HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Attch 3 - Public Input LettersGREEN & GREEN LLP �E.0 2 7 Z 0 16
227 3RD AVENUE
CHULA 'VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910-2710
(639) 425-4020
FAX (639) 425-9709
MICHAEL A. GREEN, ESQ.
December 21, 2016
Miguel Tapia, Senior Planner
Development Planning Div
City of ChulaVista
276 Fourth Ave ,
Chula Vista, CA 9.1910
Re: Project No. DRI 6-0037,230 Church Ave
Dear Mr. Tapia:
BENJAMIN S. GREEN, ESQ,
I own the property at 227 3 d Ave, directly to the west of the location of the above
referenced project. In the 1960s my property was developed as a bank with a drive-through
window by Central Federal Savings. The project property was also owned by Central Federal and
used for parking. Both properties were purchased by Floyd Willoughby who used my property as
a Iaw office and the project property for parking. The Redevelopment Agency purchased the
project property from. Mr. Willoughby for use as a parking lot in 1986.
The City has recently chosen not to acquire the parking lots which had been purchased by
the Redevelopment Agency, apparently hoping to jumpstart -renovation of Third Avenue by
dedicating there to high density residential use.
The wisdom of this approach is debatable. Many property owners would argue that we
will be left with inadequate parking at the north end of the downtown area, that council members,
acting as the Redevelopment Agency, in their wisdom foresaw the value of adequate parldug.
Now we are assured that there is no problem because there is plenty of room available in the
parking garage at 3`d and F. Why shouldn't our customers and clients be satisfied with that? Staff
and council should be able to see that as the fallacy it is. People don't come to Chula Vista to
suffer the same parking problems they have to put up with in downtown San Diego.
So, to relate this to the project at hand, the developers propose to have 23 offsite parking
spaces, presumably in the city parking lot at the NW corner of Davidson and Church. The
rationale being that shoppers don't use that lot at night so all of the spaces will be available. This
ignores the use of the lot by other apartment dwellers, by guests of the restaurants and banquet
halls on 3' Avenue and the fact that two other projects are planned for this end of the downtown.
Attachment 3
I assert that the developers should arrange to have all parking onsite. The contribution of
money to the parking district would do nothing to avoid the oncoming parking problem because
there is nothing planned to augment parking in the area.
Also, I think that proper planning should recognize the mid-blook paseos provided by my
property's driveway and the construction of the building at 231 3rd Avenue, These are constantly
in use by pedestrians. Since one goal of the city in developing 3' Avenue is to make it pedestrian
friendly, the developer should be asked to provide ingress/egress across its property for the
public.
It would be appropriate to have a public hearing to discuss these concerns,
Sincerely,
Michael A, Green
GREEN & GREEN LLP
227 3RD AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910-2710
(619) 425-4020
FAX (619) 425-9709
MICHAEL A.. GREEN, ESQ.
.June 1.3, 2017
Miguel Z. Tapia, Senior Planner -
frank Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Pi-oject at 230 Chux°ch Avenue
Gentlemen:
BENJAMIN S GREEN, ESQ/
I am the owner of a small office building at 227 3'0 Avenue. Naturally, I am interested in
the pxoject proposed for' 230 Church Avenue, and its potential impact on my property.. My
property has a driveway which gives access to the parking at the rear of'my building., It is also a
godsend to many elderly clients of mine (I am an attorney and do a lot of estate planning) . My
clients can be dropped fifteen feet from my door and there is no step.
the onsite parking for the 230 Church Avenue project, as proposed, only has access from
the alley which is at the rear of my building. There is no entrance on Church Avenue To legally
enter the alley the residents will have to be going east on E Street and make a right turn into the
alley, which is one way They will not be able to make a left turn going west on E Street because
the striping on E Street with its two sets of double yellow lines represents a wall or center
divider.
My driveway, which is entered from 3' Avenue, passes through to the alley and just
happens to line up with the entryways to the project's parking.. As a xesult, I expect the residents
of the project to mare heavy use of my driveway. In fact, if you are trying to enter- the project
while coming from the east, the logical approach is to turn left on Church Avenue, right on
Davidson, right on 3' Avenue, then tura right into my driveway which is halfway down the
block, rather than going all the way to E Street, then turning right into the alley.
My point is that the applicant should provide access to the parking at the project fxom
Church Avenue. While the alley does provide legal access, it is not a logical or safe means of
entty. As pr-oposed, there will be a burden on my property, and there will be a threat to public
safety, as residents will be tempted to drive the wrong way on the alley or to make a left tura on
E Street, crossing the two sets of double yellow lines
The project is not acceptable in its present form
Sincerely,
.Michael A Green