum square footages and frontages, should be allowed as long as the added units stay well back from the street maintaining the existing spacing and the associated value of the typical neighborhood house.

Tiny houses as pictured below provide better privacy and open spaces with 8’ walls on the property lines.

AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofInfillHousingintheSingleFamilyNeighborhoodPlanners are excited about the new State ordinances that encourage accessory dwelling units. Of course we are, because nothing could do more to accomplish ultimate planning goals than allowing a slight densification of the suburban condition. The environmental arguments for density are well known, and all see the advantage to provide for extended families. Even when these flats are rented to non-family members, they can provide subsidies to the property owner while at the same time creating affordable housing units. Municipalities are offering many incentives in the form of reduced permitting costs and ready to build plans hoping to instigate development of this housing type. However with closer examination, we should be a bit wary. Where property owners occupy their houses, these benefits are clear, helping the resident of the house at the same time the added unit is helping the City build housing and achieve environmental goals. But what will happen in communities where many or even most of the houses are occupied by renters? Older houses provide perhaps the best option for rental affordability. National City has many houses suitable for families that are affordable because the stock is older. A landlord looking to increase income will be encouraged to build these ADU units changing three bedroom single-family homes into 4 unit apartment complexes. The multiplied rents on the four-plexes will be followed by increased property values, and eventually that housing stock once affordable to the present occupants will be lost. The big back yard or the garage workshop that the single family home offered is diminished even when the existing non-owner occupant can afford to stay once the ADU is added. We have offered a measure to increase privacy and make better use of exterior spaces in the form of zero foot interior side yard setbacks and taller allowable fences on property lines. But more importantly perhaps, we have suggested that allowing sub-standard minimum lot sizes and flag configurations would allow the ADUs to be sold separately providing a set of houses at lower cost than the existing homes. We imagined how an existing owner occupant, could participate in the real estate development business profiting by selling a portion of a lot that in the owner’s estimation is worth the trade. We find it more difficult to address the underlying problem that improvements in a single family zone will lead to increased rents, and potentially to losing valuable affordable multi bedroom houses. There is a trade for more studio and small-scale units but lost family housing may be an odd result of the ordinances that are intended and advertised to increase family options for multi generational households Although we most often think of ADUs as studios or one-bedroom units, multi bedroom units should be encouraged. However, building these bigger accessory units will be difficult since family rents will not support the larger construction cost. The key to development return is the increased rent a studio receives per square foot compared to a multi bedroom unit. Considering all the benefits of the accessory unit ordinances, perhaps the City can provide additional subsidy to builders of multi bedroom tiny houses. At the heart of this study is the intent to protect the status quo. Our plan protects as much as it envisions a future National City. In the industrial parts of the city, with in walking distance of the transit stop, we can add super dense housing with the proposed over lay strategy without displacing the existing uses. In the residential areas of the city our first concern should be protecting the existing single-family neighborhoods from encroachment and the occupants from displacement. Another green strategy in residential neighborhoods might be a more direct approach. Rather than counting on density to improve our carbon footprint here, perhaps the City should develop a program of tax rebates to encourage the planting of trees.

FinancialViability

HousingPrototypes

FinancialFeasibilityThisstudyconsidersbasicfinancialfactorstodeterminefeasibility.Asimplemargincomparingtotaldevelopmentcostandcapitalizedvalueof20%isconsideredfeasible.Snapshotreturnsoninvestment,or“cashoncash”isconsideredsufficientdetailforearlyfeasibilitystudies.Weconsidera7%returnintoday’smarketfeasible.

RibbonBuildings

RibbonBuildingsmaybeanintermediateideatoinstigatedevelopment,buttheyarealsoattractiveprojectsontheirownmerit.Thesebuildingsaremadeaffordableprimarilyfromtheuseofpropertywithoutremovinganexistinguse.Thereislittletonolandcostsincethebuildingsarelocatedonstreetsetbacksandlandscapestripswithoutremovingtheexistingbuildingsanduses.

Andtheydogettherenewalstarted.Perhapsthecitycouldofferincentivesreducingindirectcostsintheformofstreamlinedpermitprocessesandreducedfees.

