HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports 2003/09/24
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, September 24, 2003, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
CALL TO ORDER: Castaneda
Madrid O'Neill Hall
Cortes
Hom
Felber
ROll CAll/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and MOMENT OF SilENCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 10, 2003
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
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. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC 03-77; Conditional Use Permit to allow a dwelling
group in the R1-5P Zone at 1168 Alpine Avenue.
Project Manager: Lynnette Lopez, Associate Planner
Staff recommends that public hearing be opened and continued to the October 8,
2003 regular Planning Commission meeting.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-03-73; Conditional Use Permitto construct an 1,194
sf accessory second dwelling unit at 447 Oxford in
compliance with State Government Code Sections
65852.2(b)(1)(A)-(I) for cities without adopted accessory
second unit ordinances. Applicant: Javier Nunez.
Project Manager: Lynnette Lopez, Associate Planner
Planning Commission
- 2-
September 24, 2003
3. PUBLIC HEARING: ZA V 03-11; Appeal ofthe Zoning Administrator's decision
to grant a variance allowing a dental practice to use an
existing office site that does not meet the on-site parking
and driveway width requirements. The project is located
at 235 F Street in the Administrative and Professional
Office (C-O) zone. Applicant: Dr. Susan Tulenko.
Project Manager: Michael Walker, Associate Planner
BUSINESS:
Nomination of new representative to serve on GMOC for FY 03-04.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
1 he City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), requests
individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or 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 (TDD) at
585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT
Item: '3
Meeting Date: 09/24/2003
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant a
variance allowing a dental practice to use an existing office site that does not
meet the on-site parking and driveway width requirements. The project is
located at 235 F Street in the Administrative and Professional Office (C-O)
zone. The applicant is Dr. Susan Tulenko.
The applicant proposes to relocate her existing dental practice from 230 F Street to 235 F Street,
which contains an existing building, four parking spaces at the rear and a narrow driveway. The site
is zoned Administrative and Professional Office (C-O) and was previously occupied by a medical
practice.
The applicant applied for an Administrative Design Review Pennit (DRC-03-72) and a Variance
(ZA V-03-II) to establish a dental practice on a site while maintaining the site's existing conditions.
The appeal is for the parking portion of the variance request.
The Environmental Review Coordinator has concluded that this project is a Class I categorical
exemption from environmental review CEQA Section 15301.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the attached Resolution DRC-
03-72 and ZA V -03-11 based on the findings and conditions contained therein.
DISCUSSION:
1. Background
The applicant currently has a dental practice located at 230 F Street. The applicant purchased the
property at 235 F Street with the intent to relocate the practice in the existing 1,398 square foot
vacant building. However, the building has a deteriorated foundation, which will be replaced with a
bascment. The basement will make up half the floor area and will not be habitable space and used
for mechanical and vacuum equipment tubing and archived files/records. The building will have a
floor area of approximately 2,900 square feet. This requires a design review pennit and a variance to
allow the project to be established on the property using the existing on-site parking and driveway
access.
The Zoning Administrator circulated a notice for the project. During the noticing period, staff had
received letters and a petition opposing the parking variance portion of the project (Attachment 5).
The letters state several concerns including existing traffic, noise, a general nuisance and parking.
The petition identifies parking as the primary issue. The neighbors believe that a reduction in
parking for the applicant should not be allowed because a parking shortage currently exists. As a
Page 2, Item:
Meeting Date: 09/24/03
result, a notice was circulated inviting the public to attend a meeting before the Zoning Administrator
on July 25, 2003, to hear comments from the applicant and neighbors. The Zoning Administrator
concluded that the change in medical uses would not contribute to the existing parking issues in the
neighborhood and approved the project. Subsequently, staff has received letter in support of the
project (Attachment 6). However, Daniel Moffit, a neighbor, filed an appeal. Consequently, the
project comes before the Planning Commission for consideration.
2. Site Characteristics
The property is 5,297 square-feet in size, and contains a 1,398 square-foot single-story vacant
building, four parking spaces and a 9'6" driveway. The immediate uses adjacent to the property
include professional office uses west, east and south, and multi-family residences to the north. The
surrounding area is dominated by residential development.
3. General Plan. Zoning and Land Use
Site:
North:
South:
East:
West:
General Plan
Professional/Administrative
Residential, Medium-High
Professional/Administrative
Professional/Administrative
Professional/Administrative
Zoning
C-O
R-3P22
CoO
C-O
C-O
Current Land Use
Vacant
Apartments
Various Professional uses
Real Estate/Mortgage offices
Dental office
4. Proposal
The proposed project includes refurbishing the existing building and incorporating a basement for
records storage, provide new landscaping, and use the existing parking and driveway.
5. Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD
Height
Lot Coverage
Setbacks:
Front
Rear
Sides
Parking
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
ALLOWEDIREQUIRED
45'
40 percent
PROPOSED
17' 6" (existing)
30.4 percent
10'
10'
0'
5 spaces
N/A
17'
44'
6'6" and 9'6"
4 (existing)
N/A
ANAL YSIS:
The applicant proposes to refurbish the existing 1,398 vacant building, add a basement for records
storage without significantly changing the site. The existing building's structural features will
remain essentially the same, and will be improved with exterior upgrades including a new roof, new
Page 3, Item:
Meeting Date: 09/24/03
paint, windows, a new front entry, handicap access, a new trash enclosure and landscaping. The
project will have approximately 2,900 square feet of gross floor area. The basement will make up
ha]fthe floor area and will be unconditioned space and used for mechanical and vacuum equipment
tubing and files/records.
The site was previously occupied by a medica] practice. The applicant currently has a dental practice
established at 230 F Street. The applicant purchased the property at 235 F Street with the intent to
move the dental practice onto the subject property. The Chu]a Vista Municipa] Code (CVMC)
requires a dental office to have a parking ratio of one space for every 200 square feet of office space
or a minimum of five parking spaces and a 24-foot wide driveway access. The additional floor area
for the basement triggers the variance. As an alternative, substantia] demolition/rem ode] of the
existing building and redesign of the site would be required to meet the CoO zone's development
standards. The applicant's intent is to maintain the existing building, site layout and the character of
the area.
The project site is located within the 200 block ofF Street in the Administrative Professional Office
(C-O) zone. The block is within an area where professional office uses front F Street. The existing
professional offices include medical and dental practices, a real estate agency, and an insurance
business. These uses are surrounded primarily by single-family and multi-family uses. The area was
originally established as a residential neighborhood with lots having a rear yard and a narrow
driveway. Over time, the zoning has changed to Administrative Professiona1 Office (C-O) for lots
located along F Street between Third Avenue and Second Avenue. Subsequently, some dwelling
units within this area were converted to the aforementioned professional office uses, particularly
between Del Mar Avenue and Twin Oaks A venue. Some of these uses generally maintained the
site's original structure locations, but converted the rear yard into parking. The applicant will use
this property in the same manner.
Staff surveyed the parking situation for the professional uses in the area and found that the majority
of the professional office uses (mostly dental practices) are located along F Street between Del Mar
Avenue and Twin Oaks A venue. Some ofthe dental offices are occupied by up to three dentists, and
have on-site parking ranging ITom 8 to 13 spaces. The applicant will be the only doctor occupying
the subject property that contains four parking spaces. Staff also researched files of similar variance
requests and found that a variance request to reduce the parking space and driveway width
requirement had been granted previously for a professiona1 office at 236 F Street (ZA V -93-08, ZA V-
96-02). Based on the preceding analysis, staff has detennined that the findings for the variance
request can be made as outlined in the draft Planning Commission Resolution included as
Attachment 2.
Staffbelieves that granting this variance will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties
because the use is not an intensification ofthe site or surrounding area. This variance will allow the
applicant to use the property in the same manner that it has been used previously. Alternatives that
would allow the site to meet the development standards would involve substantial modifications to
the building that could potentially result in a site and structure not in keeping with the existing
character of the area.
Page 4, Item:
Meeting Date: 09/24/03
APPEAL BY DANIEL MOFFIT
Despite the findings made in the Zoning Administrator's Notice of Decision approving the variance,
Mr. Moffit has chosen to appeal based upon the following arguments. (Note: appellant issue
statements are quoted verbatim. See attached appeal letter).
Appellant Issue:
"Finding # I: "That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exist."
"Dr. Tulenko purchased the property knowing the property was insufficient to accommodate the
parking needs of her employees and her clients during her normal business schedule. As a result, my
neighbors and I will be required to endure the hardship of providing business parking in a residential
neighborhood. "
Staff Response:
The property is located in the C-O zone, which is adjacent to a residential zone. As stated
previously, the subject building and other similar buildings were converted trom residential to office
uses that maintained the existing site conditions (i.e. minimal area for parking and narrow
driveways). Customers or patients ofthese professional offices currently park on the public street in
addition to the off-street parking for the offices. The applicant is proposing to relocate her current
dental practice onto the subject property with the intent to maintain the existing site conditions and
the character of the area without increasing the number of employees and patients. The site currently
contains four parking spaces. Due to the additional floor area in the uninhabitable basement, the
project would not meet the minimum number of required on-site parking spaces (5). However, staff
has determined that the need to meet the parking requirement is not significant because the basement
will not expand the applicant's dental practice, and therefore, the need for additional parking.
