Adopt a resolution approving Design Review Permit (DR23-0010) and Intensity Transfer of 112 units, based on findings and subject to conditions contained therein.
Result: Carried 7-0-0
5.3 Conditional Use Permit for a 45-Foot Freestanding Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a 2.09-acre Parcel With an Existing Church Within the Single-Family Residence (R-1) Zone. Located at 430 Second Avenue.
Moved by Leal
Seconded by Combs
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-0052), based on the required findings and subject to conditions contained therein.
Result: Carried 7-0-0
Two public comments were submitted in opposition of item:
-W. Daley
-M. Daley
6. ACTION ITEMS
6.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
Moved by Burroughs
Seconded by Leal
Approve the minutes dated: October 11, 2023.
6.2 Written Communications
Moved by Leal
Seconded by Combs
Result: Carried 6-0-1
Request for the Commission to excuse the absences.
3 Public comment received for Item 5.3 (430 Second Av CUP) for the 10/25 PC Meeting; see below.
Thanks!
-Chris
Chris Mallec, AICP | Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista | Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue, Bldg. C | Chula Vista | CA | 91910
Main: (619) 691-5101 | Direct: (619) 409-5420
[email protected]
From: Barrett <
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Christopher Mallec <[email protected]>
Subject: 45 foot freestanding wireless tetecommunication facility to be located at 430 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
Dear Mr. Mallec,
Regarding the application for a Conditional Use Permit of a new 45 foot freestanding wireless telecommunication facility on the property located at 430 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, Ca
WE ARE DEFINITELY OPPOSTED TO THIS PROJECT # CUP22-0052
We have owned our property in this neighborhood for 70 years and feel this request for a telecommunication tower is totally out of character for a residential community.
It is even an insult for the City of Chula Vista and the Church to consider it would be appropriate in this neighborhood!
Thank you for not considering issuing this permit at 430 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Sincerely,
Glenn and Lorna Barrett
You don't often get email from. Learn why this is important -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Mallec <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 12:31 PM
To: Mariluz Zepeda <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura Black <[email protected]>; Marc Cass <[email protected]>; Todd Philips <[email protected]>; Desmond Corley <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Wireless telecommunications tower No Vote
Comment received (below) for (430 Second Av CUP) for the 10.25 PC Meeting.
Thanks!
-Chris
Chris Mallec, AICP | Senior Planner
City of Chula Vista | Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue, Bldg. C | Chula Vista | CA | 91910
Main: (619) 691-5101 | Direct: (619) 409-5420 [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Dixon < >
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 12:17 PM
To: Christopher Mallec <[email protected]>
Subject: Wireless telecommunications tower No Vote
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
Chris
Thank you for returning my call. I am the owner of record of 194 G Street 91910.
I head what you said that the FCC considers the 45 foot tower safe, but it is too close to my home and I am concerned about health issues in the future if the tower is put up on 430 Church Avenue. I am submitting this email to you as a NO vote for the proposed communications tower. Please email me the results of the hearing. You may share my concern at the hearing. Thank you.
Timothy Bruce Dixon
Sent from my iPhone
Chula Vista Planning & Zoning Commission
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
October 25, 2023
RE: Project # CUP22-0052, Public Hearing October 25, 2023 at 6:00 p.m.
Dear Chair De La Rosa and Commission Members,
I am writing to you today to request your denial of Project # CUP22-0052, denial of Resolution 2023-20, and denial of a conditional use permit for a new 45-foot freestanding wireless telecommunication facility located at 430 Second Avenue within the single-family residence zone.
As you make your decision, it is important to bring forward information that needs to be considered. Contrary to the staff report presented to you in your meeting packet, I would like to communicate how the findings in the Chula Vista Municipal Code have not been met and why the project should be denied.
Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.080, Conditional use permit – Prerequisites for Granting, the following findings need to be considered:
1. That the proposed use at the particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility and does not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community.
We do not have a gap in cell service at our “particular location,” nor do we have a problem reaching emergency services for our well-being. Our well-being is good without the cell tower.
