La Mesa officials voted unanimously to green-light a new development with 114 homes in the downtown village district, even as they voiced concerns over parking supply in the area.<\/p>\n
The La Mesa City Council voted Tuesday to ratify the Design Review Board\u2019s decision to approve the new development, called CityMark Palm.<\/p>\n
The project will place a five-story mixed-use development with 114 apartments and 72 parking spaces on a vacant lot on the corner of Palm Avenue and Allison Avenue.<\/p>\n
While the housing project and others like it often include affordable housing and address supply needs, officials said the new developments could exacerbate parking problems<\/a> in the area.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause of the state law, and because of the density bonus, (developers)\u00a0are able to forgo what we have in our municipal code,\u201d Mayor Mark Arapostathis said. \u201cIt\u2019s a frustrating thing.\u201d<\/p>\n A new state density bonus law allowed the proposal to bypass the typical review process, which entails approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.<\/p>\n Specifically, the law allows for a project to add 20% more homes, provided a certain percentage are income-restricted at rents considered affordable for very low income tenants.<\/p>\n Of the 114 homes at CityMark Palm, 109 will be market rate, with five reserved for people who earn no more than half the area median income \u2014 below $61,250 for a single person, or $70,000 for a two-person household, per county guidelines<\/a>.<\/p>\n Further, the project faces no parking requirements due to its proximity to La Mesa\u2019s trolley station. A state law known as Assembly Bill 2097 bars cities from enforcing local minimum-parking requirements on new\u00a0housing developments located within a half-mile of a major public\u00a0transit stop.<\/p>\n While city leaders could technically vote against the project\u2019s ratification, the city attorney\u00a0said it wasn\u2019t recommended because the Urban Design Program and Downtown Village Specific Plan requirements had been met.<\/p>\n \u201cThere have been times that we have not ratified the DRB, and we were immediately contacted by the state,\u201d Arapostathis said.<\/p>\n