HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1986/04/23 AGENDA
City Planning Commission
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 23, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-86-22: Consideration of an appeal filed
from a decision of the City Zoning Administrator
denying site plan and architectural approval for
the construction of a Del Taco restaurant at
4014 Bonita Road - Dwain Kantor
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-86-26: Requests permission to
increase allowable lot coverage and building
height for the dwelling at 165 Murray Street -
J. Anthony Raso
3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-8: Consideration of amendments to Title 19
of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to delete those
provisions in the zoning ordinance allowing
construction of multiple family dwelling units
within the C-N, C-C, and C-T commercial zones
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-4: Consideration of amendment to Municipal
Code which would prohibit the conversion of a
residential garage unless it is replaced with
another garage
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT AT to the Regular Business Meeting of May 14, 1986
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM: George Krempl, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Staff Report on Agenda Items for Planning Commission Meeting of
April 23, 1986
l, PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Zoning Administrative decision PCM-86-22;
denying a preliminary site plan for a Del Taco
Restaurant at 4014 Bonita Road in a C-C-D commercial
zone - Dwain Kantor
A. BACKGROUND
In January of last year the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote amended the
planned sign program for the Bonita Village Shopping Center to provide for
an additional free-standing monument sign along the Bonita Road
frontage. NOTE: 2 free-standing signs were existing. The decision was
based in part on the relatively poor visibility of the businesses set back
from Bonita Road.
The applicant now proposes to place a fast food drive-thru facility within
the front portion of the parking lot for Bonita Shopping Center, abutting
Bonita Road. A preliminary site plan was submitted for review by the
Zoning Administrator on February 3, 1986, as part of the standard
commercial design review process. The Zoning Administrator was not able
to make the required findings to grant the request, and the preliminary
site plan was denied.
An Initial Study, IS-86-41, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
April ll, 1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-41.
2. Based on findings contained in Section "E" of this report, adopt a
motion to deny the applicant request, PCM-86-22, and uphold the
decision of the Zoning Administrator.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use
North R-3-G-D a multi-family housing development
South C-C-D additional parking for the shopping center
East C-C-D a full-service bank
West C-C-D a drive-thru bank and other commercial facilities
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 2
Existing site characteristics
The proposed site is a flat, asphalt-surfaced landscaped parking lot which has
a grassy-knoll buffer and two trees between the Bonita Road right-of-way and
the proposed site along the northern boundary. Entrance/exit driveways for
the shopping center are located on both the east and west sides of the
project. Parking spaces for the balance of the shopping center are located on
the southern boundary of the proposed site.
Proposed use
The proposed use of the site is a Del Taco Mexican Restaurant providing a fast
food variety of service. This service includes a drive-thru access to the
restaurant, seating capacity for forty-eight customers, with twenty parking
spaces for the restaurant.
Similar establishments
There are two similar restaurant establishments located within one-fourth of a
mile of the project site. One-fourth of a mile to the east is a McDonalds
Restaurant and one-eighth of a mile to the west is a Jack-in-the-Box
Restaurant.
D. ANALYSIS
The original proposal for a Del Taco fast food restaurant at 4014 Bonita Road
in the Bonita Village Shopping Center was denied based on the following
problems:
1. The exit from the "Drive-Thru" was not driveable for the "normal" driver,
due to a tight, curving, turning radius which would not be easily
traversible.
2. The location of the proposed site would obstruct views of the shops in the
shopping center's main structure and create a need/request for additional
signage. There have been comments received by this department from
proprietors in the Bonita Village Shopping Center confirming this concern.
3. The location of the proposed site would have utilized both of the highly
congested entrance/exit driveways for its own flow of traffic utilizing
the restaurant.
After the Zoning Administrator's denial of the site plan, an appeal was filed
with revised site plans, which provide the following solutions to alleviate
some of the problems affecting the proposed site location. (1) The exit from
the "Drive-Thru" has been designed to provide easier driveability by creating
a "horseshoe" style driveway where the entrance and the exit are located on
the same side of the structure, thus utilizing only one entrance/exit driveway
of the shopping center. 12) The pick-up window was placed on the north si de
elevation to minimize conflicts with the on-site parking. (3) The westerly
driveway entering from Bonita Road was narrowed and aligned with drive aisles
within the center to avoid motorist confusion.
City Planning Commission Page 3
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986
The above mentioned site plan solutions still left several outstanding issues
which remain unresolved. Those issues are as follows:
1. Increased traffic congestion and potential traffic safety hazards will
still be generated around one of the two central entrance and exit
driveways of the shopping center.
2. Views of the shops located in the shopping center's structure to the rear
will be obstructed to a greater degree by the construction of a restaurant
5~
facility which is approximately 6 long, thus creating a need and
potential requests for additional signage.
3. An existing free-standing tenant sign located at the front of the proposed
facility is not shown on the site plan. If this sign is removed, it will
add further complications to the signage problem.
4. The revised site plan calls for restaurant seating for 48 persons in
addition to the drive-thru component. The addition of indoor seating
capacity will compound the traffic congestion around the proposed facility
by introducing the pedestrians' need for access to the restaurant. In
order to enter the structure, the pedestrian must cross the drive-thru
passages surrounding the restaurant.
The Sweetwater Valley Civic Association has contacted staff expressing
opposition to the project due to concerns over traffic congestion and
parking, The Department has also been contacted by a proprietor located
within the shopping center expressing similar concerns.
In conclusion, the revised site plans have not adequately alleviated the
problems presented by the proposed Del Taco site.
E, FINDINGS
(1) Suitability of Site Design.
The proposed layout promotes traffic congestion and potential safety
hazards at one of the primary entrances to the shipping center.
(2) Si ting of the Structure on the Property, as Compared to the Si ting of
~ther Structures in the Immediate Neighborhood.
All of the buildings constructed in the east wing of the shopping
center are set back from Bonita Road to provide equal visibility
whereas the proposed building would obstruct views to the main center
and utilizes a setback from Bonita Road not consistent with the
center.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 4
(3) Ingress, Egress and Internal Traffic Circulation Shall be so Designed
~s to Promote Convenience and Safety.
The location of the customer parking and the access drive to the
pick-up window are in direct conflict requiring pedestrians to cross
a vehicular traffic lane to enter the restaurant.
(4) Landscaping Required in Accordance with City Landscaping Manual.
The 10' wide landscape buffer would not comply with the City's
minimum landscaping width unless a wall were utilized in conjunction
with the landscaping plan. Bems, rather than walls, have been used
in the Bonita landscaping program (minimum 14' width).
WPC 2721P
negative declaration-
PROJECT NAME: Del Taco Restaurant
PROJECT LOCATION: 4014-4064 Bonita Road
PROJECT APPLICANT: Del Taco
2727 Camino Del Rio South #231
San Diego, CA 92108
CASE NO: IS-86-41 DATE: April ll, 1986
A. Project Setting
The project site consists of a lO0' x 145' portion of an existing
commercial shopping center parking lot located at 4014-4064 Bonita Road.
The site is currently paved and striped for 37 parking spaces. An
inferred extension of the La Nacion Fault System is located less than 1/8
of a mile west of the project site.
B. Project Description
The project involves the removal and relocation of 37 existing parking
spaces and the removal of the asphalt surface for the construction of a
1,895 sq. ft. fast food restaurant.
C. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The project site is zoned C-C-D (Central Commercial subject to design
control} and will permit the proposed land use subject to review and
approval of the site plan and architecture by the Zoning Administrator.
The site is located along Bonita Road, which is designated in the Scenic
Highways Element of the General Plan as a "scenic route," therefore the
Zoning Administrator will al so review the project for compliance with the
guidelines contained therein.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects/Mitigation
1. Fire Department Requirements
The Fire Department indicates that a fire hydrant will be required
within the public right-of-way along Bonita Road, adjacent to the
westerly driveway as a standard development requirement.
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
2. Transportation
The current ADT on Bonita Road is 26,055 ADT (level of service 'C')
and the City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that the proposed fast
food restaurant would generate a total of 1,020 ADT. The level of
service on Bonita Road will remain at level 'C' and therefore the
proposed project will not result in a significant cumulative traffic
impact.
E. Findings of Insignificant Impact
1. The proposed fast food restaurant is not anticipated to degrade the
quality of the environment.
2. The project will not result in a significant increase in traffic,
noise, or pollution and will not result in long-term adverse
environmental impacts while achieving short-term benefits.
3. The project is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative
environmental impacts, including traffic or air quality impacts.
4. The project is located within an existing commercial shopping center
and will not directly impact any adjacent residentially developed
areas.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Steve Griffin, Associate Planner
Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner
Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gove, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
Applicant's Agent: Dwain Kantor
2. Documents
Scenic Highways Element, Chula Vista General Plan
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 271 6P
' EN 6 (Rev. 5/85) ~,~
city of chuma vista planning department
environmental review section
EN 6 (Rev. 12/82)
Offices. Iii \ Comm.
Diego
t
· - y ~ ''~ .OMA PASEO
,' ~ I '~ '~' ', ,' ,' ' ~ ~- ...... ~ ~ LLEN J ~
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATE~NT
'APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON_ THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application..
List the names~ of all persons having any ownership"interest in the property, involved.
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 sha~es in the corporation
or owning any partnership interest~in the partnership.
!
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a 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.
4. Ha've you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within:th( past twelve months?
Yes No..~ If yes, please indiCate person(s)
~individual, firm, c-'~artnershio, ioint ventur~
I~' c~ub, (ra~ernal organization, corporation, es~ate~'t~ust,
It~n.y..o~h~r count~, city and county, fity, municipality, district or other
Ipolitical subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(.~DTE: Attach.additional pages as necessary.) . ~/~
j,z" ,--?-/7-~d
Signature of applicant/date
WPC 0701P I~IN'~R, as Gene:al ?a~tne:
A-110 Print or type name of Tapplicant
PARTNER ' PEP, CENT OF
SIIA. RES
SCILklOKE, Jr. R. 5 %'
FAMM[!, A.S. S
I:ORkSTI~R , '1'.' . 4
,JAMES, M. S
FO ROO Z AN ,
SA-(iIIEB, Il. o S
WI tlSENAND, .J. 8
KANTOR, D. 10
METCALI:'~/TROY 2 . 5
FELDMAN, R.
2.S
OI, IVE '~RI!I! ASSOC. 8
iX.B.A. VI~NTIIR[i 5
B,M.B. Vl?4'['[][~[i 5
GREATER PACiFIC-ATI,AN'['iC
FR-I~I~ERICK SCI1NAIlBliI,T ~ SONS 2
HORR] S, H. : 5
lx)E SIiR, L.
GITTINS,
ttOi,ZBERG, Mary ~ 1.5
GUEST, William S.- 3.0
C~ON, Jeff 1.0
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance ZAV-86-26; Request to increase lot coverage
from 40% to 61% and building height from 2.5 to 3.0
stories at 165 Murray Street - J. Anthony Raso
A. BACKGROUND
1. This item involves a request to increase the allowable lot coverage
from 40% to 61% and to increase the allowable building height from
2.5 to 3.0 stories for the single-family dwelling at 165 Murray
Street in the R-1 zone.
2, The project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5{a)
exemption.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion to deny the request, ZAV-86-26, to increase lot coverage
from 40% to 61% and building height from 2.5 to 3.0 stories at
165 Murray Street.
C. DISCUSSION
Adjacent zoning and land use.
North R-1 Single-family dwelling
South R-1 Single-family dwelling
East R-1 Single-family dwelling
West R-1 Single-family dwelling
Existing site characteristics.
The property in question is a level, rectangular, single-family lot
containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of area and measuring 65 ft. x 135.76 ft. The
parcel is surrounded by R-1 lots of similar size in a stable single-family
neighborhood.
Proposed request.
This application has been filed in order to accommodate an expanded single
family dwelling and detached accessory building on the lot in question.
The three-story, 9,767 sq. ft. single family dwelling (which has al ready
been framed and sheathed) would cover 4,085 sq. ft. or 46.2% of the lot.
The third story has resulted due to the installation of flooring and
direct stair access within the otherwise defined attic space. The
existing single-story accessory building located at the rear of the lot
(20'x65') covers 1,300 sq. ft. or an additional 14.7% of the lot.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 2
D. ANALYSIS
Lot coverage and height restrictions have been established in order to
control the size or bulk of structures in relation to the size and use of
property. In the case of single-family parcels, these standards have been
established at 40% lot coverage and 2.5 stories or 35 feet in height.
These bulk standards, along with setback restrictions, are designed to
allow ample interior residential living space, while, at the same time,
limiting the size and location of structures consistent with the light,
air, privacy, and open space standards and aesthetic values which have
come to be expected in R-1 single-family residential living environments.
Section 19.14.140 of the Municipal Code provides, in part, that "The
granting of a variance is an administrative act to allow a variation from
the strict application of the regulations of the particular zone, and to
provide a reasonable use for a parcel of property having unique
characteristics by virtue of its size, location, design or topographical
features, and its relationship to adjacent or surrounding properties and
developments. The purpose of the variance is to bring a particular parcel
up to parity with other property in the same zone and vicinity insofar as
a reasonable use is concerned, and it is not to grant any special
privilege or concession not enjoyed by other properties in the same zone
and vicinity .... "
The property under consideration is a level and rectangular 65'x135.76'
R-1 parcel containing 8,824.4 sq. ft. of lot area. The parcel exceeds the
present lot size and width requirements for standard R-1 lots {7,000 sq.
ft. in area and 60 ft. in width), and is surrounded by R-1 lots of like
size in a stable R-1 single-family neighborhood. Under the present R-1
lot coverage and height restrictions, this parcel can accommodate a single
story footprint containing 3,529.7 sq. ft. of coverage or a two-story
dwelling containing 7,059.4 sq ft. The attic space may not be provided
with a floor or direct stair access which would qualify this area as an
additional story.
There is nothing unique about the subject parcel by virtue of its size,
location, design or topographical features or its relationship to adjacent
or surrounding properties and developments which would prevent the
reasonable use of the property under the strict application of the R-1
zone lot coverage and height restrictions, and the granting of the
variance would represent a special privilege not enjoyed by other
properties in the same zone and vicinity. For this reason, we recommend
denial of the request.
For the Commission's information, the following section lists the facts
which must be found in order to grant a variance.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 3
E. FINDINGS
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical
difficulties in developing the property 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.
