HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/2001/08/08
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
6:00 p.m
Wednesday, August 8, 2001
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALLIMOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SILENCE
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 11, 2001
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any
subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda.
Each speaker's presentation may not exceed three minutes.
1.
REPORT:
Overview Otay Ranch 2001 General Development Plan
Amendments; and, Village 11 Sectional Plan Area (SPA) Plan.
Project Manager: Rick Rosaler, Principal Planner
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZAV 01-18; Consideration of a request to allow a property line
fence in excess of six (6) feet. Applicant: Ron & Sonia Lutsko.
Project Manager: Steve Power, Associate Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, andlor participate in a City
meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodations at least forty-eight hours in advance
for meetings, and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for
specific information at (619) 691-5101 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, July 11, 2001
Council Chambers
Public Services Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALl! MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Commissioners, Castaneda, Hall, Cortes, Thomas, Willett,
McCann
Chair O'Neill
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner
Sunny Shy, Assistant Director of Recreation
Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager
Bart Miesfeld, Deputy City Attorney
Absent:
Staff Present:
MSC (Willett/Thomas) to excuse Commissioner O'Neill. Motion carried.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair Hall.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
PCC-00-58; Conditional Use Permit to install, operate and
maintain a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of
a 66-foot high light standard supporting nine antennas; and
an associate equipment building at an unlit baseball field
within Rohr park, 4548 Sweetwater Road. Cox / Spring
PCS.
Background: Kim Vander Bie, Associate Planner reported that the application is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned cellular communications
facil ity consisting of a 384 sf equipment and storage building, a 66 foot high light standard
supporting 9 antennas, which is to be located in the right field of a currently unlit baseball
diamond at the park. The City will use revenue generated from the antennas to purchase
and install 5 additional lights at the ball field. The Parks and Recreation Department is
supportive of this proposal, as this would provide the park with a second lit baseball field.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
July 11, 2001
Telephone, electrical and radio equipment would be housed in a 384 sf equipment room
to be constructed north of an existing restroom bui Iding and would be constructed of the
same material as the restroom building (block wall and asphalt shingles). Part of the roof
would be opened with a trellis-type roof and part of it would be a solid shingle roof. The
equipment building would also house park maintenance equipment.
On January 17, 2001 this project was brought before the Planning Commission at which
time the project was continued to allow time for an Initial Study, reviewing the six light
standards, be completed. The Resource Conservation Commission has determined that the
Initial Study is adequate and recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
At the January 2001 Planning Commission meeting several residents expressed concern
with: 1) visual impacts, 2) commercialization of the park, and 3) health concerns with EMF
emissions. The project complies with all FCC regulations for EMF emissions and the law
precludes the Planning Commission from denying the project based on health issues.
Ms. Vander Bie stated that she contacted all of the residents who spoke at the January 2001
meeting notifying them of tonight's meeting. In addition, notices were mailed to residents
within the 500 foot radius of the project site.
Staff Recommenation: That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution PCC-00-58
recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Rohr
Park wireless communications facility, subject to the conditions of approval (including the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures).
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Willett stated that the existing ball field at the park has light refraction that
needs to be corrected by placing shields on the lights and directing the lighting system
downward. Additionally, the City should make every effort to conserve energy by turning
off the lights when the ball field is not being used.
Sunny Shy, Assistant Director of Recreation stated that the ball field receiving the new light
standards is at a lower elevation and the lighting consultant will be looking at
implementing mitigation measures to reduce the glare,
Michael Meacham, Special Operations Manager stated that the City is working on a
lighting management system throughout the City for all facilities that will allow those
adjustments to be made remotely,
Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the prepayment of the revenue that will
be generated by this project. Additionally, Cmr. Thomas stated he would like to see the
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
July 11, 2001
roof of the equipment room be extended to be a complete shingle roof to match the
adjacent restroom building.
Mr. Meacham stated that the applicant will reimburse the City for the cost of purchase and
installation of the lights up to $80,000, which should cover all costs. The amount is
intended to be a cap on the cost relative to the actual cost of purchase and installation of
the light standards,
Mr. Meacham stated that the reason why half of the roof is proposed to be an open trellis
is because the equipment needs air circulation. If the ceiling is completely covered, then
there may need to be more ventilation around the facia of the building, which could create
an even greater visual distinction between the two buildings.
Commissioner Castaneda stated he remembers that when this item first came before the
Commission there was considerable opposition from the area residents and asked if staff
had received any new communication from residents. He also stated that when items are
continued, he would like to see all of the background information included in the new staff
report.
Cmr. Castaneda also asked if there were any restrictions on commercial use of the park
when it was originally conveyed to the City.
Kim Vander Bie stated that she received no new communication from residents and there
also were no responses to the Initial Study, which was noticed.
Mr. Meacham stated that there are no restrictions now, however, the original restriction
was designed to prevent uses that would restrict the use of the park. The secondary nature
of this project, which is the lighting of the ball field, will enhance the park and will enable
its use by more people, for extended hours.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he would like to see some type of condition where the
appropriate party would be required to make any necessary adjustments to the lighting
system after its been in operation for a couple of months.
Ms, Shy stated that, in fact, this is part of the scope of work for the lighting consultant to
make any necessary adjustments.
Public Hearing Opened 6:45
Robert Krebbs, 9225 Dowdy Drive, #112, San Diego, CA 92126, Sprint PCS stated he is
pleased to present this win-win proposal, which will provide wireless service to the
community as well as lighting for a City-owned ball field. He urged the commission to
support this proposal and stated he was available to answer any questions they may have.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 4 -
July 11,2001
Mr. Krebbs also stated that they would be willing to cover the entire roof to match the
adjacent restroom building, and if additional venti lation is needed, they would ensure that
it is done in a manner that will not create an obvious difference between the two
buildings,
Mike Kujawa, 3580 Evergreen Road, Bonita, CA 91902 asked if there would be any
fencing around this facility and equipment room, as well as any warning signs stating there
may be potential radiation around the building. He also asked if the cabling between the
antenna and equipment room would be underground.
Mr. Kujawa still opposes the project because of visual impacts and because of the
precedence this sets for future commercial ventures wishing to locate on the park.
Mr. Krebbs responded that the facility will comply with all Municipal Code and federal
regulations and if posting warning signs is a requirement, then they definitely will be
posted. The cables will be underground,
Mr. Meacham clarified that the older cellular sites produce greater emission amounts than
the newer digital technology, which is the only type of facility that the City now allows.
Public hearing closed 7:05.
Commissioner Willett stated that due to a proliferation of these facilities, he would
recommend that the City place a public information article in the newspaper explaining
that these facilities pose no public health risk because the emissions are so minimal.
The Commission collectively stated that although they are fully supportive of co-location
whenever possible, there are exceptions where it may not be desirable, particularly in a
site such as the' park where the visual impacts need to be carefully considered.
Commissioner Hall stated that he is supportive of this project and is particularly
encouraged with the public benefit it creates with the installation of the lighting system on
the ball field, which is one of the City's best leveled fields that has been underutilized
because of the lack of lighting,
Planning Commission Minutes
- 5 -
July 11, 2001
MSC (Thomas/Castaneda) (6-0-1-1) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCC-
00-58 recommending adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of
the Rohr Park wireless communications facility, subject to the conditions of approval
(including the mitigation monitoring and reporting program measures) including the
following two additional conditions:
1. That the equipment building roof be a full shingled roof and that the building be
redesigned to provide the necessary ventilation for the equipment, and at the same
time be aesthetically compatible with the adjacent restroom building; and
2. That the applicant be required, upon renewal of the Conditional Use Permit, to
provide evidence of compliance with FCC regulations for EMF emissions. Motion
carried.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:30 p.m. to the immediately following Planning Commission workshop.
Diana Vargas,
Secretary to Planning Commission
~I~
~
ct1YOF
CHUIA VISfA
Depart:n:l.eo'1: of Planning and Buil.-liqg
DATE:
August 8, 2001
TO:
FROM:
The Chula Vista Planning Commission ~
J.D. Sandoval, AICP, Assistant Planning Directo~
Lutsko Variance (ZAV-01-18)
SUBJECT:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update since the Planning Commission meeting of
May 23, 2001, on the subject variance request.
You will recall at that meeting the Commission continued the item to July 25th in order to provide time
for both the applicants and their neighbor (the Davenports) to attend mediation. The Commission at
that time stated that they believe that the issue was greater than just the fence variance, and it would
be near impossible to review the variance request until the other personal issues were set aside. At
that time both parties orally agreed to attend the mediation.
Cit~ staff on July 23, 2001 received a request from the Davenports to continue the item from the July
25t meeting. The request as stated in their correspondence was based upon personal health
issues. The Lutsko's at that time supported the request. The Planning Commission on July 25,
2001 continued the item to August 8, 2001.
Although the two parties have spoken on a couple of occasions they have not resolved their
differences. Staff has been informed by both parties that these talks have been discontinued and the
services of a professional mediator, as directed by the Planning Commission, have not been utilized.
In an effort to see this issue resolved (and in accordance with the Planning Commission's
recommendation) staff agreed to have the city pay for the cost of the mediation and to arrange for
the mediator. A memorandum to this effect was (see attached) faxed to both parties on July 25,
2001. The Lutskos agreed to mediation in writing that same day.
The Davenports did not agree to mediation but instead replied with a request for further information.
Staff provided a written response in this response again asked whether the Davenports would be
willing to agree to mediation. No response to this question was received.
It should be noted that the applicant as of August 2,2001 has amended their application to replace
the current plywood with cedar fencing the same height. The amendment is attached to this
memorandum. Staff will be prepared to orally further explained the amendment as we understand it
at that meeting.
There have been requests by both the applicant and the concerned neighbor that all materials they
have supplied are provided to the Planning Commission. Due to the large volume of information
from both parties the materials are organized in the following fashion; immediately behind this
memorandum (and before the blue sheet of paper) is all the correspondence that has been received
since July 25, 2001. Materials, which were received prior to that time, including the original staff
report, are immediately behind the blue sheet of paper.
J:\Planning\Rosemarie\Jim\Memo-Planning Commission Lutsko Variance.doc
~~~
~
~"""~~
~~~-
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
August 2, 2001
Mr. CliffM, Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902-4281
Dear Mr. Davenport:
This in response to your faxed letter dated July 31,2001. Please note the answer, in
italics, to each of your 6 questions.
1. What, if any, violations exist on my property (283 Bonita Canyon Drive)?
We do not currently have an open code enforcement case on your
property. We would not know if violations exist or do not exist on your
property - nor do we provide such a service.
2. What, if any violations exist on my block wall and attached planters, (adjoining
Lutsko's property)?
We do not currently have an open code enforcement case on your block
wall and attached planters. If the intent of the wall was to meet the code
requirement for a pool barrier, the reduction of the 5 foot barrier from
your side could jeopardize the safety of persons, especially children, in
your yard. By reducing that barrier, you are assuming responsibility for
any liability that may occur from such an accident.
3. What, if any, violations exist on my batting cage?
We do not currently have an open code enforcement case on your batting
cage. You did, finally obtain the required permits and inspections for the
batting cage.
4. What, if any, violations exist on my wooden deck and stairs to deck?
See the answer to question #2.
5. I want to know any and all violations that may exist on my property.
See the answer to question #1.
I
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
~:'. h"-Co~'''''''''''ooyo'.dP.P&'
Mr. Davenport
-2-
August 2, 200]
6. Mr. Lutsko has fi1ed numerous complaints on my property. Of aU his complaints.
since day one, what am ] in violation of:' (The answered are not to be limited to
the above asked questions).
We do not currently have an open case for you property. You have
received notices of all violations were confirmed in response to alleged
violations at your property, Jfyou no longer have those notices, you may
request that information using the form that was faxed to you on August 1,
2001,
Sincerely,
Sue Gray
Code EnforcementJPermit Manager
~
~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FROM : <00
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
FRX NO.
0000000000000
000 Rwg. 022001 08:15RM Pi
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
Jim Sandoval
Ron and Son a Lutsko
'i ~2/0 1
Lutsko Variance ZAV-01-18 - Amendment for Planning
Commission meeting on August 8, 2001
Number of pages faxed including cover sheet: 2
3
FROM : <00
FAX NO.
0000000000000
000 Aug. 022001 08:15AM P2
AMENDMENT TO LUTSKO VARIANCE ZAV-01-18
DATE: August 1, 2001
Mr and Mrs, Lutsko are amending their variance for a property line wall t? be a cedar
fe~ce (of the same height as before) to once again be attached to the eXisting property
line wall in section one-since this is the property Itne,wall. After obtaining an
independent survey of our property line wall which affirms that: "
_about 25 feet of the masonry wall in the front are all on my property-Including
Davenport's construction attached to this wall, and both surveys affirm the first
100 feet of the Davenport improvements are on the Lutsko property,
-about15 to 20 feet in the rear are all on my property,
-that the remainder of the middle section of this wall gradually bows into the
Davenport property,
I am proposing an amendment to my variance application,
We are making a further compromise in section two which will increase our cost,
so that the current plywood fence would be replaced by cedar fencing of the
same height. In this area of the chain link fence, the cedar will be attached to 4 x
4 posts in the ground as now constructed. The total length of the cedar fencing
for sections one and two combined is approximately 137 feet. per our memo to
Beverly Blessent dated 5/22/01.
We are also requesting to be allowed to keep the current plywood sections
standing until the permanent replacement fencing is installed.
We are hoping this compromise in section two area fencing materials will bring
agreement to the Planning Commission to grant this variance, We are also
hoping that the Davenports will accept this fencing material for the entire length
of the property line wall, accept the fact that it needs to be attached to the
masonry wall in section one, and accept that it needs to be of a height
necessary for the Lutsko family to have a wall of legal height on both sides
between the properties.
y
COY OF
CHUlA VISTA
Fax
From the desk of.. .
Diana Vargas
Secretary to Planning Commission
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 585-5738
Fax: (619) 409-5861
To: CLIFF DAVENPORT
Fax: 656-7704
Date: August 1, 2001
Re:
Pages:
o Urgent
o For Review
o Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
-----.._-_._-"..~
-Comments:
I HAVE FORWARDED YOUR REQUEST TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CALL YOU AND
STOP BY YOUR HOME TO VIEW THE BATTING CAGE IN PROGRESS.
IT IS OUR PRACTICE TO NOT GIVE OUT HOME PHONE NUMBERS FOR OUR PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS, HOWEVER, WHEN A REQUEST SUCH AS YOUR'S IS MADE, VVE ARE GLAD TO
GIVE THEM YOUR NUMBER WHERE THEY CAN CONTACT YOU IF THEY SO DESIRE.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE I CAN HELP YOU WITH.
s
Diana Vargas
~
~
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Jim Sandoval
Lutsko Variance
Mr. Davenport faxed me requesting that I contact you to inform you that he would like each of you to please call him and to
go to his house to personally view the batting cage in progress. This is your choice as to whether you acquiese to his
request and you are under no obligation to do so. Mr. Davenport's phone number is 656-0377.
Mr. Davenport has requested that I fax him back confirming that I have contacted you informing you of his request. Please
call Jim Sandoval if you have questions (691-5002).
cf
1
~~
/ I, ~ Am /1IY7/i!? u.~ ,?\ \~
C,J} fA / I'I(,"'JI,....~ ~ ~ M \ \, '
C! iJ"-
o
i?4JI ~vtf'J(}1 :
~, ~ '"~~ U'VJkJ '
-.- (~~cf) ~l-,~~ ~ -, -,
-:? I<df# ~ f<M} V~ fY\.M1~ / /!lrkn~
d./ t1Yl ;V~ sie V0flt ~
~ i1 ~ 3Q5 Iv A 6 q f11tVJ
-7' ~ q x~ Uu r/J1~.
~WvW 0~ S~C__ L ~
(
:~ --rrfrI ~ ~, (:)c d ;2{!ltu
__ C~vr ~11 /Z~-
-:: ~ J2~ 1~ ~t_ 4 _~ end
_ /IUL em ~~(OO __-
\ I r. _
\ ~_l'\ /
~.:"'IJ, i\~
- ,
" '. .' ,"/7&
- -,'-y' ,"
, '. r
.'~ r ", i r7 . J
- /
-- :;:-,''\ V'
7
JUL-31-01 TUE 13:52 .0-0-0-0-0-0-0_0_0_0_0__ 000000000000 P.Ol
MAILING ADDRESS
PO Box 1673
Bon'!a, CA 91906-1673
(619) 482-0022
~~~#
\ :
STUCCO
INC.
~RE~OP
1057 ElkBlton Siva.
Spring Valley, CA 91977
(619) 482.0022
Lie. # 637916
r-----------.____~
! - .~. -'.
EAX
-.------~-._--.~,--,.-." 1
AUG - I 2001
DATE: 7-31-01
.-. .._._----~-~--->.
. - ---~. . - .------'._.____.__.J
ill: UlQlle- \ 5!EC(&nJ ~ ~l.l4S
Phone # (
Pax# LAI- S\t I
FROM: UL-tt ~e-n~(+
(619) 482-0022
(619) 656-7704 Pax
Snd.. 0 ucJ
PAGES FAXED: 2 (including cover)
COMMENT-.S:
3 eD ~Q.)e<';;>+ on
be ~cG on
~ ~VHll~
'M <ttU-0e r5.
lr\~ ~
~
,
~f4f--\-i-s>'S[;n
f
JUL-31-01 TUE 13:53 _0.0_0_0.0.0_0_0_0.0_0__ 000000000000
P.U2
July 31,2001
Diane, Secrctary to
James Sandoval
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: Infonnation to Plartning Commissioners
Variance Request: ZAV-01-18
Diane:
Since 1 have not heard ITom any of the Planning Commission Members, I am inquiring if my
requests, dated 7-23-01 and again 7-25-01, fur each of the Planning Commission Members to
contact me, was that done? I have requested this twice of Mr. Sandoval and once of Mr. Power
to give each of the Planning Commission Members my name and personal phone number to ca1.l
me on this matter.
I have requested several times fur each of the Planning Commission Members to come to my
house and personally view my batting cage in progress. Ibis situation must been seen in order to
make a fuir assessment of the siroation.
If this has not been done, please forward this (my third request) the each of the members on the
Planning Commission.
Please fa.1\ back to me confirmation on when this was done. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
~J
CliffM. Davenport r
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902-4281
(619) 656-0377
~
'7
~ ~ f?.
~
~~~~
July 27, 2001
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cliff Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Davenport:
1 am writing in response to your letter dated July 25, 2001, in which you raise several
issues concerning the City's previous request that you attend mediation to resolve the on-
going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 281 Bonita Canyon Drive. Below I
have addressed all of the issues (1-5) outlined in your July 25th letter.
Issue I
There are no "on site" reports regarding the operation of your batting cage.
Your batting cage will be photographically depicted on PowerPoint at the
Planning Commission hearing of August 8, 2001, At that hearing, you will
be provided the opportunity to address the Commission regarding the
operation of your batting cage.
Issue 2
Any code violations that may or may not exist at your property would be
addressed by the City Code Enforcement Officer. If you would like to
schedule a meeting with Code Enforcement to identifY any code violations
on your property, please contact Sue Gray at (619) 585-5622.
Issue 3
All information provided by you was hand delivered to each Planning
Commissioner on Friday July 20, 2001,
Issue 4
As discussed with you on July 24, 2001, Planning Commissioners can be
reached through the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department.
It is City policy to not release the home telephone numbers of Planning
Commissioners. We will forward your request to the Planning Commission
It;
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
-; Posr-Con.~("'" Recy".' Pap@'
Letter to CI iff Davenport
July 27, 2001
that Commissioners contact you in order to visit your property prior to the
hearing.
Issue 5
Both Steve Power and John Schmitz of my staff have been to your property.
They have reported to me regarding the operation of your batting cage.
Since they are the staff members who are preparing and presenting the
report to the Planning Commission they are the only staff members that I
feel are needed to visit your residence,
I hope that 1 have satisfactorily addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know of
your decision regarding your willingness to attend mediation by marking the appropriate
space below. Please provide me with your answer by 5:00 p.m, today via fax (619-409-
5861 ).
Since Iy: j / /7.
fjj0~
Ja es D, Sandoval, AICP
sistant Planning Director
_ I agree to mediation
_ 1 do not agree to mediation
((
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
07/ :! 6 / 0 1 2 1 : :~ 2 FAX
c. y. I'L\\\1\G & Bl;[L])[,\G
~ 001
*******~:*************
*** TX REPORT ***
*********************
TRAI\SMISSION OK
TX/RX 1'0
CONNECTION TEL
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME
USAGE T
PGS. SENT
RESULT
2890
96567704
07/26 21:30
01'44
2
OK
~ ~ rt..
=~_:
-~------
~~~~
July 27, 2001
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cliff Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Davenport:
I am writing in response to your letter dated July 25, 2001, in which you raise severa]
issues concerning the City's previous request that you attend mediation to resolve the on-
going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 281 Boruta Canyon Drive. Below 1
have addressed all of the issues (1-5) outlined in your July 25th letter,
Issue 1
There are no "on site" reports regarding the operation of your batting cage.
Your batting cage will be photographically depicted on Power Point at the
Planning Commission hearing of August 8, 2001. At that hearing, you will
be provided the opportunity to address the Commission regarding the
operation of your batting cage,
Issue 2
--
Any code violations that mayor may not exist at your property would be
addressed by the City Code Enforcement Officer. 1f you would like to
schedule a meeting with Code Enforcement to identifY any code violations
on your property, please contact Sue Gray at (619) 585-5622.
I a....
Issue 3
~~~
~-:
-.;.-.-...:; -:.,... --...;:
~~~~
July 25, 2001
OlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cliff Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Davenport:
In order to help resolve the on-going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 281
Bonita Canyon Drive, the City of Chula Vista will pay for the services of a professional
mediator. The mediator would be hired through the San Diego Mediation Society.
It is hoped that a mutually agreeable compromise can be reached between you and your
neighbor as a result of mediation prior to the Planning Commission next reviewing the
variance request. If you are willing to enter into mediation, please mark the appropriate
space below and send or fax (619-409-5861) this letter back to the Planning Department
by the date of July 27, 2001.
J agree to mediation
~ J do not agree to mediation
13
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
Po,'_(.on,~...., ~.o"".d ~.pe.
07/24/01 22:51 FAX
C. V, PL,r-;"ilNG & BVJLDI"iG
ii!I 00 I
***~:***********~*****
*'," TX REPORT *u
s********************
TRA"iSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO
CONNECTION TEL
Sl'BADDRESS
CO"iNECTlON ID
ST. TIME
rSAGE T
PGS. SENT
RESULT
2881
96567704
07/24 22:50
00'55
1
OK
~ ~ ft..
~
~"'""................
............~~
July 25, 2001
CIlY OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cliff Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Davenport:
In order to help resolve the on-going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 281
Bonita Canyon Drive, the City of Chula Vista wilJ pay for the services of a professional
mediator. The mediator would be hired through the San Diego Mediation Society,
It is hoped that a mutually agreeable compromise can be reached between you and your
neighbor as a result of mediation prior to the Planning Commission next reviewing the
variance request. If you are willing to enter into mediation, please mark the appropriate
space below and send or fax (619-409-5861) this letter back to the Planning Department
by the date of July 27, 2001.
_ I agree to mediation
('I
_ 1 do not agree to mediation
~V?--
~
- - --
-:;"...- --~
July 25, 2001
OlY OF
CHUIA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Lutsko:
In order to help resolve the on-going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 283
Bonita Canyon Drive, the City of Chula Vista will pay for the services of a professional
mediator. The mediator would be hired through the San Diego Mediation Society,
It is hoped that a mutually agreeable compromise can be reached between you and your
neighbor as a result of mediation prior to the Planning Commission next reviewing your
variance request. If you are willing to enter into mediation, please mark the appropriate
space below and send or fax (619-409-5861) this letter back to the Planning Department
by the date ofJuly 27, 2001.
~
1 mes D. Sandoval, AICP
Assistant Planning Director
I agree to mediation
_ 1 do not agree to mediation
(~
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
~O"<,0"'ume' fiooyo-"o Oa~"'
07/24/01 Ll: 17 FAX
C. V. I'LAN,ING & BlILDING
I4J 00 I
ss*******************
*** TX REPORT ,,',*
*********************
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO
CONNECTION TEL
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME
USAGE T
PGS. SENT
RESULT
2876
918585760455
07/24 21:17
00'37
1
OK
~ ~ f?.
:-~~
~~~~
~~----
- - --
July 25, 2001
CllY OF
CHUlA VISTA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Lutsko:
In order to help resolve the on-going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 283
Bonita Canyon Drive, the City of Chula Vista will pay for the services of a professional
mediator, The mediator would be hired through the San Diego Mediation Society.
It is hoped that a mutually agreeable compromise can be reached between you and your
neighbor as a result of mediation prior to the Planning Commission next reviewing yom
variance request. If you are willing to enter into mediation, please mark the appropriate
space below and send or fax (619-409-5861) this letter back to the Planning Department
by the date of July 27, 2001.
es D. Sandoval, AICP
Assistant Planning Director
~ I agree to mediation
({:;
~ I do not agree to mediation
07/25/'211 11:18
2: 576 04':.5
LETSGO
07/24/01 21:17 FAX
C.V. PLANSING & BUILVING
~~~
~
~---------
~ -- -- -
- - --
July 25, 200 I
CIlY OF
CHUIA VISfA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. Lutsko:
In order to help rcsolve the on-going fence issue between you and your neighbor at 283
Bonita Canyon Drive, the City of Chula Vista will pay for the services of a professional
mediator, The mediator would bc hired through the San Diego Mediation Society.
It is hoped that a mutually agreeabJe compromise can be reached bctween you and your
neighbor as a resuJt of mediation prior to the Planning Commission next reviewing your
variance reques!. If you are willing to enter into mediation, pleasc mark the appropriate
space below and send or fax (619-409-5861) this lelter back to the Planning Department
by the date of July 27, 2001.
es D. andov > AlCP
Assistant Planning Director
~ agree to lediation
__ I do not agree to mediation
~
7/~7/
(7
276 FOURTH AVENUE.. CHULA VISTA" CALIFORNIA 91910
~k,'.""""_'''''''''''''._'
P.01
~001
-- -- - -. - ....~oo~oo~>c:J....>::J....""_""_0_"_0_."::J__ ~_~~~_
-. ~ -
- .
July 25,2001
Mr. James D. Sandoval, AICP
Assistant Planning Director
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Cl:mla. Vista, CA 91910
~ubject: ZA V-Ot-I8
Dear Mr. Sandoval:
When I returned to my office late this evening, I received your fax that you sent ovcr today to my
office. Please note that your fi1x date and tUne are o~ your machine needs to be corrected.
Before I agree or do DOt agree to mediation, I want these items in question answered and I want
information supplied, in writing and filxed back to me at my fiIx # 619-656-7704 (as Mr. Power
called my house today, asking for the fiIx number).
Battinv Ca~e
# 1. I want copies of all your "on site" reports made by your staff since the
beginning of Me. Lutsko's first complamt filed. I have had numerous staff
out at my house, numerous times and I ha.ve not seen one report on what
each staff member witnessed. Meaning: Their opinion if any balls penetotted
the batting cage enclosures. I have requested these reports many thnc:s.
PropertY Line Wall
#2. What, if any, violations exist on my property line wall and attached planters.
According to the letter dated 02-28-01, fi:om Sue Gotyat your office, none
existed, that we were in compliance. Is that still correct?
Staff ReDort
#3. As per Mr. Power stated to me on July 18, 2001 (at my house), I bad IUltil
noon Thursday 07-19-01 and extended to Friday 07-20-01 to turn in any
information that pertained to this variance. I asked Mr. Powe{ what happened
to tl1c: infutmation Jrom the first pl'1pniog Commission Meeting on May 25,
2001? Mr. Power stated to me that it was either lost or tmown away, that
they did not have it. If so, how can the City n1IIke a rcconunendation without
my information? Mr. Power requested that I bring in eight sets ofinfunnation
before noon on Friday, 07-20-01, to replace the missing ooes_ I provided
If
WED 20:18 -0-0-0_0_0_0_0_0+0_0_0__ 000000000~00
P.03
eight new sets and I personally delivered them all to Stephen Power on
Thursday, July 19, 2001, noontime. In picking up the staffJ:l:port on Friday,
July 20,2001, and reading it, I discovered none of my information that I gave
Mr. Power, the day earlier, was in. WHY WASN'T ANY OF MY
INFORMATION IN TIiAT REPORT? If this infurmatio.l1 was withheld nom
the staffr:eport, the commission members and possible the Lutsko's, what
other vital infunnation was not given to Davenport's or other parties
involved? The reason given tD me by Stephen PDwer (Dn 07-24-01) was that
it would make the staff report tDD thick. Is that true? If so, do you think this
reason would. hold up in a court Df law?