Without the proposed basement, the dental practice could move onto 235 F Street without the need
for a variance because this would be a change of use only. Staff believes that the project will not
intensify the site or the surrounding area.
As a possible solution to the parking concerns of the neighbors, staff consulted with the City's
Traffic Engineering Section and found that a time limit could be imposed along portions of Twin
Oaks A venue. This solution would need to be initiated by the neighbors.
Appellant Issue:
"Finding #2: "That such a 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."
Page 5, Item:
Meeting Date: 09/24/03
"The Zoning Administrator states "additional parking is not needed because the basement will be
used for storage only." We believe additional parking space is needed as a result of the size of Dr.
Tulenko practice. To allow her to expand the square footage of her building without providing an
appropriate number of parking spaces creates a hardship within the surrounding residential
neighborhood. A majority of the "similar use" businesses in the area have either more parking
spaces available or operate with lower volume of employee and clients-per-hour to parking space
ratio. Allowing Dr. Tulenko to expand without the appropriate number of parking spaces does not
create a special privilege and may encourage other businesses to follow suit who are not enjoying the
same right to expand without an appropriate parking spaces to accommodate their needs."
Staff Response:
The applicant is not expanding the size of her existing practice to accommodate more patients or to
add staff. The applicant is proposing to refurbish the existing building and replace the existing
defective foundation with a basement. The basement will be unconditioned space and will allow for
easier installation ofthe mechanical and vacuum equipment tubing and file/record storage purposes.
The project is conditioned to restrict the use of the basement as habitable space.
Appellant Issue:
"Finding #3 "that the authorizing of such a variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public interest." He
rationalized this by saying "this variance will allow the applicant to use the property in the same
manner that it has previously been used."
"This finding is incorrect because the new office will have much higher client traffic than the
previous use by the doctor. The question the Zoning Administrator should have answered is how
many employees and clients-per-day did the previous doctor have verses how many employees and
clients-per-day does Dr. Tulenko experience? I understand that she will have three employees and
that they see three-to-four patients per hour. That, indeed, is a significant change in use and will
cause a substantial impact on residences nearby."
Staff Response:
Staff cannot verify the number of employees and patients for the previous medical practice. The
applicant's practice has a total of three staff members including the applicant who currently treat
approximately 20 patients per day or 2.5 patients per hour. The applicant has been treating patients
at her current location for approximately IS years. Many of the patients are elderly and use public
transit, are dropped off by van or walk because her office is centrally located and near the Urban
Core area and the large number of senior units (i.e. Congressional Tower) in the area. The applicant
intends to remain in the same area by moving across the street. Staff believes that the project will
not negatively impact the residences because there will not be a physical reduction of available
parking spaces, and there is no anticipated increase in the number of employees or patients.
Page 6, Item:
Meeting Date: 09/24/03
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project involves relocating an existing dental practice across the street. The project
has both supporters and opponents. After an analysis and field survey, staff concludes that the
project will not impact the current parking situation because the addition of the basement area (which
creates the inconsistency with the parking standards) will not increase the parking need. The
applicant's intent is to maintain the integrity of the area by not constructing a new building that could
potentially be out of character within the context of the area; therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the variance request in
accordance with the findings and conditions of approval in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution ZA V-03-11.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Locator Map
2. Resolution DRC-03-72 and ZA V-03-11
3. Zoning Administrator Notice of Decision
4. Completed Appeal From
5. Petition/Opposition Letters
6. Support Letters
J:\PJarming\Michael\PCC Reports\ZAV-03-11
ATTACHMENT I
~
\
\
C HULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
LOCATOR PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
C) APPLICANT: DON EDSON ARCHITECT, INC. DESIGN REVIEW
PROJECT
ADDRESS. 235 "F" Street Request: Proposing a design review to add new basement
to existing one story medical office and enclosed entry porch.
SCALE: FILE NUMBER:
NORTH No Scale ZAV-03-11 Related Casels\: DRC-03-72
c:lcherrylcllocatorsllocators03\zav0311.cdr 04.29.03
i
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO, DRC-03-72 AND ZAV 03-11
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT,
DRC-03-72 AND GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE,
ZAV-03-11, TO REDUCE THE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH
GARAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (C-O).
WHEREAS, on April II, 2003, Dr. Susan Tulenko " the Applicant" filed a
Variance application requesting a reduction in the on-site parking and driveway width
requirement to relocate a dental practice onto a property previously occupied by a
medical practice located at 235 F Street; and
WHEREAS, the Environmenta1 Review Coordinator, in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has concluded that this project is a Class
3 categorical exemption ITom environmental review (CEQA Section 15303, new
construction or conversion of small structures); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator circulated a public notice stating the
consideration date for said request for a variance, 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 consideration date; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public comments, the Zoning Administrator set a
date and time for a public meeting on said variance request for July 25, 2003 at 3:30
p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public meeting in the Public
Services Building to receive comments from the pubJic; and
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2003, the Zoning Administrator after considering all
relative information, conc1uded that the change in medical uses would not contribute to
the existing parking issues in the neighborhood and approved the Design Review Permit
to establish a dental office in a former doctor's office to include a new basement for
storage; and granted a Variance for reductions in the required number of parking spaces
and driveway width; and
WHEREAS, on August 15,2003, Daniel Moffit (Appellant), filed an appeal of
the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant the variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
request for a 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 held at the time and place as advertised, namely
September 24, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after considering all reports, evidence, and testimony present at
said public hearing with respect to the variance application, the Planning Commission
voted to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator granting the variance;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the P1anning Commission does
hereby uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator to approve the Design Review
permit DRC-03-72 and grant a Variance (ZA V-03-II) in accordance with the findings of
this Resolution.
1. That a hardship particular to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can
never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The new dental practice will be established in an existing building that was previously
converted from a single-family dwelling for a medical practice. The original use of the
site was residential, which has different requirements for driveway width and parking
spaces from those of a medical or dental office. The existing development, which
includes a 9.5-foot wide driveway and four parking spaces prohibit the dental office from
meeting the driveway width (24 feet) and parking (5 spaces-minimum) requirements. To
meet these requirements, substantial demolition/remodel of the existing building would
be required. The applicant's intent is to maintain the existing building, site layout and the
character of the area.
2. That such a 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 dental office is proposed on a property similar to other properties in the area that
contain similar uses. AHhough the proposed basement would double the floor area of the
existing building, additional parking is not needed because the basement will be used for
equipment and storage only. Granting a variance will not constitute a special privilege
because other converted residences in the area are operating with similar driveway widths
and parking space reductions.
3
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
public interest.
The granting of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties when replacing one medical use with another. This variance will allow the
applicant to use the property in the same manner that it has previously been used.
Alternatives that would allow the site to meet the development standards would involve
substantial modifications to the building that could potentially result in a site and
structure not in keeping with the existing character of the area.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The use is consistent with the General Plan and all adopted plans of the City Of Chula
Vista. The reduced driveway width and number of parking spaces will not cause the
project to be incompatib1e or inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City ofChula Vista approve the Design Review
Permit DRC -03-72 and grant a Variance ZA V -03-11 subject to the following conditions required to be satisfied
by the applicant and/or property owner(s):
Planning & Building Department
I. The Applicant shan comply with the 2001 Energy requirements, all requirements of the
Building Division and the following codes:
. California Building Code
. California Plumbing Code
. California Electrical Code
. California Mechanical Code
. Handicap Accessibility
2. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces. This shall be
noted for any building and wall plans and shan be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning & Building prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, the project shall
conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of the CVMC regarding graffiti control.
3. All exterior lighting shall include shie1ding to remove any glare from adjacent uses. Details for
said lighting shall be included in the architectural plans and shall be reviewed and approved to
the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building.
Fire Department
4. The Applicant shall install a fire extinguisher ZAIOBC in the basement and office areas.
5. The Applicant shan in stan storage shelves with a 24-inch clearance above the top shelf
i,?
6. If medical gases are used, the Applicant shall provide gas laboratory rated enclosures or fire
sprinklers.
Chula Vista Elementary School District
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall pay the applicable school fees.
Standard Conditions
8. The conditions of approval for the Design Review Permit and Variance shall be applied to the
subject property until such time that the Variance is modified or revoked, and the existence of
this use permit with approved conditions shall be recorded with the title of the property. Prior
to the issuance of the building permits for the proposed additions, the Applicant/property
owner shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of said document.
9. The Applicant is prohibited from converting or using the basement as habitable space.
10. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans dated
September 17, 2003 (including a site plan, e1evations and floor plan) on file in the Planning
Division; the conditions contained herein; and Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code
II. The Design Review Permit and Variance shall be subject to any and all new, modified or
deleted conditions imposed after approva1 of this variance advance a legitimate governmental
interest re1ated to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written
notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with
regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose
a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source which the Permittee
cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover.
12. The Design Review Permit and Variance shall become void and ineffective if not utilized
within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the
Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to
be reviewed by the City for additiona1 conditions or revocation.
13. Any deviation from the above noted conditions of approval shall require the approval of a
modified conditional use permit.