2. That such 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.
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 public interest.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
WPC 2744P/O426P
~:' "1" .- STREET
I' I i ·
%
I
· MURRAY
m
I
I I
I I
I
II ~j II
STREET
--I I------- I I I __ _.~
I _ _ _ _ _ _L [ .... 1 I II---
/~;~ ' ~ I ZAV-86-26
April 17, 1986
RE: Case No. ZAV-86-26
R E,CiE D.
City Planning Commission and ~ - I
Chula Vista City Council
276 FouPth Avenue APR 18
Chula Vista, California 92010
PLANNING DEPAI~T~)ENT
CHULA .VISTA, cAlIFORNIA
I am opposed to the approval of an application filed by J, Anthony'
for a variance from the requirements of the City Code. I request that
the property at 165 Murray Street be in compliance with the City Code
requirements for an R-1 Zone lot and that his application be denied to
increase the allowable lot coverage from Z~0% to 60% and to increase the
allowable building height from 2.5 to 3 stories, The building as it
stands is way out of scale for this neighborhood and is esthetically
not in harmony with the ranch.style homes in this area.
Case No, Z~V-86-26
.R E ,C E I ~V..E D
APR 18 "'"~-
PLANNING DEPARTtvIENT
CflULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
.~prll 17, 1986
RE: Case No. ZAV-86-26
RECE[V. ED
City Planning Commission and
Chula Vista City Council
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010 ~P~
PLANNING DEPAR/UENT
I am opposed to the approval of an application filed b~4~'
NILtFORNIA
for a variance from the requirements of the City Code, I request that
the property at 165 Murray Street be. in compliance with the City Code
requirements for an R-I zone lot and that his application be denied to
increase the allowable lot coverage from ~0% to 60% and to increase the
allowable building height from 2,5 to ~ stories. The building as it
stands is way out of scale for this neighborhood and is esthetically not
in harmony with the ranch.style homes in this area.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I~PPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS '
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. List the 9ames of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
2. If any, person identified pursuant to (l) 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.
3. If any person identified pursuant to {1) above is a 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.
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No ~ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Peri__son is defined as: "Any individu'~T, firm. conartne~h~, ;~-- .... - ............
...~., _, ..... . . r .... ~, ~u,,,~ venture, association,
~.u~.,~ ~?uo, ~ra~erna) organization, corporation, estate
w,,,,~:, ~uuu,v,s;on, or any o:ner group or comb]natio~yj~cting as a unit."
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) /"~/~/~-.
~ure of applicant/date . ,
WPC 0701P k3-~-~ ~'~//'
A-1lO Print or type name of applicant
April 17, 1986
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Planning Department
HISTORY/BACKGROUND MATERIAL TO DATE
HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AT 165 MURRAY STREET
1. 2/26/86 Official Notice - Building and Housing to Joe Raso re Stop
Work
2. 8/09/86 Letter from Keith and Helen Wadsworth to Mayor and Council
re Their Complaint About Raso House
3. 3/12/86 Offical Notice - Building and Housing to Joe Raso - Second
Notice to Stop Work
4. 3/14/86 Note - Helen Wadsworth to City Attaching Copies of Deed
Restrictions
5. 3/14/86 Council Information Item from Director of Planning to Mayor
and Council Responding to Wadsworth Letter
6. 3/15/86 Letter from Lloyd and Adeline Welker to Mayor and Council
Complaining about the Raso House
7. 3/18/86 City Council Minutes - Written Communications
8. 3/20/86 Star News Article by Tim McLain, "Raso House Too Big,
Neighbors Say"
9. 3/21/86 Letter from Joseph A. Raso to Mayor and Council Giving His
Chronology of What Has Occurred
10. 3/24/86 Letter from Director of Planning to Mr. Joe Raso Describing
What Would Need to be Done to Bring the House Into Compliance
ll. 3/25/86 Letter from Director of Planning to Mr. Joe Raso Describing
Additional Information Needed for Processing of Variance
Application
12. 3/25/86 Letter from Helen Wadsworth to Mayor and Council Responding
to a 3/19/86 Letter Complaint Against her from Mr. Raso
13. 3/25/86 Council Minutes - Oral Communications and Council Comments
14. 3/27/86 Star News Article by Tim McLain, "Raso Continues Work on
House; Hearing Planned"
Star News Editorial, "When is Big Too Big?"
History/Background Material - 165 Murray St.
Page 2 of 2
15. 3/27/86 Letter from Joseph A. Raso to Major and City Council Suggesting
a Compromise of Demolishing and Rebuilding the House at
City Expense
16. 3/30/86 Star News Article, "Raso Seeks City's Help Altering House to
Meet Regulations"
17. 4/01/86 Council Minutes - Written Communications
18. 4/05/86 Letter from Irene Foerschow to Mayor and Council Protesting
the Joseph Raso House
19. 4/09/86 Anonymous Letter to Planning Commission Complaining about Com-
missioner's Business Cards and Raso House
20. 4/15/86 Council Information Item - Director of Planning Response to
Raso Letters of 3/25/86 and 3/27/86
-WARNING- -- OFFICIAL NOTICE--- DATE '~_ ~ ~-a~:~
DO NOT RE~AOVE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNI~
THISNOTICEWHEN POSTED ~ ~ Mai'ed ~ Posted ~
You are hereby notified that the following conditions must be complied with within _ days, to comply with
Secfion/s/_~, ~. ~ of~6//UJCl ~]~ . Codes/s/ and/or
~ 9'z 9-o5 ~4 O~d. No~.
RE(.,.IVED
H~,rch ?~ ~f)8~ ................................. i ............... ' ' .-"!
u. i oVlSTA, CALL: Cr '? ,-
As re~i~enc~ of C,~ul? V&~ta ~nce ~u~u~t 19o3~ we are writins to you regarding a
siuation whtch has de~rcloped end has distrubed ~ lot of us local residence.
~sv~ called Zoning, ~ n
-- ~ Plannino~ Housing ~nd every depertmsnt which we could think about
~nd have been given the mm-a-aro~d. We hope that (like President Trmmn) the buck
will stop with you ~nd you can give us some ~able answers.
%~]~en ~ wife and i wanted to enlarEe our home at 17[ i{~ray ~reet~ because the good
Lord ~?~ us o;~zns~ ~=~ informed ~' ~ fn this neLghborhood~ Rose~_ew had certain
restrictions. First we coul~ not b'~ld up b%~ only out ant! if we had wanted to convert
our ~er~ge we then would be re~red to heve a carport. So as law abiding C'ht~a Vista
residence we cud ~ ~ --
~e by all of the ~CTty ~mlls roo~
.~. ~A= ~o and re~ulet~ons. Now
~t 16~ llurrsy 2freer we have a house that ms o~=n~ remodeled which looks ~ke a
.... ~nzor~,~,t=on it is ten feet =oout reg~at~_ons in t[~s srea
and ~' ~ ~
noon~n~ ~s bein~j done, even when we have ~de phone calls. Tide remodeling is
being ~sited by surro~ding neighbors ~nd even several contractors and they are
wondsrin~ why this ~1ONSTRO~S" is being p~tbed to continue on this m~l! lot and
street. (i{onstrous - ovem,~keL,~in~ Jn size, ~'
bm~ant~c having an appearance of a mons-
ter~ ugl7~ horrible).
The owMer has ' ~' f{ ~ %~ ~ ~ -
gu~oz__=~ ~imself~ ~,c~uo~ ~1! of those ~VAC'fOP~2f P~'~
.u~,=S are being
moved onto !nr~e acreages on 2n~ A~=ml~ '~ f,~el that he is in vJolabJcn of tree
~on~ng and c~os on r~s ntreat .... called N~u~"~Z 2tract an~ :,e
.... ~ , . :~oull ~m-ac~tn an invcsbigabion
...... ~l~ .... nas clPnged or wh~ bhLs ~,dolctLon As b~' 2}rki. tted to
-~, ~// ~,-~ ~.~-; ......... .,o- j-o~ reply, ,
/
-WAeNINa- OFFICIAL NOTICE ¢:~
DO NOT REMOVE DATE
THIS NOTICEWHEN POSTED CITY OF CHULAVISTA, C~~ Mailed [] Posted'~,
You are hereby notified that the following conditions must be complied with within days, to comply with
Section/s/ l~.~y.~ ~ ~ of ~XtO/C~P~ Codes/s/ and/or
Ord. Nos.
m' - Signe
D~pt. b/ ~7~ ~
Office
Gcodr;orning [.isry Ann:
As per our phone conversation of Frida~March 1~, 1986, submitted are cop~es of
· ~.TRIC.~NS ~hich we would like attached to the letter ~.:hich was previously
submitted. I regret that they were not submitted with the orig[na! letter~ but~ due
to ny ~spl~cing them they were not. Thank you in advance for t~king the time ta
attached them to the letter.
HELEN T. WADS~fORTH
17~ Hurray Street
Chul~ Vists~ CA 92010
F~' 64,9 I',.Cc,¢:=d '-' ..... .
' LA~ '~ ~ ' ..-'" ,,'= ", ;.','.' .............. - ~
This in3tr~men~ executed ,1,~ 10th day. of l~rcL~ 1553, by L. T. ~-'~?'='" ,..
and 'n
W I T ~ E S S *
' I'fl~EP~, said L. T. Brewcr and F~'auk~...~..~zo.~" ..... ' '-~ , ~- jcinu taDau~s, her,>-
inafter referred =o as O,,~,.,.~, ara t.c c~,r, crz oz ~;'~ ccrtaln :ecl
described a~ follows, to w~:
Lo~s 1 tO 18 inclusive 0~. ,~o~c Vla%':~ in .nc Cizy of Chula Vi~a,
of San · ~ .....
D~eoo, S~a[a of Califo~i~, accorc',znf~ ~o ~.2:p thereof ,,o.
filed in the Office of ~ke County i~ccorczr of San Dzeso C ..... y, i'~y
1953; and
~$~, said O~ers will sell and conveyt.a~ r~l propcr~y cc~c~.u~u' . -~'
above, ~hich they desire ~o subjcc~ ~o c~.~. pro~ec~ive coaditionn
sgricgions; , :
' NOW, ~FO~,.;his Declaration of ~ ,~ .... ~
W I TNE S S E T'.
" TI~ the said O~er~ hereby certify and declaret,~."-~ ~Le: '~va ~.~.o .....
and do hereby establish the general plan for thc benefit of all of said
and ~ve fixed and do hereby fix cbc foi!o%~-u3 ,' ...... ~ '-~ . ..... ~ .......
and ~ubjec~ to which each and all lo~s described above si~ll ha h~lC.~ ,
~old or convey~ by th~ as such O~.crs ~e~c', I,. an,.~'" al! of which ccnclidlc:to ......,",'"
Restrictions is and are for ~he benefi~ of said propc'ray and cnch o%~cr ~,,~z_oa,
and sl~ll inure ~o and pass wi~h sazd r~l nro~a,'E,,~ .. __ ~ ar.d e~cn m:d evc~Q' lo~
shall apply to aM bind eke rcspcc;ive successors in ingercfa of 'cbc
o;mero thereof.., Said ~onditions ~qd rasgriazlona a=e as follo,:a, ~o wit:
1. T~dt no loc oMll.,be used in whole or in l~ara for any other c!'~1
private residential pu~oscs.
2. T~t no buildinss shall be placed or erected on any of oazd lots o~na.
one single-family dwellin~ and garage, and ouch o~uo..z~ax,:=:o ~uzuaoz_
cessa~y for the pu~oses for which caid propcr~y is
p~%vz,~t~c~ to be
'30 T~t no dwelling.or other Du~Idzn3 pok~itted upon s~d p.opc.ty b,~!z
placed or erected upon any to~ l~vins a ; ...... "
of lc~s t~n 6500 square feeg.
'4. Tl~t no dwe!lins erec~e~ or pa~it~cd upon Said prope~'ty sl~!l k~wc an aL'cc
of less ~l~,n 900 0quare f.ee~ of floor ~pace, ~;clusivc of porci:e~, patios
-at~ach~ garage. . .
5. TM~ no dwellin3 or o~her '- ' ~ ,"
,).~zldino pe~,0~;~ upon ~aid propcray c!~%11 have
~ roof visable fr~ fron~ or sides o~ lass ~han 1/~ (one aigk:h )picch.
6. Tt~ no go-call~ "Cst porc" ~f open wal~ c~r shelter shall be pieced or
erected on"any off o~!d lots
'7, 'Fhht all bulldin;;~ I, laccd or ,~'cctcd oh any si: ~:ai,l lou~= ;;L,~ll h.]vc
RS # 649
minimum set-back of twenty (20) feet from front prop~.rty line, c:~,ceuting on a
~treet having combination curb where a minimta~ of =' =" -~- '
, ~.e~,~ (15) fce~ zed-back
is pe~it ~ed.
8. Tb~t in ~he even~ of any condition or restriction herein contained ba invalid
or. held invalid or void by any court of c~penent jurisdicuion, such invalidity
voidness shall in no way effect a~y o%her condigion or remgricCicn..e~c~n ~ - = contained.
9. T~ no waiver of any breach of any of the zor~'-~ool~o." condi~ious or r'.,'"'r~c~_ouo" ~
sl~ll be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or o~hcr con-
dition or restriction.
10. No noxious or offensive activity si~ll be carried on upon any lot, nor
~n)..alng be done thereon which ~y be or become an annoyance or nuis~uce go
neighborhood.
breach of ghe same or saber condition or res~ric~ion~
That ~he foregoing res~rictions and covenangn st~ll ten::inate and be of no further
force and effcc~ afger.~apuary 1, /~000,.bug will auto~natic~zlly be renewed thcrcafucr
for successive periods of ten yeats' unless ~ha o~.alcru of filch-one {51%1~ of
'above described parcels of real propcruy s~ll file a.orotcsz or relinquishr, aut
of restrictions in the Office of %hd County Recorder, '~' TM
the year 199~ or apy ocher successive date~ as provided herein,
IT IS UNDE~TOOD ~ AGi~ED, that said condiciens and restrictions shall
operate as cove~n~s running with the land and tl~t a breach or violauion "~
shall cause the loc upon which said breach or violatioa occurs to revert to tho
O~,mers, their successors and assigns, each of uho;:~, respectively, shall have
right of re-entry i~nediately upon said ~" ~ ' o.c,.u
and as to guy o~her o'~er or o~ers of said lo~, including auy bang fiCp purckascr
u~.dar contract, ~he foregoing condinions and rc&trlctlon~ shall opergaa as coven-
ants runnin~ wi:h the land, and a 0reach of any of suchco..~l~o_."~'~: ..... and restrictions,
or tile continuance of any such b.uacn, ~ay bd ~ =~ '
chaos-ca, aba~cd or r~n~edied oy
appropriate proceedings' by thc said O~crz, and o~her o~%ers of ~aid lo~, gl:air
heir~, devisees, executors, adminis%rators, ~uccessors or assigns.