Member Names
#4. This is my second request this week (third altDgether) for all the names ofthe
members on the Planning Co~ion. I am requesting to you, for you tD
give each member my name and phone number asldng them the call me. Here
is my hDme phone number (619) 656-0377. Make sure this gets done tDday,
as time is of the esschl:e. I still want the list or all the members ofthe Planning
Commission fuxed to me.
Sandoval Meeting
#5. Since most of your staff are no longer with the City, you need to malee an
effort to find time in your busy schedule to mcc:t with me at my property.
You stated to me on Tuesday, 07-24-01, 4:30 PM that you only bad 20
minutes in your e&lender. that's finc;. I will talce that twenty minutes. Please
advise me on 'WI'bleh day that is and I will make a point to be at my bome
to meet witlt you at my property.
Once I received all this informa.tion that is requested, for which I am rightly entitled. to, in writing
and faxed back to me, I will send you my decision on mediation. I will be calliog for confumation
that you and your office received this fux.
~JI~~
CliffM Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita. CA 91902
(619) 656-0)77 Home
(619) 656-7704 Fax
(S
JUL-25-01 wED 20:17 ~0_0_0_0~0_0_0_0_0_0_0__ 000000000000
MAILING ADDRESS
PC Box 1673
Bon,ta, CA 91908.1673
(619) 482-0022
.r..,.oll G.~
"'... @.' ~
\ -
, .
STUCCO
INC.
Lic. # 637916
FAX
DATE: 7- 25-0 I
TO: .::::sa.1I-..t€.b '~DI.)Qj
Phone #
Fax # ~L q - (09 \ - 5 n ~
FROM: CLIff ~<e.npor+
(619) 482-0022
(619) 656-7704 Fax
@,
PAGES FAXEJ2: 3 (including cover)
COMMENTS:
ZAU-O\ -[5
dO
p ~ 01
WAREHOUSE I> SHOP
1057 Elkslton 61vo
Spring Valley, CA 91977
(619) 48~-0022
c.,u t=kn()l~ ~
51t). '-rY~i-.
181/t
/;/;} r "---..([) R>
;:j /, ',11;;' # II
/ (, <1(, "-~ I'; /,~ '-
, vI.- If;; ~-
/ I ;J", "" /,,>1
i....,-.......' " e-: ;t'r,~ ~..-'/ /,./' I
.... Vi ,'/ 'I
......,.,..b: -1//~ ','/ /<,;
""1 .......-'/.'
.....,.-.... < - /1/,.-., -' /
< /1
~,
.
JUL-25-01 wED 20:17 ~0-0-0-0~O~0_0_0_0_0_0~~ 000000000000
P.D':::
July 25,2001
Mr_ James D. Sandoval, AlCP
Assistant PJanning Director
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
~ubject: ZA V-Of-I8
Dear Mr_ Sandoval:
When I returned to my office late this evening, I received your fax that you sent over today to my
office. Please note that your fax date and time are off, your machine needs to be corrected.
Before I agree or do not agree to mediation, I want these items in question answered and I want
information supplied, in writing and faxed back to me at my tax # 619-656- 7704 (as Mr. Power
called my house today, asking for the tax number).
Batting Ca!;'e
#1. I want copies of all your "on site" reports made by your staff since the
beginning of Mr. Lubko's first complaint filed. I have had numerous staff
out at my house, numerous times and I have not seen one report on what
each staff member witnessed. Meaning: Their opinion if any balls penetrated
the batting cage enclosures. I have requested these reports many times.
Property Line Wall
#2. What, if any, violations exist on my property line wall and attached planters.
According to the letter dated 02-28-01, from Sue Gray at your office, none
existed, that we were in compliance. Is that still correct?
Staff ReDort
#3. As per Mr. Power stated to me on July 18, 2001 (at my house), I had until
noon Thursday 07-19-01 and extended to Friday 07-20-01 to turn in any
information that pertained to this variance. I asked Mr. Power what happened
to the information fi'om the first PII1Jllling Commission Meeting on May 25,
2001? Mr. POWlOr stated to me that it was either lost or thrown away, that
they did not have it. If so, how can the City make a recommendation without
my infurmation? Mr. Power requested that I bring in eight sets of information
before noon on Friday, 07-20-0 I. to replace the missing ones_ I provided
"0-(
JUL-25-01 WED 20:18 ~0-0-0_0~0~0~0~0_0_0~0__ 000000000000
p _ ~'3
eight new sets and I personally delivered them all to Stephen Power on
Thursday, July 19, 2001, noontime. In picking up the staifrepol1 on Friday,
July 20,2001, and reading it, I discovered none of my information that I gave
Mr. Power. the day earlier, was in. WHY WASN'T ANY OF MY
INFORMATION IN THAT REPORT? If this information was withheld from
the staff report. the conunission members and possible the LutsKo'S, what
other vital information was not given to Davenport's or other parties
involved? The reason given to me by Stephen Power (on 07-24-01) was tbat
it would make the staff report too thick. Is that true? If so, do you think this
reason would hold up in a court of law?
Member Names
#4. This is my second request this week (third altogether) for all the names ofthe
members on the PlannJng Commission. I am requesting to you, for you to
give each member my name and phone number asking them the call me. Here
is my home phone number (619) 656-0377. Make sure this gets done today,
as time is of the essence. I still want the list of all the members ofthe Planning
Commission faxed to me,
Sandoval Meetinv
#5. Since most of your staff are no longer with the City, you need to make an
effort to find time in your busy schedule to meet with me at my property.
You stated to me on Tuesday, 07-24-01, 4:30 PM that you only had 20
minutes in your calender, that's fine. I will take that twenty minutes. Please
advise me on wbleh day that is and I will make a point to be at my home
to meet with you at my property.
Once I received all this information that is requested, for which I am rightly entitled to, in writing
and faxed back to me, I will send you my decision on mediation. I will be calling for confirmation
that you and your office received this fax,
Sincerely, ~
/7",A:h ~
(/-vy h?.1 ~
CliffM. Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
(619) 656-0377 Home
(619) 656-7704 Fax
d-,~
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item:
Meeting Date: 07/25/01
~
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V-01-18; Consideration ofa request to allow a property
line fence in excess of six (6) feet. Applicant: Ron & Sona Lutsko
The proposed project is a request for a variance ftom Section 19.58.150 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, which limits wall heights to six feet. The request is to allow a fence 112'-6" in
length with varied heights between 8' -6" and 12'-6" in height at 281 Bonita Canyon Dr, a .57 -acre
single-family residential estate lot in Bonita Long Canyon.
Per section 19,14.030 (B)(3), the Zoning Administrator is only authorized to grant variances for
fences not exceeding twenty percent greater than the ordinance requirements. As this request
includes portions offencing in excess of twenty percent ofthe allowed six feet. this variance request
is being referred to the Planning Commission for approval.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt, per
Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences,
in accordance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA),
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance for a fence.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed variance (ZA V -01-18) was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission at their
meeting of May 23. 2001. At that hearing, the adjoining neighbor located at 283 Bonita Canyon
Drive (Davenport) raised strong objections to the variance request and asked that the Commission
deny ZA V-01-18. Rather than attempting to resolve what the Planning Commission viewed as a
"dispute between two neighbors." Commissioners requested that the applicants seek the services of a
professional mediator prior to their further consideration of the variance application (Attachment
"A"). The Davenports and Lutskos agreed to seek mediation and the Planning Commission voted to
continue the item to their July 25. 2001 meeting.
The project plans have not been modified since the Planning Commission last reviewed ZA v-a 1-18.
In a letter received by the Planning Department dated July 17. 200 I, the applicant has stated that
Section I of the fence as indicated on the previously submitted plans could be changed to cedar "in
the spirit of compromise." Section 2 of the fence would remain plywood. Although it appears that
some discussion has taken place between the Davenports and Lutskos, staff has been informed that
the two parties have not met with a mediator.
/
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 07/25/01
Staff has attached the original report from May 23, 2001 regarding this variance request (Attachment
"B"). The May 23'd staff report has all of the technical details regarding ZAV-01-18, as well as
previous attachments. There are no new project plans associated with this request. Both the Lutskos
and Davenports have submitted supplemental information packets which have been included with
the Planning Commission packet for July 25, 2001. The information packet submitted by the Lutskos
contains new information, while that submitted by the Davenports is a copy of the packet that they
distributed to the Commission at their May 23, 2001 meeting, Materials received by the Planning
Department regarding the variance request that are not part of either the Lutskos or Davenports
packets can be reviewed in Attachments "C" and "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
As before, staff recommends approval of the requested Variance in accordance with the attached
Planning Commission resolution (Attachment "D").
Attachment '"A" - PC Minutes
Attachment "B" - Staff report from May 23, 2001
Attachment "C" - Materials from the Lutskos regarding project
Attachment '"D" - Letter from the Davenports
Attachment "E" - Draft resolution of approval
;),
MINUTES OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, May 23, 2001
Council Chambers
Public5ervices Building
276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista
ROLL CALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:
Present:
Absent:
Commissioner Hall, Cortes, Willett, McCann, O'Neill
Commissioner Castaneda, Thomas
Staff Present:
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building
Beveriy Blessent, Principal Planner
Richard Zumwalt, Associate Planner
Harold Phelps, Associate Planner
Ann Moore, Assistant City Attornev
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Vice Chair O'Neill
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZA V-01-18; Consideration of a request to allow a property line fence
in excess of six feet located at 281 Bonita Canyon Road. Applicant:
Ron & Sona Lutsko.
Background: Beverly Blessent reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a
fence in excess of 6 feet for the fence separating their property and the neighbor to the east, Mr.
& Mrs. Davenport. The Lutsko property is approximately .57 acres in size with a 143 ft. wide
front property, a 62 h. wide rear property line, and a 248 h. long eastern property line.
The proposed fence is located along the eastern property line beginning approximately 75 ft.
from the front property line. The existing fence from the front property line to approximately 100
feet is a 5 to 6 foot high block fence with the remainder of the fencing to the rear property line
being a 5 foot high chain link fence. The applicant is proposing to construct the fence just inside
or attached to the existing fencing.
The proposed fence is divided into two segments. Segment 1 begins approx. 75 ft. from the
property line and extends to approx, 82 ft. to a point adjacent to applicant's deck, Due to
elevation changes, the fence varies from 8.5 to 10.5 ft. Due to slope and improvements (raised
planters, stairs and decking along the adjacent parcel) the proposed fence height measured from
the neighboring "usable grade" ranges from 6 to 8.5 ft..
Segment 2 begins 6 ft. from the end of the first segment and extends 24 ft to just below the
adjacent property owner's batting cage and deck. The height from finished grade on either side
of this segment varies in height from 8.5 to 12.5 ft. Fence height measured from "usable grade"
3
ATTACHMENT "A"
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
May 23, 2001
on the adjacent property side ranges from 2.5 to 7.5 ft. This segment was constructed without
the necessary building permits, but was allowed to remain by staff while this variance application
is pending.
The entire span of the fence is proposed to be constructed of plywood panels mounted to" x "
posts covered on the applicant's side with decorative bamboo/grass material.
The applicant is requesting the additional height to address concerns related to structures existing
on the adjacent property; they are:
1. Presently there is nothing from preventing balls from escaping the batting cage into the
applicant's yard.
,
The adjacent property owner has constructed raised planters next to the existing block wall
and the top of the planters are between 2.5 to 3 ft. from the top of the existing wall. These
raised planters, resulting from no action of the applicant, puts the applicant in violation of the
California Building Code relating to enclosures surrounding swimming pools. The applicant
is requesting the increased fence height in this portion of the yard to meet this requirement.
Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve the requested variance for a
renee.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner McCann inquired if the necessary permits were obtained for the batting cage and,
if the variance were to be granted, what, if any, would be the ramifications if it is then in violation
of the CC&R's.
Ms. Blessent responded that the necessarY permits were obtained for the batting cage.
I\nn Moore responded that the CC&R's is not a matter for the City to enforce and the Planning
Commission is solely to consider whether there are findings for granting the variance request. If
in granting the variance there is a violation of the CC&R's, then it would be up to private parties
to litigate.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.
Ron Lutsko, applicant, 281 Bonita Canyon Drive, Bonita, CA emphasized that he had a
permitted fence of legal height prior to his neighbor making modifications, which then put him
in violation of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the variance would not have been requested
were it not for the safety hazards created by having a commercial batting cage with an electronic
pitching machine in a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the batting cage and deck
structures were permitted after they were constructed.
Mr. Lutsko addressed the two letters that were included in staff's report, which were in opposition
to the variance citing that the fence height would be an eye-sore and an obstruction to their view.
He indicated that because Mr. Davenport obtained his permits after-the-fact, he was not even
T
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
May 23, 2001
allowed the opportunity to voice his opposition to the batting cage and it too, obstructs his view
and is a safety hazard.
Additionally, Mr. Lutsko addressed the two letters that expressed support for the variance, in
which they state that the foremost issue that the City should consider when deliberating whether
to recommend approval of the variance, is public safety.
In conclusion, Mr. Lutsko stated that for past 2.5 years they have not been able to resolve this
issue as neighbors and is, therefore, requesting mediation with the City.
Commissioner Hall inquired of Mr. Lutsko if the City ever responded to the dozen or so issues
pertaining to violations on Mr. Davenport's property that he brought to the attention of the City
that were not in compliance with City codes.
Mr. Lutsko responded that the only answer he got from the City was that he now has a permit,
notwithstanding the fact that they were all built or installed before acquiring the necessary
permits.
Cliff Davenport, {neighbor} 283 Bonita Canyon Drive, Bonita, CA gave an overhead
presentation which included reviewing the effectiveness of the containment mechanisms built
into the batting cage; a letter from Radar Ready, Inc. which states that they clocked approx. 30
balls and the speeds range as low as 35 mph to 57 mph.; an "asbuilt survey of 283 Bonita
Canyon; the back view from his property of Mr. Lutskos fence, and other supporting materials.
Mr. Davenport stated that the batting cage is enclosed on four sides (sides, rear and overhead).
Additionally, there is a back-stop, and a chain link fence, therefore, the likelihood of the balls
flying into the neighbor's yard is slim to none
Mr. Davenport showed a series of pictures, which explains the way the balls get into Mr. Lutsko's
yard. The slides show his dog playing with the balls at the deck level adjacent to the batting
cage. He stated that the balls then roll down the slope and under the fence.
Mr. Davenport presented to the Commission an "asbuilt" survey conducted by KAPPA Surveying
& Mapping Inc. of his property at 283 Bonita Canyon indicating what the side property line is.
According to the survey, the block wall that is shared by both neighbors and the plywood fence
are on Mr. Davenport's property.
In summary, Mr. Davenport urged the Commission to not grant the variance for the following
reasons:
. Mr. Lutsko hasn't proved that the balls are escaping the batting cage as they are being
pitched and going into his yard.
. Mr. Lutsko's plywood fence is an eye-sore on the unfinished side facing the Davenport's
side, which is also visible to other neighbors as well.
. There are 30 people who submitted their signatures and 4 or 5 letters protesting the
proposed fence.
~
>
Planning Commission Minutes
- " -
May 23, 2001
Ms.Blessent clarified a couple of points. If the variance is approved, a building permit would
be required. A variance would still be required even if there are errors in measurement in
terms of the height of the planters or decking on the Davenport's property.
Commissioner Cortes asked Mr. Davenport if he would be open to having the unfinished
plywood fence finished on his side.
Mr. Davenport responded that he would agree to having a 6 ft. high brick wall, finished on
both sides.
Mrs. Davenport stated that there was never any contact or effort made by the Lutskos to meet
to discuss the issues and try to reach an agreement.
Commissioner McCann stated that he had the opportunity to visit both properties and indicated
that upon taking a look at the batting cage, it did appear to him that it has proper containment
of the balls.
Cmr. McCann further stated that he would strongly recommend deferring action on this item in
order to allow both parties and the City to go through mediation.
Commissioner Willett stated that he too agrees with Cmr. McCann's recommendation to defer
action and schedule mediation.
Rosa Maria Aguirre, 285 Bonita Canyon Dr., Bonita, CA stated that she is in opposition to
granting the variance. Ms. Aguirre further stated that the fence height would obstruct the view
from her property, for which she paid a premium price to have the view. She further indicated
that this is not a public safety issue as she lives directly opposite the Davenports and the batting
cage faces her lower canyon property as does the Lutskos, and has never seen any balls
projecting out of the batting cage.
Brenda Aguirre, 285 Bonita Canyon Dr., Bonita, CA stated that she has never witnessed a ball
flying out of the batting cage, however, she has seen Mr. Davenport's dog playing with the
balls at the bottom of the canyon.
Commission O'Neill expressed concern with the Commission being placed in a position as
arbitrators in what appears to be a civil matter between neighbors. The issue at hand is whether
or not to grant a fence variance, which may be in violation of the CC&R's, and further
compounding it based on Mr. Lutskos request to be released from the indemnification
agreement.
Ms. Moore responded that she was not aware of any provision in the CC&R's that specifically
limit the height of the fence.
Commissioner McCann responded that the reason why the CC&R's were brought up is because
many of the letters that were submitted in opposition to the variance stated that it would be a
violation.
{,;
Planning Commission Minutes
5
May 23, 2001
Ms. Moore stated that she would not be able to comment on whether it is or is not a violation
of the CC&R's. The matter that is before the Commission is the variance and State law requires
that certain findings need to be made in order to grant the variance. If the Commission feels
they can make the necessary findings, then they can grant an approval. If, in fact, there is a
violation of the CC&R's then it would be up to the private parties to take action in court to
make that determination.
With respect to the indemnification; it would be Counsel's recommendation that it remain as a
provision of the variance, which is a standard provision that is required in all variances and
basically says that the applicant would defend the City if we are sued as a result of granting the
variance in the first place, that is to their benefit. The indemnification is recorded against the
property.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that although he could support continuing this item to allow the
two parties to mediate, he is hesitant in recommending thatthe City get involved in it as a third
party.
Commisssioner Hall stated that he too would recommend mediation through a private
mediation service, however, he would strongly recommend that the City be in attendance
simply to be available to answer any questions that may arise pertaining to Code issues.
Mr. Sandoval stated that for the record, the applicant should be asked if he is willing to have
this item continued for 60 days to a date certain (July 25") with the understanding they are
seeking mediation.
He further stated that it's his understanding that when San Diego Mediation gets involved, they
don't necessarily involve staff through the process, but they do touch base with staff to make
sure that the remedy that they come up with is not in opposition with City regulations.
Commissioner O'Neill stated that he could support having a continuance for 60 or even 90
days to allow time in what can be a lengthy process. If at the end of 60 days there is still no
progress in mediation, the Commission would then proceed with taking action on the variance
at the July 25'h, 2001 Planning Commission.
Ms. Moore clarified that the purpose for mediation is to resolve the dispute between the parties,
not to make a decision on the variance. The variance is a decision that will be made by the
Planning Commission when it comes back on July 25'".
Commissioner McCann asked Mr. Lutsko and Mr. Davenport if they would be agreeable to go
to mediation. They both responded affirmatively.
MSC (McCann/Cortes) (5-0-2-0) to continue public hearing to date certain July 25, 2001, to
allow both parties 60 days to seek outside mediation. Motion carried.
(
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: I
Meeting Date: OS/23/01
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: ZA V -01-18; Consideration of a request to allow a property
line fence in excess of six (6) feet. Applicant: Ron & Sona Lutsko
The proposed project is a request for a variance ITom Section 19.58.150 of the Chula VIsta Municipal
Code, which limits wall heights to six feet. The request is to allow a fence 112' -6" in length with
varied heights between 8'-6" and 12'-6" in height at 281 Bonita Canyon Dr, a . 57-acre single-family
residential estate lot in Bonita Long Canyon.
Per section 19.14.030 (B)(3), the Zoning Administrator is only authorized to grant variances for
fences not exceeding twenty percent greater than the ordinance requirements. As this request
includes portions of fencing in excess of twenty percent of the allowed six feet, this variance request
is being referred to the Planning Commission for review.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is categorically exempt, per
Section 15303, Class 3 ( e), construction of new accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance for a fence.
DISCUSSION:
1. Site Characteristics
The .57-acre single-family, slightly pie-shaped parcel is approximately 143 feet wide at the
ITont of the lot and 62 feet wide at the back. The eastern edge is 248 feet long, and the
western edge is 242 feet long. The parcel is located along a ridgeline with a single-family
dwelling, swimming pool and patio cover located on the upper portions of the lot and the
remainder of the property sloping steeply into a canyon. The fence in question is located
along the eastern property edge, beginning approximately 100 feet ITom the ITOnt property
line. Along this eastern property edge, fencing exists consisting of 100 feet of 5 to 6-foot
block wall and the remainder of the length in 5-foot chain link fencing. The applicant is
proposing to construct the fence in question just inside or attached to the existing fencing.
There are also several tall, mature trees along the eastern property line.
Single-family residential lots are located to the east, west, and south. (See Locator,
Attachment 1). A complaint was filed with Code Enforcement for the construction of the
fence in question and the applicant responded by filing this application for a Variance to
enable him to acquire the necessary building permits.
~
ATTACHMENT "B"
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
2. General Plan and Zoning:
General Plan Zoning Current Land Use
Site: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
North: Open Space OS Open Space/Canyon
South: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
East: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
West: Residential, Low PC S-F Residential
Project site is also located within Bonita Long Canyon Specific Plan.
3. Prooosal
The proposed fence, referred to in applicant's project description as a "Property Line Safety
Screen", is a second fence measuring between 3' and 7'-6" over the height of the existing
property line fencing. The fence is proposed in two segments as follows:
Segment 1: The fence begins approximately I OO-feet ITom the ITont property line and extends
approximately 82'-6" to a point adjacent to the Applicant's deck. Due to the changing
elevation of the lots and design of the fencing, the height ofthis portion of the fence varies
ITom 8' -6" to 10' -6". Due to the slope and improvements, including raised planters, stairs
and decking, along the property line of the adjacent parce~ the proposed fence height of this
segment, measured ITom the neighboring "usable grade", ranges ITom approximately 6' to 8' _
6". (For purposes of this report, "usable grade" refers to the level at which a person stands,
whether on a deck, raised planter or stairwell, above actual ground level)
Segment 2: This segment offence begins 6' ITom the end of Segment I, near the beginning of
the adjacent property's batting cage and deck. This segment extends approximately 24' to
just below this batting cage and deck. The actual height, ITom finished grade on either side,
of this segment varies in height ITom 8'-6" to 12'-6". Fence height measured ITom "usable
grade" on the adjacent property side ranges ITom 2' -6" to 7' -6". This segment offence has
been constructed without the necessary building permits, but was allowed to remain by staff
while this Variance decision is pending.
The entire span of the proposed fence is to be constructed of plywood panels mounted to 4x4
posts, covered on the Applicant's side with decorative bamboo/grass materials, and topped
with 2-feet of "non-structural" bamboo screen. This material matches the materials and
9
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
overall theme of the Applicant's landscape. The portions of the proposed fence that are
visible from the adjacent property are unfinished plywood.
The applicant is requesting the additional fence height to address concerns related to
structures existing on the adjacent property.
1) Batting Cage & attached deck: The adjacent property owner has constructed a
batting cage with an attached deck. This batting cage consists of a raised block
foundation and a 9' high chain link fence surrounding the sides and top of the cage. A
deck extends from the entrance to the cage and abuts the fenceline. The deck floor is
approximately 4' -5" high. This puts the floor of the deck and batting cage near even
with the top of the existing fence. The Applicant expresses concern with the balls
escaping the batting cage and also those being thrown by children waiting to use the
cage. These balls have nothing preventing them from passing into the Applicant's
yard.
2) Raised Planters: The adjacent property owner has constructed raised planters adjacent
to the existing block wall. The top of these planters are between 2' -6" and 3' from
the top of the existing wall. These raised planters, though resulting from no action of
the applicant, puts the applicant in violation of the 1998 California Building Code,
Section 3152B.1, relating to enclosures surrounding swimming pools. A fence or
wall, free of protrusions, is required surrounding swimming pools at a height of 5' as
measured from the outside of the fence. Using this standard, the fence height at the
points where these planters exist is only 2' -6" to 3' high. Applicant is requesting the
increased fence height in this portion of the yard to meet these requirements.
4. Required Findings
State Law and Chula Vista's Municipal Code require that certain Findings of Fact be made
before the granting of a Variance. Variance findings must describe the special circumstances
that physically differentiate the project site from its neighbors. Further the findings must
specify the "unnecessary hardship" that would result from these circumstances in the event
that a variance was not approved. These required findings are discussed below and each
segment offence is discussed separately.
\"0
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
1) That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The slope of the lot into the canyon has caused property owners in the area who wish
to construct accessory structures, such as pools and decks, elevated in such a way that
they rise above the level of the standard fenceline. This affects the typical privacy
provided by such fences. In addition, structures constructed on the adjacent property,
some of which are higher than the existing fence line, pose some concern to the
Applicant, and may constitute a hardship peculiar to the property. These structures
are:
I. Two raised planters adjacent to the fence in Segment I put the Applicant in
violation of the City's Municipal Code related to fence heights required
around swimming pools.
2. A batting cage, adjacent to Segment 2, which, due to the way it is used,
causes a safety concern to the Applicant.
2) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
districts and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not
constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The adjacent property owner has constructed a batting cage in the rear of his
property. This batting cage is located on a slope, which causes most of the "floor" of
the cage and attached deck to be located above the existing fence line of 5-feet. Its
location, elevated nature and uses associated with the structure cause concern for the
Applicant relating to health and safety. The combination of these factors are unique
to this property and the approval of a variance for Segment 2 of the fence adjacent to
the batting cage would not constitute a special privilege to the Applicant.
The adjacent property owner has constructed two raised planters along the fenceline.
These planters are approximately 2' -6" in height. The construction of these structures
puts the Applicant in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 18.28.020
requires that a swimming pool have an enclosure with a minimum height of 5 feet and
that "The outside surface of the enclosure be free of protrusions, cavities, or other
physical characteristics that would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a
child below the age of five years to climb over." At the time the Applicant
constructed his swimming pool, the fence met the conditions of the code. The
subsequent construction of this planter on the adjacent property causes the
Applicant's pool to be in violation of this regulation. The increased fence height
would allow the Applicant to meet this regulation.
! \
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
3) That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
the pu blic interest.
Because there is an existing fence along the entire length of the property line and
portions of the proposed fence are located on a steeply sloped portion of the lot, the
constructed "usable grade" (deck surface and stairs) on some portions of the adjacent
property are elevated above ground level. Due to these factors, the visible height of
the proposed fence from the adjacent property ranges between 3'-0" to 7'-6" in
height.
4) That the authorizing of such variance wiD not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Authorization of this variance is specific and addresses a request for a fence. It will
not change the development patterns, permitted uses, or future planned development
of the City or any other adopted plans.
5 . Analvsis
The Applicant is requesting a variance for approximately 112' of fencing varying in height
from 8'-6" to 12'-6" at its highest point. The applicant requested the variance to allow a
fence in excess of the six (6) feet allowed by Section 19.58.150 based on the following
reasons:
· The sloping topography of the lot;
. The construction of the batting cage on the adjacent property and the subsequent use
of the structure (balls propelled by both the pitching machine and the throwing ofballs
by the persons waiting to use the cage);
. The construction of the raised planter along the existing fenceline causes the applicant
to be in violation of safety fence requirements for his pool.
Staff analyzed the applicant's rationale for the variance and how they meet the required
findings for a variance. The variance for the fence can be substantiated for reasons relating to
safety and potential nuisance.
L
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: OS/23/2001
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance in accordance with the attached Planning
Commission resolution.