TypicallythegroundfloorusesunderRibbonBuildingswillreducesomeexistingparking,especiallywheretheexistingstructuresareexpandedouttothesidewalkundertheRibbonBuildings. Thesegroundflooruses,cafés,restaurants,longbarsandexpandedcommercialspacesthatwehaveillustratedare important

componentsofthepedestrianfriendlyspacesweencourage.Soloosingsomeparkingevenwiththeverythinbuildingisnecessary.Determiningthecorrectamounttoreplaceorexpandbecomesparticulartothesiteconsidered.

Theparkingstrategiesdescribedshouldbeusedtothedegreerequiredgiventheparticularsituation.Forthe200microunitdesignexampleweconsideredontheHGFentonproperty,thelostsurfaceparkingalongHooverwasfullyreplacedbyaddingdiagonalparkingonHooverandthecrossstreetsservingthecomplex.

Ifonewastobelievetime-sharingofparkingspacescouldbe15%effective,another150spacesoftheampleexistingFentonsurfaceparkinglotsbecomeavailablefortheresidentialusers.Wesuspectthenewstreetactivatingcommercialspacescouldalsobeservedsufficientlybytheexistinglotsandaddeddiagonalparkingbothinthedaytimeandevening.

Iftheenhancedmobilityfeatureswedescribedabovecontributebyreducingtripsandtheneedtohaveacar,theneedforasmanyasanother50spacesmaynotberequiredintheFentonstudy.Thesestrategiesalonewillprobablyservethe200-unitRibbonBuildingsufficientlywithoutnewstructuredparking.

Sincewehaverecentlycompletedasixstory120footlongRibbonBuildinginHillcrest,wearefamiliarwiththeimpactofitsnarrownessonactualcosts.Asshouldbeexpectedthecostwashigherthantypicallargeplatewoodframeoverpodiumbuildings.However,weareabletoshowthatthebuildingsperformprovidingmarketrateaffordabilityeasily.Evenifthegaragesareadded,theprojectwestudiedontheFentonpropertyworkswell.

TherearealsoadditionaldevelopmentadvantagestotheRibbonBuildings.Althoughthereisnoreallandcosttoconsider,theequityofthelandcanbeusedinthelendingproformatobolsteractualcashequityrequirements.Sothe“free”landbecomesequity,producingexceptionalcashreturnswhenconsideringtherealinvestmentlesslandvalue.Presentedhereisaprofitablemarketrateapartmentbuildingthancaneasilyofferaffordablerents.Ifanon-profitpartneredtodevelopribbonhousing,unitscouldbemadedoublyaffordable.

InsummaryRibbonbuildingsarenotonlyfinanciallyfeasible,butareexceptionalinvestmentopportunities.Theymaintainexistinguses,eliminatetypicaldevelopmentcarryperiods,andrequirelittletonoconstructedparking.Thefreelandofthisotherwisefullyfunctioningrealestateinvestmentisdoublyeffectiveactingasequity.BeyondtheimmediateviabilityoftheRibbonBuildingtheseintermediateuseswillaccelerateprojectreturns.Sitesheldforfuturedevelopmentfindthefuturemuchcloser.

ComparableProject

AbpopaHillcrest FentonRibbonBuildinglength 125' length 959'height 65' height 60'stories 6 stories 6

grosssq.ft. 15000 grosssq.ft. 115080hardcost $2,525,000 hardcost $19,371,800

pergrossfoot $217.672 pergrossfoot $217.672units 24 units 200sqft 300 sqft 300

commercialsqft 1000 commercialsqft 7672

FentonProforma

COST $4,000,000 Landassume$19,371,800 Hard

35% $6,780,130 Soft$30,151,930 TDC

70% $21,106,351 Loan30% $9,045,579 equity

$4,000,000 landportion$5,045,579 actualEquity

4.50% -$106,943 monthly30year-$1,283,313 yearlydebtservice

INCOME

numberunits rent totalpermonth peryear184 $1,450 $266,800 $3,201,600 studios

8 $2,600 $20,800 $249,600 2beds8 $3,500 $28,000 $336,000 penthouses

7672 sqft@peryr $20.00 $153,440 commercialincome$3,940,640 GSI

5% $197,032 vacancyloss$3,743,608 EGI

35% $1,379,224 operation$2,364,384 NOI$1,081,071 yearlycashflowbeforetaxes

11.95% cashoncash21.43% actualcashoncash(noland)