PROVIDED, tl~t a breach of the foregoing conditions and restrictions or
a re-entry or regersion of any such ' ~
oreac~, sl~l! not efface, i~npair, defeat cr
render invalid the lie~ of any mortgage or tru~g deed:~a~e~' for value which
then cxis~ upon ~aid proper~y, which said mortgage or trus~ deed -'.~'~
hereby declared ~o be prior and superior ~o thc reversionary or other rights in
favor of any person under and by virtue of these restrictions; prcvidcd, 'noweva~
that in ~he event of a foreclosure of any such trust deed or morggaje, or if the
o%~er of the no~e secured by such ~rust deed or mort~a~e~ o acquires =!tlc co said
land in any manner w~tsoever in sauisfgcgion of his iudabtcclncss, then any pur-
chauer at the foreclosure or ~rustce's sale, or any said note ou~ur acquiring
title as aforesaid, desiring go accep% ghe benefits and protccgion of tl~4s pro-
vision agrees =ha~ said ~roparty so acquired by th~n] shall i;rg:cdiaaaly upon
such acquisition bec~ne ~ubjec~ to e~cn and all of the conditions and resnrict-
ions and rights herein conta~nc~, bug free fro.u ~he uffcc=s of any
. ~.~d breach
occurring prior th~re=o;" ' ' . -
PROVIDED ~0 ~r~t the rights of ~he O%~ers, in and to any lo~ a~isin
by reason of a reversion of ~ae tiglc go sa~d log occurring under a breach of
these, conditions,. . . and_ res~ric~iouo, shall, nog be e:~crciscd uu~il,' and 'us aeCi~,:% '.~
si,all bu orou,.h~ to enforce or cotabli~a such~t,~u .nl~'a:~ .~ :~ottc,~ of ::.c',~.
b~.acl,, ,,~:tti,,;: f,,r~h tho fact,~ ~f Lh,~ br~.;Ici~, i,.~:~ be,u, Ziv,.u I:o ,.1., .',~u~,,' ,,if
"f~'~,,], ,,l .,,;,1 .,,~,',,. ' ~
F~ ~ 649
Tkat in the eVent any res~rzctions .c= con~izlcn i~erein co~alncd
valid, or i~ held to be invalid ~= voi~ by ~?~ couz-= of ~ ......... .......
~uch invalidity or voi~ne~ ~b~!l in no ~cy ~=cct acy vali~ rc~ric~f, cr, or
condition herein contained;
T~ no waiver of a brach of cny of t~e covczan~o, ~.--~
ion~ and comditio~ herein com=~zcd ~1t bc . ~
~ucco~n~ br~c~ of ch~ 8m~e o~ ~ny ,., . c~uc~ ~o bc
IN ~'~SS k~?~OF, said O~ars b~ve caused this inSC~aent to be duly
-.~ecu~ed the day and y~r firs~ herelna~ove wris~en.
rovcrsion ~leDs a notice of such breach, ~e~-~ forth fha ~. of
breach, ~s given ~o the o~acr of Gald lot, And -- '
' , ~.ca breach has hoc bach
r~ied ~ighin Cnlrty day~ afge~' the oivino of said no:ice.
Thag in ~h~ ~ent any reatric~ion or condition kereln contained
invalid or void by any cour~ of ccrgpc~ent jul'isdiction, such ~
.n.~l_~y or~
-9oldness al~ll in no way affec~ any vglid rcagric~ion or condition h .....
con%aincd;
STATE OF ~%LIFOF~;~ ) SS
On ~y 5~h, 1953, before me ~he undarsigned,
a ~o~a~ Public in a~ for said County and
S~ate, personally appeared L. T. ~?~l~l~ and
F~< ~%'~GGIOIl%, kno%~ to me ~o be tke pe~'sons
who~e n~es are submcribed to zi:e ~i~kin
s~r~en~ and acknowledged t~t ~hey executed the
~SS my l~nd and official seal.
By/s/ ]Y.~IY E. B~OR
~:p~ary Public in grid for said
County and SCaCe
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
March 14, 1986
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: 'John Goss, City Manager
From: George Krempl, Director of Planning~lo
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housi~g~
Subject: Written Complaint from Mrs. Helen Wadsworth re House Under
Construction at 165 Murray Street.
On February 18, 1986, Mrs. Wadsworth called the Planning Department to complain
about the building height and scale of a dwelling being constructed at 165 Murray
Street. The Planning and Building Departments investigated and found several
apparent discrepancies in the field compared with the approved building plans.
Questions include lot coverage, building height, number of stories and whether
appropriate permits were secured for some prior construction.
Building and Housing red-tagged the property on February 26, 1986 and issued a
stop work order. The roof was framed at that point and the property owner
indicated he was going to continue with roof sheeting only for safety purposes
to tie the frame together. The Planning and Building Departments met with the
property owner on March 3, 1986 and advised him that the structure would need
to be brought into compliance. As an alternative, the applicant could apply
for a variance; no guarantees exist that any such variance would be approved.
While the property owner indicated he would be pursuing a variance and picked
up the necessary applications, nothing has been filed to date.
Because of strong winds over the past several days, the property owner was
allowed to add some she~ paneling due to our concern that the wind might lift
off the roof and create a safety hazard. On March 13, 1986 we checked the shear
paneling and found that additional work was being done and posted another notice
to stop work as the safety problem with the heavy winds had been corrected.
The applicant needs to file for two variances, one for exceeding the 40 percent
maximum lot coverage (46 percent) and one for exceeding the permitted number of
stories (3 versus 2 1/2). He also needs to submit revised building plans to the
Building Department reflecting the unauthorized changes which he has made in
the field. Until the above occurs, permission to proceed with construction
should be denied.
GK:je
cc: Ms. Wadsworth
Mr. Raso
February 27, 1986
TO: Ken Lee, Principal Planner
FROM: Duane Bazzel, Associate Planner~
SUBJECT: 165 Murray Street room addition
Ken, the followinq is my assessment of what is occurring and what
has occurred at 165 Murray Street:
1. The house originally was permitted with a two-car garage
and it is assumed that at some time this garage was converted
without a building permit.
2. The owner obtained a permit for a 28'-9" x 30'-6" room addition
on 4/10/85 which depicted an existing building footprint that,
when calculated, totals approximately 36% lot coverage (3,173
sq.ft.). The room addition was assumed to result in less
than 40% lot coverage but in fact totaled 46% lot coverage
(4,050 sq.ft.).
No permits have been found authorizing the expansion from the
original dwelling and garage (1,780 sq.ft.) to the building
footprint (3,173 sq.ft.) presented by the owner as "existing".
3. A building permit was issued for the second floor addition
which did not propose adding lot coverage beyond the "existing"
footprint. The lot coverage indicated on the submitted plan
was 39%. The ridge height of the addition, as scaled off the
drawing, was 35' and the building was designed with an attic
area with no stair access. The building has been inspected
and, in fact, the ridge has been raised totalling 42 ft. from
grade and stairs have been installed to the attic area now
qualifying this area as a third story. This is in violation
of the 2½ story height limitation (Sec. 19.24.060) but not the
35 ft. building height limitation, as defined in Sec. 19.04.038.
In conclusion, it appears that the applicant has misrepresented the
existing building footprint on plans submitted, showing building area
not approved by previous permit and that the Planning Department made
an error by permitting the 28'-9' x 30'-6" room addition on 4/10/85. The
applicant has also varied from the approved building plans to provide an
illegal 3rd story. The garage conversion can be approved provided that
80 cu.ft, of storage is provided somewhere on the lot with a minimum 6 ft.
height, no dimension less than 4 ft. and direct access to the exterior.
DB:je
March 15, 1986
Mr. Greg Cox, Mayor of Chula Vista
and Council Members
City Hall ~
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Dear ~layor Cox and Council Members:
We understand that an item for discussion at the Council Meeting on
Tuesday, March 18, 1986, will be a building under construction at
165 Murray Street.
Attached is a copy of a letter which we prepared for submittal to the
newspapers regarding the same subject. We trust that our views as
owners of the adjacent property will be considered when making
decisions in this matter.
Sincerely, ~
~ i - d Adiline~M. We~ker
167 Hurray Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Attachments ~
March 15, 1986
Letter to the Editor:
Have you seen the Murray Street Monster?
· In recent months it has become all too evident that certain residents can
obtain permits that allow them to build structures even though they are in
'violation of Chula Vista Building Codes.
If you have doubts about this statement, just drive by 165 Murray Street or
look east from 2nd Avenue. A three (3) story structure is clearly visible
above the trees and the first six homes on the north side of llurray Street.
This area is Zone R-l, which allows one single family dwelling per lot. To
realize the full impact of what is being constructed on a lot measuring
65 x 135 feet, we invite the City Council to view this one, as we see it
from our front and back yard. However, don't expect to find the original
three bedroom house from which this monster grew, for it is buried in one
relatively small corner of the first floor. I understand there is over
lO,O00 square feet of floor space in this single family dwelling. This is
understandable considering one room alone, on the second floor is 75 feet
long and more than 20 feet ~ide, over 1500 square feet in one room, larger
than most three bedroom houses. Numerous people have filed by in an effort
to determine what is being constructed. The most common questions asked
are; 'q~hat in H--- is it," followed by "How does he get away with it?"
These remarks are not just from concerned neighbors, but from building
contractors, realtors, mailmen etc.
Strange as it may seem, this is the second house on this street that the
s~me person has reoodeled in a similar manner within the last few years.
Take note of the multi-story building on the adjoining lot to the East.
Our decision to buy a home in this neighborhood 18 years ago was greatly
influenced by the single story homes and the additional restrictions which
apply specifically to the 18 homes on this street. I refer to the
"Declaration of Restrictions" recorded ~.!ay 6, 1953, in I$ook 4847, Page 105
of the "Official Records." The contents of sa~d Doc~ment shall be in
effect until January l, 2000, unless relinquished by the owners of 51
percent of the described parcels of real property.
I have been informed that the Planning Commission is not reouired to
enforce these restrictions since they are supplemental to the Chula Vista
building code. Any corrections to violations of these restrictions must
be accomplished through a Civil Law Suit. Since we are retired, living
on a Fixed income and are hesitant about risking our life savings in court,
it seems we are left with but two other alternatives.
March 15, 1986
letter to The Editor
Page 2
One
Live the rest of our lives in a darkened house caused by the shadow of this
huge warehouse like structure next door, which blocks the morning sun
completely and destroys any privacy we may have had or,
.Two
Attempt to find a buyer who would live under these conditions. However, to
find such a buyer would surely require selling our home at far below the
market value it carried prior to the approval of the Murray Street Monster.
Yours truly,
Lloyc~ R. Welker
167 Murray Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
b~ j REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE ZONING VIOLATIONS AT 165
il~.~/ ~/ MURRAY STREET - Keith & Helen Wadsworth, 175 Murray Street
Chula Vista 92010 ,
~// Mr. & Mrs. Wadsworth informed Council that the remodeling
project at 165 MUrray Street is in violation of zoning and
building codes. They requested the OWners conform with these
codes and the City investigate why the violations have been
permitted.
City Manager Goss recommended that Mr. and Mrs. Wadsworth be
advised the property OWner has been issued a stop Work order,
no further inspections are being made on the project, the
property owner must apply for variances to any violation of
existing codes, and consideration of that application will be
the subject of public hearings to be held by the Zoning
Administrator and conceivably by the Planning Commission and
City Council.
MS (Malcolm/Scott) to accept the staff recommendation.
(Councilwoman McCandliss arrived at this time.)
Planning Director Krempl noted the proponent has been advised
a variance is required on this project and a criminal
complaint could be filed if construction continued without
the variance. Councilman Malcolm was reassured the Council
would be able to appeal any decision made by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission in this matter before
issuance of a permit.
The ~.otion to approve staff's recommendation passed Unanimously.
Mayor Cox commented the individuals who wished to address
Council on this item this evening would be notified when this
item is docketed for either consideration by the Zoning
Administrator or of subsequent Planning Commission action.
- E C Ell/.ED
Murray Street
B/~llll~l~
DEPARTMENT
CA
OHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
TNe Hon~rab e Mayor and City Emunmi]
State o~ Ca ifornia
Dear Mayor Cox~ an~ Council Members:
! am a Voter and Home Owner living at l&S Murray Street in CHula Vista.
immediate intervention is requested of yob to rectify possible errors
cemmitted by city staff. A cHroneiogical order of events follows.
After many months of careful planning on my part, a building permit
was issued for a 28' 9 J ~ by 30~ 6 ~ ~ room addition on 0&/10/85.
I frankly admit that In planning this House I was unaware of the 40~
lot coverage rule but I paid careful attention to the required setbacks.
THe setbacks for the front and sides were met, the setback for the
back did not reach the maximum. THe plans showed existing foot-
print that, if calculated, totaled approximately 36% lot coverage
3,173 sq. fi.). THe room addition was assumed by planning to result
n less than 40~ lot coverage but in fact totaled ~S.8~ lot coverage
&,DSO sq.ft.). THere were no percentage figures on the plans and to ,
the best of my knowledge, no percentage calculations were made by
p~ ~ning or obviously a permit would not Have been issued.
After many months of plan check and over 1~2 corrections and
:learifioations a permit was issued 09/17/B5 for a second stary addition.
Although it took many months after applying for the second permit
to acually recieve it, ! was very patient because I realized that
rarely does staff receive a set of plans for an 8,000 plus Sg Ft House
designed and built by the Home owner. One thing I made sure was that
the detailed floor plans clearly showed the accurate dimensions of
the proposed addition. William WHeeler of Building and Housing even
took a double take when calculating the building permit fees because of
the size of the House. In fact i removed the stair access to the
attic to save permit fees since there were no intentions to utilize
that space (THe tall attic space was only necessitated to aocomadate
a beautiful B and 12 roof).