Attachments
l. Locator Map
2.- PL_..~..:"""t:I Ce-RQ13..hv.d. Ri;;;6uluDuu J. eS8B3.fBeaS:i:ag appre> \' ltl
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Application Description & Justification
5. Neighbor Letter
6. Materials submitted by Applicant
~
-:,
CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT RON LUTSKO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C9 APPUCAHT: VARIANCE
PROJECT 261 BONITA CANYON DR Request Property Line Safety Screen necessitated by
ADDRESS: neighbor's commercial batting cage which allows hard
SCALE: ALE NUMBER: balls Ie be propelled into the Lutsko yard
NORTH No Scale ZAV-01-18 1'1
h :\homelplanninglcartosllocatorslzav0118.cdr 3.22.01
,', L-l'k'-Y ~ U _I
- 0 ',)~I
Dawn M. Van Boxtel
Project Planner
Planning Department, Public Services
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 91910
__. __..____---1
t'LANNING
Re: Case Number ZA V-OI-IS
Mr. and Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd. (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Dear Ms. Van Boxtel,
This letter is to inform the Chula Vista City Planning Commission that as residents of
Bonita Long Canyon, we are opposed to the building of an interior property line fence in
excess of six feet.
The property in question is visible rrom both street level and rrom trails in the open space
adjacent to this property. Fences in excess of six feet would be an eyesore and
inconsistent with the ambience predetermined for this neighborhood by the builder and
set forth in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions governing this area. We chose to live
in this neighborhood and pay the additional taxes ( fees) required to protect the ambience
and enforce the CC&Rs.
Please do not allow a variance for an interior property line fence. Thank you for your
attention.
Sincere~, V )'&:.JZ( -z;:::
~AnnO'NeilJ
1479 Country Vistas Lane
Bonita, CA 91902
h
...,.-,.- -
., '..... '-"
jF Criul..A vl::iTA DISCLOSURE: S ,. "c::MENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments,
or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the.part of the Citv
Coundl, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having financial interest in the property which is the subject of the
application or the contract, e.g., owner applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Mr. and Mrs. Ron Lutsko
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all
individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest
in the partnership.
The property in question is a residence, not a business.
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of
any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of
the trust.
N/A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes X-. No_
If yes, please indicate person(s): Ken Lee Memorial Golf Tournament _ Sid Morris
5, Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or
indeoendent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in'this matter.
We are representing ourselves.
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a
Councilmember in the current Dr preceding election period? Yes _ No X-- 'If yes, state which
Councilmember(s): 4
(NOTE:: ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES
Date: O~?/
"
Ron and Sona Lutsko
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
(0
" Person i.s defined as: "Any individual, firm. c()-partner:;fzip. joint yenIure, association, social dub, [reaterT2D.1 organization, corporation,
~.s(Qte, [rusl, receiver. syndicQle, [hi:; and any other counry, ciry and country. city municipality, district, or oCher political subdivision. or any
oth.er group or combination a:::ing as a unil. "
'-' ./",-
~.,-
--~
em Of
CHULA, VISIA
- _~JG.n:1_)_:!g 2:
,-;;........- n__ ___~_._ ____
......;;;'~ vi;:;,...,UJ II I 1"=11:
Planning Division - Development Processing
276 Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 691-5101
Application Appendix "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT NAME: Property Line Safety Screen
APPLICANT NAME: Mr. and Mrs. Ron Lutsko
Please describe fully the proposed project, alJY and all construction that may be accomplished
as a result of approval of this project and the project's benefits to yourself, the property, the
neighborhood and the City of Chula Vista. Include any details necessary to adequately explain
the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may include any background
information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of. th;o
apDilcatlon. Use an addendum sheet if necessary.
FD~ all Conditional Use Permits or Variances, please address the required "Findings" as listed in
irs;e: In the Application Procedurai Guide.--
Des:lloIton & Justification.
Description of proposed project: The construction of a property line
Safety Screen, the height of which, when measured on the outside of
said Lot 586 (measurement done within Lot 585 property), will be
approximately 6 feet. This measurement for the Safety Screen height
is to be done from the outside in compliance with the Chula Vista
Municipal Code for yards with pools.
Project's benefits: This property line Safety Screen will help to
protect the life, health and safety cf. people and property vi thin the
Lutsko yard from possible damage, injury or death due to the very
hard balls propelled at speeds of 100-125 mph. from the commercial
batting cage located in the neighboring lot (Lot 585).
FINDINGS SECTION FOR A VARIANCE:
1. Finding: That a hardship peculiar to the property and not
created by any act of the owner exists.
This Safety Screen has been necessitated by the adjoining neighbor's
construction of a commercial batting cage which allows exceptionally
hard balls, 3 inches in diameter, to be propelled'. into the Lutsko
yard at speeds of 100-125.mph. The health andsafety.of people and
pets"in the Lutsko yard is threatened, as well as the possibility
of damage to the Lutsko property.
(Continued - see attached pages)
II
2. Finding: That such a variance is necessary for the preservation,
and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity,
and that a variance if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
This property line Safety Screen is necessary to maintain the
health and safety of people, pets and property within the
Lutsko property, in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code,
Section 19.12.010.
3. Finding: That the authorizing of such a variance will not be
of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not
materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest.
The public interest of safety will be better served by the
installation of this~ety Screen. The property line Safety
Screen will benefit the adjacent property as it will help to
keep the very hard balls within Lot 5B5 wherein the
commercial batting cage and ball propelling machine are
located.
4. Finding: That the authorizing of such variance will not
adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted
plan of any governmental agency.
We see no way this property line Safety Screen could
adversely affect the City. We see only benefits, as it
would comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code Sections
19.12.010 and 15.48, and it would help to protect the
people, pets and property in the Lutsko yard from injury
or damage due to the fast flying balls propelled out of
the machine in the commercial batting cage located in the
adjoining property, Lot 585.
We have provided pictures on the following three pages
which will show the situation as it exists today.
1 \
Marjean Boettcher
294 Bonita Canyon Dr
Bonita. CA 91902
FAX #: 858-578-0076
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Reference: Case numberZAV-01_18
DATE:
May 1,2001
TO:
Dawn Van Boxtel
Project Planner
FAX NUMBER:
619-409-5861
FROM:
MarJean Boettcher'
858-635-8203
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER 1
Ms. Van Boxtel and members of the City Planning Commission,
As a home Owner in the Bonita long Canyon community I strongly object to the
City granting Mr. And Mrs. Lutsko a variance to build a fence in excess of six
feet. This clearly would set a precidence that I find unacceptable.
Many of the home owners in this area paid a premium rate for lots that have
views and to allow one of the home owners to erect a fence that far exceeds the
six foot limit and could "materially obstruct the view from other Jots' violates the
Declaration of Restrictions for Bonita Long Canyon Unit No.7.
Allowing a fence that varies in height from over 8' to over 12' would be an
unsiahtlv addition to a very well kept and planned neighborhood.
Due to my work schedule I am unable to attend the May 9, 2001 hearing.
Please consider my objections when making your decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
1oRb-~
MVrjean Boettcher
Ii)
,
~20M
<02
FAX ~'C.
: L:18300a03003D3
8212:'
- -. - -'
212!l3~ 2-:: ~3q~
-
.':)""
Jim Sa no oval and John S::hmltz
From:
Ron and Son a Lutsko
Phone: (858) 576-1757
Date
7/17/01
Re:
Information regarding ,he Lutsko variance for 7/25/01 meeting
"Tatal pages faxed: 4
V.'\RIANCE AMENDMENT: In the spirit of compromise, we are willing to install a cedar
fence the emire length of section 1, as amended by 8ur fax to 8everiy dated 5/22/01, to
:>egin about 25 feet more toward the front pr80erty line due IO the planters. but still
:::e:hind 75 fee: from the front piope!ty Jine-aDproximate!y 137 feet in length as per the
8:ans submlt1ed. This Safety Screen would not be attached to the eXlstmg masonry
wall, would extend from the 12 Inch column in the fmnt to the end of the masonry wall in
tne north. with 4 x 4 posts 2 feet in the ground with concrete. and cedar fencing 1" x 8" x
3 high attached to the cedar posts with 2 x 4's aboUl 3 feet from the bott8m and 3 feet
f~8m the top IO prevent warping. This Safety Screen would extend about 3 feet above
tne existing masonry wall on the Davenport side, which is now only 42 inches high,
However, in Section 2 the plywood will need 10 remain as we cannot think of any other
reasonably priced material which would provlae the height and safety other than
plywood. Mr. Davenport shouid be encouraged to finish his side with a material pleasing
to his taste, which will not damage our side of the Safety Screen.
We will also be bring to the office by Thursday noon a multi page letter to be
Included in the Commissioners' packets.
M:::DIATION: Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko have initiated and set up all three meetings with the
Davenports, and the Lutskos suggested that all parties need to stay focused on possible
solutions sinGe they don't agree on the problem. These meetings occurred on:
May 27 approximately one hour,
June 14 over property line wall about 20 minutes,
June 19 Mr. Lutsko called mediation firms for information and costs,
June 22 information on mediation services and cost faxed to the Daven::>orts
. .
June 24 Lutsko set up another meeting and verified with Davenoort that the mediation
iroformation fax was received. and
June 25 about one and one-half hours.
Tne Davenports have insisted the meetings be on their property, and have refused to look at
the material used on the Lutsko side. The only time Mr. Davenport called us was to cancel one
meeting which was re-scheduled.
~
,
i
t
Mr. and Mrs. Davenport, whose construction actions necessitated this Variance for a Safety
Screen as documented in the Planning Department recommendation, have continually refused
to pay for any costs to remedy this situation on their side. have refused to choose a covering to
cover the ;:>Iywood or to use the hawaiian material used by the Lutskos. and have refused to pay
d.-6
. ~ _".. .< , - "n
ATTACHMENT "C"
~-
-~~~J\t%~~~~#?~t~jj~;~1f~~~~~-~~~~_Y~ "."
~~
:-_.-~<, }~:::;;~~;}~"
~"':._~~>-;\--:"'~-..-~. .~,
FROM : <00
~.- ---"~
~--~~--. --. ----~
FAX NO.
"8""008800000
2100
_"';"u.! .
2.32: -=- -=-:
Page 2 - Lutsk" - 7/17/01
their half ,,( the cost for a mediator's services maintaining they wouid not say anything !O 2
mediator they would not say to the Lutskos, and they would not go to mediation. Mr. Lutskc
contacted several mediators and chose the most reasonably oriced one: Mr. James Greer :Jf
Greer & Associates, Phone: (858) 481-9006. We are providing copies of Mr. Gree(s faxed
resume and costs-note the fax date to us of June 19, 2001.
REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SURVEY SUBMITTED BY MR DAVENPORT
We contacted San Diego Land SurveYing and Engineering, and spoke with Herman Batman
regarding the survey conducted with Mr. Davenport holding the sighting stick for the surveyor.
The Kappa Surveying Company only sent out one man to do the survey. Mr. Batman with
SDLSE said in order to insure the validity of their surveys they send out their own two man
teams. He said his company would never have the owner of one property hold the
sighting stick, as a slight movement one way or the other could affect the validity of the
survey, Therefore, we cannot assume the survey submitted by Mr. Davenport is valid. We are
requesting an impartial survey to be conducted with only company representatives inv:Jlved anc
with neither property owner involved in any w2Oy.
..'
A.!
-.- ~ .' -,
~~~~'~~~:'~~~:7::
-.--.
;::-. ='::~~:;1
'03
.C-.f;;;NO~V:. ~~.",.e0a~"""'~~
0""" "'~ ..0. ..", U v_-,-, .~.--,.,~-.^_.~'>:..... ....c._.-:..,u~ ~.~- ":-'~;~~""--;~_'c~~r:."..._~?t-'c_':_-'''--~"".:.'_~...,.f
..J;..n-l9-Cl )2:2;4P
86648152'60
p.D2
J""""A. Gr<:cr. UII-
GREER. & ASSOCIATES
1125 CIII'IliDD del Mar, SWlc I)
Dot Mar, CaJirorala 9JDI4-](,.j!:
'~_'''''''otoW
."~a1.-J.QQ)
PROFI>SSIONAI, CIJRRTClIL!JM VITAE. MEDI.....TOR
~Q'AI EXDe'ric.Q~el
In 1986 Mr. Groer beogan his e."nplu)omclU &:.s ~"l...itiBa.1ion Counsc!" fOT I:i :op..tO!1. ~d
Construction Cunf:-ac:or Ant! Devolo?eT in San Dje.gn County. His cuties Were rdatcd b.~Jr:ly to
Cun5tI1Jctio~ Real n~aLe, and L&no Ul;e mattc:s.
In J 9&9. he .u>ned hi. own u,w I'lnn dedicated to cJient~c inv"l~ed in thc speci"liz(;(j
e.rea.s of COnst:1JCtiDn and Real Esta.te. Over ':.h~ ::(\Ui~& of tl1e nc;d len years. !\..ir. Grcc;
employed upward. ofthcee ....sooi.tc snomey. and together tky succe..ful1y handled In ,"'cess of
1500 constf'Jction-:ehtta! a.nd real esta:e-:.clated file..
In the p~s: foune"" ~, MI. Greer has ac:umui~t"d e>.'\znsi.e 1itigatiofl cxperience in
every conceivable type: of con.str'JQion ctaim (cons;tf~(...\b:1 co:nraCll', coostruction deret;~I:i.
t:.ontrllC"..or perfom12.."'\c.e issuf:$, oc-::hi:=:.cturat and engi.'"l~ri:lB iSS;U~b. C.s, I.. B. ig~Ue.S, uenr.,''bond
chCms, t.nd 111: like); and has &uDstBr.tiaJ expcri~Dce litigf.ting numerou,; real CS\i1c case. (broker
i~C8. C9..!!::rnenLt, purcr.as.clsaJe CO:ltra.ct i!sl.IC5:, Jlt}d title ;~$Ur4nCe is~u:..s).
Mr. Gre~'1:i ~Cd.rcer gca!' is to undertake A [rttn~it;on tLWB). fram l:tig.e.ticn ~nd ~<i,)w.t1rd ful~o
time practic6 e.s Z1 Mediator in Lhe states ofCaiifomu~. nod CotoraC~
PI rout.. Re>olutioD F,lcerienu:
Mr. Gr= has b:c:\ conducting mediations ,,;nee 1994, i." California and CoJo:ado, :i2kLY
ir. the field of conslruct;:m and resl estate. His """claed includes Superior Court "'si!lned cases,
snd private party litig<:tian a"d pr....i;t;gation mattc!". ^" ofthc end cf2000, o""r 90 C:lSCS ha.e
b~ mediated. (L:h~ of a 8ampli!1K of sub.i~! n!ftt'h:rs :-ncdiat::d ap?ear~ on !'econa P~j;).c).
&dut!JItionnl BJtckwrou"d:
J.D. Uruv..r:;ity "fSan Diogo u.,... '>;cnDol b 19&6
M.A.P.A. Un:ven;hyoflowain 19K;.C1ImLawde
(Mas:c,. of Am in Public ArlmirU.l.:at;<>n)
SA. Univer"'ty ofTowa il1 19&1 (dovhl. major .9aci~or Df Arts ir.
E,,:-unomi::s and Po1itit.::'o!! Scit:J1czj
MedllttiOh FAtuulionJ ,noi"ln!<:
F4CUlly Spulccr, National In..,itut: of!"!usine",
Academy ofDisputc ~olutior.
American Arbilration ks"ciat:::>'"1
Alternative Dispute ResQlut;on Commil.tee, Son Diego Bar
A1lerna.ti....o D1l:?u:c ROl;ulur.io;'} prosrams.. T'..re.nv:r Be.;
-".~-rbitration &: Mbdiiltion Lntornatio~ A6:trnti"n Training
Cnnt;nu;ng Eriucati"" of the B!lJ', C'.a)ifornia
(presemed "",uinars in OOJIi>lruoti"n law)
(42 hours)(cc,"rification ~ Civil MlOdilitor)
(12 hours, bel. Ar'oitrati"n Training)
(exc"",,, of iO ho"".)
(IS ho",.)
(14 hours)(CSLB cc.-:jfication)
(45 J10Llt'S in A.DR. tOlIcatiOI1)
Fee &.hethlles;
Mediator r"te" S: SO.OO pcr hour (minimum depooi, i, S~OO.OO (Iutlll) for two-party manor e.&d
SJ 000.00 for mulLi~;J.t!rty Jluttt.cr). Tr!!.vel charg~~ a.ru::! ~r diem fo!" out-of-c-ounty mediations
l-a-
;:-:.. ~:J "':
';:~.
:,....
..
FA>:' ;c,:- .i.- -"
<CJi:J
....' .....'.....
0un-19-01 12:24P
8564816250
P.03
M ~mb~hinti 4. mUafion'!;:
o San Diego County Bar Associ.lion ('S.D.CB.A.")
· Consruetion 1-iIW 5""tlon. S.D.C.B.A.
· AIt<:rnUivc DI.putcR<>salutian S=tion. S.D.C.B.A.
. koaJ Property Law Seetion, S.DC.BA
. Client-Rc!.tiooe Con1mlttc/J. S.D.C.BA
. State Of{'..olorado Bar A..ociorion
· Del Mar M~illtion Committee
· SQcioty Of ProfoasionsJ& In Dispute Re!'io:ullon, San j>icgo Cilftp~er
· Society Of Professionals In Dil;pute Resolution. Denvel Ch.~tcl
· Southern C&liforni.. Mediation Aosoci81ian
LiN>n .(n'r'::
Atlorney - c"lifonua Sar Association: since 19&7
Attorney - Colorado Bar A1;sociation : .since J 996
Fede~ District Court (So. Cal.) : since 1987
~Rmnlinp of ~tibiect matter of CJt:JC!; handll"d:
· Litigation over use of casomcn: for property =.. Del Mar
· .'l.lulrl.party IIUA Urigation reg.a.-ding oon>1ru~1iDn Cefecls. San Dieso
· LiligJltion over alleged failure to disclose pro;>er!y de'''.t.. Rancho San:.. Fe
· GC:!l~raJ Can1r8c~or delay c1aim~ ag.a.jn~~ I:~bcontrac'lor, OEvBt1hain
· Commercial R~8.1 EstRte matte:- involving a.soc:sros i~~u~s, E-ncinhas
· Developer claims again<t architect (private parties). Valley Cent"r
· ! Jomcowncrs" claims over vq;etation n"lainte:nancc on CommOn boundary, De1 Mar
· LitigBlior. Ov.... f.ailure to Cis:::!o&c dc:factlvc construction, Solana Beach
· H.G.A. 1idsttion ~v(';r il'npcru1is;sibJe architectural c:e:::gnlir..staJ1ation, Rn;iflia.s
· Litigation by multi.patty ! !omoownen; asain'l develope: for defbcts, tim:lnit~.
· Subca:ttractor mechank's Ii"" daim against General 2nd Owner (private panies), R.SE.
· Condominium OWller litigAtion fDr allegd dercclh-e H.D.."'. repairs. La ]o!!wUTC
· 13:-okcr comnu$.sion c1aim Wi Ipt"Dcuring: cause' (private p:.rtif$), Del Ma:--
· Homeowner litio:ati,," fDr dcf=ive archit=ural and c"gineering. R.S.F.
· Lhigation o,,~ fe.llurt 1u cii~do~e p::rt"its. tor swlmming pool, Sol,an,a Be.:ach
· L.itigation over fai1~n;- tu identify &::pti~ lc::at.iolL!)im.italir>n. R.S.F.
· Litigation over code dcficiencic~ in origi:ull constructiun, La 10lla
· LitjB~tinn r.y Homeowner cJnimi:n3 D~W'~l(}pcr vio}atcd grariing pcrmit~ En~nhas
· Litiss.tion with City Over deficient F.IR by nclghboring Owne,", San Diego
· Subcontractor dwms fur nOJ'I-~}TIlcnt of Exiras~ La. ]o]Ju
· Buyer c!!lim against Broker for alleged fai1t:fc 10 dis~losc (private panies). Oliv.nhaffi
· j .iti!;1ltion by RD.""'. against owncr for rer.ci~.g $tyle, !;o;iITla tlca:h
· Lot split ue.'1wi cia.im~ n~(ig::nt ~Aiflst C~ty~ San Dj~t:o
· I rQrne.own~ d:::i';11S of defective and I1bJlJ'ldoncd pt:.nonm~:u:e (pr;vil.!c p~.tiCc~)~ Dd Mnr
. Rc.tIJ:;.ing waLIl and fence mRime:Il~lIce dM.ftnp.; (privtrt.c panies), De! Mnr
· Dr);p:.rt~ over pa)'n'lCht to AIoc:hiLe:t and counters by Owner (pii"f\tc pa..."ies)~ Encirul2.::>
. Hmncowncr claims agaillS! Subc:.>ntraclUr (privztc parties), La Jona
· Seller dain, again", Broker ror neglig."". (private parties), Del Mar
. Lit:gation invohinz surety on Stop NOlie.: It.dea,e Bond. San Diegu
· Dispute: (private partit::s::) o\l~r common boundHry locatio~ a..~d us:.a, Del M.ar
~-:;
LUTSKO VARIANCE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION RE CASE NUMBER ZAV-01-18
Provided by Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko
The most important fact to realize is that we had a property line wall of legal height
prior to our neighbor making modifications to his property which made us in violation
of the fence height code for yards with pools and endangered our SAFETY by his
installation of a permanent, hazardous, commercial batting cage approximately
75' long x 10' wide x 15' high and electronic ball propelling machine in a Residential
Estate Zone.
On May 16, we picked up a copy of the Planning Department's recommendation to the Planning
Commission. We noticed our color photos of our neighbor's hazardous situation, which were
submitted with our variance application, were omitted We feel these pictures would give you a
better understanding of this unusual situation, so we have made more color copies for your
better understanding.
THIS SAFETY SCREEN WILL BE ABOUT 6 FEET 6 INCHES ON MUCH OF MR. DAVENPORT'S
SIDE DUE TO THE MODIFICATIONS HE MADE TO HIS PROPERTY.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE THREATENED OUR LIFE, PROPERTY, HEALTH AND
SAFETY BY HIS INSTALLATION OF A COMMERCIAL BATTING CAGE WITH A
PROFESSIONAL BALL PROPELLING MACHINE.
1. This structure sits above the top of our fence level
2. The batting cage is pointed directly into our yard.
3. Balls travel up to 100-125 mph.
4. We are frequently picking up these hard 3 inch balls in our yard.
5. One ball missed our son's head by inches I
6. This structure was COMPLETED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.
7. The ball propelling machine was never permitted.
8. No variance was ever required for this commercial batting cage, or the attached
deck which is built within the10 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone and
situated within about 9 inches of our fence.
9. This enclosure measures about 3,000 square feet-height/length/width.
THE DAVENPORT'S HAVE, WITHOUT A PERMIT, MODIFIED THE USE OF AN EXISTING
PERMITTED WALL TO BE A RETAINING WALL, AND HAVE, WITHOUT PERMITS,
ATTACHED A 10' x 12' STRUCTURE, PLANTERS, AND STAIRS TO THE WALL.
~!
Lutsko -2
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS PUT US IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE FOR FENCE HEIGHT
FOR YARDS WITH POOLS:
1. He backfilled his pool dirt along and against the property line wall, modifying the use
of a permitted structure to a retaining wall, raised the elevation of his property
thereby lowering the height of the wall.
2. He added large 2' 6" high permanent planter boxes further reducing the height of the wall.
3. He constructed his deck so that the floor of the deck is above the top of the 5 foot
property line fence and within the 10 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone--
therefore, no fence height exists at this area and the deck sits about 9 inches from our
property line fence
4. His dog has trespassed into our yard frequently and in the middle of the night
confronting our dogs due to the low height of the wall.
MR. DAVENPORT'S CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MODIFICATIONS HAVE VIOLATED
CODES IN OUR OPINION, AND NOTHING WAS DONE TO MAKE HIM CORRECT HIS
ACTIONS AFTER WE AT VARIOUS TIMES REPORTED THESE ACTIONS TO THE CITY.
THE CITY DID MAKE HIM APPLY FOR THE PERMIT FOR THE BATTING CAGE AFTER WE
CALLED ABOUT THE MASSIVE STRUCTURE, AND ALSO APPLY FOR RENEWALS FOR
THOSE PERMITS THAT HAD EXPIRED SOME YEARS EARLIER.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
FOR THE FIRST SAFETY SCREEN WHICH WE WERE ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN BY
SOME CITY PERSONNEL. WE ESTIMATE THE COST OF COMPLETING OUR SIDE WILL
BE BETWEEN $10,000 TO $12,000. WE WOULD NOT INCUR THIS EXPENSE IF IT WERE
NOT FOR OUR NEIGHBOR'S ACTIONS! WE FEEL IT IS UNJUST AND UNFAIR FOR US
TO HAVE TO INCUR SUCH A LARGE EXPENSE IN ORDER TO HAVE SAFETY AND
COMPLY WITH CODES WHEN WE WERE NOT AT FAULT. SINCE THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA PERMITTED THE BATTING CAGE RETROACTIVELY, AND REQUIRED NO
VARIANCE HEARING, WE FEEL IT IS FAIR AND JUST FOR US TO REQUEST THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA REIMBURSE US FOR THE ACTUAL COST TO MAKE OUR PROPERTY
SAFE AND MEET THE FENCE HEIGHT CODE.
WE DO APPRECIATE MR. JIM SANDOVAL'S PERMISSION ON MAY 2 TO TEMPORARILY RE.
ATTACH SOME OF THE PANELS TO TRY TO KEEP MR. DAVENPORT'S DOG IN HIS YARD.
WE BELIEVE IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANDIOR PLANNING COMMISSION HAD
BEEN ABLE TO PROPERLY REVIEW MR. DAVENPORT'S MODIFICATIONS TO HIS
PROPERTY PRIOR TO HIS BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS
HAZARDOUS SITUATION ALLOWED BY RETROACTIVELY PERMITTING THE BATTING
CAGE, AND THE OTHER MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHICH PUT
US IN VIOLATION OF FENCE HEIGHT, ETC.
~~
Lutsko - 3
If I were a Planning Commission member considering this case I would be asking myself many
questions about the situation on 283 Bonita Canyon Drive--some of which might be:
"How did Mr. and Mrs. Davenport at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive get approval for this
hazardous commercial batting cage with an electronic ball propelling machine, as well
as the other construction projects with no variance for any project, and no inspections
for many such as the deck pilings, and in the case of the batting cage---no permit
prior to construction?" THE BATTING CAGE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AFTER
CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED, AND SIGNED OFF WITH NO VARIANCE!
"Realizing that Mr. Davenport, at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive, is a licensed contractor,
and should know the proper procedures prior to construction of acquiring a permit, why did
he build structures without first applying for a permit, or without applying for a variance?"
"Why is a permanent structure commercial grade batting cage measuring about 75 feet
long by 10 feet wide and over 15 feet in height as measured from the highest point to
the finished grade allowed in a Residential Estate Zone?"
"Why is the total square footage of this structure when considering the enclosed area-
(height/length/width) about 3,000 SQUARE FEET, approaching the square footage size
of another house on the lot?" The approximate 3,000 square feet of this chain link
structure are visible 4 % miles away from South Bay Freeway!
"Why did the Davenports not list the electronic commercial grade ball propelling
machine on their batting cage permit applied for after construction?" This machine
should have had a public hearing for SAFETY.
"Why don't the Davenports have a 10 foot set back on either side of their property as
required in the Residential Estate Zone?"
"Why is the Davenport's complaint about the LUTSKO SAFETY SCREEN HEIGHT given so
much precedence over the Lutsko SAFETY ISSUE regarding life and property due to the
commercial batting cage?"
"Why were the Davenports allowed to jeopardize the safety of their neighbors, the
Lutsko family, with this batting cage pointed directly into the neighbor's property?"
"Why is it that these actions of a neighbor modifying his yard are allowed by the City to
put the other innocent neighbor in violation of fence height and SAFETY, and it is the
innocent neighbor who has to apply for the variance and pay for the fence to make it
once again of legal height and safe within their yard?"
"When the City realized that the batting cage was constructed, and could be hazardous
and controversial, why did the CITY not REQUIRE THE DAVENPORTS TO APPLY
FOR A VARIANCE as they have required the Lutsko family to apply for a variance for their
SAFETY SCREEN TO PROTECT THEMSELVES from the Davenports' actions?" This
would have been equal treatment and allowed public input.