The fact that this proposed tower will exceed the City’s height restriction of 28 feet, by 17 feet, for a total of 45 feet, because as stated in the staff report, “the proposed height is the only technologically feasible option for providing service to the area” proves that this “particular location” is not the location for the tower. It would make more sense for the applicant to find a location closer to the actual area lacking service, if indeed there is one, which would not require such an intrusive height. I am confident that they can find such a location. The project site is not desirable. A 45-foot cell tower, no matter how much you try to disguise it – is a 45-foot cell tower, planted in the middle of a residentially zoned street, adjacent to single-family residences on all sides of the property. It is also not desirable to have this site be a co-location site to justify additional cell towers at the same location. What is desirable is that they find an existing cell tower to co-locate with. I am confident they can find such a tower. Within blocks of this particular location one can find commercial and industrial zoned locations that would be more suitable for a cell tower. In fact, AT&T has several office locations in Chula Vista. They should consider putting their tower on their roof. I would encourage the City to have a third-party expert prove the existence of a coverage gap, rather than having the applicant’s expert, who is paid by the applicant, prove that.
2. Such use, under the circumstance of this particular case, will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, and is injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity.
Commission Members, if you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to physically visit this residential location, of homes built in the 1950s, stand in our yard, look out our bedroom window, drive by it every day to work and on your way home from work. It will give you a better understanding of why this intrusive cell tower is not desirable and how it will have a detrimental effect on our general welfare and quality of life. Just the fact that this is even being considered is hard to stomach. We live in a residential zone for a reason. Homeownership is not cheap. When you work hard and sacrifice to be deliberate in where you purchase your home and raise your kids, you have more dependence on city leadership to protect your single-family residential zone.
Clearly, just the idea of this proposed project has impacted my welfare already, so much so that I am writing a six-page letter to you to express my unhappiness with this proposal and justify the need for opposition. This proposal does not make me happy. It makes me sad. If approved, it will change the landscape of our neighborhood and character of our community. The location of the tower is visually unappealing and too close to residential properties. The more we let commercial and industrial activities encroach into our residential areas, the more unrecognizable our community becomes and the more we get away from preserving the community character. The zoning ordinance exists for a reason. It is to encourage smart growth and smart development. It offers some security in knowing what we are purchasing when we make the biggest purchase of our lives, when we determine where we will raise our kids. Our world can get a bit shaken up when we start to disregard those specified zoning areas and city plans and the impacts become detrimental.
I am aware that the Commission cannot consider concerns about radio frequency emissions and the impact on health, but the Commission should certainly ask if the proposed cell tower complies with the Federal Communications Commission’s radio frequency emission. Since we can’t consider the impact on our physical health that the cell tower will have on those of us living next to the cell tower, the impact on our mental health needs to be considered. Our environment has an impact on our mental health. Every day when I walk my dog by that area, when I drive by that area on my way home from work, when I look out my bedroom window, when I’m in my yard enjoying my garden, I will not have the luxury of being new, of not knowing any different – no, I will know how it was before the intrusive cell tower arrived. That will have an impact on my mental health and those of us who have been here long enough to know the difference.
Diagnosis exists for electromagnetic hypersensitivity that is caused by these cell phone towers, which can cause difficulty in sleeping, headaches, vomiting and diarrhea. With this in close proximity to our homes there will be the impact of constant noise from a generator or emergency generator that will be running that will disturb the quiet of the neighborhood and again, impact mental health and quality of life.
Having a 45-foot cell tower adjacent to our homes will affect the property values of our homes.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines categorize cell towers with hazards and nuisances. HUD (the government) requires its certified appraisers to
take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of a single-family residential property. HUD prohibits the Federal Housing Authority underwriting of mortgages for homes that are within the engineered fall zone of a cell tower. (https://archives.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/ref/sfh1-18f.cfm)
The National Business Post writes that “In 2014, the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (NISLAPP) wrote a report called, ‘Neighborhood Cell Tower’s and Antennas – Do They Impact a Property’s Desirability?’ In it, it concluded that homebuyers and renters are less interested in properties close to cell towers and antennas. ‘Ninety-four percent of homebuyers and renters said a nearby cell tower or group of antennas would negatively impact interest in a property or the price they would be willing to pay for it. Documentation of a price drop of up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles.’ (https://www.nationalbusinesspost.com/cell- towers-impact-home-values/) There is no denying this affects the property values of our homes and creates material injury. What else will they put on the tower besides wireless antennas? Once you allow this, the floodgates open.