5% caprate$47,287,680 capvalue

56.83% $17,135,750 marginoncost

ComparableProject

AbpopaHillcrest FentonRibbonBuildinglength 125' length 959'height 65' height 60'stories 6 stories 6

grosssq.ft. 15000 grosssq.ft. 115080hardcost $2,525,000 hardcost $19,371,800

pergrossfoot $217.672 pergrossfoot $217.672units 24 units 200sqft 300 sqft 300

commercialsqft 1000 commercialsqft 7672

FentonProforma

COST $4,000,000 Landassume$19,371,800 Hard

130cars Addtwolevel $6,938,478.46 parkinggarage35% $6,780,130 Soft

$37,090,408 TDC70% $25,963,286 Loan30% $11,127,123 equity

$4,000,000 landportion$7,127,123 actualEquity

4.50% -$131,552 monthly30year-$1,578,626 yearlydebtservice

INCOME

numberunits rent totalpermonth peryear184 $1,450 $266,800 $3,201,600 studios

8 $2,600 $20,800 $249,600 2beds8 $3,500 $28,000 $336,000 penthouses

7672 sqft@peryr $20.00 $153,440 commercialincome$3,940,640 GSI

5% $197,032 vacancyloss$3,743,608 EGI

35% $1,379,224 operation$2,364,384 NOI

$785,758 yearlycashflowbeforetaxes7.06% cashoncash11.02% actualcashoncash(noland)

5% caprate$47,287,680 capvalue

27.49% $10,197,272 marginoncost

PencilTowersPencilhousingtowerswouldnotnormallybeconsideredavehicletoaffordability.Thefloorplatesizesarenotthemostefficientbecausestairsandelevatorstakealargerthannormalpercentageofthesquarefootageperfloor.Ingeneraltowersareexpensivebuildingsevenwhenfloorsaremoretypicalinsize.

Weimaginetheviabilityofthesetowerstobeasecondphaseopportunitythatcontinuestheconceptofmaintainingthelightindustrialuse,whenthemarketallows.Theirsmallfloorplatesfitbetweentheexistingbuildings.TheirfiscaladvantagewouldbethesameastheRibbonsBuildingswherelandcostsassociatedwiththedevelopmentarenegligible.

Ourinitialproformasindicatesthatthesebuildingsmightbeviablesoonerthanweinitiallyimagined.

Intheproforma,weapplyhigherrentsthatmaybepossiblefromtheseviewtowerseventoday.InadditiontheproformatightenssoftcostsasapercentageofhardandreducesoperationasapercentageofGSI.Muchofthisfine-tuningwouldrequireadditionalstudy.Howeverwebelieveadditionalstudyiswarranted.

Certainly,andparticularlyontheBosapropertywheretheexistingparkinglotsservingtheeducationalandcountyfacilitiesallowmoreflexibilitythantheindustrialparks,theneedforsmallfloorplatesisnotnecessarilyanadvantageandmoretraditionalsizeswillmostlikelyprovebetterfinancially.

AsinthePencilBuildingsthisproformaincludesanassumedlandcostalthoughthereisinfactnone.Wedothistodecreasetheequityrequiredandimprovethereturnsoninvestment.Certainlythesophisticateddevelopersoperatingthesepropertieswillapplyadditionalfinancialstrategiesinvolvingprobablerefinancingthatwilladdtothebasicfeasibilityofthebuildingsthemselves.

CostLAND 2,000,000$

HARD

119 Unitshells 4,758,852$

76 2,466,314$

355 SFConcreteWalls 35$ 12,425$304 SFConcreteFloor/Ceiling 37.5$ 11,400$108 SFStorefrontGlazing 68.0$ 7,344$150 SFpartywalls 8.55$ 1,283$

totalshell 32,452$

37 1,659,968$

433 SFConcreteWalls 35$ 15,155$452 SFConcreteFloor/Ceiling 37.5$ 16,950$165 SFStorefrontGlazing 68.0$ 11,220$180 SFpartywalls 8.55$ 1,539$

totalshell 44,864$

6 469,755$

1211 SFConcreteWalls 35$ 42,385$373 SFConcreteFloor/Ceiling 37.5$ 13,988$250 SFStorefrontGlazing 68.0$ 17,000$150 Loftwidget 24.3$ 3,638$150 SFpartywalls 8.55$ 1,283$

