HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Correspondence - KueblerALLAN J. KUEBLER PROPERTIES
260 LANDIS AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910 619.422.8334
August 23, 2017
(TIN 0FCHULA VISTA
Development Services Department
Miguel Z.J'apia, Project ject Manager
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case Number DR16-0037
Inadequate Pat -king
Miguel,
PEE11 V FJ(�
D
AUG 2 3 2017
C)EVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
'I'lic City is proposing to create permission for 26 one bedroom units and 3 three bedroom units at 230
Church Ave in Chula Vista, Case #DR16-0037. The mandatory requirement by the State of California is
that the landlords permit occupancy of 3 persons per each one bedroom (see California Uniform Housing
Code) and 7 persons for each 3 bedroom.
'I'lus potential occupancy would create a potential demand for parking for approximately 99 tenants,
wlicrehy-, potentially each tenant could have at least one car, plus the ADA requirement, equals 100 cars.
'I'lic relatively new concept of desperate impact along with the mandate of densification of the cities,
require new thinking in City Planning.
L,
I lowever. to KRAM too many sardines in this could potentially create a gross burden on the existing
neighborhood if adequate parking for this project isn't required by the City. A diminution of the rights
and Opportunity of -'all future development within the entire the neighborhood would be impacted because
ol'the overburdening on parking resources-, such a policy is short, sighted and unfair.
'I'lle simple solution is to require the developer to reduce the density of the project to that which the site
itself can handle or to find (and build) offsite parking which can handle the entire amount of parking it is
bringing to the neighborhood.
Parking is not the only issue with which this high densification brings of the neighborhood. All of the
4:7
OtIlCr Issues of City services need to be addressed. For example, are adequate mitigation impact fees
being charged for future enlargement of other municipal services (e.g.) sewer water, traffic and other
i'Liture capital cost. Since the City only gets one chance to change fair, reasonable and ADEQUATE fees
for future costs to provide capital funding for the increased demand created by this new project.
For the City to approve a project where the current state mandates a potential population of residents
\vIiicb could require 100 parking spaces; and yet require the developer to provide only 23 parking spaces
I-)IUS I ADA space doesn't make sense. The extreme likelihood that the overburden of this projects
parkln�,t, problem will not only fill on the existing neighborhood but will also have to be addressed by all
of the future development in the entire neighboring areas and this policy will continuously compound the
problem.
'I'lle City needs to look no further than one of the Apartment projects it approved for Frank Ferreria in
approximately 1970 on the 200 block of Bonita Glen Dr (Point Bonita Apartments) near the E Street &
I hghwav 805 Intersection. The parking is atrocious, unsafe, dangerous and unsightly and will have to be
dealt with at sometime in the future. This planning debacle was permitted because of a special situation at
that time, but continues to be an even greater problem as each decade passes with no solution in site.
Does the Council wish to continue to create more problems of this nature for its future development as
indicated by its proposed approval of this project?
I currently own and operate more than 150 apartment units in Chula Vista among which 2 of the
properties are located in the 200 block of Church St. My family has built and sold several hundred
residential units in the City of Chula Vista, in addition to these we currently manage.
It is ClUite obvious that the City"s Planning Department, in this case, failed to analyze their own cities
existing apartment inventory to study which projects have SEVERE parking problems-, which greatly
inil-,)act the neighborhoods in which they exists as compared to those apartment projects which have barely
Jor those projects ects which have almost enough parking to satisfy their tenants demand.
Z-
Most Of 011-11a Vista apartment projects fall into the latter category whereby they are required to provide
approximately 1 1/2 spaces per apartment. However, this old parking ratio has been exacerbated by
California new policy of increasing population density for each living unit will increase the need for
parking, spaces for each unit.
TI1C studies which the City Council rely upon that brought them to concluded that 23 parking spaces Plus
One handicap space was adequate for a potential tenancy population of 100 tenants appears to lack
credibility. These Studies seem to be lacking credibility in my opinion.
In my 50+ )/cars of experience building, owning, operating and managing apartments in Chula Vista as
\vc]] as other cities in the County of San Diego the minimum reasonable requirement for parking for this
1)1-0,IeCt Should be approximately 42 on site spaces for a project with this size and density.
Regards
Allan J. KLIebler
Allan .1. KLIeblei- Properties