A structure like this invites crime with it and jeopardizes safety. It becomes an easy target for climbing, vandalizing, graffiti, and these days, I wouldn’t be surprised if some have become alternative housing sites for our homeless population. The City is well aware of the potential for this, especially if there is a need to note in the City’s Wireless Telecommunications Facilities section of the CVMC how to avoid such things. There is potential for this 45-foot structure to collapse upon those of us who live next to it and who are in the fall zone of the tower. There is potential for a gust of wind to blow off the fake branches of the structure and cause injury to our properties. In the event of a collapse, it would not be contained on the subject property. This intrusive structure will become a new threat to our safety.
Again, the proposed cell tower would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity because it would be located adjacent to, and completely surrounded by, residential homes.
3. That the proposed use does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 19 of the CVMC for such use, specifically regarding wireless telecommunications facilities.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “Wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to the height limitation stipulated in this title and shall be as short as technologically feasible.” I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed height, which is 17 feet above the City’s height restriction, is the only technologically feasible option for providing service.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “The facility shall use and maintain the physically smallest practical devices to achieve the needs of the wireless telecommunications network. The facility shall use and maintain the most efficient devices to achieve the needs of the wireless telecommunications network. In this context, ‘most efficient’ means using the smallest number of facilities needed to achieve the needs of the network.” The applicant has not demonstrated that this is the smallest practical device.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “The facility shall be designed to be visually unobtrusive and blend into the surrounding area in a manner compatible with the local community character.” It is a 45-foot cell tower with all single-family residences adjacent to it. Not only is it not compatible with the local community character of the 1950s homes but it will also change the landscape of the single-family residential area with a negative impact on the community character.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be co-located to the extent practicable.” There is not an existing cell tower at this site, this is not an example of co-locating. Sufficient proof has not been demonstrated that the applicant has had communications with several existing cell site locations in an attempt to co- locate.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “Co-location is discouraged, but not prohibited, for sites located on a residential lot in a single-family or two-family residential zone.” In looking at the staff report in the meeting packet on page 3 it states, “The additional height and space on the tower will also provide sufficient space for future co-location by other carriers.” That does not sound like discouragement of co-location in a single-family residential zone. Instead, it sounds like staff is using it as a selling point, a benefit.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “All components of all wireless telecommunications facilities shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located.” The setbacks are based on the City’s 28-foot height limit. Setbacks should be adjusted to accommodate the additional 17 feet in height above the 28-foot height limit.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “Freestanding facilities, including ground-mounted antennas and monopoles, are discouraged and may be used only when no other alternatives is feasible. When allowed, freestanding facilities shall be designed to the minimum functional height and width. Lattice towers are prohibited.” The proposed cell tower is a freestanding facility. It is also 45 feet in height. They have not proven that no other alternatives are feasible. Commercial zoned areas are in very close proximity, which would be better suited for this project. Have they shown their attempt to locate on existing structures? A new tower is not preferred in a single-family residential zone.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “All equipment shall be placed completely underground when feasible or located inside an existing building.” It has not been demonstrated that it is not feasible to put the equipment underground.
The proposal is in conflict with 19.89.060 Development Criteria, “All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be accessed from nonresidential streets or rights-of-way to the maximum extent practical.” It is a single-family residential area, therefore in conflict. Again, they can find more suitable locations within a few blocks that are zoned commercial.
4. The granting of this conditional use will adversely affect the General Plan of the City.
This proposed project area, Council District 2, certainly is not a “new” part of ever-growing Chula Vista. This is the street that my dad grew up on in the 1950s, the neighborhood where my parents went to St. Rose of Lima school and where my family grew up. It is not that I am opposed to growth and development. I am supportive of smart growth and smart development, development that is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of our citizens.