totalshell 78,293$

1 162,815$

2559 SFConcreteWalls 35$ 89,565$1500 SFConcreteFloor/Ceiling 37.5$ 56,250$250 SFStorefrontGlazing 68.0$ 17,000$

0 Loftwidget 24.3$ -$0 SFexteriorwallSTUCCO 16.75$ -$

162,815$

1 1leveldetachedparkinggarage 4,827,801$

119 Widgets 3,974,935.05$

electrical 8,746$plumbing 10,780$cabinets/casework 2,500$tile 360$countertops 736$appliances 3,500$windowtreatments 750$Kitchen Sinks 450$Bath Fans 200$Kitchen Hood Vent 240$hvac 3,700$doors 1,092$pocketdoor 350$

totalwidget 33,403$ continued

59000 FireSprinklersandalarms 6.92$ 408,280$ continued20 tempelevator Perfloor 18,500.00$ 370,000.00$

2 20 Elevator Perfloor 47,500$ 1,900,000$20 Steelstairs Perfloor 18,938.33$ 378,767$

15318 SFStairConcreteShell 35.00$ 536130Footingsandstructuralcolumns 2,500,000$Offsites 55,350$

TotalSubcontracts 19,710,114$9.00% GeneralContractor 1,773,910$

24 Super 5,000.00$ 120,000$4.13% GeneralConditionsfromAbpopa 814,028$

costpergrosssquarefoot 379.97$ 22,418,052$ Totalhard

StreetElevationShells(316sf)

RearElevationShells(450sf)

penthouses(700sf)

commercialspace1500sf

SOFT 30%ofHard

$ 6,725,416

TDC

Loan Loan 70% $Equity 30% $

20,400,4288,743,040

landportionactualequity

$ -$ 8,743,040

INCOME

Buildingstatistic floorplate FloorsGrossSqft 2950 20 59000Net Sqft 2102 20 42040

12 $ 64 $ 37 $ 6 $

RentRoll

1,650 1,750 1,900 3,500

lowerfloorsstudiosstreetelev.upperfloorsstudiosviewelevationstudiopenthouse

yearly

$ 237,600$ 1,344,000$ 843,600$ 252,000

119units$

25.00

$perftperyear 1500 $

2,677,200GSItotalapartments37,500commercial

$2,714,700 GrossScheduledYearlyIncometotal

5%vacancyloss

30%operationcosts

$ 135,735VacancyLoss$ 2,578,965EffectiveGrossIncome$ 814,410OperationCosts

$1,764,555 NetOperatingIncome

3.75%loaninterestrate -$ 94,478debtservicemonthly-$1,133,730.74Debtserviceyearly$ 630,824Incomebeforetaxes

7.22%cashoncashincludingland7.22%actualcashoncash

4.50%CapRate $39,212,333 Capvalue

$ 10,068,865MarginonCost134.55%percentagemarginoncost

$

BufferBuildingsThebufferprototypesareintendedtostabilizeerodingedgesbetweentheparkinglotsandmaintenancefacilitiesservingtheMileofCarsandtheadjacentsingle-familyneighborhoods.Theautodealershipsprovidetherealestateattherearoftheirlotsforthesebuildings.Eithertheybuildandkeeptheprojectortheyselltherearportionoftheirlots.

Stabilizingtheerodingedgesolvesaproblemfortheautodealershopingtomaintainnon-conformingparkinglots.Becausetheadjacentresidentialstreetismirrored,thereisnolongeranunresolvedencroachmentintotheresidentialneighborhood.Theparkinglotissavedforthedealerandtheadjacentresidentialpropertyownerisnolongerimpacted.Thefeelingofuncertaintythatdiminishesadjacentpropertyvaluesisremoved.

Theprojectwepresentforthisfinancialfeasibilitystudyissix-fourunitbuildings.Theproformaattachedconsidersthebuildingsasa24-unitapartmentbrokenintosix“houses”.Thehousesare1789squarefeeteachintwostories,andthebuildingsmatchthescaleofthehousesontheEastsideofthestreet. ThebuildingweconsideredusesbothfloorsasunitsandorientsthespacestotheEastawayfromtheMileofCarsparkingLots.Therearecourtyardsandterracesbetweenthehouses.Thestreetwouldbewidened10feettoallowfordiagonalparking.

Alternativeschemesmightusethegroundfloorasagarageusablefromthedealershipsideasillustratedintheearlierrenderings,orperhapsthegroundfloorcouldcontainagaragethatopensfromtheresidentialstreetsideservingthehouse.