14. The Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harm1ess City, its City Council members, officers, employees and representatives, from and
against any and all liabiJities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court
costs and attorney's fess (collectively, liabilities) incurred by the City arising, directly or
indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Conditional Use Permit, (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 (c) Applicant's installation and operation
of the facility permitted hereby, including, without limitation, ant 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
'-)
the Design Review Permit and Variance where indicated below. Applicant's/operator's
compliance with this provision is an express condition of the Design Review Permit and
Variance and this provision shall be binding on any and all of applicant's/operator's successors
and assigns.
15. Execute this document by making a true copy of this letter of conditional approval and signing
both this original letter and the copy on the lines provided below, said execution indicating that
the property owner and applicant have each 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 Department. Failure to return the signed true copy
of this document 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 of
235 F Street
Date
Signature of Representative
Date
16. 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 that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions 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 ab initio.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Design Review Permit DRC-03-72 grant a Variance ZA V -03-11 in accordance with the
findings and conditions contained in this resolution.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of September 2003, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Steve Castenada, Chair
ATTEST:
Diana Vargas, Secretary
J:\Planning\Michac1\PCC Reports\ ZA V -03-11 Reso
~
ATTACHMENT 3
city of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Date Received 'O\\'S'()~
Fee Paid -:\ \\5 -
Receipt No. 0"2. - l.)u<15"OL~
Case No: zf-\\! -0;; -\\ D(2(; '0:' 12-
,
APPEAL FORM
Appeal from the decision of:
~zoning ____Planning ____Design Review
Administrator commission Committee
Name of
Appellant: :i),Vl,'eJ r ;1:'CJFT~'"-I-
Phone 161'1) 't'78- /~-Zi'
Home Address
3/r
T4///7
.5a~y;e
O",Kf
,4ve4'<?'
Ohvlo..
t/,frc;..
C-<L. '1/7'/0
. Business Address
proj ect Address :2 ]'S- r 3"7/ee-7
Project Description lIa t" JC7/'Ce:- ;2 ,LJLI- C.f - //
(Example: zone change, variance, design review, etc)
Please use the space below to provide a response to the decision you are
appealing. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
<ee-
ati(..~(j'!ec-)
@a~;J j) ~~
Signature o~ Appel ant
~ ,1-1 reo}
Date I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not write In this Space
The above matter has been scheduled for public hearing before the:
____ Planning commission
City council
on
Planning commission Secretary
7
city Clerk
Rev. 6/96
M:\ho.e\olannina\.o\aDDeal rev
A
THE CITY OF CHUl.A VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
You are required to file a Statemem 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 City Council, Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be discJosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of (he application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
Mrw c
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) 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.
/I/ONE
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.
NONE
4. Have vou had more than S250 worth of business transacted with anv member of the Cil\' staff, Boards, Commissions,
Com;'ittees, and Council v,ithin the past twelve months? Yes_- NoJ( If yes, plea~e indicate person(s):_
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
NONE
6. Have you andlor your officers or agents. in the aggregate, contributed more than SI,OOO to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Ycs_ NoX if yes, state which Councilmember(s):
. , . (NOTE:
Attach additional pages as D~) , , ,
r0~fi/J~~
Signature f contra t rlapplicant
..:v<:":'/lr~/ J ;HO:fT; 7"-
Print or type name of contractor/appJjcant
y
Date: ~LVl/ j L-J, ZOO?"
,. PcrsmJ i.t dcfim:d t:.S: "Any illdilidual, .Mr., co~paro1f:rship, join: VC1'lllU"(:, association.. soci1JJ club,frou:moJ organiZLllion, corporation, c.nalt; 1l"USt, rccdw;r, syndicoIG,
Lhi.r and a1ly otha county. eir)' and cowl17)', cilY municlpofir)', disuict, V( olha poliIical.subdil..ision, or any orha group ('- combinarion acring as a uniL"
August 13,2003
AUG 1 5 2003
Michael W. Walker
Associate Planner
Planning & Building Dept.
City of Chula Vista
RE: ZAV-03-11, 235 F Street
Dear Mr. Walker,
On behalf of my neighbors and myself I wish to appeal the Zoning Administrator's
decision waiving the parking requirement for the new use of 235 F Street as a dental office. We
dispute his Findings #1, #2, 
Finding #3 "that the authorizing of such a variance will not be of substantial detriment to
the adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or public
interest," He rationalized this by saying "this variance will allow the applicant to use the property
in the same manner that it has previously been used." (Italics added)
This finding is incorrect because the new office will have much higher client traffic than
the previous use by the doctor. The question the Zoning Administrator should have answered is
how many employees and clients-per-day did the previous doctor have versus how many
employees and clients-per-day does Dr. Tulenko experience? I understand that she will have
three employees and that they see three-to-four patients per hour. That, indeed, is a significant
change in usage and will cause a substantial impact on residences nearby.
Finding #1: "That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exist."
Dr. Tulenko purchased the property knowing the property was insufficient to
accommodate the parking needs of her employees and clients during her normal business
schedule. As A result, my neighbors and I will be required to endure the hardship of providing
business parking in a residential neighborhood.
Finding #2: "That such a variance is necessary for the the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning districts and in the
same vidnity, and that a variance, if granted would not constitute a special privilege of the
recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors."
The Zoning Administrator states "additional parking is not needed because the basement
will be used for storage only". We believe additional carkina SDace is needed as a result of the
size of Dr. Tulenko practice. To allow her to expand the square footage of her building without
providing an appropriate number of parking spaces creates a hardship within the surrounding
residential neighborhood. A majority of the "similar use" businesses in the area have either more
parking spaces available or operate with lower volume of employee and clients-per-hour to
parking space ratio. Allowing Dr. Tulenko to expand without the appropriate number of Parking
spaces does create a special privilege and may encourage other businesses to follow suit who are
not enjoying the same right to expand without an appropriate parking spaces to accommodate
their business needs.
1
Our new Mayor (and now the City Manager as well) uses a slogan of "smart growth."
Deliberately and knowingly making a bad situation worse is not smart growth.
A Check for $175.00 is attached to this appeal. However, I do so under protest and I'm
requesting to have the fee waived. While the process of notification and opportunity to respond
to proposed changes in our community is a good system, I believe the two week time frames
given to respond was inadequate to gather all data and concerns that should have been
considered by all parties and entities. Additionally, Having a hearing during business hours
silenced many of my neighbors whose schedules could not be adjusted thus preventing them
from attending. And, because the decision affects many people not just today but possibly
indefinitely, it would be more appropriate that the decision makers be by a group of people from
our community with varying opinions on the matter and not left to the opinion of one person. As
a result, I view the fee as penalty for speaking up and a weapon to silence the complaint.
Cordially,
(iVauedJ/~
Daniel J Moffit
317 Twin Oaks Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
619-498-1593
619-476-7367
(0
~~l?-
~
~~~~
CITY OF
CHUlA VISTA
AUG I 5 2003
PLANNING AND BUilDING DEPARTMENT
August 5, 2003
Daniel Moffit
317 Twin Oaks Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
RE: Applications ZA V-03-11 and DRC-03-72 for a New Dental Office at 235 F Street.
Dear Mr. Monffit
The Zoning Administrator held a meeting on Ju1y 25, 2003; to hear comments and
concerns from neighbors and the applicant regarding the parking issue that some
vJ(~ttel'\ neighbors had raised for the project referenced above. On July 30, 2003, the Zoning
p)Q ~ Administrator approved the project after reviewing the comments and concerns, receiving
\!..:~.h,.1 U:.orrespondence from neighbors supporting the project and the findings and evidence
::-;-- found in the Notice of Decision.
You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. To file an appeal,
please complete an appeal form and submit it along with a deposit amount of $175.00 to
the Planning Department within 10 days of the date of this letter. Forms are available
from the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal, the decision of the Zoning
Administrator is final.
On another matter separate from above, we have consulted with the City's Traffic Section
regarding permit parking. The following is the procedure you may wish to follow when
considering permit parking in your neighborhood.
!) Prouide P. writte~ reqt'est in the fc= of:l petition to the Tr:lffis Se~:i::;r..
2) The Traffic Section will review and analyze the request. If the request is valid,
the request will be referred to the Safety Commission for recommendation.
3) The Safety Commission will then refer the request to the City Council for a final
decision and implementation.
Thank you for your interest in making your neighborhood a better p1ace to Jive. If you
have any questions or concerns about this matter, please call me at (619) 409-5472.
:kJJ ,IJJl-
Michael W. Walker
Associate Planner
((
276 FOURTH AVENUE, MS P.100. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910
@ p()~t C[)rl~umer Recycled l'<lpcr
ATTACHMENT 4
)1~cg)tJ1W~W
: AUG () I 2003 Jm
Zoning Administrator [:r::;::-:':;:if~:r-.~--~-~!I--R r;::;,:i
: '!,;-_:\.i}__:,~~ \'1 l~ 111)\:
, " ---,01.1
NOTICE OF DECISION i; : i 'i I ! I
On DRC-03-72 and ZAV-03-11 for a DeijtalcOffiAUG 18 2003 JL~j i
at 235 F Street, Chula Vista ~ ____ I
PLAtJ~ nfJG !