~nfortunately, an error shown on the cover of the plans showed the footprint
to be 3750 square feet (when in fact the foot print was A,~SO square
feet). However, the correct footprint size was shown in the more
detailed floor plen. [ admit that I did not place careful attention in
=atculating the footprint percentage on the cover. THis can be
masi Iy understood when you realize that:
i) a percentage figure is not even required to be shown on
the plans~ and
2) Iot coverage was already approved montHes prior on
L 04110/85, and - ~~
3) the footprint wasn't going to change anyway. A
in any event~ the desorepency between the coversHeet and the more /[
~etai !ed (and accurate) floor plan should Have been rectified in
t!ae montHes of plan check.
On O~I~?I~B ! continued comstruction on what ~ hoped would be t¼e
most beautiful home in Chula Vista~ and i took great pride in my
rk.Because of the severe winter it was decided not to remove
~ existing roof of the old house but rather to raise the joists
the second floor and bridge over the I lying quarters.
! don~t want to ~et too technical here but is was a simple procedure
which only resulted Jn ralsing the height of the second floor and ofcourse
the entire house. I must point out now~ that ! paid
attention at all times not to exceed the Height limitations as
defined in the city building code. The house does not exceed the
height limitations as viewed from the outside. This information
can be verified 6y E. R. Asmus~ Assistant City Manager who is familiar
with the situation.
In Janurary 1986~ as we were finishlnB up the framing it was decided
to reinstitute the stairs to the attic and uti I ze that area as
living quarters~ because it was discovered that the view was breathtaking.
I was unaware that putting the stairs back into the plans was a
possible violation of the 2 1/2 story rule, in any event~ it is
important that it is realized that the ciel lng n the attic was
not altered ~rom the miminum of B~ as shown in the ~ ens approved
09/17/8B, As stated before, the miminum B~ height was necessitated
by the utilization of the B and 12 roof.
To my surprise the House was ~red tagged~ on 02/26/86 because
1) the house exceeded the ~0~ lot coverage rule~ and
2) the house exceeded the 2 1/2 story rule.
~real ize that ignorance of the law is no excuse but I must inform
you that until the house was redtagged ! had never heard of the
rule, Also~ with the exception of the reintroduotion of the stairs
leading to the attic (which ~ will gladly remove)~ No alterations
were made in the attic's miminum height.
All the events which have been previously stated is what has Happened~
and can 6e verified by your staff. They may disagree on HOW the mistakes
were made (no one likes to admit they made a mistake) but I am sure they
will concure with these conclusions:
1) Planning department inadvertently ok'd the building of a
house in the City of Chula Vista that if bui It according to
plan~ covers ~5.B~ of the Lot.
2) Planning department inadvertently approved the construction
of a roof system for that house that if built according
to plan creates a miminum B~ ciel ing height.
3) The house was ~red tagged~ on 02/26/86 ~or exceed ne the
lot coverage rula~ despite the fact that the city on
instructed that the House ~e built to
~) The house was ~Red Tagged~ on 02/26/86 ~or exceed ng the ~ 1/2
story rule when in fact the attic was built as instructed
by the miry on 0~/17/~5,
~n conclwsion~ it would We impossible for me to drastically attmr the
floor plan of the house now. It would invotve changing a four bedroom
~('e to a two bedroom House, it would involve moving an indoor
s~mmiqg pout. it would involve other alterations to numerous
mention here. Quite frank!y~ it wo~Jtd involve the expendure of
funds [ do not have nor have access to.
Finaily~ it was my intention to build one of the most beautiful
and wel I crafted homes in the History of C~uI~ Vi!~t~. A 6omo
that our descendents would be proud to place in some future Chula
Vista Heritage Book.
Hr. Mayor~ and Council Persons~ I built this House in good faith
and with great care. I Have lived on Murray Street for almost 30 years
since childhood, I look foward to seelng my children (and God wi llng)
my grand chi Idren running and playing with smiles on their
faces~ creating similar Happy memories as I Hold in my Heart.
I am asking you to please not let a few mistakes on the part of
a city employee destory much that I ire for. THank You.
PS: I wi II address you at oral communicat OhS
th i s Tuesday 03/25/86. W i th the C i ty
Manager and City Attorney present~ I
bel ieve we can solve this problem
in the briefest possible time.
Oh Yes~ I almost forgot. Please amt
soon, Time is of the essence.
£ommitments Have been made to var ious
subcontractors ,
CI~' OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 24, 1986
HAND CARRIED
Joe Raso
165 Murray Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Subject: 165 Murray Street Room Addition
Dear Mr. Raso:
At the regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council, on March 18, 1986,
written correspondence was presented and an informational memo by the Director
of Planning describing what action is being taken by the City in response to
apparent Code violations at 165 Murray Street. The Council chose to accept
the Director's report and asked to be kept apprised of the status of these
violations.
It is our understanding that you wish to correct all Code violations and bring
the project into strict compliance with the zoning ordinance in lieu of
pursuing a variance request. As discussed with Planning Staff, the following
modifications need to be incorporated into revised building plans to be
submitted to the City for review and, upon approval, these modifications must
be made to the subject structure prior to final inspection:
Ii Three Story Structure
a. The stem walls proposed within the attic space will be removed and a
system of structural posts and beams will be installed for structural
roof support.
b. The plywood sheathing for the attic area will be removed resulting in
no attic floor.
c. Attic access, subject to minimum Building Code standards, will be
provided with no permanent stair access.
d. The existing roof dormers and deck on the south elevation will be
utilized strictly as architectural features and no access will be
provided to the deck area.
e. The maximum height of the structure will not exceed 35 feet, measured
from the average contact ground level of the building to the mean
height level between the eaves and ridge.
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5101
Joe Raso _2~.'~ March 24, 1986
2. Lot Coverage
Upon inspection of the project site, it was discovered that an accessory
structure (no building permit has been issued for such) currently exists
on the rear portion of the site. The original room addition plans did not
indicate the presence of any accessory structures on the site, although
you are required to show this information. In order to comply with the
zoning ordinance limitation of 40% maximum building coverage on the site,
your revised plans shall indicate modifications to the building presently
under construction and the removal of the existing illegal accessory
building, resulting in the maximum 40% lot coverage limitation. Plans
shall indicate exact dimensions of the lot, the buildings as modified, the
accessory structure to be removed, and distances from all property lines.
We would ask that two copies of your revised plans be submitted to the
Building Department for review by Monday, March 31, 1986, to enable the staff
to review compliance with Code requirements and to delay or avoid further
enforcement action.
In addition, due to the increase in building height from the original approved
plans, you are also advised to contact the City Fire Marshal regarding the
modifications. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please
contact me at 691-5101.
Very truly yours,
Director of Planning
DB/nr
WPC 2646P
cc: John Goss, City Manager
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing
Tom Harron, City Attorney
Ken Lee, Principal Planner
Duane E. Bazzel, Associate Planner
CiTY OF CHULA VISTA
CllY OF
CHUI. A VISfA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 25, 1986
Mr. J. Anthony Raso
165 Murray Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Subject: Application for Variance
Your application for a variance submitted on March 25, 1986
requires additional information and classification to the plans
and application form as follows:
1. Additional dimensions must be included on the site plan and
elevations to complete the required information for planning
evaluation.
2. The dimensions shownfor the floor plans on various sheets
must coincide with each other. As submitted, discrepancies
exist between sheets 6, 7, and 8.
3. Your application indicates that an additional work shed of
approximately 1300 square feet exists on the rear of the
property. If you wish to retain this shed, your total lot
coverage would equal approximately 61%. Please clarify in
your application if you propose to remove or retain this shed.-
4. Anthony J. Raso is listed as the owner of this property; please
clarify the relationship of this individual and current address.
Before the variance processing can proceed and a hearing date established,
the above should be provided.
Than~ you.
Director of Planning
GK:je
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(6191 691-5101
March 25, 1986
Mayor Greg Cox and City Cou-ncil~,,embers
City Hall - 276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Goodmorning Mayor Cox and Council.members
Since the Tuesday 3/18/86 City Council Meeting and the article which appeared in the
Chula Vista Star News of 3/20/86, individuals ~mlking~ ri~ng bicycles and cars have
~iven by to see "the Monster on i~i~ray Street".
To further add to this occurrence, has invited more interesting incidents. Mr. Joseph
~so demanded to come onto the bsc~mrd of 175 ~i'~ray Street to take some photographs.
Since ! hsd a scheduled appointment, I replied, "No." A few minutes later a knock on the
door fomnd him ~ain de?ndin2 that ! accept a white ona~dressed envelope, i~en reused,
it was thrm~m into ~y house. It was returned in kind. On Saturday morning 3/22/86, the
n~ilman delivered a "Certified Letter P126 807 281". Copy of letter attached.
From the contents of this letter, I am questioning if Joseph ~so is now officially empl-
oyed by the Chul= Vista Attorney, Zoning, Planning, Housing or Inspection Departnonts?
1. This letter contained two aerial views of ~- backyard (17% ~-iurray Straot)
2. Records will reveal that in ~ept. 1966 "ALL UECEf. SAEY'~ per:;its were obtained
~nd inspections as required by the proper departments were accomp~shed
3. Our de,ire of a 2nd sto~ two bedroom and bath was '~-Li~ED'~ by the Planning
De~srtnent and the building contractor and so plans ~nd construction '~ere
ch~nf~ed in ~ccord~nce w~th th~s in~orm~tion.
A reply will be appreclatsd about the "officiol capacity" of t.his letter ~nd its contents
and acco~tabi~ty, if any Chul~ Vista officials or inspectors care to "rein~pect" these
~$ditions ag~in~ they ~rs so welcome.
f!ncerely,
HZL~U T.
17~ Hurray
Cbul~ v~t~ CA 0~010
1 Encl. Copy Ra~o ltr
Joseph A. Raso
165 Murray Street
Chu]a Vista, CA 92010
Ms. Helen Wadsworth
175 Murray Street
Chula Vista~ CA 92010
Dear Ms. Wadsworth, March 19th~ 198/~
Th;s communication is to in{uti0 you that there are t'4o structures
May 6, 1953 in Book ~8&7, Pose !06 of t!~e ~O~c;al Records o{ t~e
County Remorder o{ the County o{ San Oioso~ to wit:
~Item 5. THat no dwelling or other bw~ld~n~ permitted upon said
~roperty sMaI I Have a rom{ v~s~o~e ~r~m ~ront mr s~dem o~ less
than 1/8 (one e~s~t~) p~tcH.~
THe enclosed photographs sNouId clearly ~centl ,y the structures
violation.
Within ~0 (t~irty) days~ p~ease show ev;dence that corrections
(or arrangements for correctionm) ~av~ Seen mado. inaction by you
could resu;t in severe financial I '- i l;t>,
Your prompt attention ;n this matter woul~J ~m 9rsatly appreciated.
S,,'
~ ~ 'q~'Z_~'Tll Z,x..'!~'..' k~~'w~/// '~
t.. /~
.. ' -
· ........ ~ .... "' LIleco~-'dcd ~'~Y 6, 1953
I'eCO:(~.~d :'? "' ~ - ' "
· '~ SSi,": 649 .... :, ~ .~ :~ .... In~Cr ....
Thi~ in~cr~en~ e~ecu~ed :hi~ lO~h day. of i~rch, 1~53, by L. T. ~.~-~ :
hera-
·~e,,' --h as joinU tenants ~
%~, said L. T. Brewer and Frank ..... o1°~ ,
, ~,~- thc o;mers of t['~ ccr~aln real
inafter referred =o as 0~',..~, arc
described au follows, ~o wiC:
Lo=6 1 =o ~8 inclusive of Rose ~1-%., in ~' Ciuy of Chula Vista,
.' .~ - - accordin[: =o 1.21p =harcof l~O.
-~ ~4 of Sun Diego Coun%y ~ :'~Y
filed in =ha office of the Coun=y t,uco
1953; and
=,,~ r~%l propcr~y closed,Led
. %~,~, said O~ars will sell ~nd convey
above~ ~hich =hey desire =o subjcc% =o certain pro=ac=ira conditio[~ au.a
s~ric~ions;
N6W, ~FO~,.c~s Declaration of
' TI~ thc maid o~er~ hereby certify and declare ', - they i~va c~:ablishc~
~-ez~aral plan for th~ b~xufit of all sC said propcr~y,
do
hereby
and ~ve fixed and do hereby fi:c aha fol!ox~-nf~ co .... ~_o..~ -
and subJec~ ~o which each and all lo~s described above sl~%ll ga nala~
flold or conv~y~ by ~h~ as such O~,v, crs, each smd all of wklch ccndicic:~o
Reotricgions i~ and ar~ for she banafig of said proI, er~Y and each o,.~cw
and oI~I1 inure ~o ~d pgsD wi~h said r~oucccsoorsproccrnY, inatdin~ercg~each' ar. dof cvcz?..,~n.~ pTcsangl°t and
~l~ll apply to and bind the rcspcc~iv~
o-~er~ ~hcreof. said ~onditions ~n~ rcsgrictlonG are as follo~a, go
1. T~ no lo~ o~.11 .be uses in whole or in pars for any o~har tt~n single
private rcsidengial pu~OseS.
........ ~,,,1 on any of ~a~d logs o~her
2. T~t no buildinss shall be ~ -ce= ~ =~ ......
one single-family dwellin~ and garage, an., .u=~
ceooa~ for the pu~Ses fo~ ~" -
· 'P~= no dwelling or o~her building
of less "~'~' 56 feet or
of lC~S ~n 6500 squar~
l~. T~mg no dwelling erected or pa~it~ed upon~;clusivcSaid propcr~yof o s!~ll l~%Vapa~iosanan~area
of less tlLc~n 900 square feet of floor space, ~orcheg,
-at~ach~ garage.
. 5, T~g n0 dwellins or saber b{~ildingof lessPe'n'ait~gh~n 1/Su'~°n(onoSaid propcrayr )P s~ll
a roof vlsublu fr~ fron~ or sides ei~h=h __itch.
6. T]~= no Bo-call~ "~ar pot=" or open
erected on"a~xy of~id lo~a ....
Tl~t
buildin;;~
~S {'; 649
~inimum set-back of twenty (20) feet from fron~ prcp~-~rtY line, e:~.ccp~in5 on a
street having c~bination curb, where a minim~n of fifteen (15) fce~ sca-sac.-
is pe~it ~ed.
8.. T~t in the event of any condition or resgriction nc.ein contained be invalid
or. held invalid or void by any cour~ of c~,penen~ jurisdicuion, such invalidity or
voidneas shall in no way effect a~y saber condigion or restricgiou herezn con.elna=.
9. T~t no waiver of any breach of any of the foregoing coudinions or res~rlcgio~%s
sl~ll be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breacl% of ghe same or ocher
dlglon or rcstric~ion.