Chapter 4 of the City’s General Plan, Theme 3, Strong and Safe Neighborhoods conflicts with approval of this cell tower. As stated in the General Plan, “Chula Vista is a diverse, yet integrated, community that celebrates its neighborhoods as the building blocks that make it a great place to live.” Theme 5, Health and Sustainable Community, states, “Chula Vista is committed to the health and well being of all of its residents… The adoption of policies and programs that promote the health and well-being of all citizens is a high priority.” Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, Community Image and Character, states, “…the issue of community character will be of key importance as we work to strike an acceptable balance between the new projects and activities… it means being in touch with how physical changes will affect the buildings next door or across the street; and it means protecting the City’s cultural and historical ‘personality.’” Land Use and Transportation Element, Chapter 5, states “the quiet single-family neighborhood, with tree-lined streets has been recognized through surveys and public input as an important characteristic of the City.” Environmental, Chapter 9 states, “Provide a healthy and sustainable community through the improve health of all citizens, environmental justice, the responsible stewardship of Chula Vista’ natural and cultural resources, promotion of environmental health and protection of persons and property from environmental hazards and the undesirable consequences of noise.” Growth Management, Chapter 10 states that a goal is to, “direct and coordinate growth and development in ways that maintain and consistently endeavors to improve the quality of life for current and future residents of Chula Vista.” My intent is to just show from these statements within the City’s General Plan that an approval of such a project would conflict with the goals and themes of the Plan, especially for a single-family residential neighborhood.
5. That the property owner is not trustworthy in following conditions outlined by the City as they have recently had an ongoing zoning violation for the last two years at this specific property.
The property owner cannot be trusted to follow any conditions the City requires. They have recently violated the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which was ongoing for two years. Even when the City brought it to the property owner’s attention that the City was investigating it, they continued to violate the zoning ordinance. They were making plenty of money off their zoning violation activity that a threat of having to pay City fines for the zoning violations was not going to motivate them to stop.
I emailed Mr. Malloc on March 9, 2023, expressing my opposition to the proposed cell tower and making him aware of the ongoing zoning violations in which we were in communication with the City Code Enforcement Officer, Mariza Cantwell on. At that time, Mr. Malloc was not aware of the City zoning violations occurring at the property. It was the fact that the property owner’s
ongoing zoning violation was jeopardizing their chance of getting approval for the cell tower conditional use permit that motivated them to come into compliance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. I imagine they may see this as a better revenue source for themselves.
I do not think they should be rewarded for their unethical behavior and blatant disregard for the City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, especially at the expense of all their neighbors who have already endured such un-neighborly behavior. Please do not let the guise of this “religious facility” classified for purposes of property tax exemptions fool you for the illegal commercial operations that have been taking place at the property. Making money is what is motivating the property owner to have a cell tower at this particular location – it is not to improve services and improve the welfare of the community. This is proven if you look through the materials from the zoning violation case with the City. This is substantial proof of the property owner’s disregard for any City conditions, ordinances or plans.
Please note that I did request for my email I sent to Mr. Malloc on March 9 regarding my opposition to the cell tower with all the communications and documents pertaining to that zoning violation, be part of the record for this case. I hope that has been included in your materials for this public hearing, as that is intended to provide evidence to this statement.
Lastly, in addition to the Findings of Fact, there are two additional considerations for the Commission to consider based on Federal Statutes of the Telecommunications Act:
• Has the Applicant demonstrated there is a significant gap in coverage? Again, I believe it would be beneficial for an expert that is not paid by the applicant to be consulted on that. Up to this point has the City received phone calls from residents about concerns with a lack of cell phone coverage in this area? Did AT&T approach the property owner regarding the proposal of a cell tower at this site or did the property owner approach AT&T and propose this site? The residential area in which the applicant claims cell service would be improved is already adequately served.
• Is the proposed tower the Least Intrusive Means of addressing the coverage gap, if a coverage gap even exists?
Has the applicant shown a lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to the proposed cell tower? Considering this is a single-family residential zone, it is appropriate to ask the applicant to study alternative sites, alternative designs and alternative technologies. The applicant should show a meaningful comparison of various sites. This has not been accomplished, and the applicant has failed to provide evidence supporting a finding that a tower at the proposed site would be the least intrusive means of bringing further coverage to the area.