-'- j
Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Administrator has considered the following applications:
(I) Design Review DRC-03-72 to establish a dental office including a new basement for storage
in an existing building previously used as a medical office and; (2) a Variance ZA V-03-11 for
reductions in the required driveway width and parking spaces. The project site is 10cated at 235
F Street in the Administrative and Professional Office (C-O) Zone. The General Plan Land Use
Designation is Professional/Administrative.
~ ~ f.?
~~-:
:::::~~~
~..........-..............
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from
environmental review under CEQA, Categorical Exemption Section 15301, Class I; Existing
Facilities.
The Zoning Administrator, under the provisions of Sections 19.14.582(1) and 19.14.030(B) of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code, has conditionally approved said request based upon the
following findings of facts:
Findings for DRC-03-72:
I. That the proposed development is consistent with the development regulations of
the C-O Zone.
The proposed dental office will be established in an existing building that was previously
converted from a single-family dwelling and used as a medical office. The existing 9.5-
foot driveway and the existing limited parking spaces (4) require a variance, which would
allow the proposed use to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding uses (see
Findings for a Variance below).
2. The design features of the proposed development are consistent with, and are a cost
effective method of satisfying, the City of Chula Vista Design Manual and
Landscape Manual.
The existing building's design features will remain essentially the same and will be
improved with exterior upgrades including a new roof, new paint and windows.
Additionally, the project proposes handicap access, a new trash enclosure and
landscaping. The project, as proposed, satisfies the recommendations of the Chu1a Vista
Design Manual and Landscape Manua1.
(.J...
ZA Notice of Decision DRC-03-72/ZA V-03-ll
Page 2
Findings for ZA V-03-11 (Section 19.14.190):
I. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists.
The new dental practice will be established in an existing bui1ding that was previously
converted from a single-family dwelling for a medical practice. The original use of the
site was residential, which has different requirements for driveway width and parking
spaces from those of a medical or dental office. The existing development, which
includes a 9.5-foot wide driveway and four parking spaces prohibit the dental office from
meeting the driveway width (24 feet) and parking (5 spaces-minimum) requirements. To
meet these requirements, substantial demolition/remodel of the existing building would
be required. The applicant's intent is to maintain the existing building, site layout and the
character of the area.
2. That such a 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 dental office is proposed on a property similar to other properties in the area that
contain similar uses. Although the proposed basement wou1d double the floor area of the
existing building, additional parking is not needed because the basement will be used for
storage only. Granting a variance wil1 not constitute a special privi1ege because other
converted residences in the area are operating with similar driveway widths and parking
space reductions.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or
public interest.
The granting of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
properties when replacing one medical use with another. This variance will allow the
applicant tc use the property in the same rnarilier that it has previously been used.
Alternatives that would al10w the site to meet the development standards would involve
substantial modifications to the building that could potential1y result in a site and
structure not in keeping with the existing character ofthe area.
4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The use is consistent with the General Plan and all adopted plans of the City Of Chula
Vista. The reduced driveway width and number of parking spaces will not cause the
project to be incompatible or inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
J:\Planning\Michad\Nutio.: ofDl:cision\DRC OJ 72
(3
ZA Notice of Decision - DRC-03-72/ZA V-03-11
Page 3
Approval of DRC -03-72 and ZA V -03-11 is conditioned upon the following:
I. Prior to the issuance of any permits required by the City of Chula Vista for the use
of the subject property in reliance upon this approval, the applicant shall satisfy the
following requirements:
A. The property owner and the applicant shall execute this document by making a true
copy of this Notice of Decision and signing both this original notice and the copy on
the lines provided below, said execution indicating that the property owner and
applicant have each 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 Department. Fai1ure to return the signed true copy
of this document prior to submittal for building permits to the Planning Department
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
abeya ce without approval.
~o~~
epresentative
o~/o'J/os
Date
~
Signature of property owner
of 235 F Street
Planning and Building Department Condition(s):
B. Site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval and any
revised conditions shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Building for
review and approval.
C. Submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan incorporating all conditions of
approval and any revised conditions for the review and approval of the City
Landscape Planner.
D. Submit a Water Management Plan to be reviewed by the City Landscape Planner.
E. A graffiti resistant treatment shall be specified for all wall and building surfaces.
This shall be noted for any building and wall plans and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Planning & Building prior to the issuance of building
permits. Additionally, the project shall conform to Sections 9.20.055 and 9.20.035 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code regarding graffiti control.
F. All exterior lighting for the dental office shall include shielding to remove any glare
from adjacent residents or other uses. Details for said lighting shall be included in the
architectural plans and shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building.
J"\Planning\Michad\Notil:t; of Dccision\ORC U3-72 I Y
ZA Notice of Decision - DRC-03-72/ZA V -03-11
Page 4
G. A building permit shall be required for all structura1, mechanical, electrica1 or
p1umbing changes. Additionally, building plans shall comply with the 2001
Handicap AccessibiJity Code and the following 2001 codes: I) Energy; 2) California
Bui1ding Code; 30 California Mechanica1 Code; 4) California Plumbing Code; and 50
California Electrical Code.
Fire Department Condition(s):
H. The Applicant shan ins tan a ZAIOBC fire extinguisher in the basement and office
areas.
I. The Applicant shan maintain a 24-inch vertical clearance between an storage shelves
in the basement.
Chula Vista Elementary School District Condition(s):
J. The Applicant shan pay the appropriate fees for the additions to the Chula Vista
Elementary School District.
II. The fonowing on-going conditions shan apply to the subject property as long as it relies
upon this approval.
A. The site shan be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans
stamp dated June II, 2003, on file in the Planning Division; the conditions contained
herein; and Title 19 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
B. This design review permit and variance shan become void and ineffective if not
utilized or extended within one year from the effective date thereof, in accordance
with Section 19.14.600 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
C. The property shall be maintained a litter-free and healthy landscaped environment.
D. The basement shan not be used for anything other than storage unless additional
parking is provided.
APPROVED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 30 day of July 2003.
JCS/mww
J:\Planning\Michad\Noticc of Decision\ORC -03-72
f<)
ATTACHMENT 5
To: Zoning Administrator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
fD), IE C [E B ~ lE m\
Ilf\l JUl - 7 2003 \1lJ
From: Daniel J Moffit
317 Twin Oaks Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
619-498-1593
619-476-7367
PLANNING
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and ZAV-03-11
July 1, 2003
Greetings,
I am happy for Dr. Tulenko's success in her practice and wish her well in the future.
However, on behalf of my neighbors and myself, I am asking that her request for a variance for a
reduction in the required number of parking spaces be DENIED.
Her current business location is at 230 F Avenue Suite D and faces Twin Oaks Avenue.
Parking, traffic, noise, and a general nuisance are the issues I raise and are the current problems
my neighbors and I deal with today as result of her successful practice.
On Twin Oaks Avenue, many of the employees park all day, Monday through Friday,
from 7:30 A.M. too as late as 6:00 P.M.. Many of her clients park out on the street also. In fact,
during the time frame stated above, the employees and clients of Dr. Tulenko consume the
parking on both sides of the street from the corner to as far as the lengths of a football field. And
on trash day, as far as half the city block.
Some of my experiences, as well as my neighbors have been a constant parade of
vehicles driving up onto the driveways to complete a turn around. I have seen numerous vehicles
back into other vehicles as they try to squeeze into a space. I have witnessed employees' move
their car from one side of the street to the other just to park in the shade provided by the trees. I
have also watched clients of the doctor role their window down and throw fast food wrappings
on to the street, gutter, and curb lawns. Vehicles partially block driveways. And one time, an
employee completely blocked my driveway forcing me to visit the front desk ana request that it
be moved, Very irritating.
Traffic related to Dr. Tulenko's practice is a constant on this otherwise very quiet street.
As a result, we have the car that drives too fast, or spins their tires. But the real annoyance is the
car that plays the radio too loud and has the BASE set to high. The constant thudding (much like
a headache) and the rattling of my walls and windows is a constant reminder that her thriving
practice is near. In the recent past, one of her employees was consistently guilty of this behavior
while arriving and departing. When I brought this to the employee's attention directly and later to
the office check-in counter, I was greeted with a lot of attitude. This pattern of behavior by the
employee has lessened somewhat but continues intermittently.
Other nuisances have been errant alarms going off and slamming car doors, having my
trashcans moved out into the street and/or blocking my driveway by Clients of Dr. Tulenko's so
as they could park. Because the parking situation here is unforgiving and does not allow access
to the curb, the city curb sweeping service is a waste of time and money for us all.
IV,
Today, we must start evaluating the impact her practice is having on all of us. And share
in that burden proportionately. The surrounding neighbors have quietly shouldered the success of
Dr. Tulenko's business for many years now. F Street from Twin Oaks to Third Avenue is regulated
by 2 hour parking signs and coined-metered devices. Twin Oaks North & South of F Street and F
Street to Second Avenue are unprotected by such regulations. As a result, Dr. Tulenko has taken
advantage of this situation by incorporating Twin Oaks Avenue as her solution to a parking
dilemma. We believe she will continue to do so at her new location. At the new location 7 parking
stalls is inadequate to support the parking needs of her employees and clients. To reduce that
number down to 4 would be unreasonable and unfair to the neighbors in this family community.
Exchanging desperately needed parking spaces for a new basement storage unit is not an
appropriate solution when off site storage for professionals is available. Furthermore, if Dr.