~\o
Lutsko - 4
"Why has the intent of the Legislative Zoning Procedures not been followed because
the City allowed Mr. Davenport's property modifications to infringe on our SAFETY and
the ability to use our property for its intended use safely and without our property
value declining due to safety issues and this hazardous, unsightly, huge structure
blocking the view for which we paid a premium price?"
"Why is it that structures, like the batting cage which was built without a permit or variance
prior to construction beginning, are allowed to stand just because they are already
constructed, but the FIRST SAFETY SCREEN necessitated by the hazards of this batting
cage was not allowed to remain while the variance was applied for and during the variance
process?"
"Why does the City not require the Davenports to remove their batting cage, deck,
stairs, tile roof structure and planter boxes while they apply for a variance for these
structures--equal treatment?"
"Why is the Lutsko family at 281 Bonita Canyon Drive having to spend thousands of
dollars to protect themselves from their neighbor's hazardous batting cage, as well as
enduring all the stress of living next to a hazardous batting cage, and having to spend
precious time presenting a justification in writing why they should be allowed to
protect themselves.
"Why are we not allowed to protect ourselves and property from this hazard?"
"Why is it that the Davenports have been allowed to keep:
a. the deck with the 6 foot tall pilings, the depth was not inspected prior to
installation, and included on the batting cage permit for retroactive approval,
b. the non-permitted stairs, which are attached to the existing property line wall
and the deck, modifying the use of a permitted property line wall and within
the 10 foot set back for side yards and NOT considered "on grade,"
c. the 10 by 12 foot tiled roof structure attached to the fence, modifying the use
of an existing permitted property line masonry wall and within the 10 foot side
yard set back,
d. and the permanent planter boxes 2' 6" high attached to the existing masonry
wall which further lowers the height of the existing property line wall violating
Municipal Code 15.48 fences for yards with pools-
all of which are also in violation of the 10 feet side yard set back for a Residential Estate
Zone?"- See19.22.070, and 108.5.2 and other code violations.
"Why is it that AFTER the City gave final approval of the property line masonry wall, Mr.
Davenport is allowed to modify the use of a permitted and approved masonry wall
designated as a property line wall by attaching structures to it and changing it to a
retaining wall with no variance or permit applied for to do so?" i.e. the 10 foot by 12 foot
tile roof structure and the stairs leading to the deck. Also, the piling up of the excavated
pool dirt making it more of a retaining wall which also modifies the use of the
permitted wall, and permanent planter boxes 2' 6" high which further decreases the
height of the wall. The City knows about these issues and has done nothing to try to
rectify the violations-no after-the-fact variance, no public hearing, no hassle.
L~I
Lutsko - 5
"Why is it that on at least a half a dozen occasions we offered to the City Officials to go
with the Davenports to a mediation to see if the mediator could help resolve the
violations, determine what modifications will be made to the Davenport property to
comply with the Code, and what we will be allowed to do to protect ourselves, and
nothing ever was done to help us-no mediation or meeting was ever set up?"
"Why is it that no one acknowledges that, should there be a necessity for emergency
personnel to gain access to the lower portion in the canyon of the Davenport's lot, the
only known access is by an 8 foot ladder leaned up against the north side of the deck-
this is due to all the massive construction across the width of his lot-including the
batting cage."
d-~
- -. - -
~:,: ,1 _",~~~._'::.'
Ie"
'" ~ ...: .; -';::~~'"
1. North East view from house toward Lutsko deck and pool showing Hawaiian cheme
Note Hawaiian theme with palm trees. etc orevalls throughout our neighborhood
Lot 585 bactJngcage
,-'/ .-
i
,
2
. =-~.# ~
;-;~r~
North East view from Luts~,'-' d~rk r'L,-,+ ='R~, r d d ~
. 'v ~~ .ve v_v' ,owar a JOining yaru (Lot 585) snowing
aCJolnlng 10i with deck ana batting cage
J-q
L~ts~:, "v/aiiar-:::::e
Phc:~ I';t~ac~lment
Paos "1 8i ::
_::::;: ::,j= .::iGC:-::'SS .::..:;..: =,2~~::d ;,-,d~lY(jr L.Jrl'v~
L::: ~s: ::::=:"
i ,-. =,;::(=: ~;::!~~'r~, r'a~~
:...Jl -''-'....' ..)....,_II!';:j ',-, ~::;
----
3. View from North to South standing on Lutsko property Note batting cage ocenlng
facing west toward Lutsko property and deck of Lot 585 above the top of the '3 foot
property line chain link fence.
Lot 585 batting cage
------- -
Property line chain link fence top
4 View East from Lutsko cr,aln link oroperty line fence showing (Lot 585 i deck he.,:::nt
above the 6 foot hloh c~aln link orooertv line fence and Qattlno caoe door ooerlng
facing Lutsko DrOp~rty ... :::> D - - .
L...;ts.-<',: \.1.:::: ;::"'"'::::e
P'lC:: ,6,::2:~~le::
Peo:; .::. :r'" -=
:J Shows nelgrmors dog or, neighbor s deck stairs I Lot 385 i ao!e to look over eXisting
:Jrooe::v 'ine 'Nail towar: LUISko orooer;v !Lot OOQ
~X:Sl]ng ::XDoery line
Dalaoa ooverec
Safeyy Screen
~i
-'
It.
~
:,'!~\,I\' from LJtsko orc)De~:':v' caST S:lOvvlng eX:STtrg ~2!aC2 covers'~ :,rooenv ilne
0aT'::::'~V Sr"....::::..:::.n INI....., LJ ~ !~ ,,"",, ..;; N ...,... - , '
~_ ........ _,-,,' l" ;-1:::::11\._1,_,'""'1 me,', I .'""to:=. I......,.., -.r ..........-r-......jl'............ c:-~. ,.....
..--' _ " . ~. -'" "II ~. ....... .......L ~', ~'I '-".....''::::,.: '1;'= vC: SlV :Jcreer: :5
~e!O\i'\I LutSKO oalaca .:;;:::"-r-- i~of le"lSi ,6.,;5.: '""'1" - ~n\,V 'F:::' I .~- S-:--..:.. ",
.n. .' , " '-"''-"' . ,I~.:::: '-'~ " '-"' ; ,I I'::::" C::::;,'/ ::::;creen :Jlencs
,Nll~ :ne ianCSCaD!0;; J'
L' I.~V- 'j:::~>~i:::-==
phiOTC ,.::..::eC~:ie~:
P:c:: 3 :,T ::
RON AND SONA LUTSKO
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
FACTS SUPPORTING THE NEED FOR A STABLE, SECURE, SAFE MASONRY WALL TO
BE PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN THE LUTSKO AND DAVENPORT
PROPERTIES. THE WALL SHOULD BE SIX FEET HIGH AS MEASURED FROM THE
DAVENPORT SIDE OF THE WALL AT THE HIGHEST POINT, THE DECK. IN ADDITION
TO SAFETY, THIS SOLID WALL NEEDS TO MEET THE AESTHETIC APPEARANCE OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE LUTSKO BACK YARD.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Davenport, neighbor to the Lutskos, is a licensed contractor in the state of California.
His business is "Lemon Grove Stucco." Therefore, we believe he is well aware of the proper
procedures to follow when building or making additions to a property, and the need to get a
permit prior to beginning building. The permits which he allowed to expire were not
renewed until after the Lutskos complained to the City of Chula about the batting cage
structure in January of 1999.
The intent of the Legislative Zoning Procedures is as stated in Section 19.12.010: "... in
the interests of public health, safety, and general welfare" "It is intended that these
procedures will protect the public welfare and sound community planning and to assure the
maximum deQree of protection for individual property riQhts." We believe Mr.
Davenport's property modifications are infringing on our SAFETY and the ability to use our
property for its intended use, due to the City not enforcing the current codes.
We believe, had the Davenports followed the proper procedure of permits prior to building,
we would not have the problems which exist today. If permits were applied for prior to
building, the City of Chula Vista would not have allowed a hazardous commercial batting
cage to be situated on a property so that it propels the balls into another yard at 125 miles
per hour. The City of Chula Vista also would not have allowed the building of structures next
to the wall separating our property within the 10 foot side yard set back, or allow the
elevation of the adjoining property to be raised 22 inches next to our wall, so that the wall no
longer meets the code requirement for pools. In addition, the height of the batting cage wall
if measured from the low end of the slope is probably over the 15 foot limit. See copies of
permits attached and photos 9 through 20 showing Mr. Davenport's deck floor at the top of
our fence, stairs attached and built within the 10 foot set back on a side yard.
IMPORTANT FACT: The Lutsko Hawaiian motif matted wooden safety wall extension
added to the solid wall in place, if measured from the Davenport's side at their highest
point, the deck, was in compliance with the six foot rule for fences and walls in our belief.
However, Mr. Chavez said he did not think Mr. Davenport would allow him to go into his
yard.
~ -,
')~
Lutsko - 2
POSSIBLE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO OUR SAFETY NEEDS
Since Mr. Davenport has what we believe to be SERIOUS SAFETY and CODE
VIOLATIONS, THE DAVENPORTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD SOLID, SAFE,
SECURE WALL AT THEIR EXPENSE-ONE WHICH ALSO MEETS THE ASTHETIC
APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR HAWAIIAN MOTIF. THE HEIGHT
OF THIS WALL IS TO BE MEASURED FROM THEIR SIDE AT THE HIGHEST POINT, THE
DECK, AND MUST MEET THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT FOR A SWIMMING
POOL OF AT LEAST 6 FEET AT ALL POINTS, PROVIDED THIS MEETS THE SAFETY
ISSUES OF THE BALLS FROM THE BATTING CAGE. ADDITIONAL HEIGHT MAY BE
REQUIRED. IMPORTANT: THE MEASUREMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE
HIGHEST POINT OF ELEVATION IN THEIR YARD-THE DECK.
PRESENTATION OF SOME OF THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS OF THE LUTSKOS
ISSUE: The City of Chula Vista allowed Mr. and Mrs. Davenport to build structures
which we believe violate city codes and definitely pose a safety hazard to our life and safety
and the lives and safety of any visitors and our pets.
Violations include: 19.22.020 Commercial Batting Cage is not a permitted use in an
RE zone. Balls 100-125 miles per hour.
19.22.060 Height violation for batting cage.
19.22.070 Side yard requirement of ten feet is not adhered to
19.22.140 Fencing Requirements (19.58.150 for RE) and
Municipal Code Section 15.48.
CCR Violations and City Noise code violations
ISSUE: In 1996 Mr. and Mrs. Davenport made a concrete structure about 70 feet by 10
feet which we could see from our deck. No further modifications were made for about two
years-we had no knowledge of its proposed future use. In December 1998, when we saw
the tall support poles going up for a fence of sorts, we realized this must be some type of
sports structure and notified the City of Chula Vista. Our concerns were never answered
specifically, but the City discovered that Mr. and Mrs. Davenport needed to pull permits and
we understand they were fined. Mr. Davenport, due to his profession, knew of the proper
procedures for permitting for building, so this should not have occurred.
-, ~
'") .
Lutsko - 3
ISSUE: The City of Chula Vista never notified us of any proposed variance (if there
was a variance) which would allow a commercial grade batting cage to be constructed on
Mr. And Mrs. Davenport's property. If a variance were requested, we would have been able
to attend a hearing to express our concerns. The permit was not pulled until 2/24/99, and
construction began in 1996. The ball machine and batting cage are placed east to west, so
that the machine propels the balls at 100-125 miles per hour toward and into our property.
MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE -IF PHYSICAL INJURY OCCURS, WHO IS LIABLE, THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR ALLOWING THE BATTING CAGE OR
MR. DAVENPORT?
NOTE: This batting cage is of such proportions that it can be seen from Sweetwater
Road, miles away.
ISSUE: ANOTHER SAFETY ISSUE-the horseshoe pit ending at our fence and just
opposite our safety glass enclosure for our deck. If there is no safety wall, an errant
horseshoe could smash the glass injuring anyone on the deck.
ONCE AGAIN, WHO is LIABLE, THE CITY OF CHULA ViSTA FOR NOT INSISTING
ON A SAFETY WALL INSTALLATION, OR THE DAVENPORTS?
ISSUE: We believe Mr. And Mrs. Davenport have been allowed to pull permits
retroactively after their modifications to their property were either partially or completely
made-the batting cage permit was applied for 2/24/99, construction began in 1996.
Therefore, the City of Chula Vista was not in control of the quality and quantity of structures
added to an RE zoned property.
For instance, we believe they installed the concrete pilings for their deck before the permit
was pulled-in picture 4 of the concrete structure, pilings are slightly visible behind the
bushes, this would have been in 1996. These concrete pilings to support the deck are
approximately six feet high and on a slope. WE ARE ASKING, "Did Mr. Davenport comply
with the "5 foot to day light rule" with his six supporting pilings for his deck?" Heavy
machinery would have been required to drill the extensive holes to meet this requirement of
construction on a slope. If this deck collapses due to land slide or a heavy rain, will it fall
into our property and fence or go down the hill?
::; y.-
Lutsko - 4
ISSUE: Mr. And Mrs. Davenport have been allowed to move the dirt from their pool
excavation to raise the elevation of their yard by placing this pool dirt next to the wall
between our properties so that the 6 foot wall on our side (Lutsko) is only 42 inches on their
side measured from the top of the wall to their deck over the dirt. This presents another
safety issue and Municipal Code Violation. Section 15.48 (Pool Security Ordinance) which
states that "The pool or spa must be entirely surrounded by an fence or wall not less than
five (5) feet in height MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE." If you measured our fence from
the outside-which would be on Mr. and Mrs. Davenport's property, it would only be 42
inches in height on the deck area. See photo of the Davenport's dog looking over the fence
while sitting on the deck, photo 19.
SAFETY CONCERN AS WELL AS SECURITY AND PRIVACY ISSUES DUE TO 42 INCH
WALL. Prior to the Lutskos adding the wooden Hawaiian motif wall, there was also an issue
of safety, security, and privacy as the Davenports and Mr. Davenport's brother could and did
step over the 42 inch wall (measured from Davenport side) into our yard and did trespass in
the night without our permission or knowledge to use our spa, leaving their beer cans, cooler
and trash-this was prior to their pool being built. The Lutskos filed a police report as we
did not know who had been in the yard. It was later we found out it was the Davenports
when Sona asked him if he knew who might have been in the yard or heard anything. They
wrote an apology, but the issue is that anyone visiting their yard could do the same thing if
there is not appropriate wall height. The 5-<3 FOOT SAFETY WALL IS NECESSARY.AS
MEASURED FROM THE DAVENPORT SIDE AT THEIR HIGHEST POINT, THE DECK.
ISSUE: Mr. and Mrs. Davenport maintain this wall is their wall because they allege it is
on their property and he pulled the permit. We maintain it is a joint wall because we
arranged for the construction of the wall as you will see from the copy of the billing
addressed to us. Mr. and Mrs. Davenport and Mr and Mrs. Lutsko each paid half of the
cost incurred by the other party. Therefore, we paid half of the permit cost and Mr. And Mrs.
Davenport paid half of the construction cost. Thus it is a jointly owned wall.
ISSUE: The deck construction on the Davenport property violates the City Code as it is
next to our wall separating the property within the 10 foot side set back-the railing for the
stairs touches the wall. Also, we have a great concern that the deck is not properly
supported to code so that if it collapses it will either go into our wall and possibly our
property or down the hill. See pictures 10 and 11.
~s-
Lutsko - 5
WE ARE ASKING, "Did Mr. Davenport comply with the "5 foot to day light rule" with his six
supporting pilings for his deck?" Heavy machinery would have been required to drill the
extensive holes to meet this requirement. If this deck collapses due to a land slide or a
heavy rain, will it fall into our property and fence or go down the hill?
ISSUE: Has the City of Chula Vista checked to see if Mr. Davenport's construction
meets the 40% rule of "allowable floor area" noted in 19.22.070? Since section 19.22.070
is more restrictive, it should govern over section 19.22.160.
ISSUE: We have had great difficulty receiving in writing from the City of Chula Vista a
definition of what Mr. Cordell Chavez perceives the problem to be with the safety wall we
installed and a lack of sensitivity to address our concerns. We have had no written or verbal
answer to any of our questions and concerns regarding the safety issues on the Davenport
property, as well as possible code violations, or who will be held liable should a person be
hit with a ball from the machine or a horseshoe from their side.
1. We received a door hanger on May 30, 2000 from the City that we were in
violation of the wall height-complaint by Mr. Davenport.
2. July 25, 2000 we faxed Mr. Chavez asked for written reply.
3. No written reply until November 30, 2000 when we were instructed to comply
within 2 weeks by removing the wall.
4. Mr. Chavez was not willing to negotiate the time to comply or continue the
investigation, due to the holidays and our work schedule, so we complied within
the time allotted up to the SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE BALLS AND HORSESHOES.
However, now the wall does not comply with the Municipal Code 15.48.
ISSUE: CCR violation and City Noise Code violations regarding speakers mounted on
the wall separating our properties. Police have had to be summoned during the night when
a request by the Lutskos to turn down the volume resulted in profanity from Mr. Davenport.
We have been told by neighbors houses away they could hear the loud music. We had to
move our family room contents from its original location near the Davenport residence and
make that our dining room, in order to get further away from the noise problem.
ISSUE: These properties are zoned Residential Estates, and with Mr. Davenport's
unsafe modifications, which we believe also violate the City Codes, the value of our property
is considerably decreased. We paid for a "view lot" and no longer enjoy the view we had
from our deck before these unsightly unsafe modifications of the Davenport's were made---
see pictures 2 and 3 which include the mountain no longer visible due to structures. The
SAFETY VIOLATIONS will definitely adversely affect our property value.
~h
Lutsko - 6
SOLUTION PROCESS
1. We are requesting written documentation as to the matters discussed in this meeting on
December 20, 2000, including who was present in the meeting, who has been assigned
to investigate each matter, and the appropriate time table for each issue presented to be
resolved.
2. Until the City can determine an acceptable way to solve our safety issues, we are
requesting in writing from the City permission to leave the small portion of the safety
wooden wall to offer some protection the flying balls and horseshoes.
3. As the City investigates these matters, we request written documentation with specific
citations addressed when a conclusion is reached on each of the issues we have raised
at this meeting.
li
Lutsko - 7
HISTORY
Lutsko Property and Davenport Property
1992 Lutsko pool constructed.
1993 Lutsko deck constructed.
Davenport permit 7/9/93 PATIO COVER CITY STANDARD-permit expired and was
renewed in October 1999.
Davenport permit to ADD A SINK AND TWO ELECTRICAL OUTLETS 10/18/93 which
expired and was renewed in October 1999.
1994 Davenport applied for GUNITE POOL AND SPA permit 8/02/94 which expired and
was renewed in October 1999.
11/4/94 Davenport permit POOL BUILDING 200 SQUARE FEET AND PATIO
COVER 120-permit expired renewed October 1999. This building is believed to now
contain a sauna.
1996 Davenport constructed concrete walls seventy feet long and ten feet wide. No further
work was done for about two years.
1998 December 1998 construction of fencing on the concrete structure approximately an
additional 10 to 15 feet in height all around the concrete structure.
1999 January 1999 Lutsko called Planning Department regarding this structure in a
residential zone (RE) and what were the rules for such structures. Asked what was
the proposed use for this structure.
Cordell Chavez informed Davenport that he had outstanding permits not completed
and he would need a permit for this structure. At this point there was no deck or
stairs or sauna which is currently located in what he permitted for a "pool building 200
square feet". ANOTHER QUESTION, "Is there a permit for a sauna, and has it been
checked for safety and compliance with the building code?
Davenport applied for permit 2/24/99 for BATTING CAGE ENCLOSUREIDECK-
construction began in 1996.
?,'G
Lutsko - 8
Once Davenport completed the installation of the electronic equipment to propel the
balls our SAFETY ISSUES became evident. We informed Cordell Chavez of the
severe safety hazard, and the fact our son's head was missed by inches when a ball
came flying into our yard. We showed him numerous balls which we collected from
our yard. This is a commercial grade batting cage and electronic ball pitching
machine in a Residential Estate Zone!
2000 Cordell Chavez verbally told the Lutskos that we could screen it off for our protection.
Lutsko constructed 0/. inch construction grade plywood with a Hawaiian mat finish
which goes with the neighborhood landscaping, palm trees, and our Hawaiian theme
in our back yard. Lutsko offered Davenport the option to finish his side in a way
pleasing to his taste, at Davenport's cost.
Davenport complained to City of Chula Vista-he never discussed anything with
Lutsko
May 30, a door hanger was left by the City of Chula Vista on the door of the Lutsko
residence. We were told about the six foot fence/wall limit, however, the safety wall
constructed by Lutsko was within the code if measured from the Davenport side due
to the alteration of the elevation of the property level increasing it by at least 22
inches with the dirt from the pool excavation and the deck structure constructed-
measurement should have been taken from their highest point.
July 25, 2000 fax to Cordell Chavez from Ron and Sona Lutsko requesting specific
codes and information. No response in writing addressing our concerns.
August 24, 2000 City staff, Beverly and Joan, visited the Lutsko property. They could
not properly inspect the fence area down into the canyon as they did not wear the
appropriate shoes and clothing to walk in the dirt and iceplant.
September 22, 2000 Joan called Lutskos at work and verbally said we needed to take
the wall down because it does not fit into the neighborhood. Nothing was ever given
to us in writing as to specific code violations, or answers to our concerns.
October 31, 2000 Cordell Chavez called Ron and Sona Lutsko at 6:30 p.m. to ask
what they were going to do to remedy the situation.
3"1
Lutsko - 9
November 30, 2000 First written correspondence from Cordell Chavez. Does not
address the safety concerns of Ron and Sona Lutsko, or perceived code violations on
the Davenport property which the Lutskos asked Cordell to investigate. Letter orders
Lutsko to remove the wall within fourteen days. Cordell told Lutsko that no extension
of time would be granted, as his supervisor would not allow this.
Complying within the fourteen days ordered by Mr. Chavez, Ron Lutsko removed the
wooden Hawaiian motif wall from the wall separating the property, leaving the
SAFETY portion of the wooden wall at the back to protect the Lutsko property from
the fast flying balls propelled over the fence and horseshoes. This leaves the wall
separating the property, after the removal of the Hawaiian motif wooden fence, only
42 inches on the Davenport side which is in violation of the Municipal Code 15.48
requiring a fence to be measured from the outside (or the Davenport yard). Now, the
Lutsko pool is not protected as required by law because of the Davenport
modifications to his property.
The City was notified by Lutsko on December 11, requesting an inspection and sign-
off, that the Hawaiian motif wooden wall had been removed from the masonry wall in
order to comply with the City of Chula Vista's letter until such time as our concerns
could be addressed. Mr. Chavez verbally told the Lutskos, prior to sending the letter,
that removal of just this portion would be sufficient to comply with the codes until
other issues could be addressed.
Inspection was scheduled for Monday, December 18,2000, but a phone message was
left on our machine by Mr. Chavez that he "heard" all the wall still was not totally
removed and we had to remove the remaining wall portion. He never came out to see
the situation for himself to our knowledge. How can orders be issued with no visual
inspection and without addressing our serious SAFETY CONCERNS.
'-r- ()
FROM <00
FRX NO. 000000IJ0000
Jan. 022001 12::3PM Pl
To:
Cordell Chavez, City of Chula Vista
From:
Ron and Sana Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Fax/PhOne number: (619) 482-8066
Re:
1/2/01
Need to measure for legal height of r~aining SAFETY wall on
Lutsko property, 281 Bonita Canyon Dnve, measurement to be taken
from the Davenport prooerty per Municipal Code for oools.
Written permission to leave SAFE1Y wall up until acceptable corrective safety
and Code compliance measures are made on the Davenport property to meet
City Codes.
Date:
Thank you for the meeting on December 20,2000, aUowing us to present in writing
some of the serious SAFE1Y issues regarding our property as a result of Mr. and Mrs.
Davenport's property alterations. We have talked with you about these issues over the
last two yeal">, and hope putting our concems in writing will assist your understanding
regarding the seriousness of this situation.
Just a reminder, it is our belief that the legal height of our SAFETY wall is not yet known
because it has not been measureO by a City employee on the Davenport's property.
As stated on page 6 of our written presentation, we are requesting written permission to
leave our SAFETY wall standing until acceptable corrective SAFETY and Code
compliance measures are comoleted on the Davenport property.
If you are not in a position to grant this permission, we are requesting you provide uS in
writing the name or names (with phone numbers) of those who are in a position to grant
this permission to help insure our safety.
We are sure the City is interested in our safety, as well as in fair, equitable compliance
with the Codes. Since the City allowed these SAFETY/CODE violations, we feel it is only
fair that the City allow us to continue to protect ourselves with this SAFETY wall until the
investigation is completed, all issues are addressed, and corrective measures are
finalized.
Thank you again, and Happy New Year to all'
cc: Joan, Beverly, Dawn
Jf'!N-(I2- 2001 11 : 58 00000000000
P.01
Lfl
-
-- ' -'.--
~::./ I~'
-
__ ~,J;:C:
- .
r-RCY.1 <00
F:::;X N=:.
aJ32.300eBeea...~
000 ,~~. 22 2a2l ~2:2:~~ P:
To:
Beverly Blessent
From:
Ron and Sona Lutsko
Work: {8S8) 576-1767
Home: (619) 482-8065
Date:
5/22101
RE:
Expansion of safety screen request to amend length
We discovered that Mr. Davenport's planter boxes, which make our wall height not
comply with the code for yards with pools. start about 25 feet more toward the front
property line than listed in OUT plans submitted. but still start behind 75 feet r.om the
front property line.
In order that we =mply with the Municipal Code for yards with pools fully, we are
requesting to amend our proposal and add these additional feet to our original proposal
to make it a safety screen of approximately 137 feet in length. as per the plans
submitted.
ThanK you for all your help.
'-4-;
,~
~ ~
,.
-
5/11/01
To Our Neighbors,
On May 23, the'l,ITy of Chula Vista's Planning Department will be hearing our request to
install a safety screen or safety fence on our east property line-between 281 (our home)
and 283 Bonita Canyon Drive. This safety screen is necessary for safety in our yard.
This safety screen is required because our neighbor at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive (in
our Residential Estate Zone) installed a commercial batting cage about 75 feet long by
10 feet wide and over 15 feet in height which contains a ball propelling machine, and
raised the elevation of his property. T~j.~~~~~fi'i~etQ~~IE;II:
otlt:9f'~m;:\rliiJ;je;C!t'I~......ta.lcO~1O<:;7mibd'~,epM~~~'f';;~ctltieJtj9IP.:;;'are_0ge'IIetl,' f""
';"';'-~,}..;:"t"'~~~'~b~~O_4~,_~'~"'~~_"!;;:;~",,_,,~_,~::,~>~>~>,:~....""',c,-.-....:..A~~Ji!_.._- __ _ 'Y"..-c ",....,..... ~. _:,,-,'-1:r1;~
o~W~~~~f-~~~~g;'~~:;'.i~is could be a life and death matter.
The batting cage is so big it can be seen from the South Bay Freeway about 4 Y:, miles away.
What would you do if your neighbor's actions put you in a similar situation?
There are many other issues involved regarding the necessity to construct this safety
screen, but the primary issue now being considered is that of safety within our yard for
people, pets and our property.
~~~"
We are sure if you were faced with a similar safety issue, you would also be requesting this
safety screen to protect your family, friends, pets and property from this hazard.
Sometimes a picture will more adequately describe a difficult hazardous situation, so we
have enclosed two pictures showing the batting cage structure pointing directly at our yard
for your understanding of our safety issue. Try putting yourself in our situation.
Thank you for taking the time to read about your neighbor's safety issue. If you feel you
could offer support or have no objections to our safety screen, we would appreciate it if
you could write a short note to the City of Chula Vista's Planning Department. We would be
glad to pick up your note to take with us, or you could come to the Planning Department
hearing on May 23 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
If you have questions, or would like to see this hazard, please call us at our business:
(858) 576-1767 -if we are not available at the moment, leave a message. We would be
happy to talk with you and arrange a time for you to see this safety issue from our yard.
Sincerely,
Ron and Sona Lutsko-281 Bonita Canyon Drive
'-t?
MICKEY RUSS (619) 480-8112
j --;y C)4..i/(;,
MARK DENNEY (619) 224-8..66
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTDRS LICENSE NO. 436541
2312 ROSECRANS STREET. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92106
j..:J.J2liCVUj 20, 799:
Iru...'ciC-e ;: i 9l
Re,n !.-ui.~;:.-,:;
28 i Jon.i:L:L Canyon !..;/:_.Li.H!.