We hope you will consider our objections to the location of this proposed cell tower. We strongly believe the proposed location of this tower will have an adverse effect on the daily lives of everyone subjected to its existence if allowed to be constructed at this location. It is respectfully requested that the Planning Commission deny Project # CUP22-0052, deny Resolution 2023-20, and deny the conditional use permit for a new 45-foot freestanding wireless telecommunication facility located at 430 Second Avenue within the single-family residence zone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lindsay Daley and several Daley family members, Del Mar Ct., Chula Vista
Email Correspondence with the City of Chula Vista Regarding 430 Second Avenue Zoning Violation
January 17, 2023 – March 9, 2023
Lindsay Daley
To:Mariza Cantwell
Cc:Brian Catacutan,Heather Daley,William D. Daley,Kelly,Michael Daley Thu, Mar 9 at 12:38 AM
Good Evening Ms. Mariza Cantwell,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on Tuesday, March 7 regardin g the zoning violation case for situs address 430 Second Ave. As I mentioned in our phone conversation, I wanted to follow -up with an email to you to provide you the pictures taken on March 7, 2023. I also want to make sure that I continue communication an d stay aware of the status of this zoning violation case. I have attached the photos taken March 7. From what I have witnessed, the violators seem to have brushed aside the City's deadline of February 27 to come into voluntary compliance regarding the violation. In fact, they have continued to add additional material and machinery rather than stop taking in additional equipment and working to remove what was there when they received the Notice of Violation. With the beginning of a new month coming and going, it is clear that they have no intention of removing what is currently on the site, as they have now been paid for the month for the use of their property for this additional equipment. I would like to also state that I hope the inconvenience of an interr uption in their illegal business operation to make money, is not given any weight by the City to provide any sort of flexibility or leniency in the timeframe the violators should be following to come into compliance, especially since the property owner currently benefits from property tax exemptions seeing as the land use is designated as a “religious facility.” You mentioned that the property owners now have 60 days from March 6, 2023, to remove everything from the site before the City then starts implementing fines for the violation. You also mentioned that the March 6 date is because that is when the property owner provided notice to the tenant. I know you didn’t seem to believe me when I stated that this violation has been ongoing for about a year, but if you look at the date that their advertisement was created, it is from 1/14/22. There were calls made to the City regarding the violation prior to the ones I made in January 2023.
I do have a concern for health and safety due to what they are bringing in and storing on the property. I am concerned that the industrial equipment exposed may be creating a danger to those attending “church services.” Likely there are OSHA violations that are occurring on what could now be deemed a construction site. I also have concerns if there are any hazardous materials being stored there or any contamination occurring as porta potties are lined along the back of the property that border homes. I am also wondering if this large equipment and material is in any sort of floodplain or obstructing any drainage.
I would like to make you aware that after we spoke on the phone, I found out that there has been an application for a conditional use permit submitted to the City Planning Division for a cell tower at the same site (CU P2022- 0052). The violators are now applying for a CUP for another operation on the site, while continuing to blatantly violate the residential zoning with all the industrial equipment they are storing as a commercial business on the site. I plan to inform the Project Manager, Chris Mallec, with the City Planning Division of my concerns regarding their application as well as the ongoing violation that is already occurring at the site, which has proven their lack of effort to be good neighbors. There is no way they can now be trusted to follow any sort of conditions set forth in a permit. They have no regard for what they have put my family and all the neighbors through, while negatively impacting quality of life and impacting property values for those surrounding them in this residential zone. I also plan to communicate my opposition to the Planning Commission as well as City Council in anticipation that if they are granted a CUP, I will appeal it to the City Council.
I plan to put an information request in to the City Clerk to obtain records regarding the property, the violation, and the communications among City staff and with the property owners and tenants for my own documentation. I understand this may be a long road and one that will require my persistence.
If there is anything I can do that will help expedite enforcement, please let me know. Thank you for your work in assisting us on this issue.
Lindsay
RE: 430 Second Ave. Chula Vista Zoning Violation
Mariza Cantwell [email protected]
To:'michael daley'
Cc: ,Brian Catacutan,Heather Daley
Mon, Feb 27 at 11:07 AM
Good morning Mr. M Daley,
I’ve conduct a follow up inspection today and currently working with a representative from the Church. The case remains open.
Thank you,
Mariza Cantwell
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave. Building B
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
[email protected]
619-409-5918
From: michael daley
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 11:41 AM
To: Mariza Cantwell <[email protected]>
Cc: Brian Catacutan <[email protected]>; Heather Daley
Subject: 430 Second Ave. Chula Vista Zoning Violation
Hello Ms. Cantwell,
My sister, Lindsay Daley, informed you of a zoning violation at 430 Second Ave in the back of the church located at that address. She forwarded me your communication, and I wanted to follow up on it because I believe you mentioned there is a notice to abate on February 27th. Have they responded? I ask because it looks like they are adding more industrial equipment to the site rather than detracting from it. It looks like a full construction site now with heavy equipment and trucks and tractors going at all hours of the day. Please let us know if there any updates or a response to resolve this violation.