Tulenko's business requires additional storage space, maybe her practice has grown too big for
this location. There are other professional locations within a couple square miles of this site that
can provide adequate storage and parking for the size of Dr. Tulenko's practice.
Did Dr. Tulenko purchase the property as an investment vehicle? Does she intend to pay
a mortgage as opposed to rent and then recapture her investment at a profit when she sells the
property? All the while, the city and neighbors of Dr. Tulenko's thriving and successful business
will be subsidizing her responsibility as a business and "good neighbor" to provide adequate
parking for all associated with her business.
Providing a proper amount of parking for employees and clients of a business entity is a
reasonable business expense and expectation. Dr. Tulenko's proposal and request is like trying to
fit a size lO-foot into a size 7 shoe. It just doesn't fit!
How many employees does Dr. Tulenko have? And how many clients does she service in
a day? And just where are they going to park? All day? Twin Oaks Avenue!
On behalf of my neighbors and myself I am requesting that Dr. Tulenko's request for a
variance for reductions in the required number of parking spaces be DENIED.
Enclosed you will find a signed list of my neighbors who have read this letter and are in
agreement with me.
Respectfully, r;()/2~ / ~u;/Id
Daniel J Moffit .f"
/~ .
./, rY( ?0Cl.3
;/ D e
n
To: Zoning Administrator
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~ ~ J~L ~ : :~ ~
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and #ZA V-03-ll
PETITION:
PLANNING
TO DENY Dr. Tulenko's request for a variance for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at 235 F
street.
We have read, agree, and fully support the attached letter of grievances regarding the parking situation.
:\. . ' I I
lNam~-;' )f\\J U ,<X:/t n1 /,6a, 'Name \\,\Q J.A";-{', c:~. \1.<,,,,,-,,' \ 'l'<ame f,v(;f).t/Tt) (;Ailf'uA;Jr.)j
)
Address ~J V7fJ,J!^)ortsfl~~ss Z,2y\I,(,,\ l~Address~ -ILe;,.l) {'ff~.s 11 ~(
C L) (" J) c~ ~ ., .' '" I A .
I ...., _' I (9 (0 l Wt. \C\ \.i ,c~l l "'[ '" (lie! L L ,,\
i1 ?2!;tJ/1.' ". //
.~ /~-., 7 "'Z";l{IJ) ~,/ (.', //{
Signature ~.'l{/..-:'. //l Signature ,'/~ ,;;(:</;'(1.. ( Signature .'.'L_
. / Date, Date
Phone # ~ /9 ,e.r; (/?Y Y'Phone # Phone #
v' I S l)LC1Yrf;' D
Wt:je,s
Date
"Name <;_h~;" jl(v1yr;~m4 ~
313 Tt, N 7JAk5 ~'l\ i .' \ \,.
Address.~.,'i \, i>{l1jCt1_ Address...;,JL-j' (, " 1:1 /'"
'^ \".. C"'SI
N Name:.)CV,-\G~ L'- ~"V
Address ;:';;) \ '\\1-.-\ Ii, 0(\ l.:?}\v-c
.
.__' '\,--_ \ \ ( L~\..\lP'c A
. ~;; h Lk I; \\ h. 1(, /,J ~\(X\v' .' \. . ..L---
_ ""~ if"l fj.;i;;;;< \" j!if!J- ~;;, - ""..<., , C~~ 'M, (
Phone # Phone # Phone # t.lcr:l "\lC\.':~H (~,.?:, \'1 ('1. ~
-fN~~;7i-::;ame\ Il dlE<j/~fvl-/Lbl4c~e C_~,;)1'r, \-:::;\(\\l?
Address -)/1 /IL "~ irJ-)! Address~3-'L 7i~I';" [J'f,.(SA{Address~J\\,'.,\,.~ tJl(S
~~
':/~r
Signature'-._./ll" ,. jit~'-s..gnatur~~;t. ~"c" d ,,'l.' _ Signature _._L_.~_. _.____._.
CLj :-S..j)lDate ')t-fJ!>, Lf .JZa/,,)CC'<;Date
lY~. )J\ VI ~)
Date
Phone #
Phone #
Phone #
~._------~._-~._--
( '6
PETITION:
Ifu) [E ((; lE ~ WJ lE rR\
\~~ JUL -"1 2003 l~J
\
PLANNING
To: Zoning Administrator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and #ZA V-03-11
TO DENY Dr. Tulenko's request for a variance for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at 235 F
street.
We have read, agree, and fully support the attached letter of grievances regarding the parking situation.
/Na~ It ~ C;~III~~-' >Name P'~-f71 MtJ,; e 1~{s.J/!G,~egc>8.IJ3 H L I /}A H J1J
Address::=;..2)( -1r !o.Ji.J OM-Y,ddress ?'l.s: lb.Jil1 bo,C..s Addres33 7' Ie.:. IJ,I(,I ?,Af.S
co L LI\ UfS"\i-
,,~"'Z~ ,_
_ Date
Phone # Phone #
C)l/ C j/
'1-I-/""O"7:J . --
.~ I -[2 I. i?
~ SignatukS-...1c..-G- ,/~U.J?tlC~<4
Date Date
Phone # l{ J--).. -7 J)',t
M<lam:'"*_I\)J., l \\CtA.A.-t '0
;1 ,)
-Name ~', ~\t-~ ,J:l itvikme lHf N /j I?-u 1'1 A (J
. Nt d ~ . (j)
~ Address 81 (Lv' lA' (ftl(5
Ci\\\V
(v
l~
ignature
,
;(
)h)tL<.~J~
,
Signat~
. '.
Phone #
,j
Date
ate
Phone #
Phone #
Address
:C(AI A klriC vNam;:~;O~;:..t~_>NameGh::,,-Io(~c. \ C1."\CiLK~
3J.'J"7c..-'/I\ i!AlIlJl~ AddreSs~3,--G~~~~-A-v Address :)~,.l 7qJ Um:/\
. I ,J A'vt, (c. \! CA '1 I'\. \0 I
<'jHL 11 V, ?I-/j du.~f} Vq}T ~.
"Name
i, Date
.if:) 3lc 4
,;...= J)rt.vJck.::r.
ate
7-</-03
Phone #
Signature l).4 c;. /~ ~at~;
./'1'74' C? Date i
Phone # 'I;.):). 7 '3 3t" Phone # ? I 'I
I "f
PETITION:
IU) IE (L; l6 U W b IIIIIUI'
ml~7 moo \~
I PLM<N!NG
-- ..~~---------- -_...__.-.--
To: Zoning Administrator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and #ZA V-03-ll
TO DENY Dr. Tulenko's request for a variance for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at 235 F
street.
We have read, agree, and fuUy support the attached letter of grievances regarding the parking situation.
vName ~ 1M. tAl( ,- L,'iu ,1Jihiame J-:)~D.D.... iJ '-1."{ U--t._ J.Name LAI4- c.Ml.<...J<..J:...\
" 0 A ';/1 . Me; ..
Address .'>"c 7 (i-vII'J U"I/(S Address '{)...t '1 ;; ST. Address .~\~ .\~..~ "'i'>\.....'> ~
() ) / 1 I" L " "
L '.{,' 4 V:L '" C- ,..\h t:,,,,,-~ ~
",,_I ~ 111<-- i '""""d1"'fLIi"JJ~'i"I';- - -," "5 \J-o loJ
t. } , . r ?,ate Date Date
\ f!: t--r'),~ ('f) 1'1 '_
Phone # ' I /- '^ s . , / (\ 'f- Phone # {d r .. </;;2 7 -"/<6< "b Phone #
. .
---
r
.-Name DANI-'1 tTlff'll- >"Name tv\\5A\:.\... ,/Lp,)uJ/,t\."me ~t.c\C\
'. ,f+<..K I N f\ .~
Address 787 TLcIf0 oAA Address3'/3 <'[WI'" (i\k~ 1\0 Address
0.du[(' j
~y'ff r")/M(ftJ-C ,AVf
(.,.A.dO, vhh1 (/41rr1[)
. " f W0
Date
Signature{l.1.V. -/)1. tc2fJf~ignature "f';\<..ia...C~~ Signature
~ 'l-c<f-l1 {> Date . Date 6/-6'-(' (j
Phone # ~5 -l~'2L Phone #
~~~----
v Name fI d.€r-'jtf.~ 1.a.a.uuui Name..
Addres;5J5 cy"", {~4'" IJ~ ilAddreSS
./1 . I
( I~JL" lif.1It ('~
Signature ~/~J((~'F'KeJ<t(r:i~ignature
( Date
Phone #\C>'iJ ~-~" -732') Phone #
'--'-.--.--
C'. P\. ~ La 'S
Address 31.~ T...,.n De..ks f\~t it- C
Q",^,-k \I.A q ,'1 1<:>
Signature~ n.:.. L..:, (J.....I. k,
Phone # -1-.).(, -t /,) I
Date
7/sb-
Date
.:)..0
PETITION:
[6~1 ~~ [E ~ w -~ fruU'
lin I ,I i
u :! ,JUL- 7 2003 iL
I I . _-1
L_ PLANNING
To: Zoning Administrator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and #ZA V-03-ll
TO DENY Dr. Tulenko's request for a variance for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at 235 F
street.