Bon.i.ta, C~.
(CiS'.) 41:._'-6l;66
(079) 5-::-"-;6:
/7-e: Pfl..OpfY~!j !.....ifl.e wa1..l!/.; ClJI..di)cl2ic0..n.ing
UJcd1. w-i.J:../-'~ ,-; (ici.....Ul9.J
,7:c'J..:..:.;w-ing ..Lh OIL:: c.uou :tc COf'JJuud we ('.2) ~1iClfl.fi..Ulg PP..O;?v...iy LUuz.
uXl-U_j ClfI.C O/7..J2 (7) /'-Ci.c0..n.ing wail wdJz. too:LLng.J on iJuz clovt!. nCLlTlR..cL /W...J..Lden.C12.
peR.. ou...:?. C:.uCi..e/?/LCpC,5al to you. cLcd.-ecL Jmw.CU1.y 73, 7992. ,11ho iJLc.1.ude.cL -in ihiA
invoice -L.) em t!.x.i./~.Q !-o/Z. wa.i.eA.p/Z.oo.f-U7-g aru:i iJI_5ia.LLing fWcJ-( and Ma...Ln. L.U-w...
r-i CJ'~ -Lo/!.. one Leei 7' -0" oJ. /'xia..iJ1..in..g wc..i!...l!- he.igf,.l.. iA .Jnown.
Ue./.,t (i/l.o(if!.>dy .f'..U1.e.
ccv:-{ ;?/'~Ci?I2./'..l..!J i!-i..ruz.
i?i!_i.I1-.Lr~9 wali
wail- 80'-8" X 527.22=
wail- 98' -:i-" :': 327.22=
_ 50'-~" X S25.9L=
$2,795.8'-
$2,676.5';:
S7,305.56
.:....c.)j 7 1_0"
50'-4" ~ j~air~g ~c11
So,777.9L
(S20.0C)
S5, 93l. 9~
S478.00
56,410.9'-
Sl, OOC. 00)
SL,f7C.9';' I
Dc0 ,or; ...;- ~VVI./~
i ~v-/ n _ J J
54, CO'? ~",l f1) KLU;/y ,VJ:.J'i.4WJ /1/LW'Y,A<j
- . . ~cl;~V;. ,JA/v1-f6~;f (j~ ~
4254, q,-/ U+~tuf. .Cl~v.1u- V~dA~ ~ t~'4'
Cl 01. V I (L:.cL MeY,); - JJ.6rLrcV.f tfv.:r
;;;;Ak~~~~:t;!
~"' "M '16r ~ "-' ~'0 .
7 C wa.i.eA.P/?.o ot ann i,....v):Lau /1..0 de,' Cn..a..Uz. LLnk..
~-6-6 p/U2V..Lcu..::,1'.y Pcid
;JJ:2oUJ'...t du.e if....i/) mvc-LU2.
PJ2LeCl-j-C ,iliacPJ2cL
~
_50/ ,q0 )
W./1.()J r /'
.\L 'JL.
.iol1
~----~/
~'+
/\', -=T~~
~- ';" ..3,;;,-:L353.33'.:!7
..' SP~ R T S W EAR
~/, ',' .',
, "-' '\ '8J8J'CR ~
\ "." " ).::.,. -,..:... anso,. L~
.", ~~ _ San Diego. CA 92111
I,,~" (858) 576-1767 Fax: (858) 576-0455
in form Jets !!OSQorts wear. com h no:/ I www.letse:osDOr1SWear.com
TO:
Cordell Chavez, City ofChula Vista
FROM
Ron & Sona Lmsko, 281 Bonita Canyon Dr.
RE:
Temporary Wall Extension
DATE:
7/25/00
I received your voice mail message yesterday and left you a message as well. I have a
couple of requests. Would you please fax me a copy of the CVMC code regarding noise
control (chapter 19 I believe). Also, I would like to have you get measurements on the
Davenport's side (283 Bonita Canyon Dr) as there are several permanent structures on his
side where the measurement would span from the top of the structure to the top of the
wal1 such as where his deck, stairs and roof over the pool bar area are. I realize there is a
formula you would use for the roof in order to use the average measurement due to the
pitch configuration of the roof. He is on a higher elevation so measurements need to be
taken on his side as the extension only affects our 2 properties and since he has made an
issue of the height that is the information we need to have so our paperwork we submit
reflects actual data. Thank you for your effort concerning this matter.
~
It)
11Ic I'a1IIaoic
Plan 2&\314
<I 8edzoam. 3~ BoIhs
. 2.KI4 Squm ~
(, 1. ~ ,1 I_
F [1..J..) <S <.p
'YJer
By: ;.
...... """"""
~-
I
~
II]
I
Ii
- .....
~-
811
c
~
i r~~. '~
- r \11.T'C.'<P~ e~~,..
C f .ctJ!I')(:' FI- (;2.:;:&t+--
- 'J (J
. . \~ I 1-';" <;",JD '^"-
", . .~r 'r' , ,,_
~ /VI (.1..(""'2- L,L.C' C L cC( C'L':...(. L c~, V\,p r-
I~)""-=-r-r 'I, ,
LvI \..-rJ-,.f. ,"""'-l--- ;'."..-h"".,
.' . '- \." - I.. '-'---.'. "~,, <.- ~'I
0.1:,:; ,,('I ,....~ " 0Z 'k", I '1iL~
""'"'''''''''
--
,.,.
""""""..
--
-'
~
d:t!
I
~;;'O-LIO
OUTLfT
~-.wuGI ""'_
ICc..)'......
o t//C0
c.t>-1~
TV
r2,-~L
., VINYL
)
hmJid~ CERAMIC
'J
/ -h
r . (;
l"lJ"tffortIOCDIItJItWIiJt~"p/dIC1_tGp:t
.I1c.~Jlm Dt.A:,-__.""IO<ha"JIjoDbue.
plamMd~"uJ,""",-
Date:
11/
I.
,-\6
A\..'\Ic.\!iDin Communities
~Vb.
-
-
.\Ot'II\'1!'IWrtcj~\WIlI1o..~
:nd_r.-J~
J.~' t'f IbnJ..d b1k.
~CAPIT!~
~~
_."","--
-.- - -
('
~
~
-'
.~
July] 1,2001
(
!
i
i
;
,
'----- j
-- ---~---____1
- ,I
-- -.
Mr. James D. Sandoval., AlCP
,A,ssistant Planning Director
City ofChula Vista, Planning & Building Dept.
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 9]910
Su~iect: Case #ZA V -01-18
Dear Mr. Sandoval:
This letter is to infonn you about the mediation between the Lutsko's and ourselves, We have
had several meetings on this fence situation, but too no avail. The last meeting was on June 25,
2001, in which Mr. Lutsko was going to get back to me on some issues that were brought up in
the meeting. To date, I have not heard from him
Mr. Lutsko' s request for a variance is based on an alJeged safety issue. I have requested several
times for the City and the Planning Commission Members to come out and physically see the
batting machine up and running. Then you will realize that safety is not the issue. It's a privacy
issue, as stated to me by Mr. Lutsko at our last mediation meeting. He said he could still see the
batting cage sitting in his gazebo. He wants total privacy.
I have proved to you (the City ofChula Vista) and Mr. Lutsko that the block wall and chain link
fence is completely on my propeny. He has no permission from me to build any structure of any
kind on my property or on my block wall or on my chain link fence, According to your letter to
Mr. Lutsko, dated November 30, 2000, Mr. Lutsko constructed a wooden fence on my permitted
masonry wall which exceeded the six foot requirement. He was told to have the fence removed
within 14 days of that letter. He onJy removed a portion ofthe plywood fence. Which meant he
was in violation. A short time later, he put the remaining fence back up, without permission
again. Still in violation. It was proved to you and your office that the block wall is permitted to
me and on my property (documented with a licensed surveyors report, filed at the city recorder's
office). I have been more than lenient on this matter. I want the fence down. I have enclosed a
copy of my letter to Mr. Lutsko, demanding he remove the fence from my property. He was told,
by the City of Chula Vista, to remove it or a violation will exist. The city has allowed this fence
to be on my propeny for over eight months (ftom the date of the letter) and over a year since
constructed.
Another issue Mr. Lutsko is bringing up is that my block wall is in violation of his pool having a
five and half foot high safety wall surrounding his pool due to the planters on my inner walL I am
not in violation, I do meet the City's Building Code of5 'l2 feet measured from the outside of my
wall. Remembering, the block wall is entirely on my property. Ron is in violation of not having a
5 ~/2 foot wall on his propeny for his pooL I am not responsible to provide Irim with one on my
Y--;
ATTACHMENT "D"
propeny. Being he is in vio Jation, doesn' t give him the right to apply for a variance to the
building code of more than a six foot high fence.
The second week of May, I talked to you briefly about the original scheduled Planning
Commission meeting (May 9, 2001) until we were cut off. You asked Sue Gray to call me the
next day. I had several questions about the meeting. The big question was did the city have all
opinion on the variance issue. Her reply to me was no. She should have told me about the Staff
Report. because that report did have the City's opinion in it. We were told through outside
sources about that report. Ms. Gray withheld this important information from me, by not telling
me about the staff report.
We went down to the City's office and talked to Beverly Blessent about the Planning Commission
meeting on May 23, 2001. We were told that we would have all the time needed, that there was
no time restrictions on either party. We were told to bring all information to the meeting. We
were never told to have our infurmation into you before the meeting. When we looked through
the records, one day prior to the meeting, you had already made your decision. You made a
decision based on Mr. Lutsko's information only, not any of mine. We have 99% of the
neighborhood up in arms about this variance. No one wants it in our neighborhood. I proved
that with all the opposing letters signed by over 30 people in the neighborhood. I can prove to
you (the city) and the Planning Commission Members that my batting cage is safe and no balls can
ever get through the structure that is built. You have to come and see it and you can make a
sound judgement. As I said numerous times before, call me any time and I will be more than
happy to show you the machine running. How can anyone make a decision without seeing the
facts? I have proved to you (the City) and the Planning Commission that Mr. Lutsko built a
plywood fence on my wall on my property. Since I can not get the City to do their job, I wrote a
demand letter for Mr. Lutsko to have the fence removed from my wall (which you did 8 months
ago, and never followed through on). I have enclosed a copy ofthe letter for you to read.
I am not sure why this is even an issue. Mr. Lutsko has his property up for sale. He is sho'Wing
his property with an illegally constructed plywood fence attached to my property and I don't want
any new potential neighbors thinking that it is part of his property or mine. This fence variance
issue should be dissolved., Mr. Lutsko is selling his house and it's a moot issue. It's a waste of my
time, the city's time and the taxpayers time.
I want to hear from your office, in writing when the next Planning Commission meeting is on this
matter. I would like to know what is expected and what will be discussed. I don't want any
surprises like last time. We were grossly misinformed from your office. I will be waiting to hear
from you on this matter.
Sincerely, .
- 71 c---o---.. C--
// ./ -::t, > I- - ~..--c---
v.I-(-;J/~-
Cliff & Joyce Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita., CA 91902-428]
(619) 482-0022
~q
b
~~~~~~~c~. --
-~~
~;;:.:.-,t :.j"'p
F'1a
,"c_~ ..~
281 Bonita Canyon Dr.
69-j,~ Bonita, CA 91902
For more in/(Jrmal;On call -'IC' 4 Bedrooms ~ 3.5 Bathrooms
Szcanne YaVOrSA..}-' 7zu(ooc/ 2,800 -+- Square Feet
Direct Line: (619) 267-7900 .
Cell (1'119) 246-7944
,
;
,+CI
JU~l
Ll;) 1 ~1J:
~y;;-_.-
,.
.-
.
".
-- ~..-.'
Ie.
~
", .
YAvrJF1SCY PROPERTIES
July 11,2001
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
% Letsgo Sportswear
4818 12 Ronson Court
San Diego, CA 92111
\CVJ LQ)1f
Subject: Mediation at 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lutsko:
In the planning commission meeting on May 23,2001, it was agreed upon that we would try to
mediate a solution to the fence issue. We have had several meeting and I still have no resolve.
The last meeting we had was over two weeks ago and you were going to get back to me and to
date, I have not heard fi:om you.
You have constructed a plywood fence, built on my property and attached to my permitted block
wall for over a year now, without our pennission and without a permit fi:om the City of Chula
Vista- You were instructed on November 30, 2000 to have this plywood fence taken down by the
City ofChula Vista (within 14 days), you only took down a portion of it and then you put it back
up again on my property and in direct violation from the City of Chula Vista.
It has come to our attention that you have listed your house for sale with a realtor. You are
showing your home with an illegally constructed plywood fence attached to my property and I
don't want any potential new neighbors thinking that is part of your property or mine.
At our first meeting, standing in my backyard, looking up at the fence, you Soilla, said., "I didn't
realize how bad it really looked." We have been lenient with you on this fence issue for over a
year now and we are tired oflooking at the ugly plywood fence. Therefore, I demand (within my
rights) complete removal of all the fence and materials on and attached to my property and the
chain link gate re-installed by noon time on Thursday, July 19, 2001.
If the fence and all materials attached are not removed and the gate installed by that deadline, I
will have the work contracted to be removed wm my property and disposed of at your expense.
Since it only took you a couple of hours to install it, I tlUnk a week is a sufficient amount ohime
to remove it.
Respectfully,
c
CAv~/h~/ '- ;z
~
Cliff and Joyce Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902-4281
50
RESOLUTION NO. ZA V-OI-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A WALL HEIGHT VARIANCE AT 281
BONITA CANYON ROAD
I. RECITALS
A. Project Site
WHEREAS, the parcel which is the subject matter of this resolution is
diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of .57 acres of land
located at 281 Bonita Canyon Dr ("Project Site"); and
B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a Variance (ZA V -01-18) was filed with
the City ofChula Vista Planning Department on February 22, 2001 by Mr. And Mrs. Ron
Lutsko ("Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, said application requests a fence in excess of six (6) feet on the Project
Site, and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project
is categorically exempt, per Section 15303, Class 3(e), construction of new accessory
(appurtenant) structures, including fences, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
C. Planning Commission Record of Application
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
variance and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners and
residents within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to
the hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing was scheduled and advertised for July 25, 2001, at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all reports, evidence. and
testimony presented at the public hearing with respect to subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
does hereby find, determine and resolve as follmvs:
-1
,'"
J: \Planning\DAWN\CaseFiles\reports&resos \ZA V-Q1-18 _ LUTSKO PC RESO _doc
ATTACHMENT "E"
Resolution ZA V -01-18
Page 2
II. VARIANCE FINDINGS
A. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists.
The slope of the lot into the canyon has caused property owners in the area who wish to
construct accessory structures, such as pools and decks. elevated in such a way that they rise
above the level of the standard fence line. This affects the typical privacy provided by such
fences. In addition, structures constructed on the adjacent property, some of which are
higher than the existing fence line, pose some concern to the Applicant, and may constitute a
hardship peculiar to the property. These structures are:
I. Two raised planters adjacent to the fence in Segment I put the Applicant in violation
of the City's Municipal Code related to fence heights required around swimming pools.
2. A batting cage, adjacent to Segment 2, which. due to the way it is used, causes a
safety concern to the Applicant.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts
and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The adjacent property owner has constructed a batting cage in the rear of his property. This
batting cage is located on a slope, which causes most of the "floor" of the cage and attached
deck to be located above the existing fence line of 5-feet. Its location, elevated nature and
uses associated with the structure cause concern for the Applicant relating to health and
safety. The combination of these factors are unique to this property and the approval of a
variance for Segment 2 of the fence adjacent to the batting cage would not constitute a
special privilege to the Applicant.
The adjacent property owner has constructed two raised planters along the fence line. These
planters are approximately 2' -6" in height. The construction of these structures puts the
Applicant in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Section 18.28.020 requires that a
swimming pool have an enclosure with a minimum height of 5 feet and that "The outside
surface ofthe enclosure be free of protrusions, cavities. or other physical characteristics that
would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a child below the age of five years
to climb over." At the time the Applicant constructed his swimming pool, the fence met the
conditions of the code. The subsequent construction of this planter on the adjacent property
causes the Applicant's pool to be in violation of this regulation. The increased fence height
would allow the Applicant to meet this regulation.
5).
Resolution ZA V-OI-IS
Page 3
C. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the
public interest.
Because there is an existing fence along the entire length of the property line and portions of
the proposed fence are located on a steeply sloped portion of the lot, the constructed "usable
grade" (deck surface and stairs) on some portions of the adjacent property are elevated above
ground level. Due to these factors, the visible height ofthe proposed fence from the adjacent
property ranges between 3' -0" to 7' -6" in height.
D. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan
of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
Authorization of this variance is specific and addresses a request for a fence. It will not
change the development patterns, permitted uses, or future planned development of the City
or any other adopted plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES
HEREBY APPROVE THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH
BELOW:
III. TERMS OF GRANT OF VARIANCE:
1. Construct the project as described in the application, except as modified by this
resolution.
2. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnifY, protect, defend and
hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and
representatives, from and against all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and
costs, including court costs and attorney's fees (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the
City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this
Variance, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of
electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. Applicant/operator shall
acknowledge their agreement to this provision by executing a copy of this Variance
where indicated, below. Applicant's/operator's compliance with this provision is an
express condition of this Variance and this provision shall be binding on any and all of
the Applicant' s/operator' s successors and assigns.
3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence from the City ofChula
Vista Building Department.
Resolution ZA V -01-18
Page 4
IV. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND PROVISIONS TO GRANT
1. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property.
2. Any violations of the terms and conditions of this permit shall be ground for
revocation or modification of variance.
V. EXECUTION AND RECORDATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
The property owner shall execute this docwnent by signing on the lines provided below,
said execution indicating that the property owner has read, understood and agreed to the
conditions contained herein, and will implement same. Upon execution, the true copy
with original signatures shall be returned to the Planning and Building Department.
Failure to return the signed true copy of this document within thirty (30) days shall
indicate the property owner/applicant's desire that the project, and the corresponding
application for building permits and/or a business license, be held in abeyance without
approval.
Signature of Property Owner
Date
VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
It is the intention of the Planning Commission that its adoption of this Resolution is
dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein
stated; and that in the event the applicant or its assigns or successors in interest challenge
anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions, and are determined by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution and the
permit shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect.
THIS RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS HEREBY PASSED AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
this 25'" day of July, 2001, by the following vote. to wit:
.~ "
)~
Resolution ZA V.OI-IS
Page 5
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Kevin O'Neill. Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas,
Secretary to Planning Commission
Public Hearing Meeting, Planning Commission
City ofChula Vista, July 25,2001
Case Number: ZAV-OI-18
INFORMA nON FROM: CLIFF DAVENPORT
283 BONITA CANYON DRIVE, BONITA, 91902
TAB #1:
TAB #2:
TAB#3:
T AB#4:
TAB#5:
Picture of pitching machine.
Letter from Manufacturer about speed of pitching machine.
Letter from Radar Ready, Inc. to verifY the speed of balls.
Letter from David Bejarano with same pitching machine.
Declaration from Attorney Don Hiney about pitching machine.
Copy of Asbuilt Survey of 283 Bonita Canyon Drive (proving the block
wall is entirely on the Davenport's property). Please note that the block
wall is pennitted to us and paid by us, the Davenport's.
Letter from Lutsko's to surrounding neighbors (dated 5-11-01).
Discrepancies in Lutsko's background infonnation.
Letter from Sue Gray (City ofChula Vista), dated 02-28-01, stating
Davenport's are in compliance with all Lutsko's concerns.
Lutsko's blueprints given to the City for him to build off of.
(NOT TO SCALE).
Copy of Project Location with neighbors opposing this variance.
Thirty-three (33) signatures of surrounding neighbors apposing this
variance.
NOTE: Mr. Lutsko's whole defense for a variance is that he needs a safety screen to
protect him for the balls being propelled from our batting cage.
AS WITNESSED BY STEVE POWER AND ANOTHER ASSOC. FROM THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, WHILE IN USE FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING. ONE
MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO SAW THE BATTING
CAGE (NOT IN OPERATION) ON MAY 23, 2001 AND STATED HE WOULD
FIND IT VERY UNLIKELY THAT ANY BALLS COULD GO THROUGH THE
CHAIN LINK FENCE
WE REQUEST ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS TO COME AND SEE FOR
THEMSELVES THE PITCHING MACHINE IN USE.
..../'" ~
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
INSTRUCTION
\. -
~
,
'<J
MODEL C-53
Baseball & Softball
Pitching Machine
',' -. ~-Q\ TiiU ! \: 2\
FAX CENTER
FAX NO, 8164527581
P,O\
'-.-,.'....., - -',~_' 'Y-"i,:',''':'':'f~:._!,':''''-,,;.'';: ,,_,~,,:;:...,
:,..,': ,}YIa~ter Pitching Machine
"'" v.,,^,,,,.~, t,,".... ~v A w" ~ , .,<, "" """~"';~"'" ""w""" y~ '^ .^~V ~_ " ~.~v~'" _v", J~ '-'~ .~~ ~~
. , ,
'.....
""J, ,>,:",,1
"""":;'\'
4200 ,<'E Bmrungham Road' Kansas CIty, MO 64Il7. (800) 878-8228 . FAX (816) 452.7581
Fax Cover Sheet
Attent'on Cliff Davenport
From: Joe GiovagnoJi
C 01:: par;y_
Date: 5/16/01
Fax:;
;'
-,
. '--'4<"""-'
, ---
Page:
1 of 1
Cliff.
.i.
The speed range on your model C.55 pitching machine is 25 MPH. 85 MFH. This speed
range was determined after testing at our factory in Kansas City, Nfissouri. If you need any
fun:1er lnformatiol1, please do not hesitate to give me a calL
,/
- <Q
< RadarR.eady, Inc.
Phone: 619/561-5324
Fax: 619/561-5324
E-mail: MNTD832~cs.com
".. ,
~
"
'*"
9632 Marilla Drive
lakeside CA 92040-2806
USA
Mr. and Mrs. C. M. Davenport
283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91914
May 3, 2001
.;.c.,.!
Today, you requested I determine the speed of ball(s) being
pitched by your bating cage pitching machine. Using Kustom
Talon Radar, I clocked approximately 30 balls. The speed of
these balls ranged from a low of 35 mph to a high of 57 mph. As I
was determining the speed of the pitched balls, I noticed you were
taking 35mm photos of the speed-readings displayed on the Talon
Radar.
During my survey, I also noticed at no time did any balls pass
beyond the interior (completely enclosed) chain-link fence, let
alone pass beyond the entry chain-link fence.
If you or a 'f1 ne has any questions, please feel free to call our
office.
PUBLIC HEARING
CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
CASE NO.: ZA V-01-18
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
DECLARATION OF DON D. HINEY
IN SUPPORT OF CLIFF AND JOYCE
DAVENPORT RE: NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF Cl-IULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Date: May 23, 2001
Time: 6:00 p.m.
10 APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. RON LUTSKO
11 SITE ADDRESS: 281 BONITA CANYON ROAD, APN NO: 594-070-30-00
12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: VARIANCE TO ALLOW INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE
13 FENCE IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET, PROPOSED FENCE WILL VARY IN HEIGHT FROM
14 8'6" TO 12'6"
15 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CLASS E EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
16 REVIEW.
17 I, DON D. HINEY, declare if sworn will completely testify to the following facts:
18 I. I am an attorney, licensed to practice Jaw in all courts in the state of California. I am
19 also a coach for the Chula Vista Pony League North.
20 2. On several occasions over the last two years, Mr. and Mrs. Davenport who reside at
21 283 Bonita Canyon Road, Chula Vista, California have permitted my baseball team which
22 consists of 13 to 14-yearold boys to usc their batting cage which is located behind their home.
23 3. The batting cage is completely enclosed by Hurricane Fencing.
24 4. The pitching machine is itself enclosed by the same fencing.
25 5. From the hole in the fencing between the pitching machine and home plate where my
26 boys practice their batting technique is open area however, this is completely enclosed.
27 6. Batted balls have not in my experience escaped this fencing enclosure. Occasionally
28 a ball will be lodged in the fence in front of and to the side of the cage but a ball will not fly
Dcclaration of Don D. Hiney
Page I
outside of the fencing.
7. Behind the home plate is a heavy rubber mat, approximately 3/4" thick 2' by 4' long
suspended behind home plate. This acts as a guard if the boys don't swing or if they swing and
miss, the rubber balls hit the black rubber mat.
8. Behind the rubber mat is a separate screen made of hurricane fencing which prevents
balls fi'om going outside the batting cage should a batter foul the ball off the bat or if somehow
a ball gets passed the heavy rubber mat.
9. Behind this separate hun'icane fence is another fence with a gate made up of the same
type of fencing for access to the cage.
10. The stmcture is approximately 8 feet in height. It is completely safe.
11. At no time have 1 experienced balls which are either pitched from the pitching
machines or struck by my players which flcw directly behind home plate, fly out of the batting
cage. The ball would have to go through the heavy rubber mat, go through a separate hutTicane
fencing wall, travel four feet and go through another hurricane fencing wall, and travel 35' to
reach the neighbors property line.
12. 1 have been invoJved with baseball for over 41 years. In my experience the maximum
speed of a pitched ball from the machine does not exceed 60 mph.
13. In my experience of using pitching machines, the one that is in the back yard of the
Davenport's residence is the safest set up for batters, observers, and neighbors of property owners
that 1 have been acquainted with in my 41 years in baseball.
The statement entitled "To our neighbors" dated May 1 J, 2001 by Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko
as it relates to the danger afthe Davenport's batting cage is an exaggeration and in my experience
is not true.
r decJare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: March 22, 200J
Declaration of Don D. Hiney
By:
Page 2
~~~I ~ ~~
II: ~
~~
"' &,11:
i!'",1i' ~ !?ill
il'tu Ie z
i>. 1!1i!, J 0
~~s. ~ ~ -I
1!1~ ~ -I
0
h (/)
i Ro 0
)>
~ 11: r
~~ ! rTJ ~
~..
~~
.... ~ N ~
~ ~~ U. ~
~ h ~
::(
~
"i
"?-
a. ~
...>-;
~
~
"
~ 0
G"- o.
<;?
\OS> 0
r
rTJ I').~ "
)> ~ 0
;;0 ~~
C'- Ul.
~~ ~ rTJ
Z
0
~ ~ ;C
;tJ ~
~ ~ ~
~ )
~ 'Ii: ~ ::( ~
0J. '" /') ~ ....
';;::!1 ii! ;;;
rTJ ~ "i
IQ~ z "5
0
~\:j ;;0 ~ 'Ii:
~r;; 0 '"
....:to: )> ii!
"'''' 0 ~ '15
I
:>.. Z '>!
15 G'J '"
\;1
~
O>017~
AI
C'AI-1- .
J-O-1-
b-?
'"
.
~
~
to
~
-.....;;::...
~~
Ii ~
"(~~ ....,
~!:h: ~
~)01~ ~
~~ ~
~-"
~
.......
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r:::::
;;;
.
~
~
:;r:;
\
~ N ~
. :J:,,:
S5 LN ~
-
r--;:
~ 0 ~
"-i I ~
""<\ III ~
r-- )>
~ AJ <:
rtj ~
---'
.
o
~
---;?'
";::::--
y
-----Q.
~
0
G~ .
"'\~ 0
~ ~
0"
0
I 0)
III ~
........ )> ~~ ~
~ AJ 0
- ~CJ \
- ~
C) -~ G~
~
~ t(j.~
~ ~~ G~
::t<:
<: ~
\
Y1
N
N
o
,
------
~
Q,'J
o
~
~
'"
Q
::".
Document Number
CORNER RECORD
City of rHuL-A- v,~--rk
Brief Legal Description Le:rr 5'85 o~
Assessor Parcel Number SQ4-070 - 2'1
County of BAI'I "DI~D , California
tv\4~ 12.:3D2-
,
!'
COORDINATES
(Optional)
I
I
I
- - - - - -
I
I
I
CORNER TYPE
Government Corner 0 Control 0
Meander 0 Property g
Rancho 0 Other 0
Date of Survey S' - I <=j -0 I
N.
E.
Zone
Elev.