Thank you,
Michael Daley
From: Mariza Cantwell <[email protected]>
Date: February 13, 2023 at 8:17:30 AM MST
To: Lindsay Daley , Brian Catacutan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 430 Second Ave, Chula Vista - zoning violation Good morning Ms. L. Daley,
The Notice of Violation went out this past Thursday February 9 th and notice to abate is the 27th of February. Board member has been advice and is cooperating.
Thank you,
Mariza Cantwell
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave. Building B
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
[email protected]
619-409-5918
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 4:45 PM Lindsay Daley wrote:
Good Evening Brian and Mariza,
Can you please let me know the date as to when the City of Chula Vista sent the property owner at 430 Second Ave. a formal Notice of Violation? I have not heard anything and am hoping I can get an update as to any information pertaining to this case and whether the property owner is cooperating.
Thank you,
Lindsay Daley
(
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 04:47:34 PM MST, Lindsay Daley > wrote:
Thank you Brian and Hello Mariza! Mariza if you have any questions for me or need any additional information you can contact me at I would appreciate it if you can let me know when the Notice of Violation is sent to the property owner so that we are aware of the 30 day timeline as to when they should come into compliance voluntarily.
Thanks again,
Lindsay
On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 04:38:13 PM MST, Brian Catacutan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Lindsay,
Thank you for providing the attached information.
I’ve copied the assigned Code Enforcement officer, Mariza Cantwell, who can be your point of contact moving forward.
Regards,
Brian Catacutan, CCEO
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
Development Services Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 585-5776
[email protected]
From: Lindsay Daley <l >
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:33 PM
To: Brian Catacutan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: 430 Second Ave, Chula Vista - zoning violation Mr. Catacutan, thank you so much for talking to me today. I am glad to hear a case is open on this zoning violation at 430 Second Ave. Please see below my attachments to the email that shows the photos as well as the advertisement online where they are leasing the space. I understand that the property owners will be given 30 days from the notice of violation to voluntarily come into compliance by removing the material, before the City starts the fine process. I appreciate your time and the information you provided me today.
Happy New Year!
Lindsay
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lindsay Daley >
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 04:21:26 PM MST
Subject: 430 Second Ave, Chula Vista
Good Afternoon Chula Vista Planning Department,
I have concerns regarding activity at situs address 430 Second Avenue, Chula Vista. There is a church on the property; however, there has been recent activity on the property in which industria l type structures and materials have been placed and stored at the backside of the property along the border of my family's residence/property.
This has also evolved into early morning noise with the beeping of equipment moving around the property. In looking at your planning website, it shows that this parcel is zoned R1 (Single Family Residence Zone). The activity taking place at the address does not seem to fall within what this zoning would allow. If the property owners for 430 Second Avenue sought any type of rezoning or conditional use permit from the City of Chula Vista, which may have been granted, then I would like to know that and I would like to get whatever notification was sent out to the surrounding residents notifying them of such a change and their opportunity to comment at a public hearing, as my family did not receive such a notice. If this is the case, and the property owner is allowed to use the property in such a way, then I would like to know what conditions are in place to allow for thi s use, such as noise restrictions, height of material, fencing requirements, hours of operation, etc. If the activity at this property that I am describing is not allowed under what it is zoned for, then I am requesting that a zoning inspector visit the site as zoning violations are occurring. I have attached photographs of what I see directly behind my family's home. I have also attached an advertisement found online in which they are advertising the
property at 430 Second Ave for lease for such activity - the website link for it is at the top of the attachment. I appreciate any information you can provide me regarding the property and it's allowed uses.
Thank you,
Lindsay Daley
NOTICE Received from the City of Chula Vista Regarding 430 Second Ave, Chula Vista March 7, 2023
From: Lindsay Daley <
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; William D. Daley < >; Michael Daley < > Subject: Opposition to CUP2022-0052 Public Hearing Oct. 25, 2023
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
Hello Mr. Mallec and Planning Commission staff,
Unfortunately your comment portal had a character limit and I had a lot more to say than 1500 characters.
I have attached my letter in opposition to CUP22-0052 as well as the documents for supporting my letter.
I am sick and unable to attend the meeting in-person tonight, but will be on virtually, and have planned for my brother to also speak on my behalf at the hearing.