We have read, agree, and fully support the attached l<;tter of grievances regarding the parking situation.
~ ' ('-'\~~
Jl ' v' y~~ ~- ('
VName \ "\"vv, Name' vName \-~:,(11 ,\,,{ (,J n '-2..
I \
-.:::-' ., f.~-h ,:---v~ u":J)/L~ c~ _ 'y) - 1/ *,-)
Address ,"> ~ V \ \..P-' Address Address i .) I \ ( !- ' I, \ (( (~ 1\
~ \J(:i lC1 (C)
( -S r. fv\h--
Signature lfu.",,'V
') i . il\.\ ..:-\' I ( )
( n I. 1,\ '-.../
C ()M 111ft (:
Signature
" " \ ,-
Signatur;\(',;, Y1",- ..~ \i'i' ') ~
Date Date
Phone #
Date
Phone #
Phone #
- vN::\:t~\~-~;\'tI\~~:me'-AGvi--;n (;t\CG ~ame ,V~n;eI J jAAofF.-t
--.-.....--.-
Address 1'S1 Tv~h
~o
, f,; 1 \ ~ / _
( Address 0;...'.\ \-- ~'1
Address ~"?J"7 Tt<.;;r'J no.k 5
C,k,\1; U.~z: CA tlICIlt\
Signature Y.Ji1~ \~ ,L
\ Date
. il(;\/\ t~{q{lIt C iJ. 9/1/0
Lu ~hi' &ignaturVJcJ<<'~ J~ o-rofo3
Date1/c~/tr'" (f Date
Phone #
Phone #
Phone #
------
- ~ --
-.- ~~~--------
Name Name Name
Address Address Address
Signature Signature Signature
Date Date Date
Phone # Phone # Phone #
,).,/
-1-D -:?tONlj 'tt~""'(I\I(~;.\Q(
C \~ of C'~\.'" \)(~4r- .
I -rE~[E~WJlEfRI
~ Ji! . 20CJ ~
-~~ ~, ~ 'b .
~ . ,"\4t~ u<t!~~\'
'3~~ ~r..J Q~ks,
PLANNING
--
.
~'(". C::-"~t. -!l b~ ~~ -'t>~-/:2.. ~ 2.IAV -O~-I\.
.:S-~ l.t ~ ~oo~ ,
-4-. -::-::-... r. .
-+- v:>.-.. I ~ ~ f\ ..Q'!.t\o 9,)\' WIn.. ~i>.N I .Ii! L :!'.
Y\()-t~ \~ ~ \.u's Vl't.sfol\).t~ To ~ Tf4~k,~ ow
~ r"-.) 0 ~ \cs ~. ~ +v ~t"\ FUxr 1"~.I ~
.
c. \ \ -e.:>~. 'j;:::..- '" I',-( ~e~ {~\O~ ~ k\t.. ~ (! ~ ~ Q ~~(t..l _
C\\eu'"t5- ~ ~~~ -\4~{, lJ~t..cc.t~ -rt.~v-tcL
II\,) ~ ]:)~\~~ ?(C\.(~~ .....f ~
\~~.\, 'e ~NS; ~.v \ ~\~ ~ C-/Cn-S. of ~"l,k'1 ~
-GIN~ \~ ~I~c~\\ w (~ ~Ct.rW 4".s~.s ~
Z~-\..\~Q t)~'i~\-<<- b~l\r-(W~ ---\0 k~'f{> ~
s.~~~ 1'~C:'f'~~t ~u 0{- C~"LS --('''L~
""" ~ \t '" l-1. ---\-.4"\. N.r I ~ ~ 'J)\Ql \.t{ ~ '
c\.~ ~-e.<t~l~+\Qw.s. fLt lhtt'~~ ~ nV\-\l~
Q{- . f~'\..\(l~ $'1I:>.tt'S ~ ~~~(~~'C f C \1 ~~$ .
\AI \.~ '\.~ \ C'41..~f3\ Sl.ct-Io,o..-L 4'L ~
~'\.~~-4~ ~\~ I t.. ~~T k N~
Vf>'L"..cq 1S. l:'>(,,""e.~~
,)'.J-
Qe CC'$c.' -11 :DRc,o,S-- 7?. OVlcJ ,?,Av,-os //
7/'I1t2.:3
/lfG (of.Pthf 0F rl11<; tEffYZ lC; TD
VO(Ck (IIIF,J COtJ(/i:f'N rvC; -A Ihr>/l6{jW/.-ff €J
I'J/J ,J vC AUf-NuS, Af?6tfi D(2. 7TJL(fN~of_S
9~'1 (WII-.lJf1r->
DCr!Po~€f) P~~f::(Jv6 f2tDr.x.T!DN.
rrv ~ 1010 TIJ1;:
f>ff-jLfNb Ie; /1/ f6J1tJDi( A/v { . :;LX--
LJr{2~t;{ j)vf <lD 11ff!c ,7\lVMlWfC lJ{ C:-:
l'JZI,Kj'J 131( CU.z"'15 '; !fw,P/CJlf r;u;
f!- sr{!.f f r (hut; f fv~ ~S€ 5 .
rltG u% off ftJrYC--ouvAYCr<;' lJ rr'\JCC~ Lj~
1b rvfl-fJJ ARoUtv{J IN) ti2-A$f1- LEff @/ ~U2~ ~ /TV
~~'i- TJ F&vIJ6!Z I?:>#I\J1de.r<:; I IJNf) lA16Af2.,f T/tA1Z
ON SrfZ-c;'iTS R!Zf' (),/7!IGR- f?fCfl SVIVS 7kl1S
rz,1./rr1l'1?.- NC6f)S fI/1CJ/?'i' cO"fl--TR oL ,
t{ [2.FDCcrfC)/V' { IV PAri~/AJ( SP~CfcS- (j) bIZ, 7/JLfNLO (
WIll ONII( fY!fii%. (YI/I,1l3f2S 1"-'0/21: _ c;
, ~Q--'~
hUll) "1 !t1tfU<"SA fX;ffMf6fL ~v~r
?t'tf( T/JJfIvOA,K( 11V;/
tV' rn 0/0;10
10) IE([: IE n u ~U '\.
lrur-- \ \ \
U L~--~~
.;t 3
PLM~N:NG
To: Zoning Administrator
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
I{B) IE t fE II WI fE ~
Ul} JUl - 7 2003 ill/
From: Daniel J Moffit
317 Twin Oaks Avenue
Chula Vista CA 91910
619-498-1593
619-476-7367
PLANNING
Re: Case #DRC-03-72 and ZAV-03-11
July 7, 2003
Greetings,
I made an error. In my first response regarding Dr. Tulenko's request for a variance for a
reduction in the required number of parking spaces, I stated the existing number was 7 when it
should have been 5. Because of the time limit on filing a response and the time I discovered this
mistake, I was unable to inform my neighbors of this discrepancy. However, having received such
overwhelming support from my neighbors, I believe this discrepancy would not affect their
opinion regarding a reduction in available parking spaces. Whether it is one space lost or three,
it's still a lost space that will never be recovered. And as such, lends itself to the growing
aggravation myself and neighbors are forced to deal with every Monday through Friday.
Having met most of my neighbors in the last day or two, they shared their own
experiences dealing with employees and clients of Dr. Tulenko's. Most issues have been
addressed in the original response. But, an issue brought to my attention many times has been
the dumping of ashtrays and cigarette butts onto the curb and curb lawns. I was also surprised
that the parking issue isn't limited to just half the street but is a constant burden to all who live
on this block from Cypress Street to well past F Street. Additionally, I have learned that Dr.
Tulenko occupies Suite "A" of the 230 "F" Avenue location also. Of which, only 4 off-street
parking spaces are available. Our concerns include accommodating all of Dr. Tulenko's parking
needs for her employees' and clients and accommodating the parking needs of the employees
and clients of the new tenant(s) that will fill the vacancies should Dr. Tulenko move out. My
neighbors and I are aggravated and frustrated at having our residential street consumed and
abused by Dr. Tulenko's employees and clients.
I own and live in a house less than 100 feet from Dr. Tulenko's primary business
entrance. If I filed a HOME OCaJPATION PERMIT with the City of Chula Vista and claimed I
intended to hire 4 employees and expected 10 to 20 clients to be serviced on any given day
without providing adequate parking, would you approve the permit? If I started my business with
no employees and my business grew to the size stated above, would you revoke the permit?
Based on the questions that are asked on the application, I believe the permit would not be
issued or it would be revoked. I would expect this action because the burden and nuisance my
business would place on the residential community would be unacceptable. There is something
inherently wrong when businesses within the Professional! Administrative zone are allowed to
encroach on the residences of the Residential! Apartment zone unchecked and not have to abide
by the similar standards of a home based business less than 100 feet away.
I realize there are no cure-all remedies to the parking situation. I also realize the trend in
large cities is to have higher density with less available parking, Of which the
Professional! Administrative zone and Residential! Apartment zone are included within that trend.
However, the families on this residential street within the Residential! Apartment zone, are not
d..'f
causing the parking gridlock and the associated nuisances that accompany a large volume of
transient visitors. The problems are created by Dr. Tulenko's business and the other businesses
within the Professional/Administrative zone who have not been held accountable for the
disturbance and general nuisances they are creating in the Residential/Apartment zone. As a
result, my neighbors and I have been unable to peacefully enjoy our homes.