10. }~o noxious or offensive activigy sl~ll be carried on upon any lot, nor shall
anything be done thereon which ~y be or become an annoyance or nuisance go
neighborhood.
~each of ghe same or saber condigion or rcstricUion~
, · % .... -' - . ' renewed thcr~afucr
for successive periods ss ~na ova%~r~ of ~x~7 o,.e {~1,.). o~ u
'above described parcels of real propcrgy s~ll ~ile a pro~cs~ or rclin~uis~r~ent
of restrictions in the Office of ~hd County Recoracr, wichin aha year '-~ ~"
thc year 1999. or a~y o[her successiv~ da~a~ as provided herein.
IT IS UNDE~'~OOD ~ AG[~ED, ~c~ said conditions and rosario=ions shall
operate a$ core. nas runninE with the land and tl'~ a breach or violauion thereof
s~ll cause the lo~ upon which said breach or violcuion occurs to revert to thc
,~ O~crs, ~heir successors and assigns, each of %:ho~:~) respectively, s.d~ nave
riEhc of re-entry i~ediately upon said pr~ise= i[% ~ha evanC of any ~uch breach;
a~d as to any ogher o~er or o~tcrs of said 10~s, inc!udins a:~y bona fids
ut~dar contract, the foregoing conditions and rcs[ricgion~ s[~ll oper&~a as coven-
ants running with ~he land, and a breach of any of such condigions and rcscrlc~ions
or the continuance of any such breach, may be enjoined, aba[cd or r~mcdied by
appropriate procecdinEs' by thc ~aid O%~,crs, &nd oiler o%m.e~s of ~aid lo~s, '~
heirs, devisees, executors, adminis=ragors, s~ccessors or
render invalid ~he lien of any mortgase or trus~ ~cc(~ mg~e for value which
then exist upon 0aid propergy, which said mortgage or Zrust deed shall be and
hereby declared ~o be prior and superior to thc reversionary or other ":
favor of any person under and by virtue of these resgrictions; provided, ho%;evar,
~hat in the event of a foreclosure of any such t~gg dacd or mortgage, or if
o%~er of thc no~e secured by such ~rusC deed or morggage acquires gitle co said
land in any manner wlmtsoever in satisfaction of his iudabUc~ncss, ~hen any pur-
chaser aC ghe foreclosure or trustce's sale, or any said note o~,~ur ccqu~ ....
title gs aforesaid~ desiring go accepg the bcncfics and proUection of tkis pro-
vision agrees ~ha~ said ~ropergy so acquired by th~ sl~ll ir~cdta~cly upon
such acquisition bec~ne subjcc~ to each and all of ~ke conditions and
ions and rishgs herein ?ongaine~, bug free from. ~I.e cffcc~s of any ~atd b~c~,~h.
occurrins prior ~h3re~o,' . - '
~nw~nED ~0 [~t the rights of ~he ~.~ers, zn and to any icg
~ n ~?2'~cver=ton of the title to said lo= occurring und=r a breach of
by ruaso - -~,-~ ..... ~,hall not be excrci~ed un~il, and no acgion
these conditions anG resu~-~, 7 .... ~,, ...... ~.u,~ , act[ce of
:,,,Id ).t, ,,.d ,,.ch 1,r~,ach h.,~ ,,,,t ,,,,,,, ~,,'..",,.'" '"~ ~,,I, ,
F,S '~ 649
Tl~t in the event any ~estric~ionm .c= co'.:-'.i~ion herein co'~aincd is in-
valid, or is held to be invalid or void by any cour: of co~.L~e~c~% ~ur~oLic~ioa~
such invalidity or voidness ab~ll in no way affac~ aily valle reo~ric~f, on or
condition hereim c~aincd;
T~ no waiver of a brach of ~ny of the covcnangs, agracxtcnts,
ions and conditions herein con:ained =kall bc coxonruad ~o bg a waiver of
~uc~e~ing brach of the ~e or any o~h~r covcnan%s~ agra~%~, rcotric~iong
or condi~io~.
IN ~'f:~SS ~q~P~OF, said O~ers b~ve caused this ins~ent to be duly
~ecu~ed the day and y~r firsg hereina~e written.
By/s/ L.T.
reversion ~lc~s a notice of much breach, aet:ing forth ~ha fac:s of
breach, Ms given ~o the owner of s~id !or, and cuch breach hao no~ bach
r~ied withi~ thirty days after ~aa giving of ~aid no,ice. --
That in the ~ent any reatricCion or con~l~ion herein con~aincd is
invalid or void by any court of competent Juriadic=ion, ouch in,falidizy or)
9oldness al~ll in no way affect any valid rca~rtcgion or condltzon hare!:%
con:ained;
STATE OF ~LIFOr~I~ ) SS
On }~y 5~h, 1953, before me the undersigned,
a Mo~a~ Public in a~ for said County and
Scare, personally appeared L. T. B?~i~il and
F1U~.< }%',GGIOI~, kno~ to me ~o be thc persons
who~e n~es are subscribed to :he wi~hin in-
~r~en~ and acknowledged tMt ttmy executed the
I~q~SS my trend and official seal.
~lptary Public in and for maid
County and SCats
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Joe Raso, 167 Murray Street, Chula Vista, requested
permission to address the Council on his current residential
~1;~ construction on Murray Street.
Assistant City Attorney Gill suggested since Mr. Raso has
applied for a variance as recommended by staff, he would have
a strong legal concern about Council's consideration of
evidence as this would be outside the due process. Mr. Raso
has the right to address the Council, however, he requested
Mr. Raso defer any comments until the variance comes to the
City Council. Council was also advised not to comment on
this item tonight.
Mr. Raso acknowledged the Attorney's remarks and distributed
photos of a home (in Coronado) which he would like to build
on Murray Street and referred to his letter to Council
noting: problems developed as a result of his residential
construction were not his fault; permit was issued 'by the
City; construction has been performed precisely according to
plan; entire life savings have gone into this project;
building permit was obtained in April 1985; City has issued a
Notice to Stop Construction, however, contractors cannot be
ordered to stop and he will continue to build; he has paid
over $3,000 in permit fees; staff has advised that 45.8% of
the lot occupied by this structure exceeds the normal
requirements; plans have been in plan.check seven times.
Councilwoman McCandliss suggested Mr. Raso's letter
distributed to Council this evening be referred to staff in
order for them to comment on the different charges in the
next couple of weeks including whether staff should have
calculated the lot coverage and the height of the structure.
Assistant City Attorney Gill stated he had no problem with
the reference to staff; however, he advised against further
Council comments on this issue. He suggested it may be
inappropriate as well to include this information in
Council's packet until the variance is submitted for a
hearing to the City Council.
Planning Director Krempl explained Mr. Raso applied for a
variance after he was apprised his structure did not comply
with City codes. The City has two options available
regarding the variance process: (1) the Zoning Administrator
could convene a public hearing and that action can be
appealed to the Planning Commission whose decision could be
appealed by the City Council and, (2) the Zoning
Administrator could refer the matter directly to the Planning
Commission without Zoning Administrator consideration. The
Planning Commission would convene a public hearing of that
action which could be appealed to Council. The earliest date
this would come to the Planning Commission could be April 23.
Mr. Calvin Bright, 1203 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, proposed his
support for the construction due to his association with Mr. Raso
for many years. He stated the drawings have been submitted in
compliance with City procedures and Mr. Raso wishes to comply with
city rules and regulations.
MS (McCandliss/Cox) to refer the letter from Mr. Raso to staff
with a response to Council.
Councilman Scott suggested that included in the motion should be
any information pertaining to this subject be brought to Council
at any subsequent public hearing.
The motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
Councilman Scott commented on Mr. Raso's remarks under oral
· ~ 1. communications that although his Murray Street building was
"red-tagged" he would continue construction on his project.
City Manager Goss explained the City's options in this event:
seek criminal action or an injunction. Staff is evaluating
amount of construction currently ongoing.
~ .~ = ~o~E~ o~ = ~ ~o~
..... Star-News, 3/27/86 ~ ......
When doe ne n' ight to use his the plans for ~s long as Raso says and even
~roperty as he sees fit infringe upon required 120 changes before final ap-
~other man's right to enjoy his own proval, then surely someone had time to
~ome? make certain the plans conform to city
I That's what zoning laws are all about ordinances.
~nd what is really the issue behind : On the other hand, one wonders whether
~eighborhoodprotests over JosephRaso's Raso intended a three-story house all
attic were left
I0,6~--square-foot house that towers 42 along. Stairs to the so-c~ed
~et into the ~r -- ~1 crammed on an off the plans approved by the city, but
8,775-square-foot lot. steps to the third floor were added.after
: Neighbors just do not want to look out construction began. After, Raso said, he
6f their windows and be confronted with a "discovered the view was breathtaking." , .:
9iew of a three-sto~ house that dominates Whoever lsat fault, Raso will not revise
the neighborhood, totally out of scale to his house without a fight, especially sinc6
ihe subdivision houses surrounding it on .structure modifications would add greatly'
Murray Street, a half-block-long Chula to the costs of an ~reafly costly house.
~ista cul-de-sac. .~ Meanwhile, we are concerned about the
[ ~aso sees the edifice as his dream house neighbors who must look out at this
t' eight fireplaces, indoor sdmming pool, monster. The poor fellow, next door, with
~me room and all. · ?~ ;~ '. · the three-story housel6oming right outside
~ The city gets into the act because its his window, surely has a case to make that
~lanning and building departments ap- his proper~y valu%s fiav~ ~en.
vgroved~,,o~ ou~'*v.nlans a year ago, even reduced because oI gaso s g~an[ nouse.
t~ough they showed a design that would The neighbor certainly will not be able to
cgver 46 percent of the lot (city law allows enjoy his backy~d as he once did.
6nly 40 percent coverage) and an attic with This is not the first such monster hou}~
~n eight-foot ceiling (thus constituting a to have slipped through the city's redtape,
~ird floor when city ordinances only allow to the heated objections of n6ighboring
2 Yz-story houses), homeowners.
~ Raso points to city approval of his plans It is not fair that an innocent neighbor
frs g~ving him theright to proceed with con- has to pay -- through loss of property
~rucno -- and he is doing just that while value, as well as loss of light and breezes --
for the mistakes inherent in the house
,~e city ponders its options. Rase makes a
od argument. If the city staff looked at design and the city's approval.
~..; " . - . ~ S~ revise side
Joseph A. Raso -.
16S Murray Street ' '
CHula Vista, CA 92O!0 .~ '
THe Honorable Mayor and City Counci .~,~ ~i~ ~'~ ?')
City Of Chu!a Vista
State o+ Ca! ifornia ~il ~i:'~ "
Dear Mayor Cox, and Count!! Members: ~ MaP:oh'S7, !986
! am the ownerJ designer~ and builder of the house at 16S Murray Street
which is causing so much controversy. After much soul searching and
informal consultation with family~ fr end'S, various city staff members,
neighbors, and Johnnie Lou Rosas of the Star News, ! would llke to
propose the following compromise which many believe wi I I solve the
situat;on.
This compromise is based on the following four assumptions:
i) The house was erroneous!y permitted to be built to 46%
!ut coverage.
~) The house was erroneowsly permitted to be built with
mimimum eight foot attic helght.
~) The house cannot be practical ly altered to satisfy the con-
~ of the major parties involved.
4) The homeowner does not have (nor have access too) the funds
necessary to affect a major modification.
[t is proposed that:
!) The house wil! be demolished and replaced with a home of
equa! quality and ammenities wi~ich is smaI!er~ and more
estetical !Y p!easing to the neighbors.
~) The city wi[! assume the cost of demo!ition and rebwi!din~
lsiting Home. THe
~h_ new House to the present stage of the ex
Homeowner wi Il assume all costs of the ne~ house past what
is represented by the present stage of the existing house.
3) The city wi!! provided the necessary sobsi, stance allowance
inorder to provlde the Rase family with a modest two bedroom
apartment throughout the duration o+ construction.
! Hope yew wi!! consider this compromise as a so!wtion to + ;= lemma
~t is with great re!wctance and hesitation that this is proposed,
it Wi!~ not be easy for us to wipe away +braver a project wh.ck was
created with such iove and devotion. However, I have !ired on
this cw -de-sac ~;nce childhood and we feel t¼at the opinions of
our ~r:en_s a~ neighbors s¼ow!d also be hun
In c!osing, your immediate attention in this matter wou!d be greatly
appreciated. Please take into consideration that time is of the
essenc~ s.~ce month!y paymemts are being made on funds expended,
Thank you very much, ~incereIy~
Raso. seeks city's ....
help altering'hOuSe
to meet regulations
":"~,~}1-Joe Raso is willing to tear eight-foot-high attic when codes
down his giant dream house only allow four feet, the house
under construction at 165 Mm'ray cannot practically b~ modified to
St., Chula Vista, and start over satisfy everyone's concerns, and
again, he does not have thc money to
But there is a catch, tear it down himself.
He wants the city to shoulder hope you will consider this
the cost of tearing down the compromise as a solution to this
10,600-square-foot structure and dilemma," Raso wrote. "It is
putting it back up in a more ac- with great reluctance and hesita-
ceptable form to the framed stage tion that th}s is proposed. It will
it has now reached, not be easy for us to wipe away
From that point, he would forever a project which was
~,comp ete it w th his own money, created with such love and
Raso also is asking for accep- devotion.
table lodging while the work is ' "However, ! have lived on this
being done. cul-de-sac since childhood and we
To justify his request, Raso feel that the opinions of our
points to the blueprints that city friends and neighbors should also
planning staff approved for the be honored."
project. Friday, Gene Asmus. the assis-
In a letter to the City Council. tant city manager, said Raso's
Raso said his compromise is bas- letter will be presented to the
cd on four assumptions, council Tuesday. If the council
The city permitted it to be built thinks it makes sense. Asmus
exceeding lot coverage re- said, he will recommend it be
qmrements the city allowed an referred to staff for cost study.
d. CONCERN REGARDING ACTIONS OF JOSEPH RASO - Helen T.
Wadsworth, 175 Murray Street, Chula Vista, CA 92010
Mrs. Wadsworth was referring to a letter she received from
Joseph Raso in which he cited building corrections to her
residence.
MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) that this letter be received and acknowledged
with the understanding that the Wadsworths received a building
permit in 1965 for-a 300-square foot addition to their home, and
it was built according to City regulations.
e. REQUEST FOR COMPROMISE ON RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AT 165
MURRAY STREET - Joseph A. Raso, 165 Murray Street, Chula
Vista 92010
A compromise-involving construction at 165 Murray Street was
offered to the City Council by Mr. Raso. He proposed the
City pay .for demolition of his current structure,
construction of the new structure, and provide a housing
allowance for his family for the duration of this
construction.
City Manager Goss remarked if the City Council has an
interest in considering Mr. Raso's proposal, it be referred
to staff for a detailed analysis of all related matters,
including estimated cost.
It was moved by Councilman Malcolm to file the letter.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilwoman McCandliss arrived at this time, 4:10 p.m.
MSUC (Scott/Moore) to refer this to staff with the instruction
that Council get all the facts in the case to determine whether or
not the Council wants to do this.
I.~SG APR -8 A~ 9 Il
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
.CITY CLERH'S OFFICE
PLAN ViNG C( . 1ISSIONERS APR 9
CHU~.~VISTA, CA 02~10
P NNING DEPARTMENT
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
TO ~OM !T ~Y CONCE~:
THOSE OF ~ ~O ~VE ON M~Y ST~, T~NK T~T YOU CO~IS~ONE~ NOT ONLY HHO~
NOT ~VE "BUS~E~ CA~S"~ YOU DON~T ~ DESER~ TO CONTIN~ WO~NG IN THOSE
BY T~ ~C~S~ PICT~
POSITIONS. AS R~SENT~,N~ ONLY DID YOU CO~ISSIONE~ GII~ ~ A MONSTER ON M~RY
ST~ET, B~, JOE ~SO~AVE ~ ~S ~G~ TO ~VE WITH. BY T~ W~Y IN SAN DIEGO T~
WO~ IS O~ T~T T~S IS T~ MOST E~VE ¥~O~HO~ IN THE A~ AND IT IS ~CATED IN
AN R-1 N~G~O~OOD. YO~ CONCEP2~ ~ABO~ ~GH-D~SITY IS A ~G JO~. IF I ~ YOU
~i,gIIS~ONE~ A~ WAS ON THE P~NNING COF~iIS~ON I WO~ ~ IT A SEC~T ~ND NOT
W~T TO DISC~SE MY N~E A~ER ~.~ WAS PE~IIT~ TO BE E~CT~ ~IN T~S N~G~O~OOD.
A~ ~S~CT
DIO~GE, ~SD~I IS A ~DGE OF A~ [O~TY A~ N~ MON~, F~R A~ IGNO~NCE, OR S~
or a ~ifo~, badge o~business ca t.
GtE WO~UDEH~IF THIS HAD ANYTHING
TO DO WITH HIS HIGH-DENSITY
REC~EATIONAL R~IODELED MOHSTER
~. ~:~;.;T~moth~ Browmng 43 of Chula ~
COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM
April 15, 1986
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via: John Goss, City Manager
From: George Krempl, Director of Planning~
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housin~
Subject: Report Regarding March 21, 1986 and April 1, 1986 Written Communi-
cations from Mr. Joseph Raso, 165 Murray Street, regarding Expansion
of His Residence
~l. On March 25, 1986, Council considered written communication from Mr. Joseph
Raso as to the circumstances surrounding construction problems and Zoning
Ordinance violations for his residence at 165 Murray Street. Mr. Raso
also made an oral presentation. Council was apprised that a variance appli-
cation had been filed to exceed lot coverage as well as have a three-story
structure.
Council requested staff to review Mr.'Raso's letter and respond to the
various facts and allegations contained therein. The attached memo is
a keyed number response, point by point. Mr. Raso's letter is duplicated
on the left-hand side of the page and the staff response is on the right-hand
side.
#2. In addition, for Council information, is a Planning Department memo, dated
April l, 198~which outlines some 20-plus changes to the house. Those
changes are shown on a revised set of building plans submitted in conjunction
with the variance request and represent changes which are not reflected
on the approved building plans.
#3. At one point during the week of March 21, 1986, the applicant indicated
a desire to bring the structure into legal compliance with the Zoning Ordi-
nance. The March 24, 1986 letter outlines the three-story and lot coverage
compliance recommendations by Planning.
#4. On April 1, 1986, Council considered further written communication from
Mr. Raso (March 27, 1986 letter) suggesting a compromise of removing the
house and replacing it with a house of equal quality and amenity, but smaller.
The cost of demolition and rebuilding to the present stage of the existing
house would be borne by the City.
#5. The Building and Housing Department has estimated a demolition cost of
the total existing structure as $8,000, $1,000 for demolition to the
foundation and $7,000 for slab and foundation demolition.
-2-
#6. The Planning Department and Building and Housing Department have looked at
alternatives to demolishing the entire structure in order to meet Ordinance
requirements as well as making the structure less imposing on the neighborhood.
To comply with lot coverage (40%), the accessory structure in the rear yard
could be removed and the roofed area over the pool removed to create an open
area. The estimated cost of the roof removal and remodel is $3,400. The
house could also be cut back by some 10 feet off the rear.
The building height/story issue could be significantly improved by removing
the present roof and installing a new roof with a 3-foot in 12-foot pitch,
which would be some 15 feet lower in height. The estimated cost would be
$3,450. To leave the roof height as is, but technically have the structure
comply with the two-story definition, would cost about $4,200 for remodeling.
In conclusion then, the cost of the house demolition, including foundation, would
be $8,000. The cost of modifying the house to meet lot coverage and a two-story
structure is $7,600. The cost of lowering the roof only by some 15 feet is $3,400.
Sketches showing the various alternatives are also enclosed.
GK:rms
cc: Mr. Raso
Ms. Wadsworth
April 1, 1986
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
Subject: 165 Murray Street House Addition
The following are changes that appear on revised set of plans that were not
shown on the original set:
Elevations
South One window has been added at entry.
A roof eyebrow has been added at entry.
A deck has been added at the attic level.
The two roof dormers have been modified.
We.st - One octagonal window has been added over entry area. Two large windows have been added to the attic.
The window arrangement at the second floor level has been shifted.
First floor window sizes have been changed.
Fire place chimney has been changed and other chimneys have been added.
Height of building has increased at least 3 ft. overall.
North Roof modified showing clipped gable ends.
East Chimneys have been added to drawings.
One door has been added.
One window has been added at second floor level.
One window has been added to the attic.
Floor Plans
One bedroom has been converted to a dressing room for pool activity.
Stairs have been added to the attic.
Building width has changed from 50 ft. to 51 ft. 6 in.
Roof deck is not shown from attic (south side of building).
Windows added on east, west and north sides of attic.
Interior walls added within attic creating three rooms.
Site Plan
Accessory building shown (20 ft. x 65 ft.) at rear of property.
34 ft. rear yard dimension has been changed to 30 ft.
· ' C~ OF
CHULA VISTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 24, 1986
HAND CARRIED
Joe Raso
165 f.turray Street
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Subject: 165 Murray Street Room Addition
Dear f4r. Raso:
At the regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council, on March 18, 1986,
written correspondence was presented and an informational memo by the Director
of Planning describing what action is being taken by the City in response to
apparent Code violations at 165 Murray Street. The Council chose to accept
the Director's report and asked to be kept apprised of the status of these
violations.
It is our understanding that you wish to correct all Code violations and bring
the project into strict compliance with the zoning ordinance in lieu of
pursuing a variance request. As discussed with Planning Staff, the following
modifications need to be incorporated into revised building plans to be
submitted to the City for review and, upon approval, these modifications must
be made to the subject structure prior to final inspection:
1; Three Story Structure
The stem walls proposed within the attic space will be removed and a
system 'of structural posts and beams will be installed for structural
roof support.
b. The plywood sheathing for the attic area will be removed resulting in
no attic floor.
c. Attic access, subject to minimum Building Code standards, will be
provided with no permanent stair access.
d. The existing roof dormers and deck on the south elevation will be
utilized strictly as architectural features and no access will be
provided to tile deck area.
e. The maximum height of the structure will not exceed 35 feet, measured
from the average contact ground level of the building to the mean
height level between the eaves and ridge.
276 FOURTH AVENUE'CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 92010q619) 691-5101
~oe Raso -2:'" March 26, 1986
2. Lot Coverage
Upon inspection of the project site, it ¥~as discovered that an accessory
structure (no building permit has been issued for such) currently exists
on the rear portion of the site. The original room addition plans did not
indicate the presence of any accessory structures on the site, although
you are required to shoYt this information. In order to comply with the
zoning ordinance limitation of 40% maximum building coverage on the site,
your revised plans shall indicate modifications to the building presently
under construction and the removal of the existing illegal accessory
building, resulting in tile maximum 40~ lot coverage limitation. Plans
shall indicate exact dimensions of the lot, the buildings as modified, the
accessory structure to be removed, and distances from all property lines.
%~e would ask that two copies of your revised plans be submitted to the
Building Department for review by Monday, March 31, 1986, to enable the staff
to review compliance with Code requirements and to delay or avoid further
enforcement action.
In addition, due to the increase in building height from the original approved
plans, you are also advised to contact the City Fire blarshal regarding the
modifications. If you have any questions regarding these matters, please
contact me at 691-5101.
Very truly yours,
Director of Planning
DB/nr
WPC 2646P
cc: John Goss, City Manager
Gene Grady, Director of Building and Housing
Tom Harron, City Attorney
Ken Lee, Principal Planner
Duane E. Bazzel, Associate Planner
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RECEIVED
~S Murray Street
Cbu'!a v sta, cA szoio NAR2 I
= ' ............... PLANNIN DEPARTMENT
City of Chula Vista
State ' i +omi a CIiULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mayor Cox~ and Counci ! Members: March HT~ !986
! am the owner~ designer~ and builder cT the House at !6S Murray Street
which is causing so much controversy. ATtar mwc¼ soul searoHin~ and
inTmrma! consultation with Tami ly~ ~riends~ various city staT~ members~
neishbors~ and Jehnn;e Low Poses eS ,6_ ~tar ~l~ws- I would like to
propose the To! !owin~ compromise w¼ioH many be! ieve wi I solve the
sitoation.
T6is compromise is based on the To! awine Tour assumptions:
!) THe House was erroneously permitted to be bw It to 46%
2) T¼e 6Duse was erroneously permitted to be bu tt wit¼ a
miminwm eight Toot attic Height'.
~) T¼e ¼Duse cannot be practica! !y a!tered to satiety the con-
cerns o~ t¼a major mettles invo!ved.
~) THe Homeowner Woes not Have (nor 6ave access too) the Tunds
necessary to aTTact a major
It is proposed that:
1) The 6Duse will be demo!isHed and rem!__-d wit6 a Home
aqua! quel ity and ammenities whir¼ is sma! ler~ and mere
estetieatly pleasin~ to the neig¼bors.
H) The ~ty wi t I assume _H_ cost mT deme~ itien and rebui ~ding
the new 6DUSe to the present sta~e eT t¼e exisiting Home. THe
Homeowner wi !1 assume al! costs eT the new House past what
is represented by the present steBe o~ the existing House.
3) The city will previded the necessary subsistence a!lowanca
inorder tO provide the Raso Temi !y with a modest two bedroom
apartment throughout the ~uration o~ construction.
T , ~ you ; I I cons!der ~¼.s compromise as a solution to this dilemma
It is with Sreat re!wctance and Has.tat.on that this is proposed.
~t wi t ! not be easy ~or us to wipe away ~' .... project which
created wit¼ such ]owe and devotion. H!owever~ I Have I ired on
this cu!-de-sac since chi !dHood and we Teal that the op niche
our Triends and neighbors sHou!W also be Honored.
In ctosin~ your immediate attention in this .... tt_r wow d be
appreciated. Please take into consideration that time s a~ the
essence since mont¼!y payments are being made on Tunds expended.
Thank you very much. Sincare!y~
April 15, 1986
City of Chula Vista
Building Department
Subject: 165 Murray Street, Demolition Cost
The estimated cost:
1. To remove the frame to the concrete floor and foundation. The material
is salvageable and as such the cost is estimated at not more than $1,000.
2. To demolish the concrete slab floor and foundation and to haul it away
is estimated at $7,000. Total demolition cost is $8,000.
April 15, 1986
City of Chula Vista
Building Department
Subject: 165 Murray Street, Compliance Cost
The estimated Cost:
1. To remove the roofed area over the pool and remodel the supporting structure
is estimated at $3,400.
2.
a. Purchase and install 29 new roof trusses with a 3-foot in 12-foot
pitch - $1,800.
b. Install new roof sheeting - $1,650.
NOTE: With a ~-foot in 12-foot roof pitch, the height of the
gable above grade is 30 feet.
3. To remove existing roof trusses, sheeting and walls to the second floor is
estimated at $4,200.
~,6 A
City of Chula Vista
Planning Department
April 14, 1986
Lot Coverage Compliance
~6B
Alternative Roof Treatments
-~6C
Lower Roof Height (30' ±l) Alternatives
City Planning Commission Page 1
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Text Amendment PCA-86-8; to amend Title 19 of
the Chula Vista Municipal Code to delete construction
of apartments with approval of a Conditional Use
Permit in the CN, CC and CT commercial zones
A. BACKGROUND
The City Council, in its meeting of March ll, 1986, reviewed a report
prepared by staff evaluating the appeal procedure for Conditional Use
Permits as it applied to matters heard by the Planned Commission. Staff,
in reviewing land uses subject to the CUP process and the present
procedure for CUP review, recommended that a zoning text amendment be
processed which would require a rezoning for any proposed residential
development in a commercial zoning district, rather than processing a
conditional use permit. Council accepted the report and directed staff to
proceed with a zoning text amendment deleting construction of apartments
in commercial zones with approval of a conditional use permit.
An Initial Study, IS-86-40, of possible adverse environmental impacts of
the project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator on
April 10, 1986. The Environmental Review Coordinator concluded that there
would be no significant environmental effects and recommended that the
Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-86-40.
2. Adopt a recommendation to approve the proposed ordinance amendment as
outlined in Exhibit "A" attached and made a part hereto.
C. ANALYSIS
When the zoning ordinance currently in use was adopted in 1969, provisions
were included to allow multiple family dwellings in two commercial zones,
the CO and CB zones with approval of a conditional use permit. The
rationale for allowing R-3 residential uses in these zones as a
conditional use was to recognize the compatibility of higher density
residential uses with downtown and office professional activities
associated with those zones. The conditional use permit is utilized as a
tool to insure that a desirable mixture of commercial and residential uses
are developed with respect to similar building types, traffic generation,
and the attraction between downtown retail and professional services and
residents living wi thin the core of these activity centers.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 2
The zoning ordinance was amended again in 1974 to include construction of
multiple family dwellings as a conditional use within the CC central
commercial and CN neighborhood commercial zones. At the time it was
perceived that overzoning for commercial uses had occurred within the
City, and that while some properties within the CC an CN zone designation
were clearly unsuitable for residential development, others might lend
themselves to a mixture of commercial and residential uses with no adverse
effects, wi th approval of a conditional use permit.