Thank you,
Lindsay Daley
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Laura Black <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Received
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
User Kevin McPeak has enter the following comment(s):
As a 20-year resident of Chula Vista and a 13-year property owner on Second Avenue, I wish to express my opposition to the proposed installation of a telecommunications facility to be located at 430 Second Avenue in Chula Vista. Were this project to be approved, I believe that it would be a detriment to our neighborhood, a violation of a reasonable interpretation of Chula Vista’s own zoning, and a concerning departure from the very nature of church property usage. A 45 foot freestanding wireless telecommunications facility at 430 Second Avenue is in no way consistent with the character of our neighborhood. Second Avenue is an almost entirely residential area, and a 45-foot tower is simply out of place among the tree lined streets of our quiet neighborhood. Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended the electromagnetic/RF transmissions be limited in the proximity of children, and there are not only children residing in our neighborhood, but there is a licensed preschool operating at 478 Second Avenue, which is less than 350 feet from the proposed tower’s property location. Furthermore, the proposed tower would be located in an R1 residential zoning area, which should be reasonably understood to not include such things as a telecommunications tower. I also have significant concerns about the utilization of a church exempt from property tax for this purpose. I am submitting those concerns separately due to the 1500 character limit of this form. for Conditional Use Permit for a 45-Foot Freestanding Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a 2.09- acre Parcel With an Existing Church Within the Single-Family Residence (R-1) Zone. Located at 430 Second Avenue. in Planning Commission - Regular Meeting 10/25/2023 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:45 PM
To: Laura Black <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Received
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
User Lindsay Daley has enter the following comment(s):
Dear Chair De La Rosa and Commission Members, I am writing to you today to request your denial of Project # CUP22-0052. Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Section 19.14.080, Conditional use permit – Prerequisites for Granting, the following findings need to be considered: 1. That the proposed use at the particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility and does not contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood or the community. 2. Such use, under the circumstance of this particular case, will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, and is injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use does not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in Chapter 19 of the CVMC for such use, specifically regarding wireless telecommunications facilities. 4. The granting of this conditional use will adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 5. That the property owner is not trustworthy in following conditions outlined by the City as they have recently had an ongoing zoning violation for the last two years at this specific property. There are two additional considerations the Commission needs to consider based on Federal Statutes of the Telecommunications Act: • The Applicant has not demonstrated there is a significant gap in coverage, • The proposed tower is not the Least Intrusive Means of addressing a gap coverage
for Conditional Use Permit for a 45-Foot Freestanding Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a 2.09- acre Parcel With an Existing Church Within the Single-Family Residence (R-1) Zone. Located at 430 Second Avenue. in Planning Commission - Regular Meeting 10/25/2023 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 12:40 PM
To: Laura Black <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Received
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS BY USING THE PHISH ALERT REPORT BUTTON or to [email protected]
User William Daley has enter the following comment(s):
My family owns a residence on Del Mar Court Chula Vista. CA. My parents purchased the home in the late 1950's. I grew up in that house and I am currently the trustee of the trust. The property were the proposed cell tower is to be placed is immediately behind the residence and approximately 75 yards away. I am opposed to the conditional use permit. It will adversely impact the value of the residential property in the immediate area, including my family owned property. The Church owners of the property have abused it's use, advertising and using the property for commercial purposes, as a commercial storage area for over one year. including 15,081 sq ft. for .$0.75 per sq. ft. The City only recently cited the illegal use of the property in February 2023, which was being done, at the same time, as the application for this CUP. They should not be trusted, or rewarded for the misuse of the property.
The proposed CUP in contrary to the City General Plan, under housing Goal 1, which identifies this area, west of 805, which is an older and more vulnerable neighborhood. The General Plan includes "to enhance the quality of existing housing to maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods." "increase home value, and preserve neighborhood quality." "Encourage neighborhood and local participation" A cell tower, in the middle of this neighborhood, even if they attempt disguise it, will diminish the residential neighborhood. I request that you not approve the cell tower. for Conditional Use Permit for a 45-Foot Freestanding Wireless Telecommunication Facility on a 2.09- acre Parcel With an Existing Church Within the Single-Family Residence (R-1) Zone. Located at 430 Second Avenue. in Planning Commission - Regular Meeting 10/25/2023 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).