I am proposing Twin Oaks Avenue from Cypress to Davidson Street and G Street from
Twin Oaks to Second Avenue be designated a "residential permit parking only" area. Whereby
parking, Monday through Friday from 7:00 A.M. through 6:00 P,M. requires a permit. The streets
should be posted with parking requirements and each residence given two passes for guests to
hang on the mirror when parking on the street is required. I believe this will help alleviate many
of the problems in this neighborhood being caused by Dr. Tulenko's business and other nearby
businesses within the Professional/Administrative zone.
Who will pay for this program? Because the businesses within the
Professional/Administrative zone are causing street congestion and other associated nuisances on
residential streets, these businesses should be required to shoulder the cost of this program. A
special tax can be assessed with the renewal of the annual business licenses to pay for the initial
start up costs, enforcement costs and maintenance fees. Special permit parking zones have been
established in National City where business have created or potential to create disharmony in a
community. Examples of such zones are Roosevelt Avenue nearby the police department and A
Street behind the businesses of the car dealers on the MILE OF CARS.
My neighbors and I ask that you deny Dr. TuJenko's request to reduce the number of
parking spaces. And, allow us to regain control of our residential street by adopting the
recommendation above or one similar.
Cordially, &"') " ~
tX./~~j!~
Daniel J Moffit v
!~1J .~ ?<!'Jc.<,\
.:t'(
,. -1 ' "
f' (([,t( (CO !'1-J t 'j/,VIKJ'-'j ,1.V::{p..df7YrN
I --1 -
U;c//0.Jx/"j 0j"t~ - /W~"I
, ' y:;;,~,-,)1~ L ~
JI'i~ ~ ,;":;;6'
"-':c,J/" \.V ~~\\\\\\\;'\\\\\,\\
~_~, i-- ~-\ \\'~\: \ ,\5:\\ \\ \ \,\:,\' \""\'
,~::, ~\J:;. \ ,\~:J;~' \:;;~ '\:<\~;;\~\ -.~ \\C\\
.~ " \ <:.!:;.' I, \. '>(\ \ \ \ \\il~ "', '\\ \ ,;"
,-,,"\\\\ ;;;:;1ii~' \ \ \ \\ \\\\\s '\\..\,/ -~ \
\..\)-":: \\""'<'''>\,,\-\\ \ \:> -<~\\\\\'y
~\':"~;:.,:''.\ "" I\~ (\/""\\~\\\' \ ,\\\
,,\},:~::::\ \ ,'I " I "~I ~ \ ',\..\\
:~ ~\~) '--/'::\- /\\i\-\\~/\'~\~ ;:. ::p
\ /,,\"\\. \- ~. ~...\/\
"\I '\~~~\ ' :\~\ \\ \~~\\
. __ :::-\ / \ \\ \ \..\ vi .. ~\~k \ \ ).
~ /\\ " '> \.. ';;.,,,. ,,'''", \ \ \.. /Ji~ - '"" ~'\' "\ \
\ . /"\,:.:...---\ \ \ .::..'\ (\ '"\"" \
'I
U\~
~~;.;
~',!;~~
~~~;.>
.. ~ "" ....
~ ~"" ~,
,...,o.:!.;;;
Z~ ~ ~- 'd'
;~~%
'::j ~ ;;;;2- n
0<>-" :;,'"
~ ~ t!~ ~
g.,S' ~,;1
~i.i~
~.g )>-.:rI
; .~ ~ ~
B 3'~' ~
~.::1 ~ ...
~ ~ ~.:::
;",;:;\"1
~'~.~~
':. ~ 'i!" ~
..1.'8(1)
1~~~
"';::;!"'o::::
~. -
'" -.<J>
g; g -g ~
:::. 3 a ~
~ % ~.3
~~~\i.
g. g"5: M
~~&.-I
~i;~
,;"''''''
- ......-
>~,
~~t
'.!''''"''
- . .
Q"'"
" ;;.~
'J''' ~,
,~~
..;.. '" ..
% ~ :::
_ 00
:.~~
, < 0
~ ~;.
",:r.<>
",."",
~ ~ Q
~~?;9~
grT'~~~
!"I:"->;=;'z-
C4g>c~
g~?$O
""V> ~J;>>
!'"'i\{' .,;1-1
.,;I .-"'"
- "
." ,
~ Q.
o ~
~ ~
'"
i 8t.
<; :=:-,
". ~ n
:: Ui~
'"' V1_
rj (5,v'
%,'Z::c
~~ ~~
.---\"" .:;:
:.., --<<.
~t~
\~~
'::~' ~
<:: n >-
~;;-
/'"- ~
g~~~
c: ,.,-,:).<
-0""
~~ct~
"'.....?i ~
? t; ~
():r;'on
,. . 0
.0:'" E:3
~5\:;~
--5-~
:-'i(~~
;; ';i! ::I g
:] ~ ~-,:)
g % ~ g,.
~_<n ~ g'
,E d s- '"
?o-B ;5
,3""
_ n 0
s?t::'e
~%"%
,*s:~S:'
~o!;3.
." vr 5'.-
R 3 w> 0
[~~~
'" '-" "" .-
g w W ~
"is t S %.
~ ~ ~ ,g
~. -: n
;} 9~ a
~ -~ i
Uh
;;-0~~
~ ~i g
g g B
"-;:;~?
~;-<~S
~ t.:::. '5 g,
" ..
g3. S'
;::.s.~
;''3~
;i ~ s
, " "
? :~.
~
z
<-
g
z
~
~
z
~
,.
r
~
~
c
~
"'
;~5?~E~;?t390~
jt'tl '~_ 3 3 C '~. <.f1 ;." h ~
..... -0 ~ -. <:r 0..(10. '"" c: bit
""~.%. l!'; t!> ::I 'G ~ '-;' g..
?. ~ o' ~ s.. ~ ;.; t!> :;:I '-4 '::;
o:;j,'::I~, ~$.':l-~~w
~ 11' 1j,"~~ ~ ~ ~-;;~!"
~t:;~~.g-~~;:;N~
~ '6i ;:t ~,~ & ~ '~, i- ~ 5
~ ... '&. -'C ,;>, ::I 3 fJ' 0 .i::,--
~o'a~~;::':<:;" <;:,::
>( :::> ..... n .- _... ,C
~~~\}5'oE:. -;0
--s.)i- Q' ~ ;;, ~ ~
o'~~ ~Q~t'
::I _. _ :::,_Co
~~. 0 0-55 %= s
%~~~'~bI
:r~'~ f ~~
~ry n'-! t.> ~
~ b~<~
-. -;: ~~"~
3 g?,~R
~. f' ~ '"
,.,... ...., __ S'
::I -,::r 00
~. ':f""'''' to>
.. ""-0;;-
g C13 0.. ~
3 ~ ~- ~ ~
ft' .;:; ~ o' '"'
;!. !:.L _.::1 0-
~ _",";>' 0
2 ~~~%
~.' ~~~-;.
~. ~ 0...... c:;
J;>> ~s,-'g ~
?- c -' '"
'-I' ~I').-
ro ~ c.. 0
~g.: ,~
~ ~ 3 ~
~ 7f ~ ~.
~~. ~ ::
z'~ g,-':,
'" c.."';::;'
-.co'" 0.:
:,3.~' g
;:j cr 0. tr~
~ \:t. ~ 5-
&.;5 S' '"
gg"'2
<; './>i?.....
t~ ~'''.
:::; "'." g
, ('0 ';of~'
~.. ~ g
~:;::~g
:;;..gY' =-
co'--: c:; ~
g;~'%
~~~g
"3:g ?J ~.
;5' Fi ~ ~
~;s~
.gg~%
"" '" -.;J -
;l :oJ (:1 "
~ ~ 5.'6
~ p, g <=
. :) it E
.g 0.'-"
5 ~,7f
3';;: ;::;'
11'0 ~%
?;s8..
~ L:- 5
~ <' <2
~~~
c" g 'r:o
~ S' g
e.~':
9- ~ g
~'"d ..
" "
~ g
; <5 ~
,,'f
g ~ 1::
.,).."
c
..,
::is
Sij.
(1- /.
:;~o
....,-;:?,
;,::r"\
;;;.,;.r<1
(j_O
:::~~
1'"'. 'L.--
~J.i
.....:z ?;
;;,:'J
-It)::
.;,.-,-.:""
. .:;::.;0.
(":....,0
~f ?
~';ZC\
oc
" ./
t
'"
f; nr
"".r:
~
\\\
~ 'S ~
~Kp
:-' ~ r
~ (, ~
~~-
- ~-
~~s
:o-:=-
"' -
2'"
?!-.--:
n -\
~~
~ C:
".., -'
~~
s r'"
,~ :z
n7.
~z
~c
ATTACHMENT 6
II ~..::,\ 'i; _(Ii) fr' n "Ji rc r-~
.. .!, YJ l~ U \ j lC ~ (~\ .
;U~! AU~-2i -:~~> ':' ,I,
,
I
WILMA SOUTHWORTH
CALIFORNIA PROBATE REFEREE
321 DEL MAR AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
TELEPHONE (619) 425-7083. FAX (619) 426-0520
PLM:m:NG
~--- -.---.----..--....