The ordinance was amended once more in 1976 to include construction of
multiple family dwellings as a conditional use within the CT thoroughfare
commercial zones. The purpose for amending the ordinance was not to
encourage construction of apartments, but to insure that the addition of
kitchens to motel units would not create de facto apartment units as a
means of circumventing the prohibition against apartments, resulting in
dwelling units which did not meet the density requirements and development
standards of the R-3 zone.
Apartments are allowed to be constructed in a CT zone with approval of a
conditional use permit, {including the addition of kitchens to greater
than 30% of rental units in motels) as long as the development does not
occur within 200 feet of the front property line, and the density
requirements and development standards of the R-3 zone are met.
Since the amendments to the zoning ordinance began in 1974, approximately
313 multiple family dwellings have been constructed in commercial zones.
The number of units constructed within each zone is displayed in the
following table:
1974 1986 Unit Increase
CO zones 82 248 166
CB zones 30 30 0
CC zones 13 ll4 lO1
CN zones 0 41 41
CT zones 57 62 5
182 495 313
More recently, however, construction of apartments in commercial zones has
been viewed as a significant land use change that would be more
appropriately addressed as a rezoning of the property than a conditional
use. The most recent application for a conditional use permit to
construct 75 apartments within a CT zone was appealed to the City Council
where it was subsequently denied.
The reasons cited for denial were that over 50% of the surrounding
properties in the area were zoned for R-3 uses and that removal of the
potential for developing commercial uses in favor of additional
residential units was not justified.
City Planning Commission Page 3
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986
In a report reviewed by Council at their meeting of March ll, staff
recommended that the zoning ordinance be amended to remove construction of
multiple units in commercial zones as a conditional use, in recognition of
the fact that this constituted a significant change in land use on a
permanent basis and should be evaluated as a rezoning.
Staff is of the opinion, however, that construction of multiple dwellings
as a conditional use should be retained in the CO and CB zones as
reflected in the original ordinance draft. R-3 residential uses
constructed in CO and CB zones as a conditional use can be compatible with
downtown and office professional activities associated with these zones.
Through the conditional use permit process, R-3 residential uses can be
designed to complement rather than conflict with surrounding office
professional commercial activities.
CO commercial office zones have experienced the most intensive apartment
construction activity over all other commercial zones. Deleting the
conditional use permit option for apartments would have the effect of
placing one half of the total number of multiple family units in
commercial zones under nonconforming status. In addition, land uses and
business hour operations (within the CO zone} are more compatible with
residential development.
Presently, all CB commercially zoned areas lie within the Town Centre
Redevelopment District. Applicants for construction of apartments within
this area undergo a different permit process than the conditional use
permit in that they are required to apply or a land use permit from the
project area committee and negotiate an agreement with the Housing and
Community Development Department.
Exhibit "A" reflects the proposed change which would delete multiple
family residences from the C-N, C-C, and C-T zones by use of the CUP
process.
WPC 2723P
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Zoning ordinance text amendment to construction of multiple
family dwellings as a conditional use in the C-N, C-C and
C-T zones.
PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide excepting those portions of Chula Vista which are
a part of the Montgomery annexation area.
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista
CASE NO: IS-86-40 DATE: April 10, 1986
A. Project Setting
The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance will affect those areas of
the city located within the C-N, C-C and C-T commercial zones.
B. Project Description
Currently, it is possible with approval of a conditional use permit to
construct multiple family dwellings within the C-N, C-O, C-B, C-C and C-T
commercial zones throughout the City, with the exception of the Montgomery
annexation area which is regulated by a separate zoning ordinance, pending
completion of the Montgomery Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance would delete that Residential option from all C-N
neighborhood commercial, CC central commercial, and C-T thoroughfare
commercial zones. The apartment option, with approval of a conditional
use permit, would remain within C-O commercial office and C-B commercial
business zones, where a significant amount of apartment construction has
already taken place.
C. ~ompatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance serve to make the affected
zones more compatible with their corresponding commercial general plan
designations, by eliminating the possibility of introducing potentially
noncompatible residential land uses in areas designated primarily for
commercial uses. This action will further efforts for achieving long term
land use goals outlined in the Chula Vista General Plan without the
creation of short term environmental impacts.
D. Identification of Environmental Effects
Amendments to the C-N, C-C, and ¢-T commercial zones to delete
construction of apartments with approval of a conditional use permit will
have no substantial and adverse environmental effects upon areas subject
to those zones or surrounding areas.
The proposed action will serve to reduce the potential for creating
adverse environmental effects associated with placing conflicting
residential and commercial uses in close proximity to one another.
city of chula vista planning department (~
environmental review section
E. Findings of Insignificant Impac~
1. The project does not have a potential to degrade the quality of the
environment or curtail the diversity of the environment. There are
no significant adverse environmental effects associated with the
proposed ordinance changes. Positive environmental effects have been
noted with the proposed action in that it will serve to reduce future
environmental impacts produced by placement of conflicting
residential and commercial uses in close proximity to one another.
2. The project will achieve both short-term and long-term environmental
goals by limiting future development to land uses which conform to
the goals of the Chula Vista General Plan with respect to
commercially designated areas.
3. The project will not have potential cumulative adverse environmental
impacts upon the area affected by the ordinance change or surrounding
areas. No significant environmental effects are associated with the
proposed changes.
4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly, since no adverse environmental effects are associated
with the project.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Mando Liuag, Associate Planner
Roger Daoust, Senior Civil Engineer
Julie Scholling, Assistant Planner
Gene Grady, Building and Housing Department
Carol Gore, Fire Marshal
Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer
2. Documents
City of Chula Vista General Plan
Title 19, City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance
Chula Vista Municipal Code, December 1985
The Initial Study application and evaluation forms documenting the findings of
no significant impact are on file and available for public review at the Chula
Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010.
ENVIR~E~NTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR
WPC 2713P ~
EN 6 (Rev. 5/85)
city of chula vista planning department
environmental review section
ru ~ (~v 12/82)
EXHIBIT A
19~34~030 Conditional uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-N zone, provided a
conditional use permit is issued in accordance wi th the provisions of
Section 19.14.060:
A. Automobile service stations, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19.58.280;
B. Sale of beer or other alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises
only where the sale is incidental to the sale of food;
C. Electrical substations and gas regulator stations, subject to the
provisions of Section 19.58.140;
D. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;
~l ~/~t¢l~~ll~l~l~l~l~l~l~t~¢l~f~l~l
E.~I Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in
Section 19.30.040.
(Ord. 2108 § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 1571 § 1 (part) 1974: Ord. 1356 § 1
(part), 1971: Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.508(C).)
19.40.030 Conditional uses.
Conditional uses in a C-T zone include:
A. Used car lots and motorcycle sales and repair, subject to the provisions
of Section 19.58.070;
B. Trailer and equipment sales and rental establishments and towing service;
C. Drive-in theaters, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.120, and
provided that the screen shall be so located and designed that it is not
visible from adjacent thoroughfares, and said screen shall be set back not
less than one hundred feet from any street or thoroughfare;
D. Automobile service stations, garages for major and minor repairs, as
defined herein, and car-washing establishments, subject to the provisions
of Sections 19.58.060 and 19.58.280;
E. Carpenter shop, electrical, plumbing or heating shops;
F. Dancehalls, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.040;
G. Truck and trailer service, including major repair;
H. Building material sales yard, not including concrete mixing;
I. Automobile storage, contractor's equipment storage yard, or storage, sale
and rental of equipment commonly used by contractors;
J. Signs in excess of maximum, as established in Section 19.40.040;
K. Bait and tackle shops;
L. Commercial recreation facilities (outdoor);
M. Upholstery shops;
N. Automobile paint and body shops;
O. ~holesale bakeries;
p. Laundries, except industrial; and cleaning and dyeing plants;
Q. Used clothing sales;
R. Lumberyards;
S. Radiator repair shops;
T. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54;
U. Knitting and weaving shops;
V. Cardrooms;
Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standards set forth in
Section 19.30.040.
(Ord. 2108 § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 1954 § 1 (part), 1981: Ord. 1855 § 3,
1979: Ord. 1757 ~ 1 (part), 1977: Ord. 1746 § 1 (part), lg77: Ord. 1716 §
l, 1976: Ord. 1464 § l, 1973: Ord. 1456 § l, 1973: Ord. 1356 § 1 (part),
1971: Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.522(C).)
19j36,030 Conditional uses.
Conditional uses in the C-C zone include:
A. Car washes, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.060;
B. Skating rinks, subject to the conditions of Section 19.58.040;
· d
C. Signs in excess of maximum as establ~she in Section 19.36.040 of this
chapter;
D. Automobile rental and towing service;
E. Billiard parlors;
F. Bowling alleys, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.040;
G. Social and fraternal organizations (nonprofit), subject to the provisions
of Section 19.58.100;
H. Trailer rentals;
I. Veterinarian clinic, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.050;
J. Unclassified uses, See Chapter 19.54;
K. Automobile service stations, subject to the provisions of Section
19.58.280;
~l ~t~ll~ll~¢~lNd~rN~l/dr~l~lNdlh,~,~l~Hllldl~l~ll~ll~t~
L.~I Cardrooms.
M.WI Roof-mounted satellite dishes subject to the standard set forth in
Section 19.30.040.
(Ord. 2108 § 1 (part), 1985: Ord. 1757 § 1 (part), 1977: Ord. 1746 § 1
(part), 1977: Ord. 1571 § 1 (part), 1974: Ord. 1356 § 1 (part), 1971: Ord.
1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.509(C).)
~PC 2662P
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 1
4. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-86-4: Consideration of an amendment to the
Municipal Code to prohibit garage conversions unless a
~eplacement garage is provided
A. BACKGROUND
In April, 1985, the City Council directed staff to return with a report and
recommendation regarding whether garage conversions should be prohibited in
the City. The Council considered the report on March 25, 1986, and adopted a
motion directing staff to prepare an amendment to the garage conversion
provisions of the Municipal Code with a referral to the Planning Commission
for their recommendation.
An Initial Study, IS-81-10, of possible adverse environmental impacts of the
project was conducted by the Environmental Review Coordinator in conjunction
with an earlier, identical proposal. The Environmental Review Coordinator
concluded that there would be no significant environmental effects and
recommended that the Negative Declaration be adopted.
B. RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts
and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-81-10.
2. Adopt a motion recommending that the City Council enact an ordinance
amending Title 19 of the Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
C. DISCUSSION
Present parking and conversion requirements
The zones which presently require a two car garage are the R-E, R-l, and
R-2 zones. In addition, single-family, two-family, and in some cases
condominium developments in the P-C zone are required to provide garage
parking.
The R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones authorize the conversion of an existing garage
if two replacement off-street parking spaces are provided. These can be
located within the required front yard setback area--normally the
driveway--if the Zoning Administrator finds they do not obstruct vehicular
or pedestrian traffic. The conversion itself must be compatible in design
and materials with the existing dwelling, and must be accompanied with a
modest amount (80 sq. ft.) of replacement storage space.
Conversion of garages within the P-C zone has typically been prohibited by
the development standards. Garage conversions are also prohibited by the
CC&R's as a condition of City approval for PUD's and lot splits without
street frontage.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 2
History of parking and conversion requirements
Covered parking for single-family development has been required since
1961. Following is a brief history of the covered parking and conversion
requirements:
Prior to 1961: No parking required
1961-1964: Two spaces required, one of which had to be in carport
or garage.
1964-1966: Two-car garage required, 400 sq. ft. minimum.
1966-1969: Two-car garage required, conversion allowed only if
garage replaced.
1969-1976: Major amendments to the Zoning Ordinance included a
provision allowing for garage conversions without
providing a replacement garage. Ordinance is in
effect at present.
1976-Present: In 1976, the Council initiated an amendment to again
require a replacement garage, but changes to the
amendment as a result of controversy resulted in only
a minor revision regarding design compatibility.
1980: In 1980, the Planning Commission proposed and
supported (5-0, two absent) an amendment to require a
replacement garage, but the Council noted and filed
the recommendation by a 3-2 vote.
Parking and conversion requirements of other jurisdictions
A survey was conducted to determine the regulations of other jurisdictions
within the region regarding initial parking requirements and garage
conversions. The attached table outlines the results of the survey. In
summary, the table indicates the following:
1. All jurisdictions require a minimum of two off-street parking spaces
with initial construction; twelve require a garage, and five require
something less; i.e., carport, open parking, or a combination of the
tWO.
2. All but one jurisdiction (0ceanside) allows conversion of the parking
if replacement parking is provided. Of those jurisdictions which
require a garage initially, seven require a replacement garage, while
only two--Chula Vista and Santee--allow replacement with open parking.
3. Of all regional jurisdictions, only Chula Vista allows replacement
parking to be located in the required front yard setback (normally
the driveway). Other agencies have considered a number of variance
requests to park in the required front setback with the conversion,
but they report that the vast majority of these are denied.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 3
D. ANALYSIS
Present City regulations make it relatively easy and inexpensive for a
homeowner to convert the garage since Chula Vista alone allows replacement
open parking to be located in the required front yard setback (15 feet
back from the front property line) subject only to a finding by the Zoning
Administrator that there would be no obstruction to vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. In most instances, the existing setbacks of the
residence and garage preclude the placing of parking behind the required
front setback, and thus parking within the front setback on the existing
driveway has been allowed (the typical driveway being 22 feet in length
measured from the back of the sidewalk).
There appears to be little argument about the desirability of requiring
enclosed garages in the new construction of single family and duplex units
in the City. That being the case, it seems illogical to have another
section of the ordinance which allows the conversion of that garage to
living space without a replacement solution. If the requirement for a
garage is considered to be valid with initial construction, it is staff's
conclusion that such requirement should continue through the life of the
building.
The conversion of a garage to living space with parking in the front yard
area tends to have two detrimental effects on the immediate neighborhood:
1. Cars are forced to park either in the driveway or on the street so
that an otherwise pleasant streetscape becomes cluttered. This is
particularly true if several homes on a street convert the garages.