Theprojectalsoworksassixfourunitsapartmentsforsale,whereabuyercouldfinancewithanFHAloan,liveinaunit,andrentthreeout.

Building DESCRIPTION INCOME

width lengthheight squarefeetmonthlyA 26 21 9.5main 546 $1,550

B 16 21 9.5mainroomBathandcloset

courtyard

336

7 9 63

399 $1,550 90

489

C 16 20 16mainroomBathandclosetloftbed

terrace

320

60

100

480 $1,700 15 9 135

615

D 12 17 16Bathandclosetloftbed

204

60

100

364 $1,675

buildingsqft 1789 $6,475monthly

$77,700yearly6buildings yearlysixbuildings$466,200GSI

5% $23,310vacancyloss$442,890AGI

25%$116,550

$326,340NOI$148,800yearlydebtservice$177,540cashflowyearly15.95%cashoncash

5%caprate$6,526,800capvalue$2,816,348marginoncost

75.90%

COST$450,000land

$225cost $2,415,150Hard35%$845,303 soft

$3,710,453TDC$2,597,31770%loan

$1,113,136equity4% $12,400mo

$148,800yearly

6- 4 unit Apartment Building for Sale

Date

Description Net SF Qty. $/sf Sales Price

Building 1 4 studios 1,789.00 1 384.00$ 686,976.00$



Building 4 4 studios 1,789.00 1 384.00$ 686,976.00$ Building 5 4 studios 1,789.00 1 384.00$ 686,976.00$ Building 6 4 studios 1,789.00 1 384.00$ 686,976.00$

10,734.00TOTAL BUILDING COUNT 6 4 unit buildings 4,121,856.00$

LAND SF 300.00 60.00 $30.00 $540,000.00 18,000.00

FAR per foot 0.60

LAND ACRES 0.41

Density (Units Per Buildable Acre) 58

PROJECT REVENUE TotalTotal Gross Sales Revenue 4,121,856.00$

Less: Agent Fees 5.00% Avg. Comm. 206,092.80$

Less: Conveyancing 1.00% Title/Escrow 41,218.56$

Net Residential Revenue 3,874,544.64$

PROJECT COSTS Total

LAND COSTS

Acquisition $540,000.00

HARD COSTS

houses $188.00 336,332.00$ 2,017,992.00$

garage included

Hard Cost Contingency 7.5% 151,349.40$

Subtotal Hard Costs 2,169,341.40$

SOFT COSTS

Architecture 7.0% 151,853.90$

Model 15,000.00$

Prints 7,500.00$

Structural Engineer 1.50% 32,540.12$

Civil Engineer 35,000.00$

Survey 5,000.00$

Soils Report 1,400.00$

Phase I Report 2,400.00$

Phase II Report (Earthquake Trench) 10,000.00$

Landscape Architect 20,000.00$

Title 24/Mechanical $400 2,400.00$

Acoustical Report 2,500.00$

Subtotal Consultant Costs 13.2% of hard costs 285,594.02$

Property Taxes 1.21% 2.00 13,068.00$

LLC/LP Filing Fees & Taxes 3,200.00$

Appraisal 5,000.00$

Bookkeeping/Accounting 5,000.00$

Legal / Other Services 35,000.00$

Sewer/Water Fees Estimated 10,000.00$ per unit 40,000.00$

Marketing 1% $21,693

Insurance 50,000.00$

Development Fees 3.0% 65,080.24$

Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee $4.98 -$

Permits and Fees 25,000.00$ 150,000.00$

Subdivision/Map Fees 35,000.00$

Fund Control 15,000.00$

Soft Cost Contingency 5.0% 50,461.48$

Subtotal Soft Costs 36% of hard costs 774,097.16$

FINANCING COSTS

Construction Loan Interest 4.75% 117,443.20$

Loan Fees 1.0% 20,604.07$

Subtotal Financing Costs 138,047.27$

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 3,367,079.85$

EQUITY/INVESTORS

Architect/Developer (50% of fees/model) 8.26% 83,426.95$

Investors 91.74% 926,697.01$

Total Equity Required 30% $1,010,124

Construction Loan 70% Loan to Cost $2,356,956

Maximum LTV = 60% #DIV/0! Loan to Value

Developer Returns

Total Cost Per Building $561,180

Total Cost Per Square Foot $313.68

Margin on Total Development Cost (Min. 15%) 15.1%

Margin On Gross Revenue (Min. 12%) 12.31%

Total Revenue $3,874,545

Less: Loan Amount ($2,356,956)