August 20, 2003
Michael Walk",r
City of Chula Vista
276 Fuurth AV"'llue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: 235 F SlrIXl
Applicatioll for vm.iance
D",ar Mr. Walker:
As a lleighbor of the referellced property, 1 would like to have you take note that I approve
granting the variance for reduced parking.
I do llot believe that the varhmce will be detrin.lelltal fur those of us who live and work in the area.
I understand that there are other such properties in the area which do, in fact, operate under such a
variance. Please stand finn on the stance to approve the variance.
Sincerely,
/-;>/// ../':/ :'
c_~'/'///u:'~,,"Ci'.d:;-.,7". /:::;e:-
Wihna Southworth
~f
: \'
.,
. I;
,,_ :1,_;
JOHN K YAMAMOTO, JR, DDS.
251 F STREET
CHULA.. VISTA, CALIFORNIA <J1<J1O
Ij '-<'
Telpphone (619) 426-4604
i
L._.,
l"l '" ~ '," ,....
,'I H,i" ...J:
'--------- ~ "
-'-'.- "-.".-,--.-.
August 21, 2003
Gentlemen:
I am writing you on behalf of my dental neighbor, Dr. Suzanne Tulenko, who owns
the building at 235 F Street. This building is an older structure, a former
podiatrist's office, which is being renovated into a dental office.
A neighbor, new to this area, is protesting the renovation on the basis of a failure to
meet the present zoning code of available parking spaces. As this is an existing
structure and present parking space has been deemed adequate there is no basis for
the complaint other than his own personal agenda. He has stopped the project three
times and I feel that it is a shame that a single person can create such hardship
when all the other neighbors have no problem with the remodeling.
Si~ur~
JO~~:to~
J-~
. --~-_.-.----_._---
"~'I' [p ri'-
", "
; r' r'" ,
.-- ,'.- ---:~:_~; I \:'
"I'!'
" '
! L. j
_.,.1'
....--_._-++ -~
."-..-.. ~,
--_"______n.
"cr... 04
)'.' .
6i5'-3/-D3
h1-G-~ .1 () f ;<
~\:i-:Lt::!VED
'.-r\' '-, r .'....1'. ,
~, I r l...Ir-' -., , " I. ./; O2T I,
~,.,' .: _ ~ ' I", r-",
:): J' l' i i .1,\ ' . ~ "
, L -\,\ \';j<j\ J /--""0';_ ,,,.'!LL_'!i\Ji,-' I )EPT
Hl li!_DING [)!\!ISiOI~jJ ~
/11;' /l. - M; r!. 1/ 41:::'1... W 4 ~c72. :
5tliJ...Jec.7 ~ II<D/C/?Ty -1T ,;<35 F 5'T Cilut/f V67~t!J1.
D 1Jo/Jc:7) BY ;; ~'2 ~.l..'t:.'E 8, TV{..~OKo tJ.O.S,
I
5lJZ41v/.J63 t5 mv wIFe,.J- my f)e:-;uT/57-
i}..of:/cIV 5H5 we-tJ 05 f/v2- jJ;(bffLe:-Yl! {).jt TII (;'ItS l<estl1cH.JT
/1'/ (WIA.) b4K5> vJe C'OUAf) A.Jo7 8e<...tl/E: (T.
(tiE Q(<Y Or: Clf/U?~ WS7/1 61'/.{)c;- 5JzA,uIlJ~ ~
if I1l?il4 JJGE /! AJtJrlle 511-1J1G" /JeStt!c->UT F/ L C:O
,4/VDTll-c(( IffJ/'cH-L - 11115 ;/1t::.ytVS r1?()f2..i7 WI45'7~
7? rJ1 E. +- V11 DIVe <r p
7lme - 5v Z-H-IVV~ c0 u,C...! Be 4.557.t!.41A.)~ <f.
j2, c 410 {) a t.u G- - oJ!;J.eo U IV 6- flE.z2 ,;a ~{),.1c.xz T '/
19/J1J Tile F. 5"1 /JAc77--
(}f()A)f3.Y- ('05,T/,.f)b >VZ/f./lIVc 41.)0 %,00/1. Pt;::7:JT,
to If ( c. 1-1 C'o u~tJ 8e 5! CV ( D /() b r//c/.!..
r! cry fJ,foBC-cI11 S.
f KvovV 77I1'IT77Ic c'ITy fJF C'HVL;lJ. /J1.s7.1l1>
!J.eQv/k:fI) 70 jlIZC:/~1-/2e /!/./07!Td J!.t:;7fJo~T DV
'11+-/5 /J1lf7C"d /'f.utJ ;Iot:-O /j-Vr)T~ i1fEl?I//U6-.
rr I)a ffO,U'::; 1;:- yo v 'lU ;:<01//y 1'9/l//'-.{)()qJ ?M:=
\! /Jy<?111-VGe- Wily TI1-~e 50 L.c,()(;, (c f/C',-tJ
/fAJol7k:12. ;Jc:~4<I/{)b / YVi/,L FIIVf}/A)? S"f/CJu.c-f} BE
-rife S/'f/l16 1'/5 ll~;ep I SI AlCC 5/..'2 ;f/llve
is i.)07 Ify{.!(/,u6- /0/2.. 4;VY'O"FN6, ;J,F~dUT,
lU6" H-4ve 5"c-c?V -41/J!J 1/A.0.i!1 feeT;' Illc-rv/C.C
t)p TIfE: FAYtJ7 OF $V2-.4/V,1/6's; 8v(...&t!i/IJ? ()J/k7V
r< is Ftlj/5/fc;() - (T ':YUAC W/?-L ;f.tJ(j 70 r#C3
jJ;f~aiJH7ItiAJ ~F (liE c!iN2/2C.VT 8ol?(!I.vb IftJf)
BvlL--/JI/LJITS {>IV F. ~T,
u)
d1
tJ:j-ai-DS
,o/?-GE ~ OF 2.
TiffS 6t.O Bf)IL.f)//t)f, #4-S ~l9ys If"/} FptJfl. M/!I<IIVt-
5Jlt')C3, ::;: K)J{)iO);- LubO""--LJ brA.h'~.,p ~ ~_?''-=--4>~~ =p
PiJ;i.;.qIJ& 5fJ.-1-cc:r I,{) TIt-IS 4kJ1-, 8VT ,(E7' 1/5' F/'ICC-
/1'- flffS 4,,((.(;;;J::l lS D(;, 0 L L!i<G th~..O C'HuL/J-. I)lS?/! ) /1;(,1fl
t9LL rife' !5V.5I'uC'S5 IN Tf/15/!,t{cJ4 T!llf7 1'74t/!F /(€s72JkO
H/J () & II A f) Pn,lZ..f< / /lJ 6- f1 /-v 8lt:::7J1 S ,
my wiPe vL:;: !lb,ot7 YOD !f4{)B Ii F/'1sr ;; 1/e-/1-i,
f!c:A/<'IVb A',llJD 6-1I/e- S();Z~IVI.JG 176-191,11.1 rfC7Z vtYVJ1tJeff
50 stf5 rJpfA.) 6-e'TolV W fill tlcfi. 8u 5//Uc::'-:5:y Pk'9-J7f
OJ{) F, ST. "z3s C'HVtA. V/JT4. elr:; .
,1 AI tJ /-nos T ~p /1-u U?c-c.- TtYE ~estJ7c;:)(.? 7 0 to
(fA) IV O/f-K..S L .L..i tJe Wi71/ IT)
(
\/0 U .
1li1i41 k r'
;-'u:Cf.:!VED
liy \- JF CHUL/- viS T j.J,
7710;J11fi: .::r.. !.hDOf) /?-e..
;j~r/JftJ/7 c.)JooiJ
21) If J1.c. f7t ,{J t7 /f- v c
rj;.!UJ..1 I){S"71 c;f
ql ClID
04 ". !
!.)Li\i'J!'4;i\'~; "~,,~ ,_ _ ;L_LJ;:\JI~ DcPT
RUILDlhJC1DiVJSiOi'J
~/d'~f0.
::I;;
L2)
_...--..~.._-~,--", ,_. ---_.."- - -.-..
JOHN K. YAMAMOTO, JR., DDS
251 F'iTREET
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
! ''-:~ ;,~ ((;) rr r: n,' I:,
,: I ~! i', !l9 ir~ \: ~', !C-
, , , ~. ,
. .
."
Telephone (619) 426-4604
.~ ~..,_..._.._._~.. .. n_ _",_,,,,.. ~
:::: >~: ;' I j' . r;
.----. ---.-.--.
September 2, 2003
Me. Michael Walker
Associate Planner
City ofChula Vista
Dear Me. Walker
I am writing you concerning the proposed renovation of the structure at
235 F Street, Chula Vista. I understand that the project is being held up by
a zoning code requiring one parking space per 300 square feet of building
area. In that this is a standing structure that is being remodeled versus that
of a new structure, that the present available parking ratio doesn't differ
from the neighboring professional buildings and that as a neighbor I feel
that the renovation will be more aesthetically pleasing than the current
structure, I agree that a variance be granted to allow this project to
continue.
Sincerely yours )
L '1""-
, ",-
n K. Yamamoto, Jr., D.D.S.
?/