2, The increased on-street and driveway parking resulting from garage
conversions tends to further impair sight distance of adjacent
driveways. The parking of additional cars on the street obstructs the
view of the pedestrians on the sidewalk or crossing the street,
resulting in a greater chance of a motorist/pedestrian conflict.
The requirement to construct and maintain a garage does not guarantee that
cars will utilize the space. However, the conversion of the garage does
guarantee that the cars will be parked on the driveway or in the street.
The garage also provides for substantial storage space including the
placement of a washer and dryer.
A further point is equity and consistency. As previously noted, Chula
Vista's regulations are more permissive than any other jurisdiction within
the region with respect to conversions because of the ability to locate
replacement parking in the required front setback. Also, all newer
developments within planned communities, PUD's, etc. have been prohibited
from converting garages. Thus, amending the ordinance to prohibit garage
conversions unless a replacement garage can be provided is both equitable
and consistent with the general regional practice and local practice for
newer developments.
City Planning Commission
Agenda Items for Meeting of April 23, 1986 Page 4
As an alternative, the City could allow open parking rather than the
construction of a replacement garage, with the stipulation that such
parking be located behind the required front setback line (15 feet back
from the front property line). This would partially address the problems
of clutter and sight distance by providing the opportunity to park cars
farther back from the street frontage--behind the required front setback
in either extra-long driveways or paved portions of the front yard, or in
side or rear yard areas. It would also bring Chula Vista in line with all
other County jurisdictions in terms of the front setback restriction.
This alternative has the potential of allowing certain property owners the
continued possibility of increasing their living space at a minimum cost.
However, the demand for additional living space is many times concentrated
in the older areas of the City which are characterized by smaller homes.
In these areas, the size of the lot along with existing front and side
yard setbacks are such that relatively few property owners would be able
to provide the open parking spaces behind the required front set~ack line,
and thus the opportunity to convert would remain extremely limiteo.
Furthermore, garage conversions tend to have a negative effect on property
values due to additional parking of cars in the driveway and on the
street. This is especially true if a number of conversions are
concentrated in one area. Therefore, even though the individual homeowner
may enjoy an immediate savings, in the long run it is likely to be at the
expense of his property value and that of his neighbors and the community
as well.
Finally, Chula Vista's regulations regarding building additions in the
rear yard is more permissive than in most jurisdictions. A single story
addition can be built to within lO feet of the rear property line, so that
most homeowners desiring additional living area do have an opportunity to
expand to the rear of the house.
E. CONCLUSION
While a case can be made for the retention of the present permissive
regulations governing garage conversion in terms of the convenience and
short term financial advantage for the homeowner, the arguments for
requiring a replacement garage are more persuasive from an overall City
planning and safety standpoint. Inevitably, garage conversions lead to
more paving of front yards and additional on-street parking which tends to
clutter a residential area, and conversion of a number of garages in a
neighborhood tends to be an early indicator of neighborhood decline.
Because of these factors and the fact that few property owners would
benefit from open parking behind the front setback, staff recommends
approval of the replacement garage requirement.
WPC 2720P
negative declaration
PROJECT NAME: Zoning Text Amendment - Garage Conversions
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Chula Vista
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Planning Dept.
P.O. Box 1087
Chula Vista, CA 92012
CASE NO. IS-81-10 DATE: September 8, 1980
A. Background
On July 16, 1980 the Planning Commission conducted a study session
in which the present regulations of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
garage conversions were discussed. At this meeting the Commission
directed the Planning Department to propose an amendment to the
City Code which would require a replacement garage if an existing
garage is converted so as to preclude its use for parking.
B. Project Description
The following amendments to Title 19 of the Municipal Code are
proposed:
Amend 8ecti0n 19.62.170 and 19.62.190 to read as f0]]0ws:
19.62.170 Residential parking--Two car garage requirement--
Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of this section and Sections 19.62.180 and 19.62.190, to
require that all dwelling units in the A, R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones as well as
single family and two family developments in the P-C zone shall a%se have
constructed on the same lot as a necessary and essential accessory building
to the residential use of said lot, a two-car enclosed garage containing a
minimum of four hundred square feet and minimum dimension of twenty feet.
The purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking so
as to alleviate the congestion on residential streets and space for the
necessary storage of materials in an enclosure. Said enclosed garage or
appropriate carport, as provided herein, is necessary to protect the general
welfare of residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking
spaces in an open parking lot situation inappropriate to residential develop-
ment and the open and disorderly.display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes
and other materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly
appearance.
city of chula vista planning department I i .~' }
environmental review~ section
19.62.190 Residential parking--~we-ea~ §a~a§e ~e~u4~emen{--Procedure for
conversion to living purposes--Approval required.
Prior to the issuance a building permit for the conversion of any existing {we-ea~
garage for living purposes, the property owner desiring such conversion shall be
required to p~e¥4de meet the following conditions and
A. A new enclosed qaraqe shall be provided to replace the qaraqe beinq converted
and shall contain not less than the same number of parking spaces. A two-car
qara~e shall be as set forth in Section 19.62.170 and a one-car qaraqe shall
have a minimum area of 200 sQ. ft. and minimum dimensions of 10 feet by 20 ft.
Two paved eff-s~?ee~ pa?k+~§ spaces w+~h m+~+mum d~mens~ens ef {eh fee~ §y
n+ne~een fee~ fe~ each ef ~a4d pack,n§ spaees sha~1 be ~eea~ed ~n baekef ~he
f~on~ yard se~baeks~ p~ev~ded howeve~ ~ha~ ~he ~en~ yard ~e~baek a~ea may be
used ~o aeeemmeda~e ehe requ+~ed ef~-sE~eeE pack+n§
pack+n§ spaee~ ape app~ove~ by ~he ~on~n§ adm+n+s~a~er: ~he ~e~4n§ adm4n~s~a~o~
~a~ e~am~e sa+d p~a~f ~o +~s~e ~ha~ ~he pa~k~§ a~ prepesed deef ~o~ erea~e
any obs~ae~es ~o veN+eu~a~ or pedes~a~ ~a~f4e and wou~d ~e{ Be de~+men~a~
pa~kSn§ plan~ {~e pFepeF{y ewne~ may f~le an app~ea~en fe~ a vaF~a~ee as
pFev4ded 4~ Ck~s ekap{eF: Yandem parking as provided in this chapter will not
satisfy the parking requirements.
B. A new carport or garage shall be provided to replace the existing carport being
converted and shall contain not less than the same number of parking spaces.
P~epeP e~%esed s~e~a§e 5payee ~he ~eq~i~ed s{e~a§e u~4~ ska%% een{a4n a m4n4mum
e~ eSgh~y squaFe ~ee{ @~ $%ee~ aFe2 ~e~ ~we-ea~ §a~a§e$-and
%ess {~a~ ~e,~ ~ee~ and sha%~ kave d4~es~ e~e~4e~ aesess=
C. All plans for the conversions of existing garages for living purposes, as
well as plans for new garages or carports, shall be submitted to the planning
department for approval, to insure that the conversion is compatible in design
and materials with the existing dwelling. Plans for garage conversions shall
skew e4{~eF~ folly alter the exterior of the garage to match the existing house
elevation in colors, materials and trim.
t. I~e e~{eF~eF e~ ~ke §a~a§e uss~an§edl eN
e;eva~4en Sn ee%e~s~ ma~e~4a%~ and
Additions
............... Deletions
C. Compatibility with zoning and plans
The proposed ZTA is not inconsistent with the Chula Vista Zoning
Ordinance and is rot at variance with the General Plan or associated
elements.
D. Identification of environmental effects
Social
The proposed ZTA will restrict the ability of many property owners
to convert their garage into a living area due to the lack of
access and available building area for a replacement garage. This
means of adding living area to existing single family homes in some
cases, has been more economical and convenient than adding a new
room.
The primary social impact will be increased homewoners financial
costs associated with adding residential floor space either through
conversion or adding on in.lieu of conversion.
As experienced between 1966 and 1969, when a replacement garage
was required to convert an existing garage, a large number of
illegal garage conversions occured and could be expected to occur
with the proposed ZTA. Since no building inspection would be .
achieved with illegal conversions, the potential for safety hazards
relating to wiring, plumbing or structural alterations could exist.
Strict enforcement code designed at informing the public and citing
violations could reduce the potential for illegal garage conversions.
Energy Resources
The requirements of constructing a replacement garage in order to
convert an existing garage will encourage additional depletion of
construction and energy resources, although the amount anticipated
is considered insignificant.
E. Findings of insignificant impact
1. The project is not site specific, therefore will~ not
adversely affect any natural or man-made resource.
2. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the
General Plan or associated elements and short term goals will
not be achieved to the disadvantage of long term environmental
goals.
3. The proposed zoning text amendment is not anticipated to
result in any adverse impacts which could interact to create
a substantial cumulative effect on the environment.
4. The proposed ZTA is anticipated to reduce parking within
residential front setback areas and increase the quality of
the residential environment.
F. Consultation
1. Individuals & organizations
City of Chula Vista D. J. Peterson, Director of Planning
Shabda Roy, Assoc. Eng.
Gene Grady, Director of Bldg. & Hsg.
Armando Liuag, Assoc. Planner
2. D~cuments
Chula Vista General Plan & Elements
Title 19 of theChula Vista Municipal Code
The Initia! Stud'/ .',:~:7! Lc ~ ~.on ,m~t ,,valuation forms documentinq the
findin(:z ()Ii no r~[,:ni['Lc.mt ~n:pact ar~' (0n. file and available for
public revi~w .~h th*, C]~I., wi:;ta I'[,ml:Lnq P,~pt., 276 4th Avonuc,
ChuLa Vista, Cf,
~ ~V r EI', CGO~'.D I NATOR
city of chuia vista plannin~ department
environmental ~eview lection
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Amendments to Garage Conversion
Provisions of the Municipal Code
Chapter 19.62 Off-Street Parking and Loading
19.62.170 Residential parking-Two-car garage requirement-Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of this section and Sections 19.62.180 and 19.62.190, to
require that all dwelling units in the A., R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones as well as
single family and two family developments in the P-C zone shall ~7~ have
constructed on the same lot as a necessary and essential accussory building to
the residential use of said lot, a two-car enclosed garage containing a
minimum of four hundred square feet and minimum dimension of twenty feet. The
purpose of said requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking so as to
alleviate the congestion on residential streets and space for the necessary
storage of materials in an enclosure. The enclosed garage
carport, as provided W~f~ is necessary to protect the general welfare of
residential areas by preventing the establishment of parking spaces in an open
parking lot situation inappropriate to residential development and the open
and disorderly display of gardening equipment, tools, boxes and other
materials which would be stored in enclosures to avoid an unsightly
appearance. (Ord. 1356 ~ 1 (part), 1971: Ord. 1212 ~ 1 (part), 1969: prior
code ~ 33.803(C)(1).)
19.62.190 Residential parking ~11~11~~t Pr~edure
for conversion to living pu~oses-Approval ~qui~d.
Prior to the issuance of a building pe~it for the conversion of any
existing ~d~d# garage or carport for living purposes, the property owner
desiring such conversion shall be required to ~$~6 meet the following
conditions ~/~7~:
A. A new enclosed garage shall be provided to replace the garage being
converted and the new garage shall contain not less than the samu
number of parking spaces as the garage being converted. A two-car
~arage shall be as set forth in Section 19.62.170 and a one-car
Oarage shall have a minimum area of 200 square feet and minimu,.
~imensions of lO feet by 20 feet. Tandem parking as provided in this
chapter will not satisfy the parking requirements.
~l~ldff~dd~l~ll~dd~l~l~l~$~l~//~
~1~1~15~11f~1~1~$11~1~1~1~11~
~$ ~/111~1~1~1~11~1176d~11~1~1~11~
~/~/~d~Wd~%/~j~d~//~/~/~/~/~
~//~l~//~//~//~#~$~//~//#~//~//~//~/M~$~
~/ / ~ / ~ / ~ / /~ / / ~/ / ~ / ~ / ~ / /d~d / / ~Y
~//~//~#//~//~//~$~//~//~//~//~
~$ ~$ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~d / ~$ ~/ ~/ /~6 / ~/ /~ /m~Y
$~l~//~/~~/$~M/~/~/~//~/~/~/~
7 ~/ ~W~f~ / ~ / ~ ~/ /f~ / ~ / ~/ /Wf)) / ~ / ~/ / ~
B. A new carport or garage shall be provided to replace an existing
carport being converted and shall contain not less than the same
number of parking spaces.
~1 ~N ~/a/r/dyl lqqtY~d lf~ l $~l Atdddda/r/ l~ ~ l ~1/s/Wa4~l Nd I
$~1~1~1~1~$~1~f~1~
C. All plans for the conversions of existing garages for living
purposes, as well as plans for new garages or carports, shall be
submitted to the planning department for approval~ to insure that
the conversion is compatible in design and materials with the
existing dwelling. Plans for garage conversions shall show either:
1. The exterior of the garage unchanged; or
2. The exterior of the garage fully altered to match the existing
house elevation in colors, materials and trim.
D. A filing fee as set forth in the master fee schedule shall accompany
each application for a ~arage conversion.
(Ord. 2011 § 1 (part), 1982. Ord. 1669 § l, 1976; Ord. 1356 § 1 (part),
1971: Ord. 1212 § 1 (part), 1969: prior code § 33.803(C)(3).)
WPC 2727P
-2-
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
SAN DIEGO REGIO~
JUNE 1985
Conversions
In Required
City Required Parking Min. Replacement Front Setback
Carlsbad 2 car garage 2 car garage No
Coronado 2 car garage 1 open/1 covered No
Chula Vista 2 car garage 2 open Yes
Del Mar 2 open spaces 2 open No
E1Cajon 2 car garage (1/2 ac. +) 1 open/1 covered No
1 open/1 covered (other) 1 open/1 covered No
Escondido 2 car garage 2 covered No
Imperial Beach 2 car garage 2 car garage No
La Mesa 2 car garage 2 car garage No
Lemon Grove 2 car garage 2 car garage No
National City 2 covered (10,000 sq. ft. +) 2 covered No
1 open/1 covered (other) 1 open/1 covered No
Oceanside 2 car garage Conversions
not allowed
Poway 2 car garage 2 car garage No
San Diego City 2 open spaces 2 open No
San Diego County 2 open spaces 2 open No
San Marcos 2 car garage 2 car garage No
Santee 2 car garage 2 open No
Vista 2 car garage 2 car garage No
WPC/mag 2627P