Less: Return of Equity ($1,010,124)

NET CASH FLOW $507,465

Loan-To-Cost 70%

Equity Investment $1,010,124

Return On Investment (ROI) 50%

Return On Investment Annual Basis (Per Year) 25%

Architect/Developer Profit Centers

Architecture Fees 7.0% $151,854

Model $15,000

Development Fee 3.0% $65,080

Construction Management 10% $195,241

Return on Equity 50% $41,912

Total Income Over 2 Years $469,087

Income Per Year Avg. $234,543

Income 1st Year $83,427

Income 2nd Year $260,321

Income at Project Close $125,339

TargetedInfillBuildings,AdaptiveReuseInNationalCitytherearemanywell-locatedparcelsthatcouldadddensityandenliventheneighborhoodexperience.However,small-scaledevelopmentsinthefivetoseventhousandsquarefootrangesarealwaysdifficulttopark.Thegroundfloorsbecomegaragesandstaircasesattheexpenseofcommercialusesandpedestrianstreetactivity.

Wehavenotpreparedproformasforthesebuildingssincetheycanvarysomuch.Certainlythreeorfourstorywoodframebuildingwillperformwithoutgroundfloorparking.Theseprojectsmaydependonincreasedmobilityalone.Morelikelytheywillcomelaterwhencommunitygarageshavebeenconstructed.Manysmallinfillbuildingswillbeparticularbusinessoccupanciesthatmaydetermineonsiteparkingisnotneeded.Determiningfinancialfeasibilityforthesebuildingshasmoretodowiththebusinessthanthebuildingitself.

AccessoryDwellingUnitsPerhapsthesinglemostbeneficiallegislationsindecadesarethenewADUordinances.Aslightdensificationintheultimatesuburbanlandusehassomanybenefits.Highamongthemisaffordablehousing.However,appraisedvaluesof“duplexes”aremostalwayslessthantheirsingle-familyneighbors.TheimpactofGrannyFlatsonpropertyvaluesisatthispointnotwellestablished.Willthecostofahouseintheneighborhoodwheretheyareconstructedgoupordown?Therearesomanyfactorsinvolved.Oneistheexistingvalueofhousesinaparticularneighborhood.SincetheNationalCitystockisolder,GrannyFlatswillmostlikelyincreasehomevalueswhereADAsareadded.Theprojectswillbeseenasnewimprovements,andweexpecttheconstructiononthepropertywillresultinimprovementstothehousesthemselves.Theownersofthesehouseswillhaveextraincomeintheformofrentorsavedrentsomewhereelseifanextendedfamilycanbehoused.Withnewaffluenceneighborhoodswillbeimproved.

Theseprojectsworkexceptionallywellfortheownersofthehouseswhethertheyrentthemout,oroccupythem.Ineitherofthesecases,thedevelopmentissimilartotheindustrialparkRibbonBuildingswheretheexistinguseismaintained,andinawaythelandis“free”.ADUsworkbestforownerswhoboughttheirhousesyearsearlier.Still,thefollowingproformaillustrateshowadevelopmentmightbepossibleotherthanbyexistingpropertyowners.Althoughthe2000squarefoot“four-plexes”provideagoodinvestmentreturn,Comparablesalesofsimilarunitsdemonstratingamarginoncostwillbedifficulttofindinthenearterm.

COMPSForsaleHousesNationalCity

8bed

4bath

squarefeet3694

$950,000344E27thstreet8*unitseniorsharedhousing.

3bed 2bath 1100 $468,000131426thstreetlotsoflandforADA2bed 3bath 901 $499,999316E31st3bed 2bath 1118 $519,000618EDivisionSt3bed 2bath 1439 $470,000134PalmAve2bed 2bath 1104 $435,0001420E4thSt.5bed 3bath 2032 $570,570809NAve5bed 3bath 2032 auction1408E8thSt