Datum
Corner -
Left as found ~ Found and tagged 0
Established 0
Reestablished 0
Rebuilt 0
Identification
and type of
S~~
corner found: Evidence used to identify or procedure used to establish or reestablish
5~~"'" Z-
the corner:
A description of the physical condition of the monument as found and as set or reset: S~~ 51ff-!--r Z.
f
,..
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
This Corner Record was prepared by me or under my direction .in conformance with
the Land Surveyors' Act on tv} A 'f I '1 ~ ;? c>C',
Signed a !/Q.Q.fr\ 8 fi.J./l./Nj^ @ or R.c.E. Number 571:>7
Expiration Date S~~elG.lZ. 30, zoc,3
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
This Corner Record was received
19_and examined
and filed
19_.
Signed
For the County Surveyor
,
r
County Surveyor's Comment
DPW Form 117 (Rev, '1/88)
Page 1 of 2
------~-_."
'.-
5/11/01
To Our Neighbors,
On May 23, the City of Chula Vista's Planning Department will be hearing our request to
install a safety screen or safety fence on our east property line-between 281 (our home)
and 283 Bonita Canyon Drive. This safety screen is necessary for safety in our yard.
This safety screen is required because our neighbor at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive (in
our Residential Estate Zone) installed a commercial batting cage about 75 feet long by
10 feet wide and over 15 feet in height which contains a ball propelling machine, and
raised the elevation of his property. 1;,: '~="i;-'~j,.
out of the m;ichine at ,up tQ~Q(h1iAi",'. . ,i~ ',-...... iflto ~
our yar~'Ifi~OUfson.i1iiiiDy , lHhis could be a life and death matter.
The batting cage is so big it can be seen from the South Bay Freeway about 4 % miles away.
What would you do if your neighbor's actions put you in a similar situation?
There are many other issues involved regarding the necessity to construct this safety
screen, but the primary issue now being considered is that of safety within our yard for
people, pets and our property.
The height of our proposed safety screen, when measured within 283 Bonita Canyon
Drive yard (as required for yards with pools), wif.be.bicNt...".......,JOV__UqI
:~::WUtr~:r~=:~::'=.',,' ean~. 1
We are sure if you were faced with a similar safety issue, you would also be requesting this
safety screen to protect your family, friends, pets and property from this hazard.
Sometimes a picture will more adequately describe a difficult hazardous situation, so we
have enclosed two pictures showing the batting cage structure pointing directly at our yard
for your understanding of our safety issue. Try putting yourself in our situation.
Thank you for taking the time to read about your neighbor's safety issue. If you feel you
could offer support or have no objections to our safety screen, we would appreciate it if
you could write a short note to the City of Chula Vista's Planning Department. We would be
glad to pick up your note to take with us, or you could come to the Planning Department
hearing on May 23 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
If you have questions, or would like to see this hazard, please call us at our business:
(858) 576-1767 --if we are not available at the moment, leave a message. We would be
happy to talk with you and arrange a time for you to see this safety issue from our yard.
Sincerely,
Ron and Sona Lutsko-281 Bonita Canyon Drive
LUTSKO VARIANCE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION RE: CASE NUMBER ZAV-01-18
Provided by Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko
0\\
\~JUv\
The most important fact to realize is that we had a property line wall of legal height
prior to our neighbor making modifications to his property which made us in violation
of the fence height code for yards with pools and endangered our SAFETY by his
installation of a permanent, hazardous, commercial batting cage approximately
75' long x 10' wide x 15' high and electronic ball propelling machine in a Residential
Estate Zone.
On May 16, we picked up a copy of the Planning Department's recommendation to the Planning
Commission. We noticed our color photos of our neighbor's hazardous situation, which were
submitted with our variance application, were omitted. We feel these pictures would give you a
better understanding of this unusual situation, so we have made more color copies for your
better understanding.
. D11\<1-
",\to. ~
0'\/
THIS SAFETY SCREEN Will BE ABOUT 6 FEET 6 INCHES ON MUCH OF MR. DAVENPORT'S
SIDE DUE TO THE MODIFICATIONS HE MADE TO HIS PROPERTY.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE THREATENED OUR LIFE, PROPERTY, HEALTH AND
SAFETY BY HIS INSTAllATION OF A COMMERCIAL BATTING CAGE WITH A
PROFESSIONAL BAll PROPELLING MACHINE.
1. This structure sits above the top of our fence level.
2. The batting cage is pointed directly into our yard. (wh l~h
Is
ioo?o r\
er\CJo~ed ..J
3. Balls travel up to
2-6 -6S fY\A-jL..
4. We are frequently picking up these hard 3 inch balls in our yard.
5. One ball missed our son's head by inches!
6.
7.
8
<1 \\ '
\~cJ. 9.
This structure was COMPLETED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.
The ball propelling machine was never permitted. [dOes." '+ neRd q.o be)
No variance was ever required for this commercial batting cage, or the attached
deck which is built within the1 0 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone and
situated .
This enclosure measures about 3,000 square feet-height/length/width.
/
%.( '~~-0
\~ ,:111 0. IQJO\
C/"'.\ .., ~ 1/
v
THE DAVENPORT'S HAVE, WITHOUT A PERMIT, MODIFIED THE USE OF AN EXISTING
PERMITTED WALL TO BE A RETAINING WALL, AND HAVE, WITHOUT PERMITS,
ATTACHED A 10' x 12' STRUCTURE, PLANTERS, AND STAIRS TO THE WALL.
I rJ
Pr[ { /fj
Lutsko -2
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS PUT US IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE FOR FENCE HEIGHT
FOR YARDS WITH POOLS:
1. He backfilled his pool dirt along and against the property line wall, modifying the use
of a permitted structure to a retaining wall, raised the elevation of his property
thereby lowering the height of the wall.
. Et("O /'
. 1J./::i r
c)1~J(; {\'€' -0 I
II' ~ Z/fb
17(D
I. cY1 / 4. His dog has trespassed into our yard frequently and in the middle of the night
~(lO-e # . confronting our dogs due to the low height of the wall.
'0. \'1.
V ..0 . MR. DAVENPORT'S CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTY MODIFICATIONS HAVE VIOLATED
t-1~v CODES IN OUR OPINION, AND NOTHING WAS DONE TO MAKE HIM CORRECT HIS
ACTIONS AFTER WE AT VARIOUS TIMES REPORTED THESE ACTIONS TO THE CITY.
THE CITY DID MAKE HIM APPLY FOR THE PERMIT FOR THE BATTING CAGE AFTER WE
CALLED ABOUT THE MASSIVE STRUCTURE, AND ALSO APPLY FOR RENEWALS FOR
THOSE PERMITS THAT HAD EXPIRED SOME YEARS EARLIER.
2. He added larg~ high permanent planter boxes further reducing the height of the wall
\'5"
3. He constructed his deck so that the floor of the deck is above the top of the 5 foot
property line fence and within the 10 foot set back for our Residential Estate Zone-
therefore, no fence height exists at this area and the deck sits about 9 inches from our
property line fence.
MR. DAVENPORT'S ACTIONS HAVE ALREADY COST US THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
FOR THE FIRST SAFETY SCREEN WHICH WE WERE ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN BY
SOME CITY PERSONNEL. WE ESTIMATE THE COST OF COMPLETING OUR SIDE WILL
BE BETWEEN $10,000 TO $12,000. WE WOULD NOT INCUR THIS EXPENSE IF IT WERE
'v NOT FOR OUR NEIGHBOR'S ACTIONSI WE FEEL IT IS UNJUST AND UNFAIR FOR US
~^' IX /lTO HAVE TO INCUR SUCH A LARGE EXPENSE IN ORDER TO HAVE SAFETY AND
J'ji.1(; ./ ' COMPLY WITH CODES WHEN WE WERE NOT AT FAULT. SINCE THE CITY OF CHULA
Y \),\ . L~ VISTA PERMITTED THE BATTING CAGE RETROACTIVELY, AND REQUIRED NO
\& 'WI" VARIANCE HEARING, WE FEEL IT IS FAIR AND JUST FOR US TO REQUEST THE CITY
.::,';yl OF CHULA VISTA REIMBURSE US FOR THE ACTUAL COST TO MAKE OUR PROPERTY
SAFE AND MEET THE FENCE HEIGHT CODE.
Je(1
0.' /
..\~( J100
\\\0" \0'-7
oC"^
r
WE DO APPRECIATE MR. JIM SANDOVAL'S PERMISSION ON MAY 2 TO TEMPORARILY RE-
ATTACH SOME OF THE PANELS TO TRY TO KEEP MR. DAVENPORT'S DOG IN HIS YARD.
WE BELIEVE IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR PLANNING COMMISSION HAD
BEEN ABLE TO PROPERLY REVIEW MR. DAVENPORT'S MODIFICATIONS TO HIS
PROPERTY PRIOR TO HIS BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS
HAZARDOUS SITUATION ALLOWED BY RETROACTIVELY PERMITTING THE BATTING
/ CAGE, AND THE OTHER MODIFICATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHICH PUT
eJ US IN VIOLATION OF FENCE HEIGHT, ETC.
lor -ifJ '1jJ(!;\ e(\ I..\" 1,1 ({\ _
Idu O{ 0.\'\ ,,\&.J A'\.Q, ~ l\"
,.( \Y r;p'rfl {0 v-: '(\"([' ~ {)RP}.
'\ ~ \f\~1P- ~'0';/\~ i& J (l ,
~~~
~
~~zE~
&-U
CllY OF
CHULA VISfA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
February 28, 2001
Ron and Sona Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lutsko:
Thank you for your timely filing of the variance for the increase in height for your fence.
I am sure Planning will be processing the application as quickly as possible.
.-\1 our February 9, 2001 meeting, you indicated several areas that were of concern
regarding 283 Bonita Canyon Drive. At that time, I gave you a fonn to fill out
identifying all of the areas that you wanted investigated. To date, I have not received the
fonn from you. Therefore, I will address the areas that I recall you outlining. If there are
still areas you want me to consider, please get them in to us within the next 10 days. The
areas of concern that I recall being an issue for you are as follows:
. The deck did have a pennit and inspections. The plans were signed by an
engineer and we consider the deck in compliance.
. The steps are considered on-grade and do not require a building pennit.
. We do not have a copy of the plans for the wall between your 2 properties.
Maintenance of that wall is the responsibility of the ovmer. Causing 2 feet of the
wall to become retaining does not require a building pennit and the wall stability
is the responsibility of the owner. If you feel the wall is half yours and you want
to challenge its stability, it would be a civil issue between you and the
Davenports. The problem of modifications to the fence that prevents your pool
from having the minimal enclosure is a civil issue you need to address directly
with the Davenifports.
. The Zoning Code allows detached accessory structures on the property line if they
are at least 70 feet from the front property line. Hence the 3' x 24' roofed
structure on the property line complies with zoning since it is more than 70' from
the front property line. It is less than 144 square feet and therefore does not
require a building pennit.
276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910
.:, PQ01-Con.u.....' P,.",<I.d P'P.'
_ _. "__._....__._.__u..,__ .______.___~_____..__.__...___,_~ .
Mr. & Mrs. Lutsko
.2-
February 28, 2001
These are the issues I recall from the meeting, If there are additional issues you wish us
to investigate, please submit them within the next 10 days. Otherwise it is our intent to
close the case at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive,
Sincerely,
~~
Sue Gray
Code Enforcement/Permit Manager
xc: George Krempl, Assistant City Manager
Bob Leiter, Director
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director
Brad Remp, Assistant Director
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
,- ~1'''''';o : :11:
~~ ~::ii~ j i i: '2
i~ ;..~~f i :~
... ': ~ i-~ : i ~ ~
~ Li....i<: 4;' <:;
~ ~'~i :i ,z
]oj J,J ,,~,';, r f
t:- :" ~I I{
It I~I ~~
~i~ ! ii..
; I I IQ
}j t i!-
~" I ' '
. !(';
~I 'I ih
i 11"~
i]
i'
Ii
'-
I''''
d
ile
! 117'
1:........-
!Ii;
I i[
,~,',~,."':,~'"'.,,,_'.,,:,,'
~ ~. . .
..,,,I II
:, -
\
<~
I
, f~~~j'~ :
r ,..,~~.;; !
" i.!,......):".~ '
...,,, ,f:!,
II~Uf'
11!'''' .~
..,.,...21/
'?>:II
11~"Qii
, .
"
~=-n~u
", ~ I
, E.:
f
F
I
l:iif.!;
"'II"i:
'1!f
~~;;
~-.
H
.,;.,,'
I.
'~~
:"'7~
"~
F~
..ll.'P
-V
1,t
.
.~.~
I!'-:i:
'~1
o
i;;-
C'
I"
ii
: i
i :!
i ~I
I' r~
I'
! il
!i
!it
! j':~
Ii'
i~
Ib
i~
Ii"
i it
: I,
! iB
, J""
! !'f.
: ,
i:
! i
~~
,,~
i i
"
1 :
I
I,
i I
j ~
! r~-
i i~'
liE
, I'
i!t;
I.
I i i~
I I,r
'I'
i l
:,.
i II
d~
~~I!-
.r-
i<;
,~
I.
!~
!
i
I
i
I
-
r-
[
! i !
B ~ f"-
~ t 11;;'
3:. e .~ ~
~ 7" ~B ~
d~P
. . ~. ~
. t I i ~
c
. ~
:v
VI
<:-
1
I
)=11
~/--"~;;i::'~~~~
i~~dH~
-c' -.. ~- ..
'~??;,r ~~~
:;<~~,':.'~:i-~.t~ .
'~:.)~.~jJi
,.,~.",.,
~~
~*
~-"b
(:2 . (;;
. ~I ~'\'
~~
. ~'
~
I.
"i ~~"
- ."
~ =~ ~
, =~~'"
r- t f:. --
; i~~
: I~h
.. ~....
, ~
i y-/
.
.. !
'-
"
.~~ .i;:
~~ -r:;!\f
.r~ ~,
~i ~
~;: ~
I;'
"
:ji 3''-
. ~S E .
*-~H
~. I
I '
i i
-I
1
!
.
+-
J
L.~
:",1
zi
0,
g,
fj;:
~"~r~ '
'>"," ';t..... .
',~~ ~'>
~~:J-'-; ~
.>~~I' - 'i
~1;; .5
~ i '-
.--
.__..~---_._-~
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT RON LUTSKO PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPUCAN'r. VARIANCE
PROJECT 281 BONITA CANYON DR Request Property line Safety Screen necessitated by
ADDRESS: nelghbo~s commercial batting cage which allows hard
SCALE: FILE NUMBER: balls to be propelled Into the lutsko yard
NORTH No Scale ZAV-Q1-18
h:\home\planning\carlos~ocators\zav0118.cdr 3.22.01
[P~~~I[Q)
5230 I W-€c.J).
riD pH
May 23, 2001
a'
~\. ,
<@,c,
."" ~,,'
Dawn M. Van Boxtel, Project Planner;",,'
Planning Department, PubliC:: Service Bldg.
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re:
,,'.....,0
~0,1~>~ "
Also, Mr.!
!",C
ar\:d mislea
b~tting cag
to\build a w
'*.
wh~n the va
as Well as M
the'qalls, no
alone throug
with chain-lin fen
Davenport's b tting c
e surrounding neighbors stating untruths
~of the wall, the balls getting out of the
'",tter is making it sound like he only wants
'ing he wants the wall to measure 6' 6",
, ~ batting cage is facing my property
,. ~. s the young boys hitting
at inside the ,cage, let
9mpletel' nclosed
out out of Mr.
so s though
Mr. Davenport just hits the balls at will in the canyon. It does not mention that the
structure is completely enclosed. I, however, know differently. Now, as far as the 100-
125 miles per hour, come on. Who's going to believe that? I have never had any
problems with Mr. Davenport's batting cage or pitching machine.
Keep in mind, Mr. Davenport's batting cage is constructed of chain-link (see through
material) and Mr. Lutsko's proposed 12' 6" plywooq fence is not. It restricts my view
and ruins the ambience of this exclusive neighborhood, not to mention the unsightly
look it will have. I live in this neighbor too and my opinion matters (as well as the
surrounding neighbors), therefore, I adamantly object to this variance and see no
reason for a special variance to be granted to Mr. Lutsko.
I was hoping to make this meeting, however if I can not be home in time, I'm sending
this letter with Mr. Davenport.
Thank youior-y.our time and consideratiol} on this matter.
Sincerely, c. .'
/ /) .
(~
R9sa' Aguirre
285 Bqnita Canyon Drive
Bonita, CA 91902
(619) 656-6237
;:"
i' ~/""
<~ r., ."
:::1
* . ',:
, ",;
,
!
,
. i
, i',
'...;" ':. ":. '
". / (J .'.
", (j'
".' . .
':W""
j,........... ..
0i' \~
~,
/'
:/t
\j
t
*
J."
,
. ~~"'\
, ,.~.
Ma':::1 01 01 08: 13a
1ime Warner Cable
18586358392
p.l
Marjean Boettcher
294 Bonita Canyon Dr
Bonita, CA 91902
FAX #: 858-578-0076
FACSIMilE TRANSMISSION
Reference: Case number ZAV-01-18
DATE:
May 1, 2001
TO:
Dawn Van Boxtel
Project Planner
FAX NUMBER:
619-409-5861
FROM:
MarJean Boettcher
858-635-8203
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER 1
Ms. Van Boxtel and members of the City Planning Commission,
As a home owner in the Bonita long Canyon community I strongly object to the
City granting Mr. And Mrs. lutsko a variance to build a fence in excess of six
feet. This clearly would set a precidence that I find unacceptable.
Many of the home owners in this area paid a premium rate for lots that have
views and to allow one of the home owners to erect a fence that far exceeds the
six foot limit and could "materially obstruct the view from other lots. violates the
Declaration of Restrictions for Bonita Long Canyon Unit No.7.
Allowing a fence that varies in height from over 8' to over 12' would be an
unsiahtly addition to a very well kept and planned neighbomood.
Due to my work schedule I am unable to attend the May 9, 2001 hearing.
Please consider my objections when making your decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
10~#~
M~ean Boettcher
...'._.'0.'.;......;...;..'---'-..____ ._
RECEIVED
- a "'~I
Dawn M Van Boxtel
Project Planner
Planning Department, Public Services
Chula Vista Civic Center
276 Fourth Avenue,
Chula Vista, CA 919]0
_.. ._..____---J
rL\NNING
Re: Case Number ZA V -01-18
Mr. and Mrs Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd. (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Dear Ms. Van Boxtel,
This letter is to inform the Chula Vista City Planning Commission that as residents of
Bonita Long Canyon, we are opposed to the building of an interior property line fence in
excess of six feet.
The property in question is visible tram both street level and from trails in the open space
adjacent to this property. Fences in excess of six feet would be an eyesore and
inconsistent with the ambience predetermined for this neighborhood by the builder and
set forth in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions governing this area. We chose to live
in this neighborhood and pay the additional taxes (fees) required to protect the ambience
and enforce the CC&Rs
Please do not allow a variance for an interior property line fence. Thank you for your
attention
Sincere~ V'FlRJ!t 7f'
~ Ann O'Neill
1479 Country Vistas Lane
Bonita, CA 91902
~ ~- ""-'-"'"'''.~.'''
._--,'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Cicy of Chula Vista, CA, in Cicy Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
2.3
May'1;, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV.01.18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd <APN: 594.070-30.00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence w,ill vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
E'-;VIRONMENTAL STATUS:
-\ny wrlttto comments or petitions to be submitred to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
;)"parunem DO later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxlel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista CIvic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill a1l
~- ~;:respondence
I: you WIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those iSsues
\ oc or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in writren correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior 10
cle publiC hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plcoos
,iCt on fIle and available for Inspection and review at the City Planning Deparunent.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The en) uf Cbul<1 Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who require special accommoda[](J[l
['j JCCeSI, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Di8l1a Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-510]
Service for tbe hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
from 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
(J
~~.\,
' ,
\ '
PROJECT '\
.--LOCATlOH . . .
/\/2
\
,
.,
,
XJ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
hig'her than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as welJ. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
Joss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
')."ME J\- ~ 1= ~ VI \L-
ADDRESS: ~ 1 b \5o-".\--,
s= "l- 'L--o \
Cor'yo~ ~ ~f.~ CA--~ \<10'L
DATE
~',",",~..~....-~",
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
HE.ARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
CO'.1MISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Buildmg,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
2.:3
May", 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV.01.18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594.07Q..30.00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of SIX (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Anv wrIttEn comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Da"11 M. Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
'r you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\0U or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
:he public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plam
JCt en fde and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of CbuJa Yhta, ill complyillg with the American With Disabilities Ac~requests individuals who require special accommodatlun
to :.Jccess, attend andior participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-51 {) 1
Service for the hearing impalred is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
[] ] am in support of the property line fence being built
fTom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
//., .-
/ if I am opposed to the property line fence being built
L/ higher than the current building code of six feet. -It, would
bHt.tJetftment-.to.-my-property.-and-t~
properties ~N~ H"Trl<~ip9 ~ I:GmmUr!itycwi!l-exist-
such-as-: MS-Io.Qur~~::"-eyesore''-ID-Ie()k-at;~a
jO&&-t\HHlr--propeflycValu~~ariaRre-will adversely
"ffeet. th~efte!'!lt-p!an-ofth~(}mmllillty-asa-pristine
<:Qmmtrnity to-tive-1rt:--.--
N,''IE ~,v4:f Mf!L~ ~
ADDRESS: 7.11 ~rrJJA-LktJfi ~.
rfiA I ZD ?C>ff!
DATE
, '^~"",",",.____n_"'''_''
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
'iOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Buildmg,
Chula Vista CIvic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
t-'?
May 1/, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV.01.18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594.07()"30.00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'.6",
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
..\nv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Plannmg
Deparunent no later than noon on the date of the hearing, Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M, Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public. Services BuiJding, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
, orrespondence
Ir you WJsh [0 challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
'oe or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor [0
COt public hearings described in this notice, A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plms
,ire on flle and available for lDSpection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPIJA.NCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABlllTIES ACT (ADA)
The Clf)' of Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~requests individuals who require special accommodation
to <)ccess, attend andior participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 bours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Ser.'ice for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (fDD).
~ am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my communitywill exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value, This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o ] am in support of the property line fence being built
ITom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: r'l/~,,/4,.L_- ~7_
ADDRESS: Z ~ MN/H O'O>,;'fYdJ'P/C...--
DATE <;;--/5-0/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
~OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594.070-30.00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to. be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Deparunem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
Ii you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
IOU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor cD
Lee public hearings described in this notice, A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on flie and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Deparunent.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
!'be CIty uf Chula Yhta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
tiJ access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
rneetlDgs, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 6511-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as welL Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6",
NAME:
krvL'ONIO
C--A-1.-; I ,J I t:><vJ
ADDRESS:
~i.f
~(7A
C14V'IhJ ()/Z..N G-
~ 0'Nt-r4 C1+-
CZ('C-v
DATE:
S-(7-(0/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE ]S HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd <APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any writteD comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M, Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth A veDue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
correspondence.
Ii you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
yuu or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
Jre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABIUTIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with tbe American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation
to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Sen'ic:e for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will eJdst
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME:
ADDRESS: 2.'8
SI'"L\~IO
DATE: ~
---..~~- ,~-_..-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
CiOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of ChuIa Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building.
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENYIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAY.01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594.070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'.6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any writteD comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than Doon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building. Chula Vista Civic Center. 276
Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
correspondence.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
vou or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
L~e public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plam
are on flle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABllJTIES ACT (ADA)
The Clf) of Chula Yista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who require special accommodation
[u 3ccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
Ar' I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
ITom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME:
/-",
V
/ I ",?:.dd
,/;:Jdi'U;?..-'
~9 .
/..A' /C'''Y'#/?..fJ-6
(I
. ~'/'<: /f:5 .~
ADDRESS. fv ~ Ld:';T7,1/~
(r4.
U /~"'c?{? /
/
DATE: ''7~at.-f
....."..'.,.-....,..... -
.-.....
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
':OTlCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSIO:'i of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DAn and TIME: Mayl,f, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: ZAV-01.18
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
sin ADDRESS: 281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594.070-30-00)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of SIX (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6",
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
~nv WfJtten comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning CoIlllIlission must be received in the Planning
DCiJanmem DO later than noon on the date of the hearing, Please direct any questions or comments to ProjeC1
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above Ul all
currespondence
Ii you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those lSSues
\ 'CU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
Lee pubile hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or pla.ns
are on flie and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERlCANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Th" CII) uf Cbul<J Vista, ill cO!D.plying with the American With Disabilities Act,reque.sts individuals who require special accommoda[j(jt'J
(r~ ;Jccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in adV<1DCe, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scbeduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5JUi
Service for tbe bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ ] am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well Hardships to my communitywill exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
cormnuruty to live in.
::J j am in support of the property line fence being built
from 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
,^ML~~~
2.'0<.0 ~,,-,\,k Q..,1>,)w~,,1t--J D<i2
ADDRESS: \':s:,1J.-)\\;,h. "-'I'-- o,,\QQ2
DATE S_2L.- 200\
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
"iOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIlAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY TIlE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZA V-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'_6N to 12'-6N.
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Depanmem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 9]910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above lTI ail
:.::orrespondence
if you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
UJe publ1c hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
Jre on flle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The Ciry of Chu.1a Vi~ta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests inclividuals who require special accommodation
to aeCeB, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-51Uj
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585~5647 (TDD).
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
~~_n.=" "
~ \
PROJECT \
_--LOCATION . -'
\v~
Y' ';::::'
,
, ~
,
'>
P. I am opposed to the property line fence being built
/ .
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
~
NAME:~ c;Julto~~~
ADDRESS: d ~1- ~"", i.'\(\, C'),'\'iCIII \)(-
DATE: Me! ..3> lADol .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
:\OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER,
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feel,
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in aU
correspondence
[f you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
sou or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
drt on fde and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABII..ITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests inclividuals who require special accommodatlun
to :Jccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
''Q, I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
---'urd"'~' \
~ 'I'
\
PROJECT \ " <
.--LOGATIOH . ,"
V\2
\
\
\
.1 ~
o I am in support ofthe property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6",
NAME: Xo\6.-~:(
ADDRESS: )' L-{4'~O(\ \\:LIv \c\\!\ \J.,1)'i\ ~'\, ,
J
DATE: ,~\(}"\J.,)
j .
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
"OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-OH8
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Deparunent no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Da"l1 M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
If you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
vou or someone else raised at the public hearings. or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior [lJ
u,e publ1c hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
ore on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The CIty' of Chula Vi~ta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatlun
to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for
meetings, and 5 days for scbeduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585~5647 (TDD).
~ am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
~~ \,
'(
PROJECT \
.........LOCATlON., ,
/\~
/ \ '
\ 'r---
, C
~ \;
[] I am in support of the property line fence being built
/Tom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: ?fgd~/ ;{ ~.4?;7f./M( )
ADDRESS: 029t 4~ ~~.)/~ (Y 9/9CJ~
DATE: /i-c2-uj
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
:\OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-OH8
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any wrirren comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M, Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public.Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
If you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\OU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prIor to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or pians
dre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABIlJTIES ACT (ADA)
The City or Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who require special accommodation
[0 access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for
meetings, and 5 days for scbeduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 6511-5101
Service for tbe bearing impaired is available at 585.5647 (TDD).
NAME:
~\-d \,
PROJECT '\
.--LOCATlOH '.' ~
'.'~
\/:--
\ ,
, ,
, '
,
1 "
K
"
~ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
from 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
~
ADDRESS: 029~ ~~ q~)~
~eA 9/900<
DATE: ,~~/{}/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
,
:,"'. !
t I' ~ '
"', !
// ~~ I"
.'JOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
C:cula V,St2 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE ,NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
.-'lnv wrmeo comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received ill the Planmng
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Bartel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civle Center, 270
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
C Jrcespondenee
I, \OU wish [0 challenge the City's action on this application in court. you may be limited to raising only those ISsues
\C)U or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pno' [c'
:.r,e puollc hearmgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plan'.
Jet cr, ftle and avaiJable for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The Cn} of Chub Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accomrnodaljuD
((; Jcces~, attend llndJor participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
;nettIngs, aod 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Se[>'ice for tbe bearing impaired is available at S85~5647 (TDD).
".j
. j
. / .
