HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Crossroads CorrespondenceTO: Chula Vista Planning Commission August 26, 2014
FROM: David Danciu and Peter Watry
President and Vice - President of Crossroads II respectively
We are both too ill to appear before you at your August 27 meeting, so we ask that this
letter be included as "public testimony "for Item 3, Public Hearing: PCM 14 -04.
Crossroads continues to be concerned about the inadequate minimum
parking requirements. In the original 2005 first -draft of the Urban Core Specific
Plan, the "minimum parking requirements" for UC -10, UC -12, and UC -15 was 0.5
space per dwelling unit. That is not how many spaces per dwelling unit -- that is
how many dwelling units per parking space! And the answer was TWO dwelling
units for every ONE parking space. Councilman Jerry Rindone was on the MTS
Board at the time and wanted to force people near the trolley to take the trolley.
Crossroads and others eventually talked him out of it, so now the minimum
parking requirement is one parking space per dwelling unit.
But that is still unrealistic. In this very dense area between Broadway and
I -5, in fact, six of the seven sectors call for 1 or 1.5 parking spaces per DU. The
overflow will have nowhere to park, and the single- family neighborhoods are too
far away to use for the overflow, as is so often the case in Chula Vista.
We urge you to increase the minimum parking spaces per dwelling unit in
this very dense area.
A second area we would like to bring to your attention is UC -3, Roosevelt
Street. That is a very narrow street, presently about half single - family houses and
half multi - family units. It is very difficult now to find a parking space on the street
in the middle of a work -day, much less in the evenings or weekends. Imagine it all
being 5 -story multi - family in the future, and only a minimum parking requirement
of 1.5 space per unit -- that's scary. In addition, the "Rear Yard Setback" of 0 -feet,
means there will be very significant shadow effects on the much shorter residential
units behind them on Vance Street. We would recommend a required step -back on
the REAR of these buildings to ameliorate this situation.
The final UCSP as it was adopted in 2007 extended the UCSP urban parking
requirements to the corridors. Years later, someone wanted to build a condo
project or something like that south on Broadway, maybe around I or K Street.
The South Broadway Corridor is nowhere near the trolley nor near urban-dense
1
development, so Crossroads argued that the corridors ought to reflect the normal
parking requirements of the city, not the unique ones of the UCSP. The city did,
indeed, change the requirement for this project to do so, thus now "Revisions to the
residential parking standard in the Corridor subdistricts to be consistent with the
citywide multi - family residential standard."
We urge you to re- consider the minimum parking requirements of the Urban
Core Specific Plan in view of reality.
David Danciu
2
Z4
Peter Watry