DEVELOPMENTPROJECT

Buyahouse

A2bed 2bath 1100 $450,000Purchaseprice

Baddagrannyflatstudio

300

$225.00perfoot

$67,500Hard$23,625soft

35%Hard

Caddasecondgrannyflat 300 $67,500Hard

$23,625soft

DaddathirdGrannyflat 300 $67,500Hard

$23,625 soft

$723,375 TDC$130,208equity

Income $593,168 loan

BuildwithFHAorVAlending82% LTC FHA $148,292per4unitlendinglimit

4.50% 30year -$3,005monthly$36,066yearly

income

MiddleDensityDevelopmentModelsThisfiscalstudydoesnotconsidermoretypicaldevelopmentsthatarewellunderstoodbythebuildingindustry.Thisincludesmiddledensityhousingprojectsthatshouldbeconsideredonthelargerbufferproperties.Itisalsodifficulttothinkofmiddledensityhousingprojectsasprototypical.Preparingaproformaforoneisnotsomuchaboutthebuildingasitisaboutnormalindustryconstructioncostsandmostimportantlythemarketpotential.

DemographicsandMarketAnalysis

Theaboveproformasimaginearoundeddemographic.Certainlytheavailabledatapointstospecificmarkets.Wedonotdifferentiatebetweenunittypesinourfeasibilitystudies.Forexample,intheRibbonBuildingsweimagineallpossibleconfigurationsfrommicroloftstomultisuitesharedhousingtypes,andallplacesinbetween.Theproformascountsuites,whicharesimilartomasterbedroomssizespacesincludingabathroomthatcouldfunctionasakitchenwithslightreconfigurationoraddition.Thesesuitescanbecombinedindifferentwaystomakeoneandtwobedroomunitsaswellasmultibedroomsharedhousingpossibilitiesthatfitourtargetmarket.Largerunitsrentforlessperfootbuttheybuildforasmallerifnotfullyoffsettingamount,andtothedegreeconsideredherecanbeconsideredsimilar.

Prospectus8thandBcomplimentsAndrewMalick

THE MILITARY

48,000 military and civilians currently work at Naval Base San Diego, just 7 minutes from the project site. The Naval Base is scheduled to expand by 15,000 service members over the next 7 years. Already struggling to house their service members, the Navy has responded by increasing the basic allowance for housing (BAH). The starting BAH for a single service member is $2,271 per month or approximately $766 more than the projected

rent for average studio at 8th & B.*

SINGLE MILLENNIAL WORKFORCE MEMBERS

There is more than enough housing demand from the military, but the project benefits from a diversified demographic. Millennial workforce members have been priced out of the downtown housing market and are forced into a roommate living situation. There is high demand for single occupancy units. This project aims to fill the gap for this demographic and leverage the "rent vs. own" preference by offering a furnished "move in with only a suitcase" housing option.

MILLENNIAL COUPLES / FAMILIES / OTHERS

Across all demographic groups, people are increasingly expressing interest in a more urban, walk able lifestyle – something in between the high energy of a downtown city center and a bedroom community.

Empty nesters may not want to trade their familiar community for high-rise living, but would like to shed the burden of home ownership and be able to walk to restaurants and services.

Millennials may be priced out of the downtown San Diego market, or just looking for a more authentic neighborhood experience. Thousands of people commute from Chula Vista, with an over-supply of housing relative to jobs, to employment centers to the north. Choosing to live in National City would reduce time spent in traffic, a quality of life benefit.

By Phillip Molnar | October 5, 2017 http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real- estate/sd-fi-rent-all-time-high-20171005-story.html

Average rent in San Diego County hit a record high of $1,875 last month, continuing more than six years of rising rents in a tight housing market. Rent has increased 7.59 percent in a year, said Market Pointe Realty Advisors, which has tracked the San Diego market since 1988. While that is down from an 8.4 percent increase at the same time last year, the latest jump still outpaced home price increases and expected income growth. “The biggest upward pressure we’ve seen in rent has been over the last two years,” said Russ Valone, CEO of MarketPointe. “It has been significant increases.” A slowdown in new apartment construction, dropping considerably during the recession, is one factor driving up rents. As construction has slowed, demand has increased. But when developers do build, they are constructing luxury units that command high rents and push up the average. An increasing number of townhouse rentals have also raised the average, Market Pointe said. So far this year, 861 new apartments have come on the market, an increase from 756 total last year. Compare that to the early 2000s when builders were delivering more than 2,000 apartments a year Evan Morris, a real estate agent who manages a portfolio of 200 rental properties across San Diego, said he had just one unit available Thursday. The single-family home in Talmadge, for $2,295 a month, went on the market Wednesday and had two potential renters trying to get in by Thursday. “Vacancy has practically been zero since 2012,” he said. Competition for apartments in San Diego County led to a 2.73 percent vacancy rate in September, up from 2.25 percent in March. The average vacancy rate has been 3.15 percent since 2000. It hit a record low of 0.51 percent in 1998 and a high of 7.86 in 1988. During the recession, the highest vacancy rate was 5.26 percent in March 2009.