I . ,t...- ..' :~
~ ,.- ......
/
l"'J' I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my communitywill exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
fIom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
N A..1v!E:
i
........
'.
. ,
,;- --I
.'
'.,......,.
ADDRESS:
c, .
/,./ 'j17
,----.".>"., .. .',~ ,_'
t';:' I;'
-r-'
;' ,
,
-.
DATE
"/
-
I
'e......-.---
.......'.....~.......;~~~
...'"''''':"....~~,
....r<. .1 '.".. .___-....T" '.'
.~ ~-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC, HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
HEARI'IG DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROIECT DESCRIPTION:
,"GTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Ciry of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building
(',ula V,St;! Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to cODBider the following project:
Z~
May ~/ 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01.18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN:594-07Q-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
~C,\ Wf]CleO comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Conunission must be received ill the Planmnc:
Jeparlmenr 00 later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any queStiODB or comments to ProjeC1
Planner, DawTl M. Van Bartel in the Planning Departmellt, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
i'CUrtJ1 Aveoue. Chula Vista, CA 91910; or ,by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill aIJ
. JCrespondence .
:: :- Jj wlsh [0 challenge the City's action on this applicatioll'in court, you may be limited to raising only those iSsues
\"" 0: someone else raised at the public hearings, or in writtell correspolldence delivered to the Planning at or prior [c
'.'C c'ubl:c heuillgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plam
..;c"n ',Ie and available for inspectiOIl and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH PISABJLlTLES ACT (ADA)
!h em or ChuJ, VII'a, in compljOng with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests Individuals who require special accommoda!luo
(C J(cn~. !lttend und.Jor participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, f(J~
rnetnng), aDd 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Dla:aa Vargas for specific information tit (619) 691-51U;
Str>'lce for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ I am opposed to the property line fence being bullt
h.Jgher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
:uss 10 our property value. This variance will adversely
cDec[ the general plan of the community as a pristine
commuruty to live in.
~~"
\ ,
\
PROJECT \
.---LOCATIOH , ' '
/ ,v..-s3
, y';:::
\~
c
<
~
:J 1 am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
~AME Fe) i '/7 Lt<:t, E~ Ul 'vi~1
ADDRESS Nt)2 kX.X)1J) J2.v1 Tel/reef.
DATE j /; E)! () /
(
___~~,....~_..-,-uo.. .. .__,,_"__.~_
.-....
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
.'iOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vlst2 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME: Maf~ 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: ZAV-01-18
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
SITE ADDRESS: 281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594-070-30-00)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
AnI' written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning CoI11ID.ission must be received in the Plannmg
:::Jeparunem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Baxtel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above en d.'
~urrespondence
It you wIsh [0 challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\OU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor to
C11t publtc bearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying document2tion and/or plans
dre on fde and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The Clry uf Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests inclividuah who require special accomrnodatlliO
to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodatjon at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
rmdings, and 5 days for scbeduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific i:c.formation at (619) 691~51Ul
Service for tbe bearing impaired is available at 585.5647 (TDD).
)9 I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as weU. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
~~ \,.
PROJECT \
_--LOCATION " ".
/,vc.
'V.~
-,L I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
9 X
NAME r-;c~' /<../M.Ale5
AJ ~ / / Q:-;z1 &J/~t?/-4276
ADDRESS: /-:&:::- C&c477.?/ 1/1"517+-:> {.#pE /-k'#t I
DATEtPS?~/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
.'(onCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located ill the Public Services Building,
Chula VIsta Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the followillg project:
1/~
May II, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
2B1 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Plannillg Commission must be received ill the Planning
Depanmem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel ill the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center. 276
Fourth Avenue. Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please illclude case noted above in all
correspondence.
It you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application ill court, you may be limited to raisillg only those issues
:'OU or someone else raised at the public hearillgs, or ill written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior [[)
cht public hearillgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
are on fIle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
fhe City of Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who reqtUre special accommodatiun
(0 (lccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in BdvBnce, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5J01
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585~5647 (TDD).
('] 1 am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
A I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
,
. ~7(/\
NAME:~_ ( -'-' () ,
ADDRESS: '50<:) CC4ij'V ~cJ.~ -J}.
DATE: ~/? /W:JOr
_ "__._.n_.._ _.... _ "..~..._.........~_~..._.._.... ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
'iOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Buildmg,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Anv wrirteD comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Deparunem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
c urrespondence.
Jf you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
vou or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor to
,he public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on flle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chub YiHa, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
tu access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
m(;etmgs, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) G91~51{)1
Service for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
tram 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
o I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well, Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
\:Jr-E"6
'"
ADDRESS: ,) i)'
DATE: ;-1 '") I 0 l
, (
NAME:
Co.. Y'\ yon ~ \ c.L\ '-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of ChuIa Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Anv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above U1 all
~. orrespondence.
I! you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
IOU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prIor to
the public bearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPIJANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABllJTffiS ACT (ADA)
The CIty' uf Cbula Vi~ta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require speciaJ accommodation
to acce~~, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 houn in advance, fur
meetmgs, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
ri I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higf1er than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
~~ \,
PROJECT '\ ~."
_--WGATlOH '. ,..;
. W
\
.\ ''-----
"I ',.---
"
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: ,_J
- Jf\ C ~,..s
ADDRESS:
C 0>.'1\ l(O n
s- 3~ [I \
'..,
_ ') L\ ':::L
Wl)~_
DATE:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIlAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY TIlE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Anv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning CommiEs ion must be received in the Plannmg
Deparunem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
~urrespondence '
It you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\OU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pnor to
L~t public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on flle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The CIty uf Chula Vi~ta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
!u ,iccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
t],~, I am opposed to the property line fence being built
fu~er than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the genera! plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
fTom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME:
,!" '1'{h
5>J:t-'>!'1^,
ADDRESS:
8"1 Y (?hi/jon 'th,. f),
.
-5/5/0}
DATE:
---_._,..__.__...__....._~.-.-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
:\OT1CE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Ciry of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of SIX (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Depmment no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill ali
correspondence,
If you WIsh to challenge the Ciry's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
vou or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prIor to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
crt on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
rhe CIty of Chub Ybta, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatlun
tu access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 bours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5lUl
Service for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5641 (TDD).
\5(' I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: J2f\T Q Ie. I P.. --=t Q{)(-0DE"
ADDRESS:.313 (~.i'\0,/0J0 R,[)C{E
2bDD iI'A ,aA '119D1-
DATE: 5- 0 - O{
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIlAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY TIlE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p,m.
ZA V-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Deparunem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above Lll all
correspondence
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\OU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
rhe CIty uf Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
to 3ccess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Sen'ice for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my communitywill exist
such as: los3 to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
--'uf'-5'i----" . \;r
~ \"
..
PROJECT \ . .
_--LOCAlION ...~.
..v~
'v':-=-
. .~
, ,.-
\ .--
'I --~
\
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
fTom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
::J45~*Q
NAME: /;~ :(/iyO(JiSI:!
ADDRESS: :~?r:}.J.. (/.-J/;:'Rh'{' (' 1/1, ~IJ
,~iliJ. (4
/
DATE:
/
S/~/'//
~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
','OTlCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of ChuIa Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M, Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
correspondence.
If you wlsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
voo or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
L~e public hearings described in this notice, A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
art on flie and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Cbula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require speciaJ accommodation
to access, attend andioT participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meecings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585w5647 (TDD).
'!'f. I am opposed to the property line fence being built
h'igher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
\ r 0 I am in support of the property line fence being built
~ ITom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
)ii .Iv.. ~ ?1'Y\A,~ J -tAe.. p~ li"'te.-
r b}..cxJ..d. "'-~ e,t)~ ,,~
NAME:M('.~ f1r.5. R.,'i-~ tf#~
ADDRESS: % /~ ~neA I Ave." CAu..1a. r/5fOtJ @II 9/f8
/
DATE: ,-S--;LJ -01
."_.C.o""__'~_~."" ....__.. .._'_0' ..___ . ",.._" m._ ____
.,.~-.~._-~,. --..-.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Buildmg,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m,
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs, Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any wrltten comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Depanment no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public.Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Founh Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
It you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
\'ou or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
cre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AJlffiRICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
fhe City uf Chub Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiuo
!u acces~, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hOUTS in advance, fur
meetings, d 5 days for schedu.led services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691~5101
Ser>'ice f the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~h'" \'1.
\
PROJECT \
+--LOCATIOH '.'~.
"r-='
'V;:?
i ~-
i '.-----
\ ,
~,/
I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
&om 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: I~udro O~troJsk\
ADDRESS: OJ1 (Dyne! I Av6\lUe C\lCjHlS
DATE: W /0) / '0 I
/ /
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chuta Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZA V-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Anv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
correspondence
If you wIsh [0 challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prlOr to
lhe pubhc hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plam
dre on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula ViHa, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatioo
(lJ 3cces~, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-51U1
Service for the bearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
/ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
NAME: A,Lp ~
ADDRESS: 'p..1- c..:Jr\^t-\\ AVt- C,V.
DATE:~" \~ 0 \
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
"OTlCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m,
ZA V-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning CoIIUD.iJ;sion must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
correspondence
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prIor to
the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
are on flie and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
,
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
[(J ~J((:ess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
/&.. I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
fj-om 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME:'1OPA12.--
ADDRESS: f/)f?.L!)f?l.L. AvE::.
DATE: ? -Z-l -f/):L
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p,m,
ZAV-01-18
Mr, & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Departmem no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Da\+T1 M. Van Bartel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above 1Il all
correspondence
It you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
YOU or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
the public hearmgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
dre on ftle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Ac~ requests individuals who require special accomrnodatiu])
[Ij aCCeSS, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in udvance, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) G91~51Ul
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
~ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
commwlity to live in.
~~\"
PROJECT '\
.......LOCATIOH " C:::'
/\~
~,--
,
\
1. '("'
o I am in support ofthe property line fence being built
!Tom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME 9ill7i-a-p
ADDRESS I 1 ~
/11 .I. V~
DATE:~~
Jff.
-6-0 q lo {
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vist3 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from B'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Anv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vist3 CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vist3, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above III all
correspondence
It you wlsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising' only those issues
sou or someone else raised at the public hearings. or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or pflor to
Lce public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying document3tion and/or pI""s
cire on fLle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Tbt City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodatiun
(J 3ccess, attend andJor participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
meetmgs, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691~51Ul
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD).
0/ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAME: ~~ ;( ~ ('JJn(/le~ L S-Irw'ksfl1;J
ADDRESS: 17q5 EfrnhUf5f. Cl1J~.l1J;;S/d/ (it ']t 1/3
!
DATE: '711cbf 2/; ,)01)!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
""OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building,
Chula Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of SIX (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
.;nv written comments or petitions to be submitted to the PlalIlling Commission must be received in the Planning
Deparunent no later than noon on the date of the hearing, Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Da\<TI M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista Civic Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula VisUl, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill all
C 0rrespondence
It you wlsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those ISsues
'.uu or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
'"Ce public hearmgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying docurnenUltion and/or pians
":e on flle and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPliANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
rhe City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accomrnodatjoo
tu acCt:~'S, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, fur
rneeting~, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-51U1
Ser,:ict' for tbe bearing impaired is available at 585~5647 (TDD),
~am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
CJ ] am in support of the property line fence being built
from 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
NAMEK\ ~ Des!' if I-
ADDRESS?:i~ ~J\>"" ~ Q7
c "".
DATE: <) S- 0(
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
H EARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
A P PLICA NT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services BuildiDg,
Chula VlSt3 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
'L-'7
May ~, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01.18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-07()"30.00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'.6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
E.... VI RONMENTAL 5T A TUS:
.~.'lV wrmeD comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Plannmg
DcpuuneDl 00 later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Dawn M, Van Boxlel in the Planning Department, Public. Services Building, Chula Vist3 CivIc Cenltr, 276
"oerth Avenue, Chula Vist3, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above ill 21
~:respondence
i~ you w:sh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those !.Ssues
'..lU 0: someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prJor to
lllt pUDlic hearmgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying document3tioD and/or pblb
crt on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPLIANCE WITH AMERlCANS WITH DlSABIUTIES ACT (ADA)
;'I\t' City of Chub Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommOdatlLifl
I.J ~C((:SS, attend ancUor p<lrtidpate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, l:.Jr
rnttElogs, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 6;1]-51U1
Sen'Jce for tbe hearing impai.red is 3railable at 585-5647 (TDD).
[J I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
\, I am opposed to the property line fence being built
~er than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as weU. Hardships to my community will exist
such as~ loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
a!Teet the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
. LKl:ANI) k ~ Ln-d e~) ~~,
'" At,1E :
\7U loS' CDCR~(' C". c.J, q I q to
ADDRESS: ;)'</\0 v 'l
of,! 0 I
DATE:
--~"-~--'-----"-~-----
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Buildrng,
Chula Vist3 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARING DATE and TIME:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
E"VIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZAV-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd (APN: 594-070-30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of SIX (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'-6" to 12'-6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
Aev written comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planning
Depanment DO later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner, Da'WTl M. Van Boxtel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vist3, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all
:::ur-respondence
II you wIsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
,.~u 0: someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to
~ne public hearmgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans
"rt on fIle and avallable for inspection and review at the City Plarming Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
rh<; eny 01 Chul3 Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation
[':1 acees.s, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for
meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 69]-51UJ
Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD),
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
!Tom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
~r~"\,
I \ .'
" .
\
PROJECT \
....--LOCATION ',/:;:::
/ \(/_~~
" -
i ,--
\
~ I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higner than the current building code of six feet It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
loss to our property value. This variance will adversely
aftect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
NAME ~O'\b(ffl1t) GAU.I.17060
ADDRESS:-'ij& VJodlJU,J)J Av. CV
DATE (f)AY 01, 2aJ/
.
, ,~","-,,-,--,'~""""'"
," ". ","""~...,-....._"..".._"",-",,.. ~~ ,~" -",'..
.. --...'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
~
~
~./
.'\OTiCE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSIO.'; of the City of Chula Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public SefVlces BUlldmg,
Chula V1St3 Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project:
HEARII'o;G'DATE and TIME:
CASE I'o;UMBER:
APPLICANT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
May 9, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
ZA V-01-18
Mr. & Mrs. Ron Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Rd(APN: 594.07()..30-00)
Variance to allow interior property line fence in excess of six (6) feet.
Proposed fence will vary in height from 8'.6" to 12'.6".
Class 3(e) exemption from environmental review
~DV wrmen comments or petitions to be submitted to the Planning Commission must be received in the Planmng
Deparunenr no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project
Planner. DB,,", M. Van Bortel in the Planning Department, Public Services Building, Chula Vista CivIc Center, 276
Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in ail
~ ::J:-rcspondence
.: j au w lsh to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those !.Ss'Jes
,0" Of someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or PliO] to
":t pCDlic helimgs described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or pilLe\
., 't oc file and availabie for inspection and review at the City Planning Department.
COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
The' Cn) uf Chu1a Vista, in complying witb the American With Disabillties Ac~requeJts individuals who require special accommodat10D
[:j Heess, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advanct, fur
meetings, and 5 days for scbeduled services and activities, Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information ~[ (619) 691.5101
Strviee for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD),
o I am in support of the property line fence being built
trom 8' 6" to as high as 12' 6".
~.~ "I"
PROJECT '\
_......LOOATIOH '_
/\/8
\, '.----
,
\ 'r-
, ~
"\ ,--
'1 I am opposed to the property line fence being built
higher than the current building code of six feet. It would
be a detriment to my property and the surrounding
properties as well. Hardships to my community will exist
such as: loss to our views, an "eyesore" to look at, and a
Joss to our property value. This variance will adversely
affect the general plan of the community as a pristine
community to live in.
DATE
NAME 5(p iI 6 Ilj/i_
ADDRESS:,2i..-;;'Z :.lv::' r: !~
IJ&-M. 'Ct <} / 7 O?
5 --- 1<<'"01r
To:
Dave Rowlands, City Manager
John Schmitz
The City Attorney
Jim Sandoval
All Planning Commissioners
From:
Ron and Sona Lutsko
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Date:
7/18/01
Re:
Lutsko variance for property line Safety Screen 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Scheduled to be re-heard by Planning Commission 7/25/01
Case Number ZAV-01-18
On May 23, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko and Mr. and Mrs. Davenport verbally agreed to the
Planning Commissioners' suggestion they go to formal mediation to try to find a material to be
used in making the Safety Screen pleasing to the Davenports side. Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko
investigated the procedure regarding a variance, and tried to follow the rules of the Planning
Department and Planning Commission regarding submission of printed materials as stated on
the notice sent to them.
Immediately following the meeting with the Planning Commission, Mr. Davenport suggested to
the Lutskos outside the Council Chambers that they could work out this disagreement without
the services of a mediator and all agreed to try.
VARIANCE AMENDMENT:
In the spirit of compromise, we are willing to install a cedar fence the entire length of
section 1, as amended by our fax to Beverly dated 5/22/01, to begin about 25 feet more
toward the front property line due to the Davenport planters, but still behind 75 feet from
the front property line-approximately 137 feet in length as per the plans submitted.
This Safety Screen would not be attached to the existing masonry wall, would extend
from the 12 inch column in the front to the end of the masonry wall in the north, with 4 x
4 posts 2 feet in the ground with concrete, and cedar fencing 1" x 8" x 8' high attached
to the cedar posts with 2 x 4's about 3 feet from the bottom and 3 feet from the top to
prevent warping. This Safety Screen would extend about 3 feet above the existing
masonry wall on the Davenport side, which is now only 42 inches high.
However, in Section 2 the plywood will need to remain as we cannot think of any other
reasonably priced material which would provide the height and safety other than plywood. Mr.
Davenport should be encouraged to finish his side with a material pleasing to his taste at his
cost, which will not damage our side of the Safety Screen or affect its stability.
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE MINUTES
We received a copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission on 7/12/01.
VALIDITY OF DAVENPORT'S SURVEY: Since Mr. Davenport is alleging that the existing
property line masonry wall is his wall, and we feel it is a property line jointly owned wall, Ron
spoke with the owner of Kappa Surveying and Mapping Inc. whose company did a brief survey
with Mr. Davenport's assistance holding the stick used for sighting. The Kappa Surveying
Page 2 - Lutsko - 7/18/01
company representative stated that the property line wall begins and ends on the property line,
and slightly deviates along the middle section. We estimate from looking at the Davenport
survey that the first 30-35 feet of the masonry wall are on our property line at the front, and at
the back in the chain link fence area about 15 feet are on the property line. The survey also
affirms that Mr. Davenport has intruded into the Lutsko property on his front property lawn area
by about 1 foot 3 inches. It does not say that all of the wall is on Mr. Davenport's property. We
still maintain that the existing masonry wall is a jointly owned property line wall.
We also provided a statement dated 5/21/01 by the company which built the existing masonry
wall-Russ-Denney Masonry--- stating that it was built as a property line wall, and they came
out and visually checked this statement. Also, the bill for the construction of the wall made out
to Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko and dated 1/20/92 stated it was a property line wall. It is our belief that
the existing masonry wall is a jointly owned property line wall.
In addition, we contacted San Diego Land Surveying and Engineering, and spoke with Herman
Batman regarding the survey conducted with Mr. Davenport holding the sighting stick for the
surveyor. The Kappa Surveying Company only sent out one man to do the survey. Mr. Batman
with SDLSE said in order to insure the validity of their surveys it is their company policy to send
out their own two man teams. In the case of a property line dispute, neither property
owner should be involved in the survey process. Therefore, we cannot assume the survey
submitted by Mr. Davenport is valid.
It would be imperative that an impartial survey be conducted with only company representatives
involved in the surveying process, and with neither property owner involved in any way in the
surveying process.
The issue for the Planning Commission is the wall height necessary to meet code issues, safety
and liability concerns, and the property line issue is a civil matter.
ADDRESS VERIFICATION OF PETITIONS PRESENTED BY MR. DAVENPORT:
It is our assumption that the Planning Commission should only accept petitions regarding this
variance from those homes notified by the City as possibly affected. However, the Planning
Commission allowed Mr. Davenport to present some petitions to them the night of the meeting,
assumed they were valid according to the minutes, and only twelve of those addresses (other
than Mr. Davenport's) were from within the area noticed by the Planning Department-some
were duplicate addresses, including the letters-for example John and Ann O'Neill sent one
letter, but Rosa Aguirre sent a letter and a petition. It should be noted that as of the night of
the Planning Commission meeting the Aguirre home was for sale. Of these 12 addresses
within the noticed area,
one was from an address not listed on our copy of the addresses notified by the City-
296 Bonita Canyon Drive;
one checked both boxes so you don't know how he felt-1485 Country Vistas Lane;
as of the night of the meeting one woman is selling her house - 285 Bonita Canyon
Drive, so she will not be an affected neighbor;
Page 3 - Lutsko - 7/18/01
one crossed off the verbiage of the first box which stated: "It would be a detriment to my
property and the surrounding properties. . . This variance will adversely affect the
general plan of the community as a pristine community to live in" so they were not really
opposed-- 277 Bonita Canyon Drive;
this leaves only 8 valid petition addresses. The rest of the petition addresses (15) ranged
from approximately 1.7 miles away to 9.2 miles from the area, with Mr. Davenport's brother
using the City of Chula Vista as his address since he is a Chula Vista Policeman (Listing of
addresses of petitions enclosed). Of these 15 petitions outside of the area,
312 Canyon Ridge Drive checked no box and signed "Grey" but the assessor's records
show Curtis Coleman Jr. as the owner-no opinion given;
348 Canyon Ridge Drive signed "Smith" with an illegible first name and the Assessor's
records show the owner is Michael Schultz and Lisa;
one gave no street address and only signed Topar;
one used 276 Fourth Avenue;
one was fictitious as it was not listed in Thomas Brothers -416 Woodland Avenue--
this narrows the petitions outside the area to 10 valid addresses.
WORDING OF THE DAVENPORT PETITION:
We are sure the Commissioners realized that the wording used by Mr. Davenport in his petition
is what we consider half-truth, slanted wording, because it did not state the whole truth and
specify that the fence height from "'usable grade' on the adjacent property side [Mr.
Davenport's side] ranges from 6' to 8'6" for section 1 and 2'6" to 7'6" for section 2 (Planning
Department document to Planning Commission dated 5/23/01, page 2), and he did not list the
fact that his construction caused code violations of the wall height (Planning Department
document to the Planning Commission dated 5/23/01 page 4), and he did not state that the
neighbor (the Lutsko family) had safety concerns as well as being put in violation by
Davenport's actions. We feel the signers of this petition had a right to know the whole truth
before signing. Our letter using factual information dated 5/11/01 was not received prior to
signing by 5 of the 8 valid addresses within the noticed area, as their petitions are dated prior to
our letter-therefore, their signatures might not have been obtained by Mr. Davenport.
MEDIATION:
Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko have initiated and set up all three meetings with the Davenports, and the
Lutskos suggested that all parties need to stay focused on possible solutions since they don't
agree on the problem. These meetings occurred on the following dates:
Page 4 - Lutsko - 7/18/01
May 27 approximately one hour,
June 14 over property line wall about 20 minutes,
June 19 Mr. Lutsko called mediation firms for information and costs,
June 22 information on mediation services and cost faxed to the Davenports,
June 24 Lutsko set up another meeting and verified with Davenport that the mediation
information fax was received, and
June 25 about one and one-half hours.
The Davenports have insisted the meetings be on their property, and have refused to look at
the material used on the Lutsko side. The only time Mr. Davenport called us was to cancel one
meeting which was re-scheduled-he never called to suggest a meeting or alternatives. At NO
POINT has Mrs. Davenport participated in or been in attendance at any of these meetings.
The definition of mediation is: "a diplomatic process in which both parties in a dispute try to
work out a voluntary agreement with the help of a qualified, impartial mediator." (Consumer
Adviser, An Action Guide to Your Rights page 355) This has NOT occurred between the
Lutsko family and the Davenport family as the Davenports have refused.
SUMMARY:
In surnmary, the Lutskos asked Mr. Davenport several times, since his business deals with
stucco for houses and walls, to suggest cost effective alternative materials to use to make the
existing wall high enough to meet code, keep the Davenport dog in their yard, provide safety in
the area of the batting cage for the Lutskos, and to be pleasing to the Davenports on their side.
The Davenports have suggested no alternative, stable, solid, cost-effective Safety Screen
material to meet the Lutsko's concerns-landscaping will not meet code or meet safety issues.
The Davenports have refused mediation.
Mr. and Mrs. Davenport, whose construction actions necessitated this Variance for a Safety
Screen as documented in the Planning Department recommendation, have:
continually refused to pay for any costs to remedy this situation on their side,
refused to choose a covering to cover the plywood or to use the hawaiian material used
by the Lutskos,
maintained they do not want the wall in the area of the Davenport planters made any
higher,
maintained the masonry property line wall is their wall and we do not have a wall--even
though they admit we paid for half the cost of building the wall,
maintained they do not want the plywood Safety Screen in the area of the batting cage,
and have refused to pay their half of the cost for a mediator's services maintaining they
would not say anything to a mediator they would not say to the Lutskos, and we
should save our money.
..- ,. .-- -"-.--..--.--..---,-.-.-.-.--.-..-'"" -..-...-...-. --.
Lutsko - page 5 - 7/18/01
Mr. Davenport also maintains there are special rules for lower wall height in adjoining
yards with pools-we have found specific rules stating a 5 foot minimum fence height on
all sides.
Mr. Lutsko contacted several professional mediators and chose the most reasonably priced
one: Mr. James Greer of Greer & Associates, Phone: (858) 481-9006. We are providing
copies of Mr. Greer's faxed resume and costs-note the fax date to us of June 19, 2001. This
was faxed to the Davenports on June 22 and they acknowledged receipt of the fax.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS:
Commissioner McCann stated he had visited both properties and there is the appearance of
"proper containment" of the balls-what about unsupervised activities or those times when the
parents are in the house for awhile-it is easy for the batting cage door at the Lutsko end to be
left open, and Mr. Davenport has admitted that the boys "pepper" the balls on the deck area
next to our property line fence.
One Planning Commissioner questioned the CCR regulations-although these are not
something the City enforces, we would be glad to provide a copy. We feel that Mr.
Davenport is in violation of the following CCR's: (this list does not include City Codes)
1. the height limit of improvements #5, "... no owner shall place any improvement, . .
which would materially obstruct the view from any other owner's Lot." The safety
issues of the batting cage as well as the height are in violation in our opinion.
2. No recreational vehicles #10, "No camper, trailer, . . . or commercial truck. . . shall
be parked on any Lot unless screened behind a six foot high fence, except when
parked temporarily for the purpose of loading or unloading." Parking enforcement
citations for trailer and his company trucks.
3. No Nuisance #16 "Nothing shall be done on any Lot which is or may become an
annoyance or nuisance to the other Lot owners. For example, no external
speakers, bells or horns shall be permitted on any Lot. . . " the batting cage/deck
nuisance and external speakers mounted on masonry property line wall.
4. #31 Each Lot and construction of improvements thereon shall be subject to the
"Bonita Long Canyon Residential Development Standards" and any other applicable
standards and requirements established by the City of Chula Vista.
Bonita Long Canyon Residential Development Standards perceived violations:
1. The total number of feet of two side yards must equal 13 feet and "shall not be
reduced", Davenport's do not meet this standard due to the batting cage extending
from within inches of one property line on the east to the west property line within
inches, and the floor of the deck above the top of the current fence resulting in no
fence height for yards with pools.
In light of the fact that we had a property line wall of legal height prior to Mr. Davenport's
construction, the fact that we now need to pay for and install a Safety Screen to meet code and
safety issues due to Mr. Davenport's actions--as documented by the Planning Department,
Page 6 - Lutsko - 7/18/01
would, in our opinion, be an acceptable exception to the CCRs fence height requirement. After
all, the precedent for exceptions was set when Mr. Davenport was allowed by the City to first
build his batting cage and deck and then get a permit issued after construction, with no
variance procedure. However, it should be noted that CCR's are a CIVIL matter, and not
enforced by the City.
One other Planning Commissioner asked about City rulings on possible violations, as he had
the preliminary, partial study which did not provide any code citations to substantiate
statements issued by Sue Gray in her letter, which was provided in Mr. Davenport's
materials, without our follow-up letter to the City. We are enclosing our follow-up letter, as we
feel no thorough investigation has been made regarding possible code violations.