Where are all the studios?

The price of studios had gone up 11.4 percent in a year as of September, the most of any unit size. So, why aren’t builders coming out with tons of studios? First off, the data can be a bit deceiving. Valone said new one-bedroom apartments are getting smaller, more efficient and taking the place of what might have been studios. The average size of a one-bedroom in the county is now 705 square-feet, down from roughly 800 square-feet from 2010 to 2016. Second, builders prefer two-bedrooms for a lot of reasons, including demand. For couples, they enjoy the bigger units because it can mean a second bedroom for a child, an office for working from home or a guest room. Also, he said two-bedroom apartments tend to fill up with friends saving money by living together when the economy goes south. “It gives the builder or owner a hedge against a down market,” Valone said. Average rent for a studio was $1,529 a month in September, a large jump from $1,372 in March, but still noticeably cheaper than most apartments. Average rent for a one bedroom was $1,640; two-bedroom, $1,972; three-bedroom, $2,399; and a four- bedroom was $3,069 a month. Market Pointe’s report includes 131,600 apartments, and covers mostly complexes that have 25 or more units.

BBG, Inc. National City

Access

Access to the National City is considered good, as two of the county’s major interstate freeways run through its city limits, as well as one state route.

• Interstate 5 is a north/south freeway that runs along the western portion of National City. • Interstate 805 is a north/south freeway that runs along the eastern portion of the city. • State Route 54 is an east/west freeway that runs along the southern limits of the city.

There is very little of the city that is further than one mile to one of these major freeways. This keeps the area relatively free of congestion. National City was voted the most walkable city within San Diego County. This is in part based on the city’s policies and infrastructure that makes walking places conducive for the residents. It is also based on the number of people who utilize mass transit. The city is served by both buses and the trolley of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (SD MTS).

An essential element in the long-range transportation solution for San Diego County has been the completion of the San Diego trolley system. The trolley is a light rail transit system that connects Downtown San Diego to Mid-City areas, East County (Lemon Grove, La Mesa, El Cajon, Santee) as well as the South Bay (National City, Chula Vista, San Ysidro). The “South Line” now commonly the “Blue Line” has been serving National City since 1981. The city has benefited greatly from this improvement to public transportation.

Lindbergh Field, San Diego County's International airport, is approximately 7 miles north of National City in the city of San Diego. Many residents of the South Bay also utilize the airport in Tijuana- Mexico, “International Airport”. Additionally, there is Brown Field, which is southeast of the city, is the local general aviation facility.

Land Uses

Commercial development in National City includes a variety of retail and commercial space, as well as a major industrial hub. The main focus of commercial development and related business activity is in the downtown area in the vicinity of National City Boulevard, Highland Avenue, Sweetwater Road and E. Plaza Boulevard. These roadways are improved with a variety of commercial space, each of which caters well to the surrounding residential population, and businesses. National City is also home to the National City mile of cars, home to 21 car dealerships. The area is also surrounded by a variety of symbiotic businesses who thrive off the traffic generated.

Additionally, the city contains more than 865 acres of industrially zoned land. This large concentration of industrial land in close proximity to the city of San Diego as well as Mexico vaulted National City to one of the more desirable locations for industrial use tenants. As such, vacancy rates for this product have traditionally been some of the lowest in the market.

Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment

National City is located in close proximity to the city of Chula Vista and the greater Bayfront property currently being redeveloped. The Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) is a joint master planning process of the Port of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and Pacifica Companies. The purpose of the project is to develop a master plan that transforms the Chula Vista waterfront into a world- class destination for local residents and visitors. The 500-plus-acre CVBMP is one of the last great development opportunities to create a legacy destination for the public on San Diego Bay. When complete, the 200 acres will consist of parks and open space, a shoreline promenade, walking trails, RV camping, shopping, dining and more. While providing long-awaited, enhanced shoreline recreation and an active, commercial harbor in the South Bay, the Chula Vista Bayfront project will also establish ecological buffers to protect wildlife habitat, species and other coastal resources.

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF NATIONAL CITY