SA TTING CAGE:
The balls have come into our yard at great speed, and we think it is because the gate for the
batting cage door is left open when the kids are not supervised, or possibly the balls become
compressed going at such a high speed that they are forced through the chain link fencing-
why they have come into our yard we can only speculate, but we know one narrowly missed our
son's head, and we know we hear the balls hitting the portion of the Safety Screen still
standing. We were told by a baseball professional the speed of the balls out of the machine,
which is the figure we used-we will not name the person, as we don't want him to be harassed
for his opinion and help. The Davenports cannot be there 24 hours a day to make
sure the rules are followed by their teenaged sons. So, we do need the Safety Screen, and a
wall height to meet the pool codes and keep their dog in their yard.
LETTER FROM THE DAVENPORTS TO THE LUTSKOS DATED 7/11/01:
On Monday, July 16, we received a letter at our business sent by the Davenports. He
demanded we remove our Safety Screen before noon on Thursday, July 19, or he would
remove it and send us the bill. We asked Jim Sandoval to fax verification that there was
a "Stay on Code Enforcement" agreed to at the May 23 Planning Commission meeting,
and he did so after having a City employee listen to the tape of the meeting. We sent a
copy of that verification to the Davenports by fax and certified mail on Tuesday, July 17.
Also, Mr. Davenport mentions in his letter "it was agreed upon that we would try to
mediate a solution to the fence issue." We need to clarify this-NO FORMAL
MEDIATION ever took place as Mr. Davenport would not agree to it, only informal
meetings between neighbors occurred.
A further item mentioned in Mr. Davenport's letter was the possibility that we have our
home on the market. If we decide to sell our home, we would need to have this
variance to have a safe and code-compliant Safety Screen/fence for the new or
prospective owners, so whether or not we are contemplating selling is of no
consequence in the granting of this variance. We are no longer showing our home at
this time.
We are enclosing a copy of the letter we sent to Cliff and Joyce Davenport on July 17,
and a copy of the letter we received from the Davenports dated 7/11/01.
Page 7 - Lutsko - 7/18/01
Finally, we see no progress toward a solution, and are asking you what steps do
we take now-we need this solid Safety Screen installed immediately.
We would truly appreciate it if, at the July 25 meeting of the Planning
Commission, when our variance will once again be heard, the Commissioners
would only focus on the variance with related facts, and not allow any testimony
which could be termed "defamation of character and/or slanderous" toward
either Ron or Sona Lutsko, as was permitted at the May 23 meeting. We would
appreciate it if the City Attorney/or Planning Commission presiding officer would
immediately stop any such unnecessary statements by any person, so that the
Planning Commission is allowed to do their work-decide on the variance based
on the facts, safety issues and code compliance.
The Lutskos, never imagined such defamatory, slanderous statements would be made or
allowed to be made at a formal City meeting in a lengthy presentation. All Lutsko testimony
regarded factual matters: the need for the wall height, safety concerns, the fact the Davenport
dog easily gets into our yard due to the low wall, and the fact that the Davenport construction
was done without permits prior to construction, and without any variance for the intrusion into
the side yard set-back, as well as diminishing the height of the previously legal existing property
line wall.
It is totally unbelievable to us that a neighbor is allowed, in our opinion, to violate codes, place
us in danger, make us in violation due to their actions, create potential liability for us, and we
are required to file for the variance, and pay to make our yard safe once again as well as to
comply with the code for yards with pools. We are willing to complete our side at a reasonable
cost, so that we can put up a Safety Screen to meet the codes and provide us safety and some
peace of mind. We have endured the years since 1999 of double standard treatment by City
Planning and Zoning with members ignoring our verbal concerns and statements regarding the
reason for the need for our safety screen, and our questions about the Davenport
construction, their lack of permits prior to construction, and no variance process for the
deck/batting cage even after construction. Not until we put things in writing in December 2000
did Jim Sandoval finally recognize that we needed the current portion up for our safety during
deliberations for the variance, and allowed us to maintain the existing portion of the Safety
Screen where the batting cage is located.
We thank Jim Sandoval and the Planning Commission for allowing us this portion of the
Safety Screen during this variance process. Since the Planning Department is
recommending approval, we are requesting, if the Planning Commission grants
approval, that the existing Safety Screen be allowed to stand through the10 days after
the meeting required for an appeal to be filed, and allowed to stand until a permanent
structure can be built.
Please grant this variance, so we can proceed immediately to finish off the rest of the
Safety Screen-we need to get some closure to this nightmare problem.
~-""",---,,"'._..,...- - .,..__.~.~.. .._-~--_..~-~_._..._-,---_."..._,_._---,,_..
ENCLOSURES
Locations of Davenport Petitions 5/23/01 one page
Mediator's credentials three pages
Lutsko letter in response to Sue Gray's letter
dated 2/28/01 three pages
Letter from Davenport to Lutsko dated 7/11/01 one page
Letter to Davenport from Lusko dated 7/17/01 two pages
Copy of fax from the City dated 7/16/01 regarding
NO code enforcement for the Safety Screen
which was enclosed with letter to Davenport one page
LOCATIONS OF DAVENPORT PETITIONS 5/23/01
Bonita Canyon Drive:
276 petition - Alan Fink (5/22)
277 petition. Ken and Marsha Larsen. Crossed off words therefore did not oppose
(283 petition..Mr. and Mrs. Davenport)
284 two petitions. Antonio and Cathy Cabinian (5/7)
285 petition and letter Rosa Aguirre - selling her house-on east side of Davenport
286 petition. Salus Trinidad (5/22)
287 petition - Johanne and Julio Hernandez (5/3)
294 petition and letter. Marjean Boettcher (5/1)
296 two petitions. Carolyn and Daniel Grossman - note: not on my label list provided by City
Country Vistas Lane:
1479 John and Ann O'Neill Letter (5/9)
1485 Checked both boxes on petition - Rick Barnes - therefore did not oppose variance
Woodglen Terrace:
1479 letter and petition - David Bejarano (5/6)
1482 petition - Felix and Lisa Esquivel (5/18)
PETITIONS OUTSIDE 500 SQUARE FEET NOTIFIED
Canyon Ridge Drive: approximately 1.7 miles from 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
300 - petition - (name illegible) From the Assessor's records the name is Gina Ing
312 - petition - Grey (only last name given) - no box checked - assessor's
records show Curtis Coleman Jr. as the owner not "Grey"
342 . petition -J. Jacks
348 - petition - (first name illegible last name Smith) assessor's records: Owner
Michael Schultz and Lisa
373 . petition - Patricia Browne
Corral Canyon Road: approximately 2.4 miles from 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
3702 - petition - Ed Zapolski
Cornell Avenue: south of H between Otay Lakes Rd. and Corral Canyon approximately
2.8 miles from 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
819 - petition - Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ogden
827 - two petitions - Audra and Alex Ostrowski Note: This house is for sale
no number given - petition. no first name given only last name: Topar
Elmhurst Street: south of H off Otay Lakes Road approximately 2.8 miles from
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
1777 - petition - Cindy Nay
1795 - petition - Connie Struiksma
276 Fourth Avenue - City of Chula Vista Office - Davenport name on petition - Mr. Davenport's brother
who is a Chula Vista Policeman approximately 9.2 miles from 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
Los Coches Court: south of East H and west of Southwestern College approximately 4.6 miles from
281 Bonita Canyon Drive
1366 - petition - Leland Littleton, Jr.
416 Woodland Avenue. Ficticious street not listed in Thomas Brothers. petition - Roberto Gallegos
2833 Via Del Allazon - petition - Scott Mills - near highway 54 off Robinwood
approximately 6.1 miles away from 281 Bonita Canyon Drive
'JO .:-" c "" . r '......
.0 ..,f<> "'''_''''
"'1:.'';-''''''
I""."'J
Jun-19-01 12,23P
8684816260
1'.01
GRIl"R <I AS.iOCIATB.~
AIUJIO'" AI Law
IUS {'_IJlo cW MIIC, Sui'" n
Dol M..... C....ir,..nIiI '1014-:1645
TeIL.....J W.481.1IOOfi
....ojWJ., .......Wl.!j~
FACSIMILB COVER SHmB~
Date
c>G 19. ~(
(1 '1'" (1"""
r......., ~ / )41", '()Nt.....!"""/..
Time
To
Firm
Number
$"7', Ihft) /
~
From
Regarding
James A. Greer. Esq.
"''''<</ fvyv~ hi.< (r,,,,,,,-
-1- (inoluding this page)
Original to be fellowed via Mail
copy to be followed via Mail
~es
~es
NO
No
V'"
Pages
Note
Message
Please contaot Us if you do not receive all pages.
~."'"
".v. (r 'j"'" /14,',- )
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED
INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE. IF YOU
RECEIVED THIS TAANsMISSION IN ERROR, THEN ANY DISTRIBUTION,
READING, COFYING, OR USE OF THIS CO~ICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN
THE ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL.
YOU WILL BE REIMBURS~D FOR YOU~ REASONABLE EXPENSES.
1::10_"'-1 ~/\::Il 1 (::..: j
2i: ~(b 1d4~~
LI=.I::'~LI
I-'.IL':
~un-19-01 12:24P
85B4816260
P.02
JamCl A. Greer. &q.
GRln:1t '" ASSOCIATES
1135 Camino del MMr. Suile II
nel Mar. ClIIiforala 9201~-2lo4~
1'eJ....., .'-..JON
''''''''-''1-'2441
PROFESSIONAl. CURRICULUM VITAE - MEDIA'roR
~I"I Exnrnonce:
In 1986 Mr. Oreer be.:sn his emplu)'mClIlas "Litigation Counsel" for. top-tcn sized
ConWllctiOIl Cunllllctor and Devoloper in San Dieit" County. His duties w~re related solely to
Construction, Real!!staLe, and l.and Use maners.
In 1989, he started hia own Law t;inll dedicated to oJientele involved in the speeia1i7.ed
areas of Construction and Real Estate. Ove< tho CDurSO of the next tcn years. Mr. Greer
employed upward~ of t!\ree aS$()ciate attorne)'" and togelher they BlJccO$sfully handled in excess of
1500 construction-related and real estate-relued meso
In the past fourteen~. Mr. Greer has accumulated e>\tcnsive liti!:!ltiofl experience in
every conceivable type of ronstruClion claim (conltruction centrac.ts, construction defects,
contractor performance issues, archit~ctural and engin~ering issue., C.S.I..13. issues, lienFJbond
claims, Bnd tho like); IInd has substantial experionce litigating numerous real estate cases (broker
issues, easemenll, purChBSo/Bftle Contract issues, and title insurance i..u~s),
Mr. Greer'. 'CaTe~r goal' i. to und~rtake a tran,itlon away uomlitigation and toward full-
time practice as . Mediator in the states of California aile CDlorAdo.
Dhmute R~lolution E.Derlen~e:
Mr. Greer has been conducting mediations since: 1994.. in California and Colorado, ~
in the field of construclion and real eSlate. His cascload includes Superior Court assiljned cases.
and private parly litigation and pre-liti!!'ltion mattcrs. As ufthe end of2000, OVer 90 cftSes have
been mediated. (List ofa slOnpling of subject matte,s mediated appear. on s~cend page).
.:dU~Ariorutl Back,round:
J,D. Unh'orsilY ofSsn Diogo Law I'chool in 1985
M.A.P.A tJniv~rsity of 10M In 19~3, Omt Lallde
(Mastcr of Arb in Public Administration)
B.A. University of Iowa in 1981 (dcJllhle tI/(/jel' Bachelor lIf Ans in
Econo'"ics and Polilical Sci~ncc)
MLodlatlon FA1ucalionl Trahtlnr'
Facuhy Spl:llker. Nationallnatitule of Ilusine~s
Academy uf DI~plltQ R.esolutiun
AmeriClln Arbitration Association
Alternative !)isputc ReaaJuti,m Conullillee. San DiellO Bar
Allern~tiv~ Dispute Resolution Programs, Denver Bar
Arbitration & Meditrtinn International, Arbitration Training
Continuing EducatiOIl of the Bur, California
(presumed seminars in construction law)
(42 hours)(c~rtification as Civil MedilL\or)
(12 hours, ine!' Arbitratiun Training)
(excess of 10 hours)
(1 S hours)
(l4/tours)(CSLB certification)
(45 houra In A.D.R, education)
Fel! SrhedulCI:
Mediator 'lites: S 18000 per hour (minimum depOliiI is $KOO.OO (lntal) for two-Pllrty miltter and
$1000.00 fDr muhi-pllrty mailer). Travel charges and per dicm far nut-of-coum)' mediations.
_.____..,_, ..._~'"__.'___'m._~"
"'...' ..,.-.....
"'" -"'" ...""-'-'
.......-.>
Jun-19-01 12:24P
8684816260
P.03
M ember.1I i011 A nll~.a'ion~:
· San DiC!!e;> Ce;>unly Bar Association ("S.D.CII.A.")
· ConK/ruetion Law Scction, SO.C.BA
· Alternative Di.putcRcsolulion Section, S.DC.I:IA
. keaJ Property Law Section, S.D.C.BA
· Client-Relations Committee, s'O.C.BA
. State Of Colorado liar AJSociation
. Del Mar ModiatiDn CDmmiUcx;
· Soclcty Of Professionals In Dispute Resdution, San [)icgo Chapler'
· SQcicty Of PrQfessionals In Dispute Rel<{1IutiQn, Denvcr Chapter
· Sauthern Califbmi. MediatiQn ASSDeiatiQn
LittrUJul"r-:
AlIorney - California Bar Assoclatian: since J 987
AttQrney - CoIDrado Bar AIIsociation . since 1\i9o
Federal District Court (SQ. Cal.) : since 1987
S.mulln~ of luhied matter of CMUS handlP.d:
· Litijjation ovcr use of cuement for propert)' access, Del Mar
· Multi-party IIOA liti~atjon regarding construction defects, San Diogo
· Litigatit'" Dver alleg~ failure to disclose property defects, RanchQ Santa (lc
· General ContractQr delay claims ag.in~1 subcontractor, Olivellhain
· Commercial Real Estate malleI' involvinjj il$bcstos issucs. Unciaitas
· Dcveloper claims againKI architcet (private panics), Valley Center
· Ilomcowl1ors' claims over veijetation maintenance Qn CQnullon boundary, Del Mar
· Litigatior. over failure to disclQse defective cDnslruction, Solana Beach
· H.OA litiijation over impermissible architectural clc.,iijnlinstallation, EncitlilaS
· Litigation by multi-party f lomcDwners against developer for defects, tincinitas
· Subcontractor mecbAnic'~ lien claim against General and Owner (private parties), R.S.l',
· Condominium Owner litigation for aUeged defective H,O.A. repairs, La JoUa/UTC
· Droker cQmmission claim a~ 'procuring causc' (private parlies). Del Mar
· HQmeQwner litigation fnr defective architectoral and engineering, R, S.F.
· Litigation Qver failur. tu disclnse permits fQr swimming puol, Sohll1a Beach
· Litigatiotl aver failure tn identify septic locatianJ1imitalinn, R,S,F.
· Litigation Dver code deficiencies in Qriginal construction, La Jolla
· Liligatinn by Homeowncr claiming Developer viDlated Gradi~g permit, Encinilas
· Litigation with City over deficient P.IR by neighbQring Owner., SlIn Diego
· SubcontractQr claims for non-payment QfE"lru, La Jolla
· Buyer claim Rgainst PrQkel' for allegw fuilure to disclQse (priva:e parties), Olivenhain
· l.il1811lion by H.O.A. "sainat owner fQr fcncing slyle, SIll ana /:Ieacb
· LoI split denial claim~ negligcnt againsl Cit)', San Diego
· lJomeowner claims of defectivc and abandoned perfonTlance (private part;os), Del Mar
· Retai,,;n!! wall and fence mainte.)ance claima (private panies). Del Mar
· Dispute ovcr payment to Archiloo\ arid counters by Owner (privatc pal'ties), Encinil"
· Homeowner claims againsl Sub\)Ontractor (private panics). La JoUa
· Seller claim ~aini;l Broker for negligence (Private parties), Del Mar
· Litigation invQlving "urety Qn Stop Notic. ReleaJe RQnd. SIIn Diego
· Dispute (private parties) Over COl>lInQn boundary location and use, Del Mar
To:
Sue Gray
George Krempl, Assistant City Manager
Bob Leiter, Director
Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director
Brad Remp, Assistant Director
From:
Ron and Sona Lutsko
FaX/Phone: (619) 482-8066
3/5/01
Date:
Re:
Letter dated February 28, 2001 from Sue Gray regarding multiple serious
concerns of the property located at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive
Total number of pages faxed:
At our February 9, 2001 meeting, we were told that the only way the City of Chula Vista
would consider our serious concerns regarding 283 Bonita Canyon Drive was if we
would file a formal written complaint. As you note, you gave us the form to fill out. We
know of no code which would limit our time frame to submit any formal complaint
regarding these concerns. Further, in accordance with Jim Sandoval's
recommendation, we have submitted the application for variance with drawings for a
safety screen and intend to complete this process before considering filing any
complaints. Therefore, any partial, incomplete investigation you might have performed
is considered preliminary and of no consequence in determining when a case that has
not formally been opened may be closed--per your statement giving us only 10 days to
have any other concerns addressed or the case would be closed.
1. A formal investigation must contain specific section reference numbers cited
from the Chula Vista Municipal Code, California Building Code, Chula Vista
Zoning Ordinance or other governing code law. There were no citations in
your preliminary investigation letter. Therefore, your preliminary investigation
was limited and incomplete, and left out one of the most serious concerns
completely, as well as several others.
2. When a construction permit is applied for AFTER the construction has been
completed, as was done with several projects at 283 Bonita Canyon Drive,
there is no way the City could have properly conducted inspections
throughout construction, such as confirming the depth of the pilings for the
deck, because they were already poured and decking was framed prior to
inspection, leaving no way for the inspector to adequately complete
inspection according to construction law. Note: Mr. Davenport did not apply
for a permit until we complained about the construction to the City of Chula
Vista. According to the Building Code, Section 108.5.2, "Inspection should
Lutsko - 3/5/01 page 2
be made after excavations for footings is complete and any required
reinforcing steel is in place." This was not done for the deck.
3. You indicate it is not the City's job if non-permitted construction modifies an
existing permitted masonry property line wall. We feel it is the job of the City
of Chula Vista to enforce the Municipal Code, and the Building Codes.
a. Modifications were made to a previously permitted masonry property
line wall without a permit--height alterations, structure attached, etc.
The code states that no modifications may be made to an existing
permitted structure without an additional permit or variance-neither of
which Mr. Davenport obtained. Therefore, the 70' setback from the
front property line and less than 144 square foot area of a structure
does not compfetely eliminate this issue because it is illegally altering
the intended permitted use of a iointlv owned masonry property line
wall according to California Building Code (C. B.C.) section 103.
b. You state that: "The problem of modifications to the fence that
prevents your pool from having the minimal enclosure is a civil issue."
Any time an existing permitted structure, the masonry property line
wall, is modified so that it no longer complies with the governing codes
and the permit under which it was built, it becomes the building
official's right and responsibility to enforce the code per C.B.C. section
104.2.1, in order to ensure a safe environment.
4. The City's responsibility to uphold all governing codes is not relieved just
because a permit was signed off. Nor does a permit relieve the owner of a
subject property from complying with all governing codes, irregardless of
whether the permitted drawings conform to code or not. According to the
C.B.C. Section 106.4.3:
Validity of a permit. The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans,
specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an
approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other
ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuminq to qive authority to violate or cancel
the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the iurisdiction shall not be valid.
The issuance of a permit based on plans. specifications and other data shall not
prevent the buildinq official from thereafter requirinq the correction of errors in said
plans, specifications and other data. or from preventinq buildinq operations beinq
carried on thereunder when in violation of this code or of anv other ordinances of that
iurisdiction.
Lutsko-3/5/01
page 3
In addition, it is the City's job to enforce all governing codes if someone is
unlawfully violating the Codes they were hired to enforce. Section 103
Violations:
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy or
maintain any building or structure or cause or permit the same to be done in violation
of this.
5. You indicate the steps are considered "on-grade" and no permit is required.
Had you inspected the property, you could have seen that the wooden stair
case going UP and ATTACHED to the deck is not "on-grade" and so should
require a permit.
Since our SAFETY is our primary concern, due to the City's allowing the
construction by PERMITTING AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS
COMPLETED of a batting cage including the ball propelling machine which
propels balls at 100-125 mph into our yard, we are following the suggestions of
Jim Sandoval which were to address our SAFETY needs first: apply for the
variance for our SAFETY SCREEN, receive the variance, complete the
installation of the SAFETY SCREEN, and have it properly signed off by the City
before contemplating any other actions.
We have the right to hold open all our options to address our concerns without any
time limit being imposed by the City officials, This letter will serve as notice to you
that we have not yet filed a formal complaint, as we were told was required for the City
of Chula Vista's consideration, therefore, we know the City will consider our concerns
whenever we present them with no time limit being imposed.
July 11.2001
Mr. &; Mrs. Ron Lutsko
% Letsio SportaWCllr
48J8~R_Coun
San DiciO, CA 921] 1
SuOject: M<<IJatlon al 2B 1 &mIl Canyon Drive
Dear Mr. &; Mrs. Lutsko:
In the plannIng commWiion meetinS on May 23. 2001. it was agreed upon IM1 we would try 10
rnodlate a IIOlutioll to the fence Wouc:. We hoive had several """,-ling IUId 1 still !uIVII nc n'aolw.
'fhe lasl meeting WI! had WI!!< over two weeks a~ Md you wore ~ajl1l> 10 Bet ~k to ~ and 10
dele, 1 ha~o not bnrcI Ii'om yo\l.
You have QOnstrucl=d a plywllod fo,n,'I', built on my properlY ~nd attached tt) 11"0' pcrmined bklck
waU for OV<1' a)lC8J' now, without oUf.~"ion Rnd without a permll tom tho Cily orChula
Vista, You wore Inslniotcd ()n Novcmber 30, 2000 to have this plywo<>d fer1C(i taken d(lW\'l by ~
CII)' ofChula Vi!1a (within 14 (11)'$) ,you 01l1y took. doWII ft portion of it iU'ld then you pul it bilck
up *wUn I>n n;y property and ;" direct vkolalion irom the City ofChula Vh'..,
It ha$ come to our anen/ion lbat you ha\'e Iisted'your houl1e for sWc with a rea110r. You arc
showing your home with an Illegally constructed pl)"o'o'ood fence 11111cbro to my pr<lpcrty and 1
don' I want 'UI)' p<>IOnllal ~w rwighbo",lhinking tllallli pm (If Yaw' property or mine,
AI our finl meeting, standing In ffl)' backyard, looking up 8\ Ihe Rm~. ~'ou Sonia, said, ") did,,'t
1'Cll1i~.e how bod it really \ookod." We have been lenient with you on this fence issue fur over "
year ncnv I1f}d we are tired of looking at the ueJy pl~'WO(I<I f.nce. Therefore, I dC111Imd (within my
right.) oompJele reD1ov~1 of~1I tho: f= WId IIUIterillk on and aU."hed 10 my properly and the
chain link GIlle re-wlane<! by no!>n time on 'fhurs.1ay. ]uly 19,2001.
1fthe fence and 811 matOTi.i. attached 8'" not rcmovoo 811d the IJ81c installed hy that deadline.!
wiU hove d:JC work contracted (0 be =,v<<! Iiom my property and dispol('(! Of81 y"Uf ex~rr;e.
S~ It only took you II coupl. of hours to InstaU iI, J IhInk 1 w~ is a IlUfflclon1 amount I>fmlC
tD romov. It.
Rupectfblly,
'--')> '. .
tf4?ft..t.b-"'- --'1'----'. '-.
Cliff and Jo>,~ Davel1pOrt
2&3 Bonita C'arl)'on Drive
Bonito, CA 919()2.42al
To:
Cliff and Joyce Davenport
From:
Ron and Sona Lutsko
Date:
7/17/01
We received your letter dated 7/11/01 SENT TO OUR BUSINESS ADDRESS on
Monday, 7/16/01.
At the Planning Commission meeting on 5/23/01 we were granted a "stay of Code
Enforcement" regarding the Safety Screen which allowed us to keep the Safety Screen up
during the variance procedure. We are sending you a copy of a memo faxed today from the
City to verify this statement. Also, the Planning Department's document to the Planning
Commission dated 5/23/01 page 2 states: "This segment of fence [Safety Screen in our
variance] has been constructed without the necessary building permits, but was allowed to
remain by staff while this Variance decision is pending."
We assume that you will abide by this ruling and leave our Safety Screen standing through the
variance process.
It is our recollection that no specifics were stated at our last meeting as to who was to call
whom about a future meeting. However, it is to be noted that we feel no progress has been
made toward suggestions of alternative materials for our Safety Screen. Since you are a
contractor, we were hoping you could help find an appropriate material to meet our concerns.
You mentioned we might have our house for sale. Whether or not we have our house on the
market is of no concern regarding obtaining this variance so we can correct the safety issues
and code violations. Prior to your construction we had a property line masonry wall of legal
height - see page 4 of the Planning Department's document to the Planning Commission dated
5/23/01: "At the time the Applicant constructed his swimming pool, the fence [Safety Screen in
our Variance] met the conditions of the code"
To summarize, since the Planning Commission meeting on May 23, 2001, we have had three
meetings regarding suitable material to use for our Safety Screen, and all meetings were
initiated by us, Mr. and Mrs. Lutsko. We are scheduled to go before the Planning Commission
July 25, 2001, and were hoping to reach some decision on the material before that time. You
have said you would think about possible alternatives, but as of this date, you have provided no
possible cost-effective solutions meeting code, liability, and safety issues, as well as the
frequent intrusion of your dog into our yard. As we mentioned to you at our first meeting, we
need to focus on solutions, not on our different perceptions of the problem involved.
Regarding a suggestion about lattice and landscaping as a solution, after thinking about the
situation, we realized that this would not be solid enough to address our issues of safety, liability
and pool fence/Safety Screen codes for our property. You mentioned code exceptions for
fence/Safety Screen height of adjacent yards with pools. Please give us the specific code
number as we could not find any exceptions to the fence/Safety Screen height regulation.
Page 2
The only reasonably priced material we can think of for the Safety Screen in Section 2 is the
plywood now in use, due to the stability and necessary height involved, as well as the need to
meet code, liability and safety issues. You may buy any covering for your side, as long as it
does not damage our side of the Safety Screen or affect its stability.
However, in Section 1 we are willing to compromise and install a cedar fence, 8 feet high on our
side which will be about 3 feet above the existing property line wall on your side, and not
attached to the existing masonry wall. This should be pleasing to look at on your side.
Since we have not been able to make any progress toward a solution, we researched some
mediators and charges on June 19, faxed you information on June 22 about the most
reasonably priced mediation costs, and asked you to go to mediation. You acknowledged
receiving the fax. You have refused to pay your half of the cost, and told us to save our money.
The mediator we spoke with told us that in order for mediation to work, both parties need to be
committed to try, and each need to show that commitment by paying their half of the cost of
mediation.
We are faxing you this letter today, and will also send a copy by certified mail.
~--~~'-::'~'.:...."'.'~~
........
~ L."J..J.'I' 1"", U. JJI..' 1J....UJ."'"
~.....u.:;.
~If?.
-r-
...-
em"
CHUIA VISTA
Department of planning and BnU........g
Date:
July 16,2001
Subject:
Sue Gray, Code Enforcement Manager ~
James D, Sandoval AICP, Assistant Planning Director~
Lutsko Fence Variance
To:
From:
This memorandum serves to clarify actions taken by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2001
regarding the Lutskovariance request (ZA V-OI-18). As you are aware, the applicant is requesting a
variance from the fence height provisions of the City of Chula Vista in order to construct'mai.ntain a
fence that exceeds the allowable height of 6 feet within the required side yard setback. The exis'(ing
fence located along the western property line maintains a maximum height of approximately 12.5
feet above grade
After discussing the item at the May 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted
to continue the item to a time certain of July 25, 2001 and directed the parties involved with this
application to seek the services of a professional mediator, In voting to continue ZAV-Ol..18. the
Commission directed staff not to pursue Code Enforcement action regarding the subject fence prior
to their meeting of July 25, 2001.
(:\Stcvc:'s Memo